Retired? Here’s when the IRS might take a closer look at your finances 68%

By Eric Revell74%

4/2/2026, 8:16:09 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 41.2% saturation with 213 hits. Analysis detected 1,339 faulty-reasoning hits from 517 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 61.6% and a BS Rank of 68% (6,809 of 21,171 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.80% of the article peer group.

American retirees may be done with their working careers, but they may still face the scrutiny of an IRS audit if their tax return raises red flags. 
Data from the IRS shows the tax collection and enforcement agency has conducted audits on fewer than 1% of individual tax returns in recent years. 
In the tax years from 2014 through 2022, the IRS reported that it examined 0.4% of all individual tax returns filed  though that figure rises to 7.9% of taxpayers who filed returns with income of $10 million or more. 
Retirees generally have simpler tax returns that may not involve the kinds of tax credits that may warrant additional scrutiny, and while it's unclear from the agency's data how often the IRS audits retired Americans, there are some things that can attract the attention of auditors. 
High-income taxpayers are more likely to face IRS audits, so while retirees may not be earning income from work, they may face an audit if they have relatively high income from investments and capital gains or from retirement plan distributions. 
The IRS in recent years has signaled that it won't raise audit rates on taxpayers earning under $400,000 while it aims to focus enforcement on higher-income taxpayers. 
Retirees who neglect to report all of their taxable income may also face IRS scrutiny. 
It's important for taxpayers to submit copies of all tax documents they receive, including 1099s that may cover retirement income, interest income and Social Security benefits as well as a W-2 for any work they did as an employee. 
A report by Kiplinger notes that retirees who gamble must also report their winnings and losses, though the process is different for recreational and professional gamblers. 
Failing to disclose those, or only attempting to write off losses while not reporting winnings, can prompt additional scrutiny. 
Taxpayers who are receiving income from retirement plans like traditional IRAs and 401(k) plans should be aware of the need to receive and report any required minimum distributions (RMDs) for those plans. 
Currently, retirees face RMDs when they turn 73 and failing to take those withdrawals can trigger a penalty in the form of a 25% excise tax on the amount that wasn't distributed as required. 
Retirees who are still working part-time or own a business need to ensure they're accurately reporting that income or any deductions they're claiming, as those could prompt the scrutiny of the IRS. 
Those who claim business loss deductions for a small business or side gig could have the IRS deem the activity a "hobby" and disallow those deductions. 
Reporting large charitable contributions can also trigger a review by the IRS, particularly if the taxpayer's reported donations represent a large portion of their income or include relatively valuable non-cash gifts to a charitable organization. 
The IRS has also placed an emphasis on international tax compliance, so taxpayers who have foreign bank accounts or income from overseas should ensure they report those on their tax return to avoid a higher risk of an audit or penalties. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.8%Eric Revell: 2.6%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Confirmation Bias12.8%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 4.7%FoxBusiness: 3.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 3.6%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 16.6%Eric Revell: 1.3%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic16.6%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 3.0%FoxBusiness: 3.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.2%Eric Revell: 11.0%FoxBusiness: 13.0%Framing Effect0.2%This article: 22.1%Eric Revell: 1.4%FoxBusiness: 1.5%Loss Aversion22.1%This article: 6.2%Eric Revell: 1.4%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Status Quo Bias6.2%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 9.5%FoxBusiness: 8.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Eric Revell: 1.7%FoxBusiness: 2.0%Pessimism Bias2.3%This article: 24.8%Eric Revell: 6.9%FoxBusiness: 7.8%Negativity Bias24.8%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 2.5%FoxBusiness: 4.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.5%FoxBusiness: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.6%FoxBusiness: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 3.1%FoxBusiness: 3.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.2%Eric Revell: 2.8%FoxBusiness: 2.3%Recency Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 8.9%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.0%Eric Revell: 6.7%FoxBusiness: 7.2%Appeal to Authority23.0%This article: 7.7%Eric Revell: 1.2%FoxBusiness: 1.6%False Dilemma7.7%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.7%Eric Revell: 4.2%FoxBusiness: 6.3%Hasty Generalization7.7%This article: 8.9%Eric Revell: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Red Herring8.9%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 3.4%FoxBusiness: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 15.7%Eric Revell: 3.9%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.7%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 1.0%FoxBusiness: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 41.2%Eric Revell: 2.1%FoxBusiness: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)41.2%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 13.7%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Special Pleading13.7%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 1.3%FoxBusiness: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 14.1%Eric Revell: 3.2%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice14.1%This article: 27.9%Eric Revell: 1.9%FoxBusiness: 1.7%Indoctrination27.9%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 2.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 2.8%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

517 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers31%attributed speech358writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageIRS • 25 words • 0.0% coverageIRS • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageIRS • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageKiplinger • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageIRS • 41 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

IRS

100%flagged-word coverage
133 attributed words84% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Indoctrination+2.1 ptsWriter: 28.8%IRS: 30.8%30.8%Biased Writer Voice-20.4 ptsWriter: 20.4%IRS: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.