$1,400 tax rebate: The program is real but the texts are a scam, BBB warns
The Brief
The IRS is automatically sending $1,400 rebate checks to eligible taxpayers who didn't claim the Recovery Rebate Credit on their 2021 tax returns.
Scammers are targeting taxpayers with fake text messages claiming they must provide personal details to receive their payment.
The IRS has confirmed that it does not request sensitive information via text, email, or social media.
LOS ANGELES - Eligible taxpayers could soon receive a $1,400 rebate from the IRS by the end of the month—but fraudsters are using the opportunity to run a phishing scam.
The Better Business Bureau (BBB) is warning that scammers are impersonating the IRS, sending fake text messages that claim recipients need to verify personal information before they can get their payment.
These messages often contain links to fraudulent websites designed to steal Social Security numbers, bank details, or other sensitive information.
Meanwhile, the real IRS rebate does not require any action. The agency announced in December that it is automatically distributing payments to people who didn't claim the Recovery Rebate Credit on their 2021 tax returns.
The backstory
Scammers are sending text messages that appear to come from the IRS, telling recipients they are eligible for a $1,400 Economic Impact Payment.
The messages often contain a link directing users to a fake IRS website, where they are asked to enter personal and financial information.
The IRS does not send text messages about tax refunds or payments and never requests personal details via text, email, or social media. Clicking on fraudulent links could lead to identity theft or malware being installed on devices.
Why you should care
The IRS is sending $1,400 payments to taxpayers who were eligible for the Recovery Rebate Credit but didn't claim it when filing their 2021 tax return.
Eligible individuals do not need to take any action—the IRS is issuing payments automatically through direct deposit or paper checks and will notify recipients by mail.
If someone did not file a 2021 tax return, they may still qualify by submitting their return and claiming the Recovery Rebate Credit before April 15, 2025.
What you can do
Authorities recommend the following steps to avoid falling victim to scam messages:
Ignore unsolicited texts – The IRS will never text you about a rebate or refund.
Do not click on links – Fake links can install malware or steal personal information.
Verify official communications – Legitimate IRS notices come through postal mail.
Report scams – Forward suspicious texts to phishing@irs.gov and report fraud to the BBB Scam Tracker at BBB.org/ScamTracker.
The Source
This report is based on information from the Better Business Bureau (BBB), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and previous FOX reporting.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump hails $1K-per-child ‘Trump Accounts' during White House roundtable
(NEXSTAR) – On Monday, President Trump promoted the so-called 'Trump Accounts' during a roundtable meeting with lawmakers and business leaders, including the CEOs of Dell, Uber and Goldman Sachs, among others. Related video above: Trump and Musk feud continues over 'big, beautiful bill' 'This is a pro-family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up the next generation,' Trump said at the meeting. 'They'll really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers and the economy.' The proposal, part of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' would create tax-deferred investment accounts for infants that start with $1,000 per child. Once the child reaches age 18, they would be able to take out money to put toward a down payment for a home, education or to start a small business. If the money is used for other purposes, it'll be taxed at a higher rate. Dell CEO Michael Dell called the proposed accounts a 'simple yet powerful way to transform lives' Monday. Dell and the other assembled CEOs were expected to earmark billions of dollars to be invested in the Trump Accounts for their employees' children. 'Decades of research has shown that giving children a financial head start profoundly impacts their long-term success,' Dell said, according to the White House. 'With these accounts, children will be much more likely to graduate from college, to start a business, to buy a home, and achieve lifelong financial stability.' In order to qualify for one of the accounts, the child must have at least one parent with a Social Security number with work authorizations, meaning that some babies born in the U.S. to immigrant parents might not qualify. The money will be invested in an index fund where it will grow until the child reaches 18 and can withdraw funds to buy a home, pay for education or start a small business. Money spent on other things would be taxed at a higher rate. Families, guardians and private entities will be able to deposit up to $5,000 more per year. While the investment would be symbolically meaningful, it's a relatively small financial commitment to addressing child poverty in the wider $7 trillion federal budget. Assuming a 7% return, the $1,000 would grow to roughly $3,570 over 18 years. It builds on the concept of 'baby bonds,' which two states — California and Connecticut — and the District of Columbia have introduced as a way to reduce gaps between wealthy people and poor people. Economist Darrick Hamilton of The New School, who first pitched the idea of baby bonds a quarter-century ago, said the GOP proposal would exacerbate rather than reduce wealth gaps. When he dreamed up baby bonds, he envisioned a program that would be universal but would give children from poor families a larger endowment than their wealthier peers, in an attempt to level the playing field. The money would be handled by the government, not by private firms on Wall Street. 'It is upside down,' Hamilton said. 'It's going to enhance inequality.' Hamilton added that $1,000 — even with interest — would not be enough to make a significant difference for a child living in poverty. A Silicon Valley investor who created the blueprint for the proposal, Brad Gerstner, said in an interview with CNBC last year that the accounts could help address the wealth gap and the loss of faith in capitalism that represent an existential crisis for the U.S. 'The rise and fall of nations occurs when you have a wealth gap that grows, when you have people who lose faith in the system,' Gerstner said. 'We're not agentless. We can do something.' The Associated Press contributed to this report.
2 hours ago
Can $1,000 at birth change a child's future? A Republican proposal aims to find out
WASHINGTON -- When children of wealthy families reach adulthood, they often benefit from the largesse of parents in the form of a trust fund. It's another way they get a leg up on less affluent peers, who may receive nothing at all — or even be expected to support their families. But what if all children — regardless of their family's circumstances — could get a financial boost when they turn 18? That's the idea behind a House GOP proposal backed by President Donald Trump. It would create tax-deferred investment accounts — coined 'Trump Accounts' — for babies born in the U.S. over the next four years, starting them each with $1,000. At age 18, they could withdraw the money to put toward a down payment for a home, education or to start a small business. If the money is used for other purposes, it'll be taxed at a higher rate. 'This is a pro-family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up the next generation,' Trump said at a White House event Monday for the proposal. 'They'll really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers and the economy.' While the investment would be symbolically meaningful, it's a relatively small financial commitment to addressing child poverty in the wider $7 trillion federal budget. Assuming a 7% return, the $1,000 would grow to roughly $3,570 over 18 years. It builds on the concept of ' baby bonds,' which two states — California and Connecticut — and the District of Columbia have introduced as a way to reduce gaps between wealthy people and poor people. At at time when wealth inequality has soured some young people on capitalism, giving them a stake in Wall Street could be the antidote, said Utah Republican Rep. Blake Moore, who led the effort to get the initiative into a massive House spending bill. 'We know that America's economic engine is working, but not everyone feels connected to its value and the ways it can benefit them,' Moore wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Examiner. 'If we can demonstrate to our next generation the benefits of investing and financial health, we can put them on a path toward prosperity.' The bill would require at least one parent to produce a Social Security number with work authorizations, meaning the U.S. citizen children born to some categories of immigrants would be excluded from the benefit. But unlike other baby bond programs, which generally target disadvantaged groups, this one would be available to families of all incomes. Economist Darrick Hamilton of The New School, who first pitched the idea of baby bonds a quarter-century ago, said the GOP proposal would exacerbate rather than reduce wealth gaps. When he dreamed up baby bonds, he envisioned a program that would be universal but would give children from poor families a larger endowment than their wealthier peers, in an attempt to level the playing field. The money would be handled by the government, not by private firms on Wall Street. 'It is upside down,' Hamilton said. 'It's going to enhance inequality.' Hamilton added that $1,000 — even with interest — would not be enough to make a significant difference for a child living in poverty. A Silicon Valley investor who created the blueprint for the proposal, Brad Gerstner, said in an interview with CNBC last year that the accounts could help address the wealth gap and the loss of faith in capitalism that represent an existential crisis for the U.S. 'The rise and fall of nations occurs when you have a wealth gap that grows, when you have people who lose faith in the system,' Gerstner said. 'We're not agentless. We can do something.' The proposal comes as Congressional Republicans and Trump face backlash for proposed cuts to programs that poor families with children rely on, including food assistance and Medicaid. Even some who back the idea of baby bonds are skeptical, noting Trump wants to cut higher education grants and programs that aid young people on the cusp of adulthood — the same age group Trump Accounts are supposed to help. Pending federal legislation would slash Medicaid and food and housing assistance that many families with children rely on. Young adults who grew up in poverty often struggle with covering basics like rent and transportation — expenses that Trump Accounts could not be tapped to cover, said Eve Valdez, an advocate for youth in foster care in southern California. Valdez, a former foster youth, said she was homeless when she turned 18. Accounts for newborn children that cannot be accessed for 18 years mean little to families struggling to meet basic needs today, said Shimica Gaskins of End Child Poverty California. 'Having children have health care, having their families have access to SNAP and food are what we really need ... the country focused on,' Gaskins said. ___ standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
A Brown Student Went Full DOGE Over How His $93,000 Tuition Is Spent. The Fallout Was Predictable—and Wrong.
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. Brown University sophomore Alex Shieh had a good idea. Inspired by Elon Musk's efforts to reduce supposed staffing inefficiencies in the federal government, Shieh wondered if there were a way to quantify and combat an analogous trend at his university. So with the help of A.I. and a number of publicly available databases, he compiled a list of the university's nearly 4,000 non-faculty employees, grouped them by category, and mocked up working job descriptions for each. Then he wrote emails to all of them, asking them to describe their value to the university. Shieh hoped the project would be the basis for a reporting project that would anchor the first few issues of the Brown Spectator, a defunct conservative student newspaper he and two classmates hoped to relaunch. Shieh's project had the erstwhile DOGE chief's fingerprints all over it, but there's one big difference between the two men: Musk will be able to start drawing on Social Security (if, of course, it's still solvent) in under a decade, while Shieh can't yet legally drink. Shieh's idea, even if it did have roots in our raging national culture wars, was quite ambitious, strong work for a young man with less than half of a degree under his belt. The authorities at Brown, however, didn't see it that way. Upon getting wind of the provocative email blast, they launched a conduct-code investigation and accused Shieh and his partners of trademark violations. And although all charges were eventually dropped, the university's intent was clear: They came to bury Shieh, not to praise him. They couldn't have been more wrong to do so. And it's not just Republicans who think so. I've been teaching sophomores for over a decade and a half, and while Shieh's project is certainly undergraduate work, it's of a particularly high caliber. It is timely, relevant, and enterprising, and it asks a pressing research question. Brown shouldn't have met him with disciplinary threats. Instead, the university should have offered him the best resources an elite institution can provide: academic mentorship and access to top-flight faculty research. If I'd had the opportunity to work with Mr. Shieh, I would have begun by praising him for identifying and focusing on a pressing problem for American higher education in a time of rising tuition costs: administrative bloat. According to a report by the Progressive Policy Institute's Paul Weinstein Jr., non-faculty hiring has exploded over the past 50 years, and today, at the nation's top 50 universities, there is on average 1 non-faculty employee for every 4 students. This trend is particularly acute at Brown, where the ratio nears 1 to 3. But then I would challenge this student to reconsider his methodology—and to research whether Musk's approach is advisable. I would remind him that Musk's efforts to trim the fat at Twitter probably contributed to a giant drop in that company's valuation. And I would add that some experts believe that DOGE's cuts to the federal workforce may actually end up costing taxpayers money. (I would also admit that either initiative might bear fruit in the longer term.) I would then leverage the interdisciplinary connections available at a large research institution, sending Shieh to colleagues in the business school to learn about other approaches to considering and enacting substantial layoffs. If Shieh and his partners persisted, I would have sent them to professors in sociology and communications to figure out best practices for designing a survey that didn't inspire one recipient to respond, 'Fuck off.' (His email, which only garnered 20 responses, allegedly included the too-pert question 'What do you do all day?') If he wanted, in good faith, to get results, he should have recognized that he was operating inside a highly polarized, charged environment, sending a survey to adults who pay their bills with these jobs, and modulated his approach accordingly—something the university's many experts in rhetoric could have helped him see. As a onetime writing instructor, I would also advise him that it is misleading to refer to that profane recipient as an 'administrator [at] Brown' in Congressional testimony, when he is really a relatively low-level functionary in the events planning office. And by the way, I would have done all these things not because I agree with Shieh. Indeed, I don't think I do. Rather, I would have supported him because he had a serious academic question and the drive to think it through as part of an ambitious, time-intensive project. The fact that Brown University responded so aggressively only lends ammunition to those on the right who believe—often correctly—that American academia is hostile to conservative viewpoints. (This despite the fact that, as Shieh himself said, 'It's not inherently conservative to want to make education more affordable.') Now, perhaps Brown would have done some of these things had they been given ample notice of Shieh's plans, or if Shieh had registered the Spectator with the university in advance. As it was, it seems they were blindsided, and ended up reacting, rather than acting. So now, instead of boasting about high-profile conservative-leaning student research, they're trying to put out a political firestorm and opening themselves to attack at a moment when Elon Musk's old boss is gunning for the Ivy Leagues.
