2007 Tax Refund News
IRS Has $110 Million in Refund Checks Looking for a Home
The Internal Revenue Service is looking for 115,478 taxpayers who are due refund checks worth about $110 million after the checks were returned as undeliverable.
The refund checks, averaging about $953, can be claimed as soon as taxpayers update their addresses with the IRS. Some taxpayers have more than one check waiting.
“Taxpayers should not miss out on getting their money back,” said Richard Morgante, commissioner of the IRS Wage and Investment Division. ”The IRS makes it as easy as possible for taxpayers to update their addresses and claim their refunds.”
The “Where’s My Refund?” tool on IRS.gov enables taxpayers to check the status of their refunds. A taxpayer must submit his or her social security number, filing status and amount of refund shown on their 2006 return. The tool will provide the status of their refund and in some cases provide instructions on how to resolve delivery problems.
Taxpayers can access a telephone version of “Where’s My Refund?” by calling 1-800-829-1954.
Most Refunds
The number of undeliverable refunds each year is a relatively small portion of all refunds returned to taxpayers. So far in 2007, the IRS has processed nearly 105 million refunds, totaling about $240 billion, either by mail or direct deposit.
In fact, undeliverable refunds account for less than one-tenth of one percent of all refunds, or about one in a thousand.
A refund check is normally returned as undeliverable when a taxpayer moves without updating his or her address with either the U.S. Postal Service or the IRS.
Telephone Tax Refund
The list of taxpayers due undeliverable refunds this year rose about 21 percent from 95,746 last year. The sharp increase is due in part to the Telephone Excise Tax Refund. The refund is a one-time payment available on 2006 federal income tax returns. It was designed to return to taxpayers previously collected long-distance telephone taxes. Individuals, businesses and tax-exempt organizations are eligible to request it.
Updating Your Address
Refund checks are mailed to a taxpayer’s last known address. Checks are returned to the IRS if a taxpayer moves without notifying the IRS or the U.S. Postal Service.
Taxpayers can update their addresses with the IRS on the “Where’s My Refund?” feature. Also, taxpayers checking on a refund will be prompted to provide an updated address if there is an undelivered check outstanding within the last 12 months. Taxpayers checking on a refund over the phone will be given instructions on how to update their addresses.
A taxpayer can also ensure the IRS has his or her correct address by filing Form 8822, Change of Address. Download the form from IRS.gov or request it by calling 1-800-TAX-FORM (1-800-829-3676).
Those who do not have access to the Internet and think they may be missing a refund should first check their records or contact their tax preparer, then call the IRS toll-free assistance line at 1-800-829-1040 to update their address.
Direct Deposit Can Stop Lost Refunds
Signing up for Direct Deposit can put an end to undelivered refunds, as well lost or stolen refund checks. Taxpayers can receive refunds directly into personal checking or savings accounts. Direct Deposit is available for filers of both paper and electronic returns. Taxpayers can sign up for direct deposit on their tax form.
Links:
Want to hear more? Listen to an IRS interview on Undelivered Refunds
Where’s My Refund?
IRS Change of Address, Form 8822
PART III – IN THE SERIES: HOW SHOULD WOMEN PROMOTE THEMSELVES IN THEIR BUSINESS COMMUNITIES?
If you grew up in the business community during the 80’s and 90’s, like I did, you might have encountered women who had two fundamental philosophies about how to succeed in business. These philosophies essentially amounted to how women felt they needed to promote themselves and what they believed constituted their individual contributions to their organizations.
Interestingly, one philosophy revolved around professional women aspiring to look and behave like men. In essence this meant, removing, to the extent possible, any outward appearance of femininity even to the extreme of wearing their hair very short and shunning cosmetic products. Not to mention the intentional masking or denial of any semblance of “feminine” personality traits or attitudes. Showing emotion or being to ‘touchy feely’ was definitely considered career suicide.
The message to young business women seemed clear. Being female was fundamentally associated with weakness including an inability to act in an affective and rational manner. Therefore, the goal of women who adopted, or attempted to adopt, a male persona, were often aspiring to be accepted as just another ‘one of the guys’ rather than as a colleague with their own unique skills and abilities.
You might very well ask: If men can achieve success by acting in a certain manner, then why doesn’t acting in the same manner work for women? For me that question definitely falls into the Dah category. The answer is simple – women are not men. As the studies mentioned earlier in this series indicate, women excel in areas that differ from men. Imitating a man and denying who you are, in my estimation, only succeeds in diluting those qualities that bring powerful and unique contributions to our business communities.
In contrast to the first philosophy, the second philosophy involved the blatant exploitation of ones sexuality. If you have ever worked in a corporate environment [and even if you haven’t], you are likely to have encountered someone who you felt was embracing this philosophy. I think Julie Hilden nailed it pretty well in her article about the Blogger the “Washingtonienne” [www.writ.news.findlaw.com Tuesday June, 21 2005].
In Ms. Hilden’s article, she explains that when some women who are not afforded the power that appears to be obtainable by their male colleagues (in this article she is discussing the male dominated world of Washington DC) they often “[grab] for the power that [seems] most readily available to [them]: sexual power.” Ms. Hilden goes on to explain that “as much as this kind of power is touted, it’s not a very powerful kind of power, especially in the long run.”
Regardless of the prominence of these two strategies, neither strategy seemed (then or now) to be an appropriate way to promote ones self. In my experience, the women who indulged in these strategies never seemed to achieve the job satisfaction that they were striving for. In other words, these self promotion techniques often failed to provide the respect the women needed in order to advance in their careers. And in fact, it appeared over time to erode their credibility as legitimate business persons who possessed credible ideas and skills.
My observations appear to be supported by the study addressed in Sherrill Nixon’s article “Don’t want to be harassed? Stop acting like a man” [www.smh.com.au May 14, 2007]
In Ms. Nixon’s article, she focuses on a study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology which indicates that “behaving like ‘one of the boys’ to get ahead at work may not be the best strategy for women.” The author of the study Dr. Berdahl is quoted as saying “The more women deviated from traditional gender roles – by occupying a ‘man’s’ job or having a ‘masculine’ personality – the more they were targeted [for harassment].” Further Dr. Berdahl states, “Although having a masculine personality would seem to help employees fit into male-dominated work environments, having such a personality appears to have hurt the women in this study.”
Conversely, the study also showed that “feminine” women also faced problems in male dominated environments. As stated by Dr. Berdahl, the results of the study “highlight[ed] the double bind faced by women who are dismissed and disrespected if feminine but scorned and disliked if masculine, limiting their ascent up the organizational ladder.”
So what can we learn from these studies? It certainly seems clear to me: Women who exploit their sexuality in what seems to be a misguided attempt to attain some level of power and success, do not achieve the recognition or respect that is necessary to become a flourishing business person. In addition, attempting to be ‘one of the boys’ invites ridicule and harassment and dilutes the skills that women should be capitalizing on.
So then…what are the answers to my original questions from Part I of this Series?
Check back and see.
© 2007 Stacie Clifford. All rights reserved
