$67 Million Missing from Obamacare Slush Fund ?

page: 1
10

log in

join

posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration has issued a 'report' that says a sizable sum of *money* is mysteriously 'missing' from IRS coffers.

Hmmm.

Now what's this all about ?

Maybe it's just an over-reaction by some people who fear the exposures of corruption ?

After all, downfalls of great nations are many times pre-empted by lootings of Treasuries.



The IRS is unable to account for $67 million spent from a slush fund established for Obamacare implementation, according to a TIGTA report released today.


WASHINGTON, D.C. – The IRS is unable to account for $67 million spent from a slush fund established for Obamacare implementation, according to a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report released today.

The “Health Insurance Reform Implementation Fund” (HIRIF) was tucked into Obamacare in order to give the IRS money to enforce the tax provisions of the healthcare law. The fund, totaling some $1 billion of taxpayer money, was used to roll out enforcement mechanisms for the approximately 50 tax provisions of Obamacare.




links to the report are in the story.


IRS Watchdog: $67 Million Missing from Obamacare Slush Fund


Where's My Refund Check ?





posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Aside from the theft- what is up with the 50 different Tax provisions?

Back to the theft- It was the aliens.



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


geez...where to begin:

the phrase "slush fund" is a lie... Grover Norquist's site (which this originates from) loses credibility right off the top....
nobody "lost" any money. it seems to be 2 things not accounting for office space, furniture, and office supplies that go with it...and hours paid that were not accurately accounted for....if someone cheated on hours...fire them....that is exactly what this report is for....and by the way, this is an audit done by the treasury under Obamas authority, not by republican gotcha critters...it seems that "safeguard audits" were already part of the ACA.



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
The next thing the IRS will want you to believe will have as much evidence as.......



'Nuff Said?




posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


what parts are you missing ?



According to the report: “Specifically, the IRS did not account for or attempt to quantify approximately $67 million [from the slush fund] of indirect ACA costs incurred for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012.”
***************

To add insult to injury, the IRS has told the Inspector General that it will comply with the recommendations made in the report;

unfortunately, the slush fund has been fully spent, making that promise meaningless.




posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Naturally you have a link or source to support the OP being wrong....don't ya?

I mean, the OP is a person I generally know to check things out a bit and not post half baked stuff...so, it could be wrong. The best of us have our turn at a good FUBAR every so often...but now I'd sure be interested in seeing the actual details to what your referring to. Thanks!



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I thought they weren`t going to enforce the obamacare penalty tax? at least that what people were saying a year ago.

When the courts ruled that it is a tax and not a fine i made a post in a thread here on ATS stating that since it is a tax the IRS will use all legal means at it`s disposal to collect that tax,including auctioning off your possessions and property if need be.
My post was met with scoffs and claims that the tax/fine was not going to be enforced.

It now seems pretty obvious that they they fully intend to enforce the tax/fine to fullest extent of the law, just as they would for any other tax.
My original point still stands, people who are too poor to buy insurance and too poor to pay the tax/fine will lose their property and or possessions and could face criminal charges of tax evasion.



The “Health Insurance Reform Implementation Fund” (HIRIF) was tucked into Obamacare in order to give the IRS money to enforce the tax provisions of the healthcare law.


The more we find out about obamacare the better it gets,right?



edit on 25-9-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-9-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
here is the report



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Tardacus
I thought they weren`t going to enforce the obamacare penalty tax? at least that what people were saying a year ago.

When the courts ruled that it is a tax and not a fine i made a post in a thread here on ATS stating that since it is a tax the IRS will use all legal means at it`s disposal to collect that tax,including auctioning off your possessions and property if need be.
My post was met with scoffs and claims that the tax/fine was not going to be enforced.

It now seems pretty obvious that they they fully intend to enforce the tax/fine to fullest extent of the law, just as they would for any other tax.
My original point still stands, people who are too poor to buy insurance and too poor to pay the tax/fine will lose their property and or possessions and could face criminal charges of tax evasion.



The “Health Insurance Reform Implementation Fund” (HIRIF) was tucked into Obamacare in order to give the IRS money to enforce the tax provisions of the healthcare law.


The more we find out about obamacare the better it gets,right?



edit on 25-9-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-9-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)


"" My post was met with scoffs and claims that the tax/fine was not going to be enforced. ""


The 'defenders' and dis-info agents have been all over the place for a long time now.

Even more so this week for some strange reason.

Don't fall for the gag.

The IRS and HHS have all kinds of power to write their own rules and regulations.

The powers are in the PPACA.



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Zarniwoop
 


Thank you for the whole report. If anything, it makes it worse, actually and a slush fund is definitely what I'd call how it turned out. However, it doesn't take much effort at interpretation to get what this is saying.... (Emphasis all added by me)


TIGTA also found that the IRS did not track all costs associated with implementation of the ACA including costs not charged to the HIRIF. Specifically, the IRS did not account for or attempt to quantify approximately $67 million of indirect ACA costs incurred for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012. Indirect costs include, for example, providing employees with workspace and information technology support.

The IRS established a methodology to track ACA costs in its accounting records. However, the IRS accounted for only direct costs, such as labor and contract costs, because it did not believe that indirect costs should be recovered from the HIRIF. The IRS’s use of HIRIF funding only for ACA direct costs is consistent with the HIRIF requirements.


Now.... Why, someone may ask, would it be meaningful regarding what the IRS thinks should and shouldn't be covered? Well...because at this point, it's their money being spent. Obamacare stuck them with the tab.


In FY 2012, the IRS received $299 million from the HIRIF to pay for the implementation of the ACA. This funding was in addition to the funding received by the IRS based on its enacted budget. The IRS informed us that it does not anticipate receiving any funding from the HIRIF after FY 2012. The IRS also informed us that its FY 2013 spending plan includes $360 million to implement the ACA. Because the IRS will not be reimbursed from the HIRIF for FY 2013, all FY 2013 ACA spending is funded from the IRS’s operating budget.
(From linked report in the post being replied to)

Now normally, I'd kinda laugh at unfunded mandates being stuck to Federal agencies for a change. It's usually states that get screwed like this. However, the first quote and the part about being consistent in not believing the spending should have been covering new computers, hyper speed internet and I'm sure, pretty well located and appointed offices is what got my attention. The people putting the ACA together appear to have taken liberties with the money in directions ...inconsistent with the meaning.


How interesting indeed.... You have to love reports like this and some folks who think the Government is one big blob that gets along and reads from the same page or TPTB? Well... Not always. Isn't it entertaining?



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


here is quoted material directly from the report used as an example of the discrepancy:

the future for this effort. We believe that had the IRS identified these costs, it would have been better able to report to stakeholders the full impact of the ACA implementation on its resources.

In FYs 2010 through 2012, the IRS received funds from the HIRIF for annual direct labor and related benefit costs totaling $162 million cumulatively. However, our review of the IRS’s records indicated that it did not account for or attempt to quantify any indirect costs during FYs 2010 through 2012. Based on the IRS’s own internal cost accounting guidelines, the indirect costs associated with these direct labor charges likely totaled approximately $67 million for FYs 2010 through 2012. The excluded indirect costs relate to providing employees with the workspace, support, and ongoing access to the full range of tools and technology support necessary for the performance of their jobs. For example, while the IRS may have been able to place most new employees hired for the ACA in existing leased space, it still had to pay rent on this space, could not use the space for other purposes, and could not consider the space for inclusion in its ongoing space reduction efforts.

this seems to be more of a lack of competence than outright fraud






top topics



 
10

log in

join