I make less than $5000 a years, after deductions. My Social Security is not taxed. What are the chances of getting audited as a mystery shopper.

Dude, it's only October yet!

@sestrahelena wrote:

Dude, it's only October yet!

C'mon, ses, you know trolling season starts 10/1...

@sestrahelena wrote:

Dude, it's only October yet!

At any time.

The chances are approximately 1 in 6.

John974 -

I assume that you have seen the statistic that red-colored cars are more likely to be stopped for speeding than any other color? Well, when it comes to IRS audits, men named John or James are more likely to be audited than men with any other first name. For women, the two most audited first names are Mary and Patricia.

I’ve been audited twice in the past 10 years. I am a full-time mystery shopper.

@strangebrewnhra wrote:

I’ve been audited twice in the past 10 years. I am a full-time mystery shopper.

Now I'm curious. Do you know what could have been the trigger? What was the audit process like? Hope it wasn't too painful.

They only audit people who repeatedly post tax questions on Mystery Shopping Forums. Thats the #1 trigger.

Thoughts and Prayers.

@johnb974 wrote:

I make less than $5000 a years, after deductions. My Social Security is not taxed. What are the chances of getting audited as a mystery shopper.

Just for fun why not share your gross and expense breakdown so we can give better advice? lol

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2024 12:58AM by bradkcrew.

If you truly concern about getting audit, you should vote red in the upcoming election because IRS is endorcing the blue meaning if blue get elected, they will offer extra fund to IRS to hire more people targeting people like John.

Only way to reduce the chance of reduce getting audit is when IRS to underfunded and too busy auditing everyone else

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2024 12:43PM by kisekinecro.

Maybe he filed an extension on his 2023 taxes and he's submitting his return next Tue, Oct 15th? (Of course having paid any taxes owed by the April filing date, per irs.gov.) ; )

@kisekinecro wrote:

If you truly concern about getting audit, you should vote red in the upcoming election because IRS is endorcing the blue meaning if blue get elected, they will offer extra fund to IRS to hire more people targeting people like John.

This is ridiculous. Outside of the fact that it goes against the unwritten policy of the forum to not insert politics into MS discussions, it's not accurate.

If this plan is based on holding back funding from the tax collection agencies in order to avoid paying what you legally owe, it's not to help John, who generally doesn't owe tax.

Rich people have convinced you that your rights are being trampled in order to save themselves millions of dollars. You are the fool in this situation...

So you post an admonishment about not getting political, and then go on a political rant about rich people. Which isn't, btw, true. The top 1% of wage earners paid 46% of the taxes last year, so this constant drumbeat that the super rich are off filing their nails but not their taxes is obtuse. The top 10% of earners pay 74% of all Federal Income Tax. Are you seeing a trend here? The people telling you that the little guys are carrying the whole tax burden are trampling on your logical thinking.

This website with actuals is really helpful and non partisan:

[taxfoundation.org].

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2024 12:32AM by Cassiespark.

@Cassiespark wrote:

So you post an admonishment about not getting political, and then go on a political rant about rich people. Which isn't, btw, true. The top 1% of wage earners paid 46% of the taxes last year, so this constant drumbeat that the super rich are off filing their nails but not their taxes is obtuse. The top 10% of earners pay 74% of all Federal Income Tax. Are you seeing a trend here? The people telling you that the little guys are carrying the whole tax burden are trampling on your logical thinking.

This website with actuals is really helpful and non partisan:

[www.zillow.com]

It's not how much you're taxed that is most important, but how much you have left to live on after being taxed.

oh boy, this thread goes nowhere but off the rails....that's how it goes after the first poster inserts politics. Happens every time.

Now, to answer the original question. I wouldn't ask that question here. I would read the most popular, reliable finance sites and actually IRS docs..they are forever publishing articles on the most popular audit triggers....you can probably guess what they are.
Coming here to ask is only poking the bear.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2024 12:04PM by BarefootBliss.

Johnb...so if I spend unwisely, and run out of dough, I am oppressed...BUT!!!, if I make a middle class income, and I am thrifty, and have money left over to save, I am not oppressed, right? Makes sense.....everything the adults in my life taught me was wrong....I question why I have been trying so hard to save all these years. If I only knew that it was ALL someone else's fault!

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2024 02:26PM by salisburync.

What are you tslking about?

yeah what the heck is he talking about?

If I hear one more time that the richest among us must pay their fair share I will scream.

I am not a tax expert but I would say the more you rationalize about which taxes YOU in particular are " legally " avoiding, mainly by tweaking the meaning of words and statements in the tax code , the more likely you are to be audited.

johnb974, were you able to file your taxes?

@Okie wrote:

johnb974, were you able to file your taxes?

I had to because of the Social Security and Medicare taxes

If you had a filing requirement, glad you got it done in time!

@Cassiespark wrote:

So you post an admonishment about not getting political, and then go on a political rant about rich people. Which isn't, btw, true.

To clear up any misunderstanding, I agree that the wealthy pay the majority of taxes, and was not stating otherwise. You may have missed my point, which was not necessarily political, nor a rant about rich people. It was essentially an economic observation, in a thread about IRS audits, which is an economic discussion.

The wealthy who pay the majority of taxes have a general understanding that one political party's win may result a more friendly tax base for them. I don't think it's a particularly debatable nor controversial opinion that the difference in said tax base would be millions of dollars.

While the top 10% may contribute a majority of the taxes paid, they do not directly control elections, so my mildly political point was that resources from the 10% are being focused toward convincing the other 90% to vote in their economic favor.

The ridiculous component is someone voting one particular way based on the economics of defunding the IRS in order to avoid an audit. It's extremely short-sighted (i.e. foolish) since it doesn't take into account the myriad other ways that said tax laws and potential enforcement of said laws may affect them positively.

So, the OP I was responding to was probably either attempting to convince others to vote in their chosen direction for non-economic reasons, which is in bad faith, and I could make a good argument for being against forum guidelines...or they are a fool who doesn't understand the financial impact of their suggestion. Based on the number of grammatical errors in the post after 3 rounds of editorial, I suspect the latter.

@SteveSoCal wrote:

@Cassiespark wrote:

So you post an admonishment about not getting political, and then go on a political rant about rich people. Which isn't, btw, true.

To clear up any misunderstanding, I agree that the wealthy pay the majority of taxes, and was not stating otherwise. You may have missed my point, which was not necessarily political, nor a rant about rich people. It was essentially an economic observation, in a thread about IRS audits, which is an economic discussion.

The wealthy who pay the majority of taxes have a general understanding that one political party's win may result a more friendly tax base for them. I don't think it's a particularly debatable nor controversial opinion that the difference in said tax base would be millions of dollars.

While the top 10% may contribute a majority of the taxes paid, they do not directly control elections, so my mildly political point was that resources from the 10% are being focused toward convincing the other 90% to vote in their economic favor.

The ridiculous component is someone voting one particular way based on the economics of defunding the IRS in order to avoid an audit. It's extremely short-sighted (i.e. foolish) since it doesn't take into account the myriad other ways that said tax laws and potential enforcement of said laws may affect them positively.

So, the OP I was responding to was probably either attempting to convince others to vote in their chosen direction for non-economic reasons, which is in bad faith, and I could make a good argument for being against forum guidelines...or they are a fool who doesn't understand the financial impact of their suggestion. Based on the number of grammatical errors in the post after 3 rounds of editorial, I suspect the latter.

More government, bigger government is NEVER good for citizens. I believe in law & order, but I do not believe police forces should look like small armies. More IRS agents is not good for citizens.

People should be honest when they do their taxes. Period. You report all income, unless the law specifically says you do not have to report it. For now, at least, if you make a $1 doing mystery shopping, auditing, or other gig work, you have to report it. Even if you do not receive a 1099. Then, you use the tax laws to your advantage to take every deduction and expense you are legally allowed to take. It's a numbers game. Large corporations are good at it, which is how you get companies like Amazon either not paying any taxes or not paying "their fair share," whichever story is the flavor of the day. I'm not sure what "fair share" is anyway. Funny, nobody seems to ever define it. Probably because the people that b***h and moan about it ARE part of the problem they claim is a problem.

All of this could be solved by first doing a major rewrite of the tax code. To my knowledge, nobody currently still in the race is even talking about that. There is a lot of talk about not taxing certain income. A simple, straightforward rewrite of the code would be more beneficial to everybody. We also need to stop spending. I don't mean cut-off all spending, I mean we need to stop the PORK. If Calabasas, CA wants a million dollar water fountain for people who think they are kitty-cats, so be it. The taxpayers in Calabasas can pay for that. It should not be a part of the insane spending bills that come out of Congress, where it is hidden on page 485 of a 900-page bill that was developed behind closed doors. We need to stop sending money overseas. If helping Ukraine or Zimbabwe is important to you, super. Send your money directly. I'd like to keep as much of mine in my pocket, especially when I have a leaky roof and cannot afford to put a new roof on right now because eggs are $7. My hope is that we will one day to go a flat tax, and that we will phase out social security and allow the babies born today to keep their money and actually put it to work for them through investments. That is much better than giving Uncle Sam an interest free loan.

@ServiceAward wrote:

More IRS agents is not good for citizens.

People should be honest when they do their taxes. Period. You report all income, unless the law specifically says you do not have to report it. For now, at least, if you make a $1 doing mystery shopping, auditing, or other gig work, you have to report it. Even if you do not receive a 1099.

Completely agreed that we could benefit from an updated tax code, but we also know that's not likely.

That said, I have never really heard of case of someone being audited and then unfairly being asked to pay more than they legally owe. Those who are hurting from audits are usually those who attempted to cheat the system.

Like all laws, it would be great if everyone simply followed them, but that's not human nature. It also seems like it's human nature for many of us not to plan ahead, so I don't know if people can be trusted to save on their own behalf. Many who have windfall income cannot even be bothered to set aside enough to cover the taxes on it in a single year...hence the need for IRS agents.

For most of us, taxation is pretty straightforward. One year, I missed a single 1099 from pile of them that I was sent. A few months after I filed, I received a reminder from the IRS that I may have missed one, with no penalty if I paid the updated balance within 30 days. I am guessing that it was entirely computer generated, but if a human was involved, it was probably just for the few seconds to look over the letter and hit send. They were of course correct, and I later found the missing 1099, paid the balance due and have kept better records ever since.

My assumption has since been that the IRS has a pretty good idea of what you owe, tolerates honest mistakes with no penalty and enforces the law through audits otherwise. The assumption would be that any money paid for additional agents would be recouped by the additional tax generated from their audits, so honest taxpayers would have nothing to fear from said additional agents. I think the OP would also have little to fear from said agents, since if they owe no tax, it would not be beneficial to audit them.

Gee, I thought it wasn't "scream" but...

The quote "It ain't over 'til (or until) the fat lady sings" is an informal, colloquial expression that means the outcome of an event is still uncertain and could change. It's often used in the context of a competition, especially a sports event, to caution against assuming the outcome is set. For example, you might say "It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings" if your team is losing a game.

@Fatlady wrote:

If I hear one more time that the richest among us must pay their fair share I will scream.

I am no tax expert, but I don't think income from mystery shopping is a automatic red flag for the IRS. If you for example claim a business loss 3-years in a row vs. a profit, that seems the more likely red flag. On the other hand, I don't use the title Mystery Shopper when filing returns and there is not a specific business code for it.

This is not a political post (my examples are however politician's) -- I have no hard proof, but something tells me the IRS is more focused on people like Hunter Biden (tax evasion) and auditing folks like Donald Trump who has a history of paying little or no taxes for years. They are chasing the bigger coin.

Disclaimer: not intended to be tax advice