https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/eitc-audit
"As we reported last year, the IRS audits EITC recipients at higher rates than all but the richest Americans, a response to pressure from congressional Republicans to root out incorrect payments of the credit. The study estimates that Humphreys [County, Mississippi], with a median annual household income of just $26,000, is audited at a rate 51 percent higher than Loudoun County, Virginia, which boasts a median income of $130,000, the highest in the country."
The article doesn't define rich as "the top 1% of taxpayers"; it simply notes that EITC recipients are audited more frequently than all but that top 1%.
"The five counties with the highest audit rates are all predominantly African American, rural counties in the Deep South. The audit rate is also very high in South Texas’ largely Hispanic counties and in counties with Native American reservations, such as in South Dakota. Primarily poor, white counties, such as those in eastern Kentucky in Appalachia, also have elevated audit rates.
"The states with the lowest audit rates tend to be home to middle income, largely white populations: places like New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Generally, the IRS audits taxpayers with household income between $50,000 and $100,000 the least."
From the article more directly linked with the clickbaity headline, in fact, that headline is also supported if you keep reading the article:
"On the one hand, the IRS said, auditing poor taxpayers is a lot easier: The agency uses relatively low-level employees to audit returns for low-income taxpayers who claim the earned income tax credit. The audits — of which there were about 380,000 last year, accounting for 39% of the total the IRS conducted — are done by mail and don’t take too much staff time, either. They are 'the most efficient use of available IRS examination resources,' [IRS Commissioner Charles] Rettig’s report says.
"On the other hand, auditing the rich is hard. It takes senior auditors hours upon hours to complete an exam. What’s more, the letter says, 'the rate of attrition is significantly higher among these more experienced examiners.' As a result, the budget cuts have hit this part of the IRS particularly hard."
Audits are often driven by the type of deduction. Some are hard to get fraudulently (401k deduction) while others are easier (rental income).
A guy pulling in $500k in salary probably shouldn’t be audited, but someone pulling in $20k in adjusted rental income might need to be.
They point out that while the rates may be similar, the impact is disproportionate. The rich have the means to hire a tax attorney, probably have a CPA who kept detailed records, etc. EITC recipients don't even know where to start in responding, and as the article indicates, many don't as a result.
60% of 1000 is less than 60% of 2 million. The cost/benefit of auditing the poor is likely inverted at a small scale. At a large scale, it's the right call. It makes sense, from a particular point of view.
Here is their title verbatim: > IRS: Sorry, but It’s Just Easier and Cheaper to Audit the Poor
Here is the article's first sentence, verbatim: > The IRS audits the working poor at about the same rate as the wealthiest 1%.
They go on to say this: > ProPublica reported the disproportionate audit focus on lower-income families in April.
Per their own sentence, the poor and rich are audited at the same rate yet they go on to label this "disproportionate". That makes no sense.
Furthermore, they have defined rich and poor in arbitrary ways - the top 1% of taxpayers by income versus EITC recipients. The latter group is 25 million people - 7.6% of the US. So per capita, the "rich" are getting audited more frequently.