Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The IRS is Hiring


OverSword
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

https://web.archive.org/web/20220804060409/https://www.jobs.irs.gov/resources/job-descriptions/irs-criminal-investigation-special-agent

 

 

Quote

 

Key Requirements

  • Be a U.S. citizen
  • Be 21 years of age by the time that you complete the training academy and no older than 37 years of age at time of appointment.
  • Qualify based on education, specialized experience, or a combination of the two.
  • Possess a valid driver’s license.
  • Pass a background and criminal history record check.
  • Pass a pre-employment medical exam.
  • Pass a pre-employment drug test.
  • Pass a pre-employment tax examination.
  • Be legally allowed to carry a firearm.

Major Duties

  • Adhere to the highest standards of conduct, especially in maintaining honesty and integrity.
  • Work a minimum of 50 hours per week, which may include irregular hours, and be on-call 24/7, including holidays and weekends.
  • Maintain a level of fitness necessary to effectively respond to life-threatening situations on the job.
  • Carry a firearm and be willing to use deadly force, if necessary.
  • Be willing and able to participate in arrests, execution of search warrants, and other dangerous assignments.

 

The IRS seems to have changed a bit :mellow:

Edited by OverSword
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dang sounds more like enforcers instead of auditors. :huh:

I suppose when they all get trained we can expect a change in the tax code. :hmm:

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life threatening …. Tax emergencies?

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Life threatening …. Tax emergencies?

Yeah 10% for the Big Guy.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
11 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Dang sounds more like enforcers instead of auditors. :huh:

I suppose when they all get trained we can expect a change in the tax code. :hmm:

That's because the job description is for the criminal investigation and law enforcement unit. The cops of the IRS. Auditors is a different job in the IRS.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, rashore said:

That's because the job description is for the criminal investigation and law enforcement unit. The cops of the IRS. Auditors is a different job in the IRS.

Yes I know that but I was also under the impression that the bulk were to be auditors and not enforcers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Yes I know that but I was also under the impression that the bulk were to be auditors and not enforcers.

Why would your impression be wrong?

I could post a listing for a SWAT Officer but that doesn't mean all police officers being hired are SWAT officers...  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Within the postal service there is also an interesting job of law enforcement officers who investigate mail fraud. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Why would your impression be wrong?

I could post a listing for a SWAT Officer but that doesn't mean all police officers being hired are SWAT officers...  

Why can't SWAT do the enforcement for the IRS? Surely they are trained to work with other government agencies? Surely they deal with the guns while the IRS should stick to taxes?

Otherwise, why doesn't SWAT have its own tax fraud department?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Within the postal service there is also an interesting job of law enforcement officers who investigate mail fraud. 

Once again, I'd rather the postal service called the people trained to deal with violent situations. Its not exactly "efficient" for each government department to have their own enforcement. Not to mention the other dangers of having a postman trying to be a cop

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rashore said:

That's because the job description is for the criminal investigation and law enforcement unit. The cops of the IRS. Auditors is a different job in the IRS.

In my own opinion (and I may just be crazy and ignorant), when the IRS needs people to act as enforcement and/or use deadly force they should call in the local constabulary and a court order.   

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Why would your impression be wrong?

I could post a listing for a SWAT Officer but that doesn't mean all police officers being hired are SWAT officers...  

45 of the 80 billion is for enforcement.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

45 of the 80 billion is for enforcement.

Yup.  Are second guessing yourself?

I am pretty sure you were right when you though that most of them would be auditors and accountants.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, OverSword said:

In my own opinion (and I may just be crazy and ignorant), when the IRS needs people to act as enforcement and/or use deadly force they should call in the local constabulary and a court order.   

It actually is probably more efficient and less bureaucracy with the IRS having their own law enforcement agents. 

Like with the post department. 

Mail and tax stuff are nationwide and would transcend local jurisdiction. 

The alternative would be nonething more than making an additional department within the FBI. For the federal scope.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

It actually is probably more efficient and less bureaucracy with the IRS having their own law enforcement agents. 

Like with the post department. 

Mail and tax stuff are nationwide and would transcend local jurisdiction. 

The alternative would be nonething more than making an additional department within the FBI. For the federal scope.

Then do that. The IRS and the FDA  and the post office and many other government agencies shouldn’t have an armed branch, imo

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Then do that. The IRS and the FDA  and the post office and many other government agencies shouldn’t have an armed branch, imo

I guess I don't see why people care about this when it dosen't seem much different than the wildlife wardens/park rangers. Its been that way for years. They are also law enforcement with a very specific scope 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

I guess I don't see why people care about this when it dosen't seem much different than the wildlife wardens/park rangers. Its been that way for years. They are also law enforcement with a very specific scope 

I guess I don't like the idea of taxes being collected at gunpoint.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Also, the FBI and other law enforcement organizations already have training and methods to ensure accountability in place.  The border patrol and the forestry department where they may need access to force in the daily performance of their jobs without notice should obviously also have access to weapons.  But the IRS, the FDA the USPS, and all others like them know in advance that a particular situation they are about to be involved in may require offensive or defensive force.  I don't see the sense of they having an armed branch rather than employing existing, established and accountable law enforcement organizations trained for that work.  This is like being in a police state. 

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, OverSword said:

In my own opinion (and I may just be crazy and ignorant), when the IRS needs people to act as enforcement and/or use deadly force they should call in the local constabulary and a court order.   

Jurisdiction.  Tax fraud or mail fraud are not local crimes.  It is the same with fish and game wardens, they enforce federal and state laws not local ones. 

We have had discussions on this board a number of times about law and order.  Do you think a drug dealer might also be evading taxes?  The IRS from time to time has to deal with some dangerous people, should they not be able to protect themselves in unexpected situations? Likely if it is expected, they do call in FBI or other federal agents.

Personally, if I had a visit from the tax people, I would rather not have them accompanied by a SWAT team. 

Enforcement also means auditors and lawyers.  My taxes can be audited in a couple of hours by a person at a desk.   If the IRS wanted to audit Jeff Bezos, it might take 30 lawyers and accountants, several months worth of  effort and court appearances.   There has to be a budget for that.

I am  amazed that in a country that  believes every citizen has the right to own multiple handguns and military style rifles for self protection anybody would be surprised that government employees carry weapons. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Also, the FBI and other law enforcement organizations already have training and methods to ensure accountability in place.  The border patrol and the forestry department where they may need access to force in the daily performance of their jobs without notice should obviously also have access to weapons.  But the IRS, the FDA the USPS, and all others like them know in advance that a particular situation they are about to be involved in may require offensive or defensive force.  I don't see the sense of they having an armed branch rather than employing existing, established and accountable law enforcement organizations trained for that work.  This is like being in a police state. 

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said.  "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Jurisdiction.  Tax fraud or mail fraud are not local crimes.  It is the same with fish and game wardens, they enforce federal and state laws not local ones. 

Thus I said FBI.  To enforce federal law.

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

We have had discussions on this board a number of times about law and order.  Do you think a drug dealer might also be evading taxes?  The IRS from time to time has to deal with some dangerous people, should they not be able to protect themselves in unexpected situations? Likely if it is expected, they do call in FBI or other federal agents.

I think they know when they are going into a situation like that, thus the SWAT teams they are hiring.

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Personally, if I had a visit from the tax people, I would rather not have them accompanied by a SWAT team. 

 

And yet you don't have a problem with them having a swat team of their own :blink:

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Enforcement also means auditors and lawyers.  My taxes can be audited in a couple of hours by a person at a desk.   If the IRS wanted to audit Jeff Bezos, it might take 30 lawyers and accountants, several months worth of  effort and court appearances.   There has to be a budget for that.

I am  amazed that in a country that  believes every citizen has the right to own multiple handguns and military style rifles for self protection anybody would be surprised that government employees carry weapons. 

I can't bring a weapon to work and if they are not police officers neither should they.  The IRS should not have their own police officers, if they need someone arrested they should call in a police agency.  

Your post seems a bit contradictory in areas and also possibly arguing for an encroaching police state.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, OverSword said:

I don't see the sense of they having an armed branch rather than employing existing, established and accountable law enforcement organizations trained for that work.  This is like being in a police state. 

IRS cops I believe are existing, established, and accountable already, why don't you think they would be 'trained for that work'?  I can think of numerous reasons why their training would be superior to local law enforcement actually.  If TV is accurate at all then local law enforcement is already dividing their officers by specialty, there is 'Homicide', 'Vice', etc (and of course the king of them all according to the tube, 'CSI'...).  Tax enforcement, especially at the federal level, could involve complications and knowledge that we wouldn't and shouldn't expect the average Barney Fife to know about.  And vice versa, I don't think IRS cops should be pulling people over for traffic violations or investigating murders.

From the link:  "As a Special Agent you will combine your accounting skills with law enforcement skills to investigate financial crimes."  That rules out the vast majority of local police.

Edited by Liquid Gardens
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

IRS cops I believe are existing, established, and accountable already, why don't you think they would be 'trained for that work'?  I can think of numerous reasons why their training would be superior to local law enforcement actually.  If TV is accurate at all then local law enforcement is already dividing their officers by specialty, there is 'Homicide', 'Vice', etc (and of course the king of them all according to the tube, 'CSI'...).  Tax enforcement, especially at the federal level, could involve complications and knowledge that we wouldn't and shouldn't expect the average Barney Fife to know about.  And vice versa, I don't think IRS cops should be pulling people over for traffic violations or investigating murders.

From the link:  "As a Special Agent you will combine your accounting skills with law enforcement skills to investigate financial crimes."  That rules out the vast majority of local police.

Just have to disagree that anyone in the IRS should be armed to do their job.  If they have to go up against a criminal then get a court order and call the FBI.  It's just my opinion but to me this is police state stuff and I don't want to live in a police state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Yes, I am aware.  This was all part of the militarization of every branch of government that took place under Obama.  Still don't like it and it needs to be walked back.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.