May 24, 2012

IRS Not Strict Enough on Fraudulent Tax Refunds to Nonresident Aliens

The Internal Revenue Services needs to strengthen its review of tax refunds to nonresident aliens before they are sent out of the country, according to an inspector general report. The IRS review found 40 questionable refunds that totaled over $2.3 million.

“As long as proper controls are not in place, the risk of fraudulent returns and refunds is substantial,” the report said. The likelihood of recovering fraudulent refunds from foreigners after they leave the country is very low.

Additionally, the inspector general found that tax treaty provisions regarding the taxation of gambling income are not being applied consistently. For example, Canadian and Japanese citizens are exempt from paying taxes on gambling winnings, while most other foreigners must pay 30 percent of gambling winnings won in the United States in taxes.

Last year, the IRS started reviewing high—income tax returns for foreigners allowed into the country but who later fail to meet residency standards. It withheld refunds on 94 returns, which amounted to $8.1 million, almost $87,000 per return.

“If the IRS does not take immediate steps to address these control weaknesses, the problem could increase substantially if more unscrupulous individuals learn of the control weaknesses,” the report said.

FAST FACT: Total taxes withheld from nonresident alien income tax returns totaled $2.4 billion and amounted to refunds of more than $712 million in 2009. There are certain cases when nonresident aliens owe no taxes and are entitled to a refund, such as if income was paid by a U.S.-based corporation but the funds were earned outside the country.

Following are other new watchdog reports released by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), various federal Offices of Inspector General (OIG), and other government entities.

NATIONAL SECURITY

  • The Federal Emergency Management Agency received $150 million in stimulus funds for a program that protects transportation infrastructure from terrorism and disasters. The program has abided by funding regulations appropriately, but failed to implement a system to measure the effectiveness of the program. (OIG Department of Homeland Security)

HEALTH

  • A program run by U.S. Agency for International Development focused on gender-related HIV/AIDS activities in South Africa failed to set HIV testing targets by gender. Young women aged 20-24 have HIV/AIDS rates four times higher than men the same age. (OIG US Agency for International Development)
Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Laurel Adams graduated cum laude from the University of Delaware in May of 2010 with majors in international relations, Spanish, and Latin American studies. She interned at Voices Without Borders in Wilmington, Del., and the British Embassy in Washington, D.C. While at the University of Delaware, Adams studied abroad in Argentina, helped start a Spanish conversation club, and served as an editor for the Sigma Iota Rho Journal of International Relations.

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.