Yet they refused to codify the "promise" it wouldn't be used for under 400k income families. Look at what they do, not what they say. In public they make 'promises' but in statute it turns into ether, meanwhile real audit data pointing to otherwise.

-------- re: below due to throttling ------

>I'm very confused about where you're going with this. Are you upset that too many rich people are getting audited, or that tax cheats under 400k income might also get audited?

... this was a direct response to parent stating increased funding was added specifically for going after rich people. Yes I would be upset if I was told they were adding new funding specifically to go after rich tax cheats but then turns out to be something like "welp actually we refuse to codify that or make anything binding that it will be used for those purposes, but for the cameras we will pinky swear it will be used for that and please don't look at the historical data for inferences."

> Yet they refused to codify the "promise" it wouldn't be used for under 400k income families.

This is a lie. They didn't refuse. They didn't have it codified because they were trying to figure out how to define that. For example, one of the challenges IRS was having was someone reporting $390,000 but they actually earned $450,000. How do you deteremine that without an audit? Do you need a waiver? How does that get resolved without breaking the promise.

> Look at what they do, not what they say.

They were actively working on how to respect the promise in a reasonable way.

I'm very confused about where you're going with this. Are you upset that too many rich people are getting audited, or that tax cheats under 400k income might also get audited?