IRS and Clerical Errors

[Imalawman]

In previous posts it was alleged that the IRS would 100% ruin your life for a clerical error. A position I think now abandoned. However, Shades, offered this definition of clerical error and I can't let it go. The fact that he would allege in the first place that the IRS would ruin someone's life for a clerical error is absurd, even with this definition:

Furthermore, Oxford's Dictionary:
Clerical Error - A mistake made in copying or writing out a document.

Mistake - A thing that is incorrect or an error in judgement.

Therefore, a Clerical Error is an error in judgement relating to the filling out of a document.

That my friends, is TP logic at its best. Based on your own definitions, the statement, "Clerical Error is an error in judgement" doesn't flow from the definitions. Now you could say, "Clerical Error may be an error in judgement" but not that it is definitively. It merely could be incorrect without any judgement passing whatsoever. I have never met anyone who would say that a major mistake in judgment would be a clerical error. For instance, putting the schedule K income where the Interest income should go would be a clerical error. Deciding that you don't have taxable income and filling out a 0 return would be an intentional act that is incorrect, but not a clerical error. You intended to fill the form exactly as you in fact filled it out. As far as you're concerned, there has been no error in the filling out of the document.

This is where you are going wrong. A clerical error is a mistake in the document itself, whereas choosing to fill out a form that you beleive is correct and asserting it as such it not a clerical error at all. The IRS might view your return as incorrect, but they would also assert that the return is correct as you intended, but that you are mistaken in the law. Therefore they wouldn't be punishing a clerical error, but an error in the judgement of the law. By your definition this would fall outside of the definition of clerical error.

In addition, your choice of a definition is poor. There are several better. For instance, Blacks law has this to say:

clerical error. An error resulting from a minor mistake or inadvertence, esp. in writing or copying something on the record, and not from judicial reasoning or determination. • Among the boundless examples of clerical errors are omitting an appendix from a document; typing an incorrect number; mistranscribing a word; and failing to log a call. A court can correct a clerical error at any time, even after judgment has been entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a); Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. -- Also termed scrivener's error; vitium clerici. See VITIUM SCRIPTORIS. [Cases: Federal Civil Procedure 2653; Judgment 306. C.J.S. Judgments §§ 280-281.]

Ah, much better and much more logical.

[Quixote]

The definition in Black's is essentially consistent with the definition of "mathematical or clerical error" in the IRC, although some of the more recent additions to the list are considerably less clerical than the earlier ones.

(2) Mathematical or clerical error
The term “mathematical or clerical error” means—
(A) an error in addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division shown on any return,

(B) an incorrect use of any table provided by the Internal Revenue Service with respect to any return if such incorrect use is apparent from the existence of other information on the return,

(C) an entry on a return of an item which is inconsistent with another entry of the same or another item on such return,

(D) an omission of information which is required to be supplied on the return to substantiate an entry on the return,

(E) an entry on a return of a deduction or credit in an amount which exceeds a statutory limit imposed by subtitle A or B, or chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44, if such limit is expressed—
(i) as a specified monetary amount, or
(ii) as a percentage, ratio, or fraction,
and if the items entering into the application of such limit appear on such return,

(F) an omission of a correct taxpayer identification number required under section 32 (relating to the earned income credit) to be included on a return,

(G) an entry on a return claiming the credit under section 32 with respect to net earnings from self-employment described in section 32 (c)(2)(A) to the extent the tax imposed by section 1401 (relating to self-employment tax) on such net earnings has not been paid,

(H) an omission of a correct TIN required under section 21 (relating to expenses for household and dependent care services necessary for gainful employment) or section 151 (relating to allowance of deductions for personal exemptions),

(I) an omission of a correct TIN required under section 24 (e) (relating to child tax credit) to be included on a return,

(J) an omission of a correct TIN required under section 25A (g)(1) (relating to higher education tuition and related expenses) to be included on a return,

(K) an omission of information required by section 32 (k)(2) (relating to taxpayers making improper prior claims of earned income credit),

(L) the inclusion on a return of a TIN required to be included on the return under section 21, 24, or 32 if—
(i) such TIN is of an individual whose age affects the amount of the credit under such section, and
(ii) the computation of the credit on the return reflects the treatment of such individual as being of an age different from the individual’s age based on such TIN, and

(M) the entry on the return claiming the credit under section 32 with respect to a child if, according to the Federal Case Registry of Child Support Orders established under section 453(h) of the Social Security Act, the taxpayer is a noncustodial parent of such child.

A taxpayer shall be treated as having omitted a correct TIN for purposes of the preceding sentence if information provided by the taxpayer on the return with respect to the individual whose TIN was provided differs from the information the Secretary obtains from the person issuing the TIN.

[to free or not to free]

Would this qualify as a clerical error or a form of harassment?

A good friend of mine in Texas started getting notices from the IRS, demanding payment of back taxes while she "worked" at a minimum wage job in California. This was impossible as she had worked (and was still working) for a firm in Texas all the years in question and could prove it. She responded by showing the various submitted tax forms from the years in question while she worked for the animal hospital.

The notices continued, only now with threats of liens and other nasty stuff. She had to go through all sorts of hell like providing every little receipt....almost like an audit...to the Austin IRS office. Her boss sent a letter confirming that she had worked for him for the years in question and that there was no way she could commute from Texas to California to keep a second job, regardless of the amount they said she earned. The notices contiued.

Letters were sent. Verifications were sent but NOTHING WOULD STOP THE NOTICES AND THREATS.

My friend was scared, could not sleep and did not know of any way to make the IRS listen to the truth. Both she and her boss were fit-to-be-tied.

Finally the boss's accountant got a wiff of what was going on and he took up the battle. Only at that time did the issue get settled and she was let of the hook for something that had nothing to do with her but was making her a nervous wreck.

What if the accountant had not stepped in? What if she had been unemployed during that time and could not PROVE her position? What if her boss had not stood behind her?

Would you consider this to be a clerical error? Or would they have hounded my friend into an early grave because someone else used the same SSN? If it was a clerical error, why did the IRS continue after she had complied with their every demand and her boss came forward and attested that she could NOT have earned that money?

She never understood it and neither did any one else. I wonder how many other people get caught in something like this and do not have the professional help she was given.

What would you have done?

[LPC]

Finally the boss's accountant got a wiff of what was going on and he took up the battle.

Finally? Why did your friend and her boss take so long to get professional help?

What if the accountant had not stepped in? What if she had been unemployed during that time and could not PROVE her position? What if her boss had not stood behind her?

You seem to be suggesting that your friend's life was *not* ruined, but that it might have been ruined if circumstances had been different.

But showing that a clerical error *might* have ruined her life is not the same as showing that a clerical error DID ruin her life.

It is also significant that the problem went away as soon as someone got involved in the process who understood how to deal with the IRS. In other words, the problem was not just that the IRS made a mistake, but also that no one was giving the IRS the information they were looking for to fix the mistake.

So, taking your account at face value: The IRS made a mistake. The IRS was slow to correct the mistake. The IRS caused anxiety, but did not ruin anyone's life.

Unfortunate, but not relevant to this thread, which is questioning whether it is possible for the IRS to *RUIN* someone over a clerical error.

[Lambkin]

Would you consider this to be a clerical error? Or would they have hounded my friend into an early grave because someone else used the same SSN?

I would call it identity theft. The IRS is not alone in its assumption that financial data is accurate even when it is not. Maybe the IRS deserves to be yelled at for how it handled this situation, but banks, credit agencies, health insurers and providers, etc. all suffer from this problem of trusting data that is not authentic and requiring that the victim prove their innocence. A few months ago I read an article about a woman whose children were temporarily taken by protective services because a health care provider filed a report pertaining to the fraudster who stole her identity to obtain health care. There is definitely potential for irreparable damage. On the other hand, I don't see a groundswell of support for strong authentication either (ie, national ID).

[Quixote]

A good friend of mine in Texas started getting notices from the IRS, demanding payment of back taxes while she "worked" at a minimum wage job in California. This was impossible as she had worked (and was still working) for a firm in Texas all the years in question and could prove it. She responded by showing the various submitted tax forms from the years in question while she worked for the animal hospital.

I run across that reaction all the time and have yet to have anyone explain it. How is the fact that she filed a return reporting some income, a fact the IRS certainly already knew, relevant to whether or not she should have reported the other income in question? Did she, in her written response to the notice of proposed increase, state clearly that she did not work for the employer in California? If she did, IRS procedure requires that the IRS contact the California employer to obtain verification that he paid your friend the wages in question. The easiset way to do that would be to get a picture ID for your friend and the California employee and compare them.

[jkeeb]

I have seen this situation many times. Given the states involved, it was probably an illegal immigrant using a made up SSN. Underreporter got the other W-2 and wrote.

Beyond that, the first notice your friend probably was sufficient especially if it included a note from your employer (on letterhead) that the individual worked all year in Texas.

Even if your friend had not gotten a professional involved, the matter would have been resolved before going to tax court (assuming your friend petitioned) with the above letter.

[ShadesOfKnight]

In previous posts it was alleged that the IRS would 100% ruin your life for a clerical error. A position I think now abandoned. However, Shades, offered this definition of clerical error and I can't let it go. The fact that he would allege in the first place that the IRS would ruin someone's life for a clerical error is absurd, even with this definition:

Ima, please be more careful in your recitations. My actual words were not that they WOULD, I said CAN. The subltle distinction between the two is very important.

Furthermore, Oxford's Dictionary:
Clerical Error - A mistake made in copying or writing out a document.

Mistake - A thing that is incorrect or an error in judgement.

Therefore, a Clerical Error is an error in judgement relating to the filling out of a document.

That my friends, is TP logic at its best. Based on what your own definitions, the statement, "Clerical Error is an error in judgement" doesn't flow from the definitions. Now you could say, "Clerical Error may be an error in judgement" but not that it is definitively. It merely could be incorrect without any judgement passing whatsoever.

Because people always mindlessly fill out forms and there's no judgement made at all when doing so. Your position only makes sense in the case of a mathematical error (for instance, forgetting to carry a number in addition). But in this case (especially when you are dealing with the "TPs"), which seems more likely: A simple error in math, or an error in judgement?

I have never met anyone who would say that a major mistake in judgment would be a clerical error.

And yet, this forum claims that the Kuglin case was exactly that... she made an error in judgement and an unintentional one at that.

This is where you are going wrong. A clerical error is a mistake in the document itself, whereas choosing to fill out a form that you beleive is correct and asserting it as such it not a clerical error at all.

Well, I guess you can argue with Oxford then instead of me. I didn't write the definitions.

In addition, your choice of a definition is poor. There are several better. For instance, Blacks law has this to say:

clerical error. An error resulting from a minor mistake or inadvertence, esp. in writing or copying something on the record, and not from judicial reasoning or determination. • Among the boundless examples of clerical errors are omitting an appendix from a document; typing an incorrect number; mistranscribing a word; and failing to log a call. A court can correct a clerical error at any time, even after judgment has been entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a); Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. -- Also termed scrivener's error; vitium clerici. See VITIUM SCRIPTORIS. [Cases: Federal Civil Procedure 2653; Judgment 306. C.J.S. Judgments §§ 280-281.]

Ah, much better and much more logical.

Merely more verbose and when distilled down it is the same definition.

[jkeeb]

And yet, this forum claims that the Kuglin case was exactly that... she made an error in judgement and an unintentional one at that.

Kuglin made no unintentional error. It was not unintentional of her to not file returns and constantly write the IRS that "she could not find the law that requires her to file a return". Despite living in Memphis, she found an out of state attorney that specializes in tax protestor arguments--indeed famously was fined for a frivolous position by the tax protestor friendly 9th Circuit. While 100 million individuals a year (conservatively) file returns, she miraculously determines that there is no requirement to file.

[Demosthenes]

And yet, this forum claims that the Kuglin case was exactly that... she made an error in judgement and an unintentional one at that.

No one here has ever said anything close to that.

[wserra]

And yet, this forum claims that the Kuglin case was exactly that... she made an error in judgement and an unintentional one at that.

No one here has ever said anything close to that.

It's Shady's reading problem. From the "Gain" thread:

Kuglin, for example. She has had her life ruined for what the criminal court decided was a stupid and unintentional error.

(1) The court made no such decision. The jury decided that the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Kuglin consciously disregarded a known duty to pay taxes. That hardly makes it unintentional, and is evidence of nothing other than a failure of the government's proof in a single case.

[ShadesOfKnight]

And yet, this forum claims that the Kuglin case was exactly that... she made an error in judgement and an unintentional one at that.

No one here has ever said anything close to that.

Really? Then what is being said when it is declared that the Kuglin case determined that she was "too stupid" to make the proper determination of what the law said?

I could find the exact quote, but frankly I'm tired.

[ShadesOfKnight]

And yet, this forum claims that the Kuglin case was exactly that... she made an error in judgement and an unintentional one at that.

No one here has ever said anything close to that.

It's Shady's reading problem. From the "Gain" thread:

Might be from that thread, but you're not quoting the one I'm thinking of. I'm too tired right now to find it, but there was a poster who claimed that the decision in the Kuglin case determined that she was "too stupid" to make the right decision...

[Quixote]

she made an error in judgement and an unintentional one at that.

All errors in judgment are unintentional.

Quote:

I have never met anyone who would say that a major mistake in judgment would be a clerical error.

And yet, this forum claims that the Kuglin case was exactly that... she made an error in judgement and an unintentional one at that.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Kuglin made an error in judgment, how does that make an error in judgment a clerical error? Clerical acts are, by definition, acts that require no judgment. Kuglin used judgment, albeit bad judgment, in deciding not to file. Her error was not merely a clerical one.

[ShadesOfKnight]

she made an error in judgement and an unintentional one at that.

All errors in judgment are unintentional.

Quote:

I have never met anyone who would say that a major mistake in judgment would be a clerical error.

And yet, this forum claims that the Kuglin case was exactly that... she made an error in judgement and an unintentional one at that.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Kuglin made an error in judgment, how does that make an error in judgment a clerical error? Clerical acts are, by definition, acts that require no judgment. Kuglin used judgment, albeit bad judgment, in deciding not to file. Her error was not merely a clerical one.

Wait. Statement one: "All errors in judgement are unintentional," followed by question one: "How does that make an error in judgement a clerical error?"

Returning to the definitions. Loosely paraphrased. A clerical error is a mistake in filling out a form. A mistake is either an error (such as in math) or a lapse in judgement.

As we can safely conclude that Kuglin (and others filling out blank forms) are not making math errors (zero is pretty hard to make math errors with), and if the court determines (as it did) that it was an unintentional error in filling out the form (a clerical error, by definition), then we're left with only one conclusion:

An error in judgement (the clerical error) caused her to find herself fined down to what basically amounts to minimum wage.

[Imalawman]

... if the court determines (as it did) that it was an unintentional error in filling out the form (a clerical error, by definition), then we're left with only one conclusion:

An error in judgement (the clerical error) caused her to find herself fined down to what basically amounts to minimum wage.

Where did this come from? I don't believe that the court determined that she made a clerical error. But even if she had, she's still liable for the taxes. The point is, she had many many opportunities to avoid such a drastic result. You are the only one who is asserting that Kuglin made a clerical error. Everyone else, including Kuglin, believes she filled out the form as she intended.

My god, you're a real simpleton to still be arguing that a clerical error is any lapse in judgment related to a document. Sheesh.

[Quixote]

Returning to the definitions. Loosely paraphrased. A clerical error is a mistake in filling out a form.

Wrong. That is not a paraphrase of any of the definitions you cited. You made it up. You are free to define words anyway you like, but you must remember that those definitions are valid only within your own writings and then only if you expressly define the words in question. You can't apply them to the outside world and expect anyone to agree with you.

In standard English, the phrase "clerical error" does not refer to an error in judgment. You know that. Why do you pretend otherwise?