Initial Estimates from May Data Breach were Low

It seems there was good reason for downplaying May’s security breach in the IRS “Get Transcript” application.  It really was quite a bit worse than they had described it back in May.  The breach was first described as unauthorized access into 100,000 tax accounts, and that number has recently been amended to 334,000.  We were also told that international thieves started tampering with the site in February 2015, but now the IRS says it was actually November 2014.

The IRS can’t get anything right.  When are they going to learn to be more cautious and conservative in their official statements?  I have to believe that IRS press releases are reviewed by their tax attorneys, or somebody with good judgment and a strong command of the English language.  How difficult would it have been to state that the preliminary figures suggest there were 100,000 but this number could increase (or even is likely to increase) pending further investigation.  I, for one, would not consider that to be wishy washy in any way.  It may be frustrating to some; we want to know all the facts the moment the story breaks.  But it is more honest and credible to state only as much as can be confirmed and it is rarely a bad thing to admit when things are not yet known. Maybe that’s the IRS’ biggest problem.  As an agency, they have suffered so much by way of public scorn, and their competence has been called into question so many times that they feel the pressure to have all the answers at times when having all the answers would be impossible.

Sometimes the problem with the IRS has less to do with the way they actually handle issues and more to do with the way they inform the public.

IRS Impersonators Have New Tricks

Scam artists, posing as IRS agents, who contact innocent taxpayers out of the blue and demand payment on tax bills that don’t exist are getting more crafty and casting a bigger net these days. For at least the past few years now, the IRS has regularly published updated warnings each time they perceive a new wrinkle, or if enough time has passed since the prior warning.

This month, the IRS published a scam warning that identifies a couple trends that suggest these tax criminals are taking the time to do some homework rather than calling completely unscripted. For example, one tactic is to alter your caller ID so it appears the call is coming from a legitimate government agency.  Scammers have always posed as official government representatives by giving false names, titles, and badge numbers, but now they are more frequently adding this new layer of “authenticity” to the call.

The ultimate goal of IRS phone scam artists is to get the victim to make a payment over the phone and/or provide sensitive information like your name, address, and social security number. If they are successful in obtaining a payment over the phone, they are now asking victims to mail proof of payment to an actual IRS office nearby. Taxpayers choosing to verify the address can look it up in a Google search and see that it is the correct address to their local service center, which lends a sense of legitimacy to the whole interaction. Of course, anyone with half a brain would know that providing the address to an IRS office that is posted on the internet for anyone to see means absolutely nothing.

In this month’s published warning, the IRS states that these scam artists use angry voices to strike fear into their victims and pressure their victims into making rash decisions. Then the IRS lists a few things that they will “never” do, so it will be easy to distinguish between scammers and true IRS representatives:

  1. Angrily demand payment over the phone
  2. Call prior to sending a bill for overdue taxes
  3. Threaten arrest for non-payment of taxes
  4. Demand payment without the opportunity to appeal the amount owed
  5. Require a specific payment method
  6. Ask for credit or debit card numbers over the phone

#1 on this list is a little strange to me because anger, and the detecting of anger in someone’s voice, is a subjective thing. Isn’t it? I have heard demands for payment invoices that could reasonably be characterized as “angry.”  I have also had IRS representatives tell me that they require an “auto debit” payment arrangement in order to approve an installment agreement, hence somewhat of a violation of #5.  However, in my experience, IRS representatives usually do a pretty good job complying with this list.