The best (or worst) part of this is what I bolded in the last paragraph.


Governor Says NO! To Advocate for Taxpayers

You take the time to fill out all the forms, you mail in your state tax return, and you wait for that refund check. But, what comes in the mail instead is a different type of note from Albany - a note demanding more money!

There's nothing more intimidating, to the average individual than getting a letter from the State Tax Department saying not only do you owe money, but you have penalties and interest accruing, and the number is doubled.

That's why the NYSTU joined with Senator John DeFrancisco and other lawmakers in the Senate and Assembly to make sure that someone needs to be available to help the individual. The proposal would have created of an office for an advocate for taxpayers, or somewhere taxpayers can turn when those letters begin to arrive that often leave those taxpayers frantic.

But Governor Spitzer disagrees and vetoed the proposal. The Governor opposed the very powers that gave this new office its ability to fight for taxpayers.

For instance, this bill would have allowed the Taxpayer Advocate to issue an order against the Tax Department to stay actions and enforcement efforts including audits, enforcing subpoenas, or executing warrants. A powerful provision and one that Spitzer just couldn't live with.

Moreover, the Governor complains that Tax Commissioner would have no authority to hire or fire any personnel in the Office of the Tax Advocate (OTA), to establish a budget for the OTA, or to operate or administer the OTA in any way. According to Spitzer, this would create internal conflict within the Tax Department -- impairing its ability to serve its purposes. According to us, this would ensure that the office was truly independent. Can you imagine an Office of Advocate having to go to the Commissioner for its budget and personnel?!

The new advocate would have had the power to halt the mounting level of interest and penalties while a problem is being resolved.

Plus, the office was designed to serve an additional purpose; by gathering complaints and questions, it would have been able to offer to state government recommendations on how to make the tax system work more efficiently and fairly.

But on day one, everything changed. And apparently having a truly independent Office of Advocate for taxpayers isn't the type of change that this administration endorses


http://nystu.org/news.cfm?mode=display&article=468

VETO MESSAGE - No. 42 Back to News
  
July 18, 2007  
  
by ELIOT SPITZER
  
                           VETO MESSAGE - No. 42 TO THE ASSEMBLY: I am returning herewith, without my approval, the following bill: Assembly Bill Number 4606, entitled:     "AN  ACT to amend the tax law, in relation to creating the office of      taxpayer advocate"     NOT APPROVED   This bill would create the Office of Taxpayer Advocate ("OTA")  withinthe  Department  of  Taxation  and  Finance for the purpose of resolvingtaxpayer disputes with the Tax Department. The Taxpayer  Advocate  wouldpropose  changes to the practice and procedures of the Tax Department tofacilitate a positive  relationship  between  the  public  and  the  TaxDepartment,  and  recommend legislative action should there be a need todo so. In addition, the Taxpayer Advocate would be  empowered  to  issue"taxpayer  assistance  orders"  that  would suspend or stay an action orproposed action where the Taxpayer Advocate believes that  the  taxpayerwould suffer "significant hardship" as a result of the action.  

While I understand the sponsor's laudable goal of facilitating taxpay-ers'  dealings  with  the Tax Department, I am constrained to disapprovethis bill, because it grants the Taxpayer Advocate unprecedented  powersthat  would  severely impair the ability of the Tax Department to accomplish its core mission. In particular, this bill would allow the Taxpayer Advocate to issue an order against any unit of the Tax Department  tostay actions and enforcement efforts including audits, enforcing subpoe-nas,  or  executing  warrants.  These  orders would be final and the TaxDepartment would not have the opportunity to be heard before the  ordersare  issued. This would likely delay or even prevent the state's efforts to collect taxes, and could severely impede or compromise pending criminal investigations.  

In addition, although the sponsors note that "the  federal  governmentand  several other States (i.e., Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Florida, Cali-fornia, Massachusetts) have successful Taxpayer Advocates," in  each  of those   jurisdictions  the  Taxpayer  Advocate's  powers  are  far  more constrained than those provided in this bill. For example, none  of  theother jurisdictions gives the Taxpayer Advocate the right to suspend anyaction  without  a  right  to  appeal. In addition, actions taken by theTaxpayer Advocates in the other jurisdictions are subject to  review  bythe jurisdiction's Tax Commissions.  

Furthermore, this bill strips all of the Commissioner's general powersin  the  context of the OTA. For example, the Commissioner would have noauthority to hire or fire any personnel in the OTA, to establish a budg-et for the OTA, or to operate or administer the OTA  in  any  way.  Thiswould  likely  create  internal conflict within the Tax Department, thusimpairing its ability to serve its purposes.  

These significant problems are not counterbalanced by any  significantbenefits in the bill, because the Tax Department already has a mechanismin  place  to assist taxpayers with any disputes. A taxpayer may, in thefirst instance, attempt to resolve their differences directly  with  the Tax Department. If the issues are not sufficiently resolved, the taxpayer  may  appeal to the Tax Department's Bureau of Conciliation and Mediation. Should these efforts fail, the taxpayer may initiate  proceedings with the State's Division of Tax Appeals, which is established in law as an  independent  arbiter of disputes. Taxpayers have additional recourse through the state court system should their dispute with the  Department remain.  Lastly,  upon  the  exhaustion  of these appeal procedures, the Commissioner has authority to develop payment  schedules  that  consider the circumstances of individual taxpayers.  

Finally,  there  are  technical issues in this bill that make it especially difficult to approve. As mentioned above, the  Taxpayer  Advocate may issue an order upon the finding of "significant hardship." The bill, however,  does not define this term. As all tax collection efforts place some financial burden on the taxpayer, there is potential that the term may  be  construed more broadly than intended by the Legislature. As all of the Taxpayer Advocate orders are final and not subject to any review, this provision of the bill could be especially damaging to  the  state's tax  collection  efforts and particularly disruptive for the daily operations of the Tax Department.  

The bill is disapproved.                      

(signed) ELIOT SPITZER                              

Spitzer wants to keep the door open to keep taxing us if he wants to, what about the tax reduction he promised and the tax reform.

I have to agree with Spitzer---not for the same reasons....but the whole system would stall, cost US MORE $$....suing the state(that would be US again)...creating another department that we would have to pay salaries and benefits too(that would be US again).....just to have bragging rights,,,"I beat the state, I beat the tax man".......we need something more solid than that.......like no one pay our property or school taxes for 1year.....ALL TOGETHER NOW------WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE........

Okay...here goes and I'll probably get beat up for this one...but I agree with Spitzer. My reasoning is that we, as the taxpayers, already pay for a state designated department to go and either seek advice before or after tax time. If you have a problem there is already allocated numbers and addresses you can seek.

NOW on the other hand...if Spitzer did pass this...than they better close down the other dept's that have already been put into place for this.... It would seem like paying twice for the same service.