Home > Identity Theft > What We Could Have Done With the $5.8 Billion the Government Lost to Tax ID Theft

Comments 0 Comments

Imagine you were President, or Speaker of the House, and one day you woke up and discovered that you had an extra $5.8 billion dollars to spend. What would you do with the cash? A new aircraft carrier (or half of one, anyway)? Perhaps a couple of bridges to somewhere or a new highway? A quaint premise, indeed, but not as far-fetched as you might think, considering the amount of money American taxpayers have been losing to taxpayer identity theft.

The Treasury Department was drained of an estimated $5.8 billion in tax refunds by identity thieves filing fraudulent returns during the 2013 tax-filing season. True story, according to the Government Accountability Office, which delivered the bad news earlier this month. The IRS was able to prevent the loss of another $24.2 billion during the same time period.

Earlier this month, the software giant Intuit temporarily suspended electronic filing of all state tax returns following a marked uptick in what appeared to be fraudulent filings. And with major data breaches like Anthem’s recent debacle compromising Americans’ Social Security numbers, identity thieves are getting their hands on all of the pieces of our personally identifying information they need to commit tax identity theft.

The $5.8 billion in refunds issued in 2013 were paid to identity thieves who filed fraudulent returns using stolen names, Social Security numbers and fake W-2 forms. With tax identity theft skyrocketing in recent years, it doesn’t appear anyone knows how to stop the problem. To put this into perspective, we are currently losing the equivalent of Chad’s annual GDP. We’re talking about a whole lot of money here.

I asked members of Congress where that money could have made a difference. Here’s how they replied. (A quick note: Several Republican members of Congress were asked to comment and declined.)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

“$5.8 billion could have increased the National Institutes of Health budget for the year by more than 15%. Right now, NIH can fund only one in six research proposals, and many young researchers are getting discouraged and leaving the field. Think how many young researchers could have had their careers launched with that $5.8 billion–and think about the breakthroughs on Alzheimer’s or autism or diabetes that they might have made.”

Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Mich.

“Cracking down on identity theft and false tax returns would not only save American families from financial hardship and frustration, it would free up funds to reinvest in our nation’s future. I would divide the $5.8 billion in savings between the Head Start Program and basic science research at the National Science Foundation. The Head Start Program is one of the most successful federal programs we have. Providing critical education, health, nutrition and social services to low-income families helps ensure that all American children have a chance to succeed in school, regardless of their ZIP code. The National Science Foundation funds all fields of fundamental science, research and engineering — the seeds that will grow our future economy. Investing in scientific research is critical to increasing America’s competitiveness, driving innovation and creating new jobs.”

Doubtless, there are countless projects that might be jumpstarted or enhanced with $5.8 billion.

If we didn’t turn the $5.8 billion into new programs or to bolster existing ones, there’s a more direct way to deploy it. That money could be invested in initiatives that would educate and protect consumers and businesses against the perils of data breaches and identity theft. What could you do with that kind of money? I’m going out on a limb here, but I think it might be possible to keep more money in the Treasury and limit its refund to rightful taxpayers by investing in even more sophisticated filtering systems as well as more people on the job to make tax filing, taxpayer vetting and the tax fraud remediation processes more efficient and effective.

Hopefully, the observations by our lawmakers will draw attention to the continuing disaster of identity theft and the desperate need for the government to step up its efforts to stem the outgoing tide of Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars. So, what would you do with the $5.8 billion?

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily represent the views of the company or its partners.

More on Identity Theft:

Image: iStock

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team