Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

Congress Set To Revoke Passports For IRS Tax Debt

Congress Set To Revoke Passports For IRS Tax Debt

Old Mar 3, 18, 1:31 am
  #361  
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Frensham, Lincolnshire
Programs: RFC
Posts: 1,385
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
If a law is passed by congress and signed by the President does an agency have a choice to not implement that law?
You've clearly never worked in government at a high level.

There are almost always choices what what and how to implement something. The IRS can, for example, bankrupt a company instantly when they, say, fail to pay tax on time. Or, they could work with them to resolve the issue over time and let the company trade it's way back into compliance. The decision as to which path the IRS follows is a policy decision, not a legal decision. (Or, in the case of the US, it's a political & lobbying decision, rather than a legal decision)
JamesBigglesworth is offline  
Old Mar 3, 18, 10:01 am
  #362  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 16,497
Originally Posted by JamesBigglesworth View Post
You've clearly never worked in government at a high level.

There are almost always choices what what and how to implement something. The IRS can, for example, bankrupt a company instantly when they, say, fail to pay tax on time. Or, they could work with them to resolve the issue over time and let the company trade it's way back into compliance. The decision as to which path the IRS follows is a policy decision, not a legal decision. (Or, in the case of the US, it's a political & lobbying decision, rather than a legal decision)
No I haven't nor would I care too.. I prefer being around people of good character.
STBCypriot likes this.
Boggie Dog is online now  
Old Mar 3, 18, 10:57 am
  #363  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 90,294
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
No I haven't nor would I care too.. I prefer being around people of good character.
Having a history of being in government or working in government is not by itself a sign of good or of bad character. The conduct/role of the individuals with such affiliation may be that sign.

Personally, I couldn’t in good conscience work in a governmental capacity that chooses to deny free US citizens the right to acquire/retain US passports the same as everyone else but allows them to still roam free in America like the rest of us.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Mar 8, 18, 1:47 pm
  #364  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 1,714
Originally Posted by GUWonder View Post
but allows them to still roam free in America like the rest of us.
OMG! Are they letting you roam freely now?!?!?
Section 107 is offline  
Old Mar 9, 18, 2:18 am
  #365  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 90,294
Originally Posted by Section 107 View Post
OMG! Are they letting you roam freely now?!?!?
Unless and until all my passports are denied and/or revoked, I would say at least more freely still than acquaintances still in the USG.

Last edited by GUWonder; Mar 9, 18 at 2:02 pm
GUWonder is offline  
Old Mar 12, 18, 7:42 pm
  #366  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Eurozone
Programs: LH SEN, HH Gold
Posts: 2,826
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
If a law is passed by congress and signed by the President does an agency have a choice to not implement that law?
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
An agency is subordinate to the President who is the signing authority of law in most cases. I would think an agency to only have the option of challenging the constitutional legality of a law but not the authority to not implement.
After a law is passed, policies would need to be implemented to coincide with that law. Even if there are no other contradictory laws or lawsuits, it can still take a decade until such policies are implemented. Why? Because it would have to be an issue so important that the President is made aware of it and takes the time to get involved. All you need is someone at the implementation level to not want it to happen, along with someone between the implementation level and the Presidential staff level to not care about that particular issue, and things can and do linger forever.
Grog is offline  
Old Mar 21, 18, 6:48 am
  #367  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 90,294
In order to implement this, the government wants tax returns and related information for impacted persons to be made available to government contractors hired by the government to put this law into place. As of now, that’s still illegal. Speaking of illegal or not, let’s see how long it is until the privacy of those subjected US citizens gets trampled upon by a leak of this tax data.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Jul 6, 18, 11:45 am
  #368  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Programs: UALifetimePremierGold, Marriott LifetimeTitanium
Posts: 66,748
https://www.aol.com/article/finance/...debt/23476319/

Excerpt:

"An IRS spokesman told the Journal that as many as 362,000 people currently hold a tax debt that would make them ineligible for renewal or issuance of passports. The agency is in the process of sending their names to the State Department, which officials hope to have finished by the end of the year. A State Department official confirmed to the Journal that the agency has already denied passports to people who hold tax debts. Additionally, IRS Division Commissioner Mary Beth Murphy told the Journal late last month that, for now, U.S. authorities are only denying passports, rather than revoking them from people who hold debts. This means current passport holders with debt of $51,000 or more will be able to travel abroad but will not be able to renew their passports, and those with debt without passports will be denied if they apply for new ones."
SkiAdcock is offline  
Old Jul 6, 18, 2:22 pm
  #369  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 90,294
Originally Posted by SkiAdcock View Post
https://www.aol.com/article/finance/...debt/23476319/

Excerpt:

"An IRS spokesman told the Journal that as many as 362,000 people currently hold a tax debt that would make them ineligible for renewal or issuance of passports. The agency is in the process of sending their names to the State Department, which officials hope to have finished by the end of the year. A State Department official confirmed to the Journal that the agency has already denied passports to people who hold tax debts. Additionally, IRS Division Commissioner Mary Beth Murphy told the Journal late last month that, for now, U.S. authorities are only denying passports, rather than revoking them from people who hold debts. This means current passport holders with debt of $51,000 or more will be able to travel abroad but will not be able to renew their passports, and those with debt without passports will be denied if they apply for new ones."
This kind of expected outcome ó including that of revocation being more challenging for the government ó is why I was previously suggesting to rush in to apply for a new or renewal US passport.

Keep in mind that even before the FAST Act, US passports could be denied to some people who hold tax debts. Itís just that FAST will have substantially expanded the pool of US citizens who will be denied a US passport.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Aug 14, 19, 9:12 am
  #370  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 16,497
An update on this matter. IRS seems to be stepping enforcement action up.

If you owe the IRS back taxes, you may lose your passport

The enforcement effort, which began in February 2018 for debts of $51,000 and higher, has thus far covered applications for new or renewed passports. (The higher threshold of $52,000 for 2019 reflects an annual adjustment for inflation, although the IRS could not confirm.)

Now, the IRS will actively begin referring unresolved cases to the State Department for potential revocation, IRS spokeswoman Cecilia Barreda told CNBC.
Boggie Dog is online now  
Old Aug 15, 19, 4:40 am
  #371  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 90,294
The IRS spokesperson said ďpotential revocationĒ. Itís only potential because it canít happen unless and until State can do so ó and State will only be able to do so under limited circumstances even for those who are already subject to not being able to get a new/renewal passport application fulfilled due to the law that led to passport denial for US citizens with such tax problems.

This could change, and repeatedly at that, but itís a question of how and how soon.

FAST isnít generating as much money for the UST from US passport denial as was used an excuse to put it in FAST. Canít say Iím surprised.

Last edited by GUWonder; Aug 15, 19 at 5:19 am
GUWonder is offline  
Old Aug 17, 19, 7:00 pm
  #372  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 13,443
Originally Posted by GUWonder View Post
The IRS spokesperson said ďpotential revocationĒ. Itís only potential because it canít happen unless and until State can do so ó and State will only be able to do so under limited circumstances even for those who are already subject to not being able to get a new/renewal passport application fulfilled due to the law that led to passport denial for US citizens with such tax problems.

This could change, and repeatedly at that, but itís a question of how and how soon.

FAST isnít generating as much money for the UST from US passport denial as was used an excuse to put it in FAST. Canít say Iím surprised.
Yep -- Only the State Department can revoke a U.S. passport. The best that the IRS or the judicial branch can do is to request this action. I'm OK with that.
GUWonder likes this.
FliesWay2Much is offline  
Old Aug 19, 19, 2:36 am
  #373  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Programs: UALifetimePremierGold, Marriott LifetimeTitanium
Posts: 66,748
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much View Post
Yep -- Only the State Department can revoke a U.S. passport. The best that the IRS or the judicial branch can do is to request this action. I'm OK with that.
But from the article it sounds like they might push State to do it. If State complies then many folk affected. Are you ok w/ that? Just curious.

FWIW - given the revolving door at State, this might not happen but if the grunts are there to follow policy then perhaps it could.

Cheers.
SkiAdcock is offline  
Old Aug 19, 19, 11:03 am
  #374  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 90,294
Originally Posted by SkiAdcock View Post
But from the article it sounds like they might push State to do it. If State complies then many folk affected. Are you ok w/ that? Just curious.

FWIW - given the revolving door at State, this might not happen but if the grunts are there to follow policy then perhaps it could.

Cheers.
State canít comply with UST/IRS-wishful desires unless State follows the body of laws and regulations applicable to it when considering how and under what conditions to revoke already-issued US passports.

Hereís the background to why the IRS wants State to do revocations more broadly for SDTDs:

A substantial proportion of people who are subject to passport denial due to SDTD under the FAST Act have entered into agreements/relationships/understandings with the IRS after getting the initial notice of certification and/or after being hit by a new/renewal passport application denial. They then quickly get the passport application fulfilled and end up having the new passport in hand with a validity of up to ten years. Guess what happens soon thereafter to many such individuals with a rather new US passport? They often end up getting another FAST Act-related SDTD notice of certification for not delivering as the IRS wanted, but since they already have a passport that canít so easily be revoked. Given these IRS/UST certifications are mostly hitting people eligible for ten year US passports, the IRS doesnít want to be stuck having lost the utility of the FAST Act-related threats for as long as nearly 9-10 years when it comes to collections. Keep in mind that the statute of limitations for some of these claimed tax debts against FAST Act-targets wonít be tolled and would most likely become unenforceable by the IRS by the time (or a bit after) the passport expires.

The UST/IRS wants State to revoke issued US passports for not only those who get re-certified with SDTDs but also revoked for those whom the IRS believe to have international income and/or assets ó however modest ó that the UST/IRS believes should be made available to it as a factor in reconsidering SDTD-related certification. But a large proportion of the second targets of this next wave of effort by the IRS are dual-citizens and so can still use their non-US passports to travel internationally while also still being able to legally enter and exit the US too. All of this just is part of the picture of how the passport-related provisions of the FAST Act have failed to collect as much money as its proponents believed would happen.

Last edited by GUWonder; Aug 19, 19 at 11:11 am
GUWonder is offline  
Old Mar 2, 20, 5:34 pm
  #375  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 90,294
https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-...-colo-irc-7345

covers a recent case that has said that passport denial/revocation for tax delinquency reasons is not unconstitutional.

The IRS has said that implementation of the FAST Act provision against passports for SDTDs has resulted in raising way more money than was initially expected.
GUWonder is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: