Refund fraud fix?
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Saturday, July 6, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
To lessen the hundreds of millions of dollars now being stolen through fraudulent income tax refunds, why not require that all refunds be sent to a bank of the citizen's choice?
None would be sent directly to the income-tax filer. On the IRS 1040 form, you would designate a bank to which your refund should be sent. When your refund arrives at the bank (not yet in your account), your bank notifies you it has arrived, and you visit the bank in person to transfer it into your account — but only after providing identification. This would solve much of the theft problem.
Paying the banks a small fee to handle this service would be far cheaper than the hundreds of millions of dollars now being stolen through fraudulent refunds. It would also prevent such checks from being stolen from mailboxes or lost.
And this effort would save the IRS (and taxpayers) millions of dollars by eliminating the printing and mailing of the checks.
Why wouldn't this work better than the current mess?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Medicaid’s future
- Slots & property taxes
- Harmar needs better enforcement
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Obama & Reaganomics I
- Proven success
- Drought answer?
- Apollo-Ridge excellence
- Orwellian redefinitions
- Keep Laurel Point
- Funding priorities questioned