edward
- 62
- 167
I don't think this is a wise idea. There is too much chance for abuse and in reality, the IRS can do it cheaper.
(you may need to go through the free registration to access this link.)
I have no idea why the company below would be one of the ones selected.
I can see where a smaller govenment might be the goal in outsourcing here, but when it is going to cost more money than in house collection there is certainly is no logic involved in making this decision.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/business/20tax.htmlWithin two weeks, the I.R.S. will turn over data on 12,500 taxpayers — each of whom owes $25,000 or less in back taxes — to three collection agencies. Larger debtors will continue to be pursued by I.R.S. officers.
The move, an initiative of the Bush administration, represents the first step in a broader plan to outsource the collection of smaller tax debts to private companies over time. Although I.R.S. officials acknowledge that this will be much more expensive than doing it internally, they say that Congress has forced their hand by refusing to let them hire more revenue officers, who could pull in a lot of easy-to-collect money.
(you may need to go through the free registration to access this link.)
I have no idea why the company below would be one of the ones selected.
One of the three companies selected by the I.R.S. is a law firm in Austin, Tex., where a former partner, Juan Peña, admitted in 2002 that he paid bribes to win a collection contract from the city of San Antonio. He went to jail for the crime.
I can see where a smaller govenment might be the goal in outsourcing here, but when it is going to cost more money than in house collection there is certainly is no logic involved in making this decision.