The Patriots

by Allen Williams

Update: July 16, 2020: I still had not heard from the Kansas Dept of Revenue and so decided to call them the first week in July to contest their refusal of my personal deduction. Despite the Covi-19 staffing crisis, I was surprised to get someone on the phone. I anticipated I might have to discuss my situation with one of the supervisors if I could get one but the fellow I drew was surprising knowledgeable. This meant the department was down to its most competent people so likely that meant only supervisors.

Explaining the problem, I wanted to know if someone had claimed me on their K-40 form. Now here is where it gets a bit bizarre. The response was that no one had claimed me or gotten my identity information so but only that I had not claimed the personal exemption.

It was an incredible statement because I remember clearly claiming the exemption. Kansas no longer provides the K-40 form, you have to download and print the desired form from the KDOR web site at: https://www.ksrevenue.org/forms.html. I remember when I printed the form, the orange category blocks appeared somewhat lighter than the original on file but my markings in those faint boxes were clearly visible and I remember claiming the exemption. My markings were close enough to the orange.box selected to ascertain what I had claimed.

However it was rejected for any number of reasons: (1) the dept couldn't be sure what box I actually checked (even though I had filed single' status, they could not be certain that one') was the correct number of exemptions). (2) Bureaucratic vindictiveness. Any and all forms are summarily rejected if there is any deviancy from their standards. Your number isn't precisely within the borders of their box or it's a half-space higher or lower than the line containing the choice selection causing confusion'. (3) Punishment. Computer rejection of your tax form (probably because of conditions listed in (2)), creating a situation where the dept must manually process the form. (4) Revenue increase, We can't eliminate my original contention that any and all means will be employed to increase tax revenues regardless of the facts. If the taxpayer accepts KDOR's evaluation and pays the extra revenue, so be it.

The state is behind in their Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) because taxes weren't high enough during past conservative administrations. The state Supreme Court dictates what must be spent on education and the state's lawyers regularly sue the legislature to extort more money for education while also being sued by judges for not sufficiently funding the judiciary. And when you have to defend against a lawsuit wherein the state's lawyers choose the state Supreme Court judges, you can guess the outcome. Corruption in the state is rampant. It's a challenge to keep one's self solvent.

In this age of economic turmoil brought on by Covid-19, states are having to scramble for new sources of income to make ends meet because they will not control spending. This situation is particularly egregious due to the state Supreme court dictating the amount of revenue that must be spent on schools and various lawyer's endlessly suing the state legislature.So every return is considered a possibility for squeezing out extra revenue.

In my discussion with KDOR, it was suggested that I file an amended return which I did making certain that everything (including the orange boxes) were well defined on the form. We'll see if this one is accepted or it comes back for some other reason

Original Post

In this age of economic turmoil brought on by Covid-19, states are having to scramble for new sources of income to make ends meet because they will not control spending. This situation is particularly egregious due to the state Supreme court dictating the amount of revenue that must be spent on schools and various lawyer's endlessly suing the state legislature.So every return is considered a possibility for squeezing out extra revenue.

In late June 2020 I received a notification from the infamous Kansas Department of Revenue that my personal exemption was NOT allowed.

                                           K-40 'Letter Rejecting my personal Exemption

Yes, you read that correctly my $2250 standard deduction was not allowed! Why how could that be possible?, you ask. Because that deduction is available to every taxpayer filing a return you state. Yes, but only if you are NOT claimed as a dependent on someones else's return. According to KDOR instructions recorded in Kip19.pdf for 2019, LINE 5:

LINE 5 (Exemption allowance): Multiply the total number of exemptions claimed on Form K-40 by $2,250. ImportantIf you are claimed as a dependent by another taxpayer, enter "0" on line 5.

Of course, I didn't record a zero in line 5 of my K-40 State income tax form ostensibly because I thought I was not subject to reclassification based on another person's filing.

                                           K-40 'adjustment' schedule from KDOR regarding my tax submittal.

I had just 30 days to respond. (See KDOR letter dated June 24, 2020). THIS NOTIFICATION SHOULD SERIOUSLY DISTURB EVERY TAXPAYER IN THE STATE. If this can happen to me it certainly can happen to anyone over 55.

First of all look at line 2 of KDOR's letter regarding, 'RE': their revision reasons. My return status is listed as part of a 'joint filing' submission made by parties unknown. Whoever it is I'm not related because I have no relatives residing in Kansas. But claimants are more likely to be an assisted living, nursing home or convalescent center businesses who handle a lot of clients where relationship is not relative. (Never mind the technicality that I've never been in any such facility.)

I've not signed any kind of guardianship documents naming individual(s) that could affect such a claim and there is no court order adjudicating my dependency. I have no medical conditions that would support a dependency claim and I have given NO consent to anyone to do so. Therefore there is no legal basis for this reclassification, it is PURELY outrageous FRAUD!.

The 'Exemptions and Dependents' category of he K-40 tax form requires each dependent's social security No. and date of birth to be listed along with their relationship so whoever has perpetrated this fraud has acquired my S.S. Number and date of birth otherwise KDOR would have challenged the claimant(s). However, unsurprisingly Kansas has no requirement, as does the IRS -1040 form, for the dependent to certify that he is a dependent on claimant's filing. Typically when you claim a dependent on a state form you have to FIRST claim them on the Federal form but interestingly enough I NEVER heard from the IRS. If KDOR had performed this simple check of my 1040 they would have noticed that I DID NOT check this box and coupled with my years of single filing status should have triggered a warning flag.

But remember the purpose here is to generate extra tax revenue (and ethics really isn't a consideration), so as long as the claim is reasonably accurate no need to do anything more than perpetrate the fraud because this year it costs me $111 and every subsequent year the claimant(s) wish to perpetrate it. KDOR gets the money and the claimant gets an extra $2250 deduction against their income so everyone wins but me. You may remember my 2019 KDOR posting where they had no record of my $18 tax payment (even though I gave them the check No. and date). They attempted to charge me again if I didn't produce a copy of their endorsement seal on my check. This year they're increasing the stakes.

                                          Letter to KDOR Contesting denial of my Personal Exemption.

On June 26, 2020 I filed a rebuttal to the Kansas Dept of revenue emphatically denying that I am a consensual legal dependent on any persons or business firm's return and copying the Kansas Attorney General along with the Governor. In my correspondence I demanded that KDOR take remedial action against claimants which would infer producing signature evidence of my agreement or a COURT ORDER affirming said status and in the meantime to honor my return as filed.

These people aren't particularly friendly or cooperative as they regard taxpayers as something simply to be milked. So we'll see how this goes as I await their response.

by Allen Williams

In early July 2019 I received a notification from the Kansas Department of revenue that I had not paid my 2018 taxes amounting to $18.00!  Yes, you read that correctly as I owed no federal income taxes thanks to the Trump tax cut but the state of Kansas still manages to squeeze out revenue from its denizens despite zero liability on one’s federal return.

I had just 15 days to respond.  If I didn’t there was a list of options the agency could choose from including but not limited to:

·         File a tax warrant resulting in a lien on your assets

·         Levy your bank accounts

·         Garnish your wages

·         Seize your property including motor vehicles, boats and recreational vehicles

·         Suspend or revoke any liquor or dealer licenses you may hold

·         Refer your account to a private collection agency and a fee will be added to your account

So I phoned the agency to try and clear up the matter and as expected the system is fully automated.  I was immediately dumped into the queue with seven people ahead of me.  I continued holding until I was No 5 when suddenly a connection was made and I was on the line with someone from the revenue department who identified herself as Martha.

Before I could discuss the tax problem with Martha, I had to jump through a number of hoops to identify myself with name, address, telephone number, date of birth, SS number, etc.  It was unacceptable to give the agent my case number of 0101021941463 as I could be someone impersonating me trying to claim I paid the bill or to make arrangements to pay the delinquency.  Yes, these people really are that dense.

Tax bill due plus interest and penalties

Despite my having given this woman my check number, amount and the date that payment was made, Martha wanted a copy of the check with the department’s endorsement.  All that was really necessary was to do a system search for the check number and within minutes she would have been able to ascertain its disposition.  But that assumes these people are willing to assist taxpayers as well as the preexistence of adequate department infrastructure, e.g.: (1) the department is not understaffed  (2) Incompetence throughout the department is not a factor (3) a weaponized response via political referral  or previous encounter is not a factor.

I went to my bank with the same information I gave to Martha and in about ten minutes they discovered that KS revenue cashed my $18.00 check four days after I mailed my tax return on April 11^th   but then failed to record it for whatever reason.  Obviously, the department of revenue has shorted its ability to monitor payments into the system and may not have had the means to verify my payment.  This is irresponsible. But given the dismal oversight in the department, the lack of vision and the stupid political decisions, I expect things to grow progressively worse in the future due to the state’s escalating debt. 

KS Dept of endorsement on my check dated 4/19/2019

I should note that the department t of revenue would easily have accepted a second check to settle my account but due to its outsourcing tax returns likely would have resulted in the same outcome.  The agency has little regard for the people it allegedly serves.

Kansas is a small state with a population of around 2,911,505 persons as of July 2918.  The state has a myriad of debt problems between funding public education and the Kansas Public Employees Retirement system (KPERS) and is desperate for money.

Kansas agency laid off dozens of employees last year. Now it wants them back   https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article230757674.html#storylink=cpy

“KDOR announced in May 2018 that it would eliminate 56 positions as part of a contract with CGI to provide professional services to operate, maintain, enhance and support the Department of Revenue’s tax systems… He said the state will own certain “deliverables” produced by CGI and reiterated that taxpayers won’t experience any disruptions.” Really? so what do you call the disruption I received from the Kansas Dept of Revenue.. an enhancement?  -  https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article230757674.html

Despite increased computer technology the Kansas Department of Revenue is a poorly managed state agency. Contracting out services with increased liability for school lawsuits and public employees’ retirement obligations is a fool’s errand and has worsened the agency’s ability to perform.

Kansas is at the center of endless lawsuits over school funding and keeping the state employees retirement fund up to date  (https://business.ku.edu/sites/business.ku.edu/files/docs/pdfs/centers/bcae/TR%2017-0901--Underfunding%20KPERS%20%28Hall%29.pdf) such that there is little money for anything else. School funding in Kansas consumes over 51% of the state’s budget and taxpayers are on the hook for some 8 billion in unfunded actuarial liability for public employees.

Kansas currently features a per capita debt higher than the US average.“Overall, the State had used debt sparingly in prior decades and was previously considered a low debt state. Now we are a moderate debt state with Moody’s Net Tax Supported Debt of $1,575 per capita. The US average is $1,473…”-  https://www.kdfa.org/sites/default/files/uploaded_files/2017%20Debt%20Study%20Rev%200.pdf The media buffoons think that when a state’s per capita debt is higher than the US average, it’s a moderate debt state.

A commission consisting of four lawyers and four non lawyers selects the state’s Supreme Court justices who inure the school’s right to sue the state legislature. It’s a ‘win-win’ for special interests like Alan Rupe and associates who have made a career out of suing the state legislature over school funding.

Look for future difficulties in this haphazard agency chiefly due to good old boy politics and the state’s failure to get the Kansas Supreme court out of dictating school funding.

by Kansas Policy Institute

June 1 - Wichita - A cost study recommending a school funding increase upwards of $2 billion survived a peer review by a scholar the Legislature hired; but, another respected school finance scholar says cost studies should not be used to set funding levels.

Benjamin Scafadi, Ph.D., a professor of economics and director of the Education Economics Center at Kennesaw State University, says, “cost function studies do not provide valid and reliable estimates of the minimum 'cost' of achieving a given outcome.” 

Knowing the Legislature’s WestEd cost study would define the conversation on education spending and impact further judicial proceedings, Kansas Policy Institute partnered to do an independent peer review with Dr. Scafidi.  His findings disprove the notion that spending more money causes student achievement to improve. 

In response to the Kansas Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Gannon V case, the Kansas Legislature recently contracted with a vendor conducting a $285,000 study to analyze the “cost” of educating public school students in grades K-12. The Legislature asked the vendor, WestEd, to “estimate the minimum spending required to produce a given outcome within a given educational environment.” WestEd used a “cost function” approach to estimate the costs of providing students in each public school in Kansas with an adequate education. 

Dave Trabert, president of the Kansas Policy Institute, commented, “These cost studies may be done with the best of intentions, but they fail to provide results that are useful in guiding policy decisions. In practice they only take a partial look at one variable – spending – and ignore all other variables that impact learning.”

Scafadi said, “The estimates vary widely and do not track with historical data on spending and achievement.” The review outlined the reasons why supposed “cost” functions do not provide valid and reliable estimates of the minimum “cost” of achieving a given outcome.

“One glaring problem we found with the WestEd study is that researchers do not have access to data on all external factors that impact the cost of educating students.” Trabert said.

Scafidi’s study for Kansas Policy Institute included in its exhaustive review a complete recommendation of best practices that should be performed to “check carefully for robustness and reliability of results.”

His data determined it unreasonable to conclude that giving the Kansas public school system, as currently constituted, a large boost to spending would significantly improve student outcomes.

“Given the vast sums of taxpayer funds at stake, the Kansas Governor, Legislature, and the State Supreme Court should implement the five best practices, as laid out in my review, to discover the truth about the relationship between spending and valuable student outcomes.” Scafadi concluded.

by Staff & Anonymous

Net assets/fund balances (line 22)  $332,471,349.00…  So it required 486 people, who were paid $34.8 million, plus $91.3 million in fees and expenses, to give away $5.1 MILLION!