May 24, 2012

Stimulus Tax Credit May Increase Penalties

The “Making Work Pay” tax credit, which increased take—home pay for workers, may result in 13.4 million people actually owing the government money, according to an audit by the inspector general of the Treasury Department.

The tax credit, part of the stimulus package, gave taxpayers a small bump in their paychecks by decreasing federal income tax withholdings.

But new income tax withholding tables did not take into consideration different tax payer circumstances. Single taxpayers with more than one job, joint filers with both spouses working, taxpayers who receive pension payments and Social Security recipients who receive wages may all owe more taxes if they were advanced more of the tax credit than they were entitled to. 

A survey by the inspector general revealed that 88 percent of taxpayers who were negatively affected said they had no knowledge of the potential for insufficient tax withholding.

The IRS attempted to notify taxpayers of the confusion through e—mails, public service announcements and information on tax forms. “Despite substantial efforts to inform taxpayers about the Making Work Pay credit, taxpayers negatively affected by the reduced withholdings are still unaware of the problem and the solution,” the IG said.

FAST FACT: The inspector general estimates about 108,000 taxpayers may have been assessed tax penalties due to the Making Work Pay credit, and another 1.2 million may have had tax penalties increased due to the program.

 

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

*Billions of dollars of arms and other military products are exported to U.S. allies and strategic partners every year, but weaknesses in the export process create a high risk. Better coordination among agencies, a systemic assessment of the export process, and streamlining efforts could make the program safer. (GAO)

HEALTH

  • The Rural Health Care Program, subsidized by the Federal Communications Commission, helps rural physicians reach patients through telecommunications and broadband internet services. The program has not taken full advantage of the funds allotted to it. Better performance measures and an assessment of the provider’s needs are necessary. (GAO)

MISC.

  • A case study of sexual offenders working in public and private schools highlights the lack of federal laws regulating the employment of sex offenders in educational settings. State laws vary greatly on the matter: some states prohibit schools from employing any convicted sex offenders, while others have prohibitions which only apply to individuals holding a teaching license. (GAO)
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.