I will obviously defer to the expertise of this post!! Although I will admit (THIS IS AN OPINION!!) that I am amazed that an audit can be triggered by "too much information" -- especially if it is correct documentation that is very likely to be requested anyway if there WAS an audit. It would seem illogical to trigger an audit to request documentation that was already sent in with the return! But I will readily accept that logic is sometimes lacking at the IRS.
As for "being careful" about what we post - I did very carefully start my post with a big disclaimer that was very clear that my knowledge was neither expert nor well-researched, but just "heresay". If it's buried in the middle somewhere, caveat reader, but if there's a disclaimer right up front that "I'm not an expert", I think it's OK to post an opinion -- if for no other reason than, if it's wrong, someone who is recognizably more knowledgeable can correct the error in a response and we'll all have more authoritative information.
I would never post incorrect information purposely for this goal, but I don't hold anyone responsible for well-intended ideas or opinions. And I fully recognize that such opinions are worth the paper they're printed on :)
I certainly agree that the "ideaology" of a poster is not going to carry any weight with the IRS -- prime example being the widely-held ideaology on this list that winnings only should be reported if they are accompanied by a W2G, and of course the pretty much universally held idealogy of taxpayers that taxes are unfair and poorly spent. The IRS could care less about those opinions, and will enforce the tax code (as they understand it, which is not always that well) regardless of your opinion about its fairness, an opinion which the individual IRS employee might even share, but which will not influence the way they conduct themselves at work.
It certainly is obvious that "common knowledge" about gambling and taxes is not so common, even in tax software, certainly with most accountants who don't routinely encounter the issue, and apparently also within the IRS -- but again, I will defer to the expertise of Jean Scott on taxes - every time! She's taken the trouble to do research, including expert consultation, and write it up for us all (I have the book, just haven't looked at it since shortly after I bought it), and her information on taxes should generally be regarded as the best available advice.
--BG
==================
> 5c. Re: W2G
> Posted by: "Queen of Comps" queenofcomps@cox.net
> queenofcomps
> Date: Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:32 pm ((PDT))
>
> <<If possible, I'd rather send in the documentation
> with my return to begin with, than to wait to show it at an
> audit.>>
>
> Wrong, wrong, wrong â€" for many reasons. First,
> attachments are often lost. More importantly, too much
> information can raise red flags to unknowledgeable IRS
> employees and more likely to generate an audit. Wait
> until you get a letter audit to send in requested
> information â€" and even then, keep your response short
> and sweet and send in only the basic summary records.
> There are usually many “letter audits� before
> it gets to the more serious audit in person, time enough to
> give them more information if the basics don’t
> satisfy them.
>
> Everyone should be careful what they write on this list
> â€" or any forum â€" about taxes. It is not
> helpful â€" and can be actually dangerous â€" when
> a poster gives merely personal opinions or talks about what
> “seems� to be right or logical. (The IRS
> is not known for “logical� decisions.)
> And sadly, some people don’t read such posts
> carefully and don’t distinguish between
> “facts� and opinions. In our tax book,
> Marissa and I â€" frustratingly often â€"must put
> in qualifiers all the time â€" “ individual
> circumstances� is the key here.
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Jean $¢ott, Frugal Gambler
