Kokua Line: Is everybody getting tax ID letter?
Question : Since you have been writing about ID-proofing at Social Security, I wanted to share that I got a letter from the Hawaii tax department requiring me to verify my identity before I could receive my income tax refund. Is everyone getting these letters ? I assumed it was because my identity was misused many years ago but I've never had trouble filing my taxes.
Answer : No, not all Hawaii tax filers are receiving identity verification notices in the mail, but some are, as Hawaii's Department of Taxation increases its efforts to prevent the disbursement of fraudulent tax refunds.
'Only a small percentage of taxpayers will receive an identity verification notice. DOTAX utilizes numerous data sources, including information from past and current returns to verify taxpayer identities without requiring additional taxpayer information, ' said Gary Yamashiroya, a spokesperson for the department.
These notices arrive through the regular mail and some recipients have contacted DOTAX to ask if they are legitimate. They are, and DOTAX has a website explaining them, at.
The letter tells the recipient how to verify their identity via or by mail. The information requested may vary by filer, but in general 'you will need the one-time password provided in the Identity Verification Notice, your Hawai 'i individual income tax returns for the current and three prior years, or copies of documents in JPEG or PNG format, ' the website says.
As for why any given tax return is selected for this added level of verification, the website says 'all Hawai 'i individual income tax returns submitted undergo an identity verification review to protect taxpayer identity. Occasionally, additional information is required from the taxpayer to complete the review. The additional review does not indicate there are any issues with the taxpayer's return.'
Don 't miss out on what 's happening !
Stay in touch with breaking news, as it happens, conveniently in your email inbox. It 's FREE !
Email 28141 Sign Up By clicking to sign up, you agree to Star-Advertiser 's and Google 's and. This form is protected by reCAPTCHA.
Yamashiroya didn't go much beyond that when we asked him what triggers an identity verification notice, replying in an email that 'the information submitted in individual income tax returns is reviewed to verify taxpayer identity and prevent fraudsters from receiving another taxpayer's refund. The criteria for this review are continuously monitored and updated to address emerging identity fraud trends.'
DOTAX urges Hawaii filers who receive this notice to verify their identity right away, as 'individual income tax returns and any associated refunds will not be processed until the identity verification review is completed.'
Anyone with questions should review the FAQs and video at the aforementioned informational website, and can follow up with DOTAX via an email to if they received a notice and are unable to complete the verification.
Meanwhile, regarding identity-proofing required by the U.S. Social Security Administration, the federal agency on Wednesday dropped some limitations on phone service it had said would take effect March 31, and postponed other changes until April 14. People applying for Social Security Disability Insurance, Medicare or Supplemental Security Income who cannot use a 'my Social Security ' account online will be able to complete their claims entirely over the telephone as usual, without having to come into a Social Security office. The agency said it was moving ahead with changes in phone service for certain other claimants and services, but that the new rules wouldn't take effect until April 14, to allow more time for staff training. For full details on Wednesday's update, go to.------------Write to Kokua Line at Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 2-200, Honolulu, HI 96813 ; call 808-529-4773 ; or email.------------
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Scott Galloway sends strong message to Elon Musk about Bill Gates
Podcaster and New York University professor Scott Galloway is well-known for his provocative opinions and smart takes on business, finance and government. That fact includes Galloway's unconventional view on how Social Security ought to be run. It also involves some sharply critical words he recently spoke about Tesla CEO Elon Musk. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Galloway, who earns $16 million annually, contends that wealthy individuals, including himself, should not receive Social Security benefits. He advocates for means-testing to determine eligibility, ensuring that the program primarily supports those who depend on it for financial security in retirement. He highlights an imbalance in the system, pointing out that an employee at the company he owns, ProfG Media, earning $160,000 annually contributes $9,000 to Social Security, which amounts to 6% of their income. However, because Social Security taxes are capped at $160,000, someone earning millions - such as himself - still pays only $9,000, despite making exponentially more. Related: Scott Galloway warns Americans on 401(k), US economy threat Galloway sees Social Security as a safety net meant to prevent seniors from falling into poverty, rather than a mechanism for transferring wealth from younger generations to retirees who, collectively, are the most financially well-off generation in history. He argues that substantial reforms are necessary to reduce costs significantly. He believes that political leaders have avoided addressing the issue due to the risks involved, noting that older voters have managed to secure increasing financial benefits for themselves. Galloway asserts that this trend must end and that, by his math, approximately one-third of seniors should not be receiving Social Security. Appearing on a YouTube broadcast of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Galloway explained his view that a number of Musk's actions, such as spearheading the shutting down of USAID, were not to be respected. "Somehow we've decided in America that innovation and money replaces - or obviates, or excuses - depravity." Galloway said. "Or cutting off aid to HIV positive mothers, deciding what veterans should get benefits, cutting off SNAP payments, which have shown to have a positive net return when people run out of money for food at the end of the month." "I mean, I think one of the wonderful things about being an American and quite frankly, for me what it means to be a man and what I try to teach my boys, is the whole point of prosperity is such that you can protect people," he added. More on retirement: Dave Ramsey sounds alarm for Americans on Social SecurityScott Galloway warns Americans on 401(k), US economy threatShark Tank's Kevin O'Leary has message on Social Security, 401(k)s Galloway criticized Musk's behavior, arguing that wealth and success should not excuse problematic actions. According to Galloway, when someone publicly makes offensive gestures such as apparent Nazi salutes, is largely absent from their children's lives, or reportedly struggles with substance abuse, it raises serious concerns. He questions whether such a person should be considered an aspirational figure for young men. Galloway urges people to reflect on how money and status can distort public perception, noting that Musk's achievements - whether in aerospace or autonomous vehicles - are remarkable. However, he challenges the idea that these accomplishments justify moral failings, asking whether society should overlook unethical behavior simply because someone is a visionary or the richest person in the world. Related: Dave Ramsey warns Americans on Social Security Galloway discusses Musk's behavior and mentions billionaire Bill Gates as an example of an immensely wealthy person who is putting his money toward philanthropy and making the world a better place. "Does that mean unlike Bill Gates, he's not using his billions to help people?" Galloway asked. "He's not planting trees the shade of which he won't sit under. I think this is an individual who has literally come off the tracks ... and is using his immense power to get people elected." "Too many of us excuse what is abhorrent behavior," Galloway added. "I think his legacy is not going to be an EV or putting rockets into space. I think it's going to be unnecessary death, disease, and disability of the world's most vulnerable. That is not what it means to be an innovator. It's not what it means to be an American. It's not what it means to be a man." Related: Shark Tank's Kevin O'Leary sends strong message on Social Security The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Supreme Court allows DOGE to access Social Security data
The Supreme Court on Friday allowed members of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency to access Social Security Administration data. The conservative-majority court, with its three liberal justices objecting, granted an emergency application filed by the Trump administration asking the justices to lift an injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland. The unsigned order said that members of the DOGE team assigned to the Social Security Administration should have "access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work." The lawsuit challenging DOGE's actions was filed by progressive group Democracy Forward on behalf of two unions — the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers — as well as the Alliance for Retired Americans. "This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people," the groups said in a statement. "This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data." The White House praised the ruling. "The Supreme Court allowing the Trump Administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law," White House spokesperson Liz Huston said in a statement. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissenting opinion questioning the need for the court to intervene on an emergency basis. "In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes," she added. DOGE, set up by billionaire Elon Musk before his falling out with President Donald Trump, says it wants to modernize systems and detect waste and fraud at the agency. The data it seeks includes Social Security numbers, medical records, and tax and banking information. "These teams have a business need to access the data at their assigned agency and subject the government's records to much-needed scrutiny," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in court papers. The lawsuit alleged that allowing broader access to the personal information would violate a federal law called the Privacy Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. "The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure — and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it," the challengers' lawyers wrote in court papers. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander had ruled that DOGE had no need to access the specific data at issue. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, declined to block Hollander's decision, leading to the Trump administration to file its emergency request at the Supreme Court. In a separate order issued at the same time in another case involving DOGE, the Supreme Court granted another request filed by the Trump administration. That decision allows the Trump administration to, for now, shield DOGE from freedom of information requests seeking thousands of pages of material. The move formalizes a decision issued by Chief Justice John Roberts on May 23 that temporarily put lower court decisions on hold while the Supreme Court considered what next steps to take. The court also told lower courts to limit the scope of what material could be disclosed. It means the government will not have to respond to requests for documents and allow for the deposition of the DOGE administrator, Amy Gleason, as a lower court had ruled, while litigation continues. The three liberal justices noted their disagreement with that decision, too. A spokesman for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which filed the lawsuit, said the group was "obviously disappointed" with the decision but "pleased that the court allowed discovery to proceed." A Justice Department spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the order.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court hands DOGE big wins in Social Security, records cases
The Supreme Court on Friday handed the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) two major victories in its expanding legal battle over drastic efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy. In two separate emergency rulings issued simultaneously, the court lifted a block on DOGE personnel accessing sensitive Social Security Administration (SSA) systems and wiped a ruling forcing DOGE to turn over discovery in a records lawsuit. Both rulings appeared to be along the Supreme Court's ideological lines, with the court's three Democratic-appointed justices publicly dissenting. The decisions come as President Trump's relationship with billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk, the face of DOGE for months, publicly imploded Thursday. His administration continues to defend DOGE's work in the courts. In the Social Security case, the justices lifted a Maryland-based federal judge's order blocking DOGE from snooping around the SSA's systems that contain personally identifiable information, including Social Security numbers, medical and mental health records, bank data, and earnings history. The majority did not explain the reasoning, only saying that the 'SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency record' under the present circumstances. In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said the Trump administration hadn't met the court's high bar for emergency relief, accusing her colleagues of 'jettisoning careful judicial decisionmaking.' 'The Court is thereby, unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration,' Jackson wrote. 'I would proceed without fear or favor to require DOGE and the Government to do what all other litigants must do to secure a stay from this Court,' she continued. Justice Elena Kagan also dissented, but she did not join the duo's opinion. The challenge to DOGE's ability to poke around in the SSA's systems came from a coalition of government unions, backed by the left-leaning legal group Democracy Forward, that claimed DOGE's unfettered access to the sensitive data ran afoul of privacy laws and the SSA's own rules and regulations. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander's order allowed the SSA to provide DOGE with access to redacted or anonymized data and records, but it required DOGE agents to receive the necessary training for those systems. She wrote that DOGE's efforts to slim down the federal bureaucracy weren't the problem at hand, but rather 'how they want to do the work.' Hollander is an appointee of former President Obama. Solicitor General D. John Sauer had argued that her preliminary injunction undermined DOGE's mission to streamline and modernize the government while rooting out waste and fraud. He criticized the nationwide relief as a 'now-familiar theme,' alluding to several Justice Department emergency appeals challenging universal injunctions — a practice the justices heard arguments about last month in the administration's appeal of an order blocking Trump's bid to narrow birthright citizenship. 'The government cannot eliminate waste and fraud if district courts bar the very agency personnel with expertise and the designated mission of curtailing such waste and fraud from performing their jobs,' Sauer wrote in the government's emergency application. The Supreme Court's second emergency decision stems from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against DOGE. The government had asked the justices to overturn a judge's order allowing limited discovery into whether DOGE is an 'agency,' which would dictate whether it's subject to FOIA requests. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an appointee of Obama, directed the release of all 'recommendations' DOGE made to various federal agencies, in addition to other internal documents. He also ordered a deposition of acting DOGE Administrator Amy Gleason. By agreeing to wipe that order, the Supreme Court's decision marks a major victory for the Trump administration's efforts to keep DOGE's inner workings behind the veil. The majority said Cooper's order was 'not appropriately tailored' to whether DOGE was an agency. 'Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications,' the court wrote in its unsigned ruling. The three Democratic-appointed justices again publicly dissented, but they didn't offer an explanation. Sauer argued that DOGE is a 'presidential advisory body' housed within the Executive Office of the President — not an agency. He said that Cooper's order would 'significantly distract' from DOGE's mission to identify and eliminate 'fraud, waste and abuse' within the federal government, calling the discovery ordered 'extraordinarily overbroad and intrusive.' 'That order turns FOIA on its head,' Sauer claimed, 'effectively giving respondent a win on the merits of its FOIA suit under the guise of figuring out whether FOIA even applies.' The legal challenge was mounted by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which argued that the public has a right to know about DOGE's 'secretive operations.' It is one of many designed to test whether DOGE must respond to FOIA requests. Several legal battles linked to DOGE have reached the Supreme Court, but these two cases are the first where DOGE is a respondent. Updated at 5:19 p.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
