re: #39 lawhawk

The percentage of those audits has actually increased in recent years.

However, for 1998-2000, the audit rate was about 1.5% and trending down for high income earners (overall average rate was declining and was below 1% by 2000).

Complicating matters with Romney’s returns is that IRS data has to be reconciled with SEC data, and it’s much easier to do now than it was back then. Much more electronic data to work with, process, and review. It means that it’s easier for the IRS to spot red flags than it was back in 2000.

You may be right that some of the reluctance to release the returns may have to do with questionable tax decisions that skirt the line from tax avoidance (legal) to tax evasion (illegal). What we’d also need to keep in mind is the status of the relevant law at the time those decisions were made. Some changes made since may greatly affect how those outcomes play out.

Also it’s worth noting that there may be all kinds of benefits stemming from the 2001 and 2003 tax changes (EGTRRA and JGTRRA) affecting depreciation, net operating losses, etc. that could have come into play during the time period - along with amended returns for the period to reflect changes made after the initial returns were submitted to take advantage of those tax law changes.

Crowd sourcing would take the place of a forensic accountant piecing together what Romney did and when.

On the other hand, Romney surely didn’t do his own taxes. Wouldn’t the blame (legally, I mean, not in “the court of public opinion”) rest with his accountant(s)?