Biden Administration proposal of more bank reporting to IRS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good God what a stupid, utterly asinine idea. The reporting will become a nightmare.

Imagine having to report to the IRS every single damn time you collect funds from your roomates to pay bills, collect money for a restaurant bill, collect money from a spouse, SO, bf/gf, or any myriad of minor bullshit from your daily life.

Go the hell away IRS and US govt.

Good god read the actual proposal before you post!! It won’t require you to do anything. Your bank will create an annual cash flow summary.

Bullshit.

Do you know what will happen when your bank has to hire additional staff to deal with this god awful mess? Say hello to more transaction fees. Can't wait until banks start charging us money to friggin deposit money into our accounts. People will be getting hit with 'compliance fees'.

As usual, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And how do you verify crap that you sell? For example, I sell my video games and a dresser on craigslist and get $700. I sure as hell don't have receipts for it cause I'm just a dude selling crap.

I posted the actual proposal. The goal is not the occasional seller on craigslist or getting some $ via paypal for used junk. It's regular money that never enters the system. Pay for a service or work with cash? Write a check to a person instead of their business? Some $ never even enter the banking system except through Western Union. Cash walks into a Western Union store and goes out to whomever and wherever. https://www.westernunion.com/us/en/home.html

Pay the way you like
Pay online using your bank account, credit/debit card4 or cash in-store.[b]

Major sources of revenue in some countries is US generated remittance money and it's funny the World Bank calls taxes on it double taxation since some never had any taxation. So that's why the Democrats will be scrapping the $600.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The IRS can barely keep up now. How is it going to handle an enormous increase in the number of transactions to analyze?

It's not difficult at all to automate. Just total up the deposits and cross reference wth what's declared. They already do that with W's and 1099's. The IRS is capable of doing most of our returns for us right now. What they cant keep up with are the high value returns that claim a lot of expenses, deductions and depreciation that have to be double checked.

It's not hard but it is a massive storage and search problem. That's going to need equipment and people to maintain that equipment.

Data storage is super cheap nowadays. Bank accounts are already tied to our TIN/EIN. The system is already built. This would just be adding one more data point and the burden would fall on us as individuals to justify that income doesn't count, hence the complaints about burden.

What isn't cheap is the data security infrastructure. There have been IRS data breaches in the past and cybersecurity is a huge concern tha is expensive to address well.

Pretty much this. Data is cheap if you use the cloud. Do you want your banking records in the cloud, managed by the IRS? Remember how OPM failed to protect millions of employees records?

The IRS is not asking for a list of transactions. They are asking for annual account summaries. It's just two extra numbers on the 1099 forms they already produce.

The legislation is asking for transactions over $600. Not an account balance. An account balance would be worthless to determine cash flow unless you had multiple years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The IRS can barely keep up now. How is it going to handle an enormous increase in the number of transactions to analyze?

It's not difficult at all to automate. Just total up the deposits and cross reference wth what's declared. They already do that with W's and 1099's. The IRS is capable of doing most of our returns for us right now. What they cant keep up with are the high value returns that claim a lot of expenses, deductions and depreciation that have to be double checked.

It's not hard but it is a massive storage and search problem. That's going to need equipment and people to maintain that equipment.

Data storage is super cheap nowadays. Bank accounts are already tied to our TIN/EIN. The system is already built. This would just be adding one more data point and the burden would fall on us as individuals to justify that income doesn't count, hence the complaints about burden.

What isn't cheap is the data security infrastructure. There have been IRS data breaches in the past and cybersecurity is a huge concern tha is expensive to address well.

Pretty much this. Data is cheap if you use the cloud. Do you want your banking records in the cloud, managed by the IRS? Remember how OPM failed to protect millions of employees records?

The IRS is not asking for a list of transactions. They are asking for annual account summaries. It's just two extra numbers on the 1099 forms they already produce.

The legislation is asking for transactions over $600. Not an account balance. An account balance would be worthless to determine cash flow unless you had multiple years.

Incorrect--first PP is right. They are asking for gross inflows and outflows on any account with an average balance of over $600.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The IRS can barely keep up now. How is it going to handle an enormous increase in the number of transactions to analyze?

It's not difficult at all to automate. Just total up the deposits and cross reference wth what's declared. They already do that with W's and 1099's. The IRS is capable of doing most of our returns for us right now. What they cant keep up with are the high value returns that claim a lot of expenses, deductions and depreciation that have to be double checked.

It's not hard but it is a massive storage and search problem. That's going to need equipment and people to maintain that equipment.

Data storage is super cheap nowadays. Bank accounts are already tied to our TIN/EIN. The system is already built. This would just be adding one more data point and the burden would fall on us as individuals to justify that income doesn't count, hence the complaints about burden.

What isn't cheap is the data security infrastructure. There have been IRS data breaches in the past and cybersecurity is a huge concern tha is expensive to address well.

Pretty much this. Data is cheap if you use the cloud. Do you want your banking records in the cloud, managed by the IRS? Remember how OPM failed to protect millions of employees records?

The IRS is not asking for a list of transactions. They are asking for annual account summaries. It's just two extra numbers on the 1099 forms they already produce.

The legislation is asking for transactions over $600. Not an account balance. An account balance would be worthless to determine cash flow unless you had multiple years.

Incorrect--first PP is right. They are asking for gross inflows and outflows on any account with an average balance of over $600.

And, this will affect nearly every bank account in the US. How is this helpful?

.....More data does not mean better enforcement of laws. At some point, you become "data rich and information poor."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The IRS can barely keep up now. How is it going to handle an enormous increase in the number of transactions to analyze?

It's not difficult at all to automate. Just total up the deposits and cross reference wth what's declared. They already do that with W's and 1099's. The IRS is capable of doing most of our returns for us right now. What they cant keep up with are the high value returns that claim a lot of expenses, deductions and depreciation that have to be double checked.

It's not hard but it is a massive storage and search problem. That's going to need equipment and people to maintain that equipment.

Data storage is super cheap nowadays. Bank accounts are already tied to our TIN/EIN. The system is already built. This would just be adding one more data point and the burden would fall on us as individuals to justify that income doesn't count, hence the complaints about burden.

What isn't cheap is the data security infrastructure. There have been IRS data breaches in the past and cybersecurity is a huge concern tha is expensive to address well.

Pretty much this. Data is cheap if you use the cloud. Do you want your banking records in the cloud, managed by the IRS? Remember how OPM failed to protect millions of employees records?

The IRS is not asking for a list of transactions. They are asking for annual account summaries. It's just two extra numbers on the 1099 forms they already produce.

The legislation is asking for transactions over $600. Not an account balance. An account balance would be worthless to determine cash flow unless you had multiple years.

Incorrect--first PP is right. They are asking for gross inflows and outflows on any account with an average balance of over $600.

And, this will affect nearly every bank account in the US. How is this helpful?

.....More data does not mean better enforcement of laws. At some point, you become "data rich and information poor."

Deposits generally equal income. If declared gross income does not align with gross deposits then it is suspect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The IRS can barely keep up now. How is it going to handle an enormous increase in the number of transactions to analyze?

It's not difficult at all to automate. Just total up the deposits and cross reference wth what's declared. They already do that with W's and 1099's. The IRS is capable of doing most of our returns for us right now. What they cant keep up with are the high value returns that claim a lot of expenses, deductions and depreciation that have to be double checked.

It's not hard but it is a massive storage and search problem. That's going to need equipment and people to maintain that equipment.

Data storage is super cheap nowadays. Bank accounts are already tied to our TIN/EIN. The system is already built. This would just be adding one more data point and the burden would fall on us as individuals to justify that income doesn't count, hence the complaints about burden.

What isn't cheap is the data security infrastructure. There have been IRS data breaches in the past and cybersecurity is a huge concern tha is expensive to address well.

Pretty much this. Data is cheap if you use the cloud. Do you want your banking records in the cloud, managed by the IRS? Remember how OPM failed to protect millions of employees records?

The IRS is not asking for a list of transactions. They are asking for annual account summaries. It's just two extra numbers on the 1099 forms they already produce.

The legislation is asking for transactions over $600. Not an account balance. An account balance would be worthless to determine cash flow unless you had multiple years.

Incorrect--first PP is right. They are asking for gross inflows and outflows on any account with an average balance of over $600.

And, this will affect nearly every bank account in the US. How is this helpful?

.....More data does not mean better enforcement of laws. At some point, you become "data rich and information poor."

Deposits generally equal income. If declared gross income does not align with gross deposits then it is suspect.

And, millions of Americans will be affected by such "suspect" activity if they dare to do things like.....

- sell a car they own.
- get reimbursed by friends for things like paying for concert tickets or for their share of a vacation rental
- are repaid a loan to a family member
etc. etc. etc.

All of these are things I have done and would trigger a "suspect" account by the IRS.
And, millions of others would be subject to the same scrutiny.
No, I have done nothing wrong, but I would be required to explain my "suspect" activity to the IRS. This is just wrong.

[Anonymous]

All we asked you to do Biden is take care of Covid and get us back to normal. Stop with this madness.

[Anonymous]

All banking transactions should be reported to the IRS, regardless of amount.

If you aren’t doing anything wrong or illegal, you have nothing to worry about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All banking transactions should be reported to the IRS, regardless of amount.

If you aren’t doing anything wrong or illegal, you have nothing to worry about.

What to worry about?

Additional transaction fees--as PP mentioned. Banking will become more expensive.
More cumbersome paperwork for consumers explaining transactions.
Many more audits performed on everyday people--requiring time, and possibly funds, for defense of simple and non criminal activity.

We just received a letter from IRS telling us that we had the right to appeal a "correction" in our taxes and that if we did not resolve it, we would be subject to investigation or something like that. Since IRS had not asked us for payment, we were confused. The "correction" was $8 in our favor. It took us internet research to find that they had sent out letters advising of "right to appeal" to everyone who had received a "correction letter." Tell me, who is going to appeal a "correction" in their favor? The letter sounded ominous and should not require research to put mind at rest.

Just think of all the things that could go wrong with this regulation, if passed.

I listened to Cspan on Saturday and heard the Congressional hearing with Janet Yellen and Powell. Her justification for this reg was less than stellar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The IRS can barely keep up now. How is it going to handle an enormous increase in the number of transactions to analyze?

It's not difficult at all to automate. Just total up the deposits and cross reference wth what's declared. They already do that with W's and 1099's. The IRS is capable of doing most of our returns for us right now. What they cant keep up with are the high value returns that claim a lot of expenses, deductions and depreciation that have to be double checked.

It's not hard but it is a massive storage and search problem. That's going to need equipment and people to maintain that equipment.

Data storage is super cheap nowadays. Bank accounts are already tied to our TIN/EIN. The system is already built. This would just be adding one more data point and the burden would fall on us as individuals to justify that income doesn't count, hence the complaints about burden.

What isn't cheap is the data security infrastructure. There have been IRS data breaches in the past and cybersecurity is a huge concern tha is expensive to address well.

Pretty much this. Data is cheap if you use the cloud. Do you want your banking records in the cloud, managed by the IRS? Remember how OPM failed to protect millions of employees records?

The IRS is not asking for a list of transactions. They are asking for annual account summaries. It's just two extra numbers on the 1099 forms they already produce.

The legislation is asking for transactions over $600. Not an account balance. An account balance would be worthless to determine cash flow unless you had multiple years.

Incorrect--first PP is right. They are asking for gross inflows and outflows on any account with an average balance of over $600.

And, this will affect nearly every bank account in the US. How is this helpful?

.....More data does not mean better enforcement of laws. At some point, you become "data rich and information poor."

Deposits generally equal income. If declared gross income does not align with gross deposits then it is suspect.

As a bunch of people have pointed out, deposits do not generally equal income. There are many kinds of payments that are not taxable income and that wouldn't show up on a tax return, and these can be pretty substantial amounts. Gifts, loan proceeds, insurance payouts, tax free pensions, employee expense reimbursements, compensatory damages received from a lawsuit, most types of welfare, social security, refunds, sales of personal property, sale of a personal home where the amount of gain is under $500k ($250k single).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The IRS can barely keep up now. How is it going to handle an enormous increase in the number of transactions to analyze?

It's not difficult at all to automate. Just total up the deposits and cross reference wth what's declared. They already do that with W's and 1099's. The IRS is capable of doing most of our returns for us right now. What they cant keep up with are the high value returns that claim a lot of expenses, deductions and depreciation that have to be double checked.

It's not hard but it is a massive storage and search problem. That's going to need equipment and people to maintain that equipment.

Data storage is super cheap nowadays. Bank accounts are already tied to our TIN/EIN. The system is already built. This would just be adding one more data point and the burden would fall on us as individuals to justify that income doesn't count, hence the complaints about burden.

What isn't cheap is the data security infrastructure. There have been IRS data breaches in the past and cybersecurity is a huge concern tha is expensive to address well.

Pretty much this. Data is cheap if you use the cloud. Do you want your banking records in the cloud, managed by the IRS? Remember how OPM failed to protect millions of employees records?

The IRS is not asking for a list of transactions. They are asking for annual account summaries. It's just two extra numbers on the 1099 forms they already produce.

The legislation is asking for transactions over $600. Not an account balance. An account balance would be worthless to determine cash flow unless you had multiple years.

Incorrect--first PP is right. They are asking for gross inflows and outflows on any account with an average balance of over $600.

And, this will affect nearly every bank account in the US. How is this helpful?

.....More data does not mean better enforcement of laws. At some point, you become "data rich and information poor."

Deposits generally equal income. If declared gross income does not align with gross deposits then it is suspect.

As a bunch of people have pointed out, deposits do not generally equal income. There are many kinds of payments that are not taxable income and that wouldn't show up on a tax return, and these can be pretty substantial amounts. Gifts, loan proceeds, insurance payouts, tax free pensions, employee expense reimbursements, compensatory damages received from a lawsuit, most types of welfare, social security, refunds, sales of personal property, sale of a personal home where the amount of gain is under $500k ($250k single).

And those won’t be flagged. They are looking for patterns that indicate money laundering and/or tax fraud, not an occasional transaction in an otherwise normal bank account.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The IRS can barely keep up now. How is it going to handle an enormous increase in the number of transactions to analyze?

It's not difficult at all to automate. Just total up the deposits and cross reference wth what's declared. They already do that with W's and 1099's. The IRS is capable of doing most of our returns for us right now. What they cant keep up with are the high value returns that claim a lot of expenses, deductions and depreciation that have to be double checked.

It's not hard but it is a massive storage and search problem. That's going to need equipment and people to maintain that equipment.

Data storage is super cheap nowadays. Bank accounts are already tied to our TIN/EIN. The system is already built. This would just be adding one more data point and the burden would fall on us as individuals to justify that income doesn't count, hence the complaints about burden.

What isn't cheap is the data security infrastructure. There have been IRS data breaches in the past and cybersecurity is a huge concern tha is expensive to address well.

Pretty much this. Data is cheap if you use the cloud. Do you want your banking records in the cloud, managed by the IRS? Remember how OPM failed to protect millions of employees records?

The IRS is not asking for a list of transactions. They are asking for annual account summaries. It's just two extra numbers on the 1099 forms they already produce.

The legislation is asking for transactions over $600. Not an account balance. An account balance would be worthless to determine cash flow unless you had multiple years.

Incorrect--first PP is right. They are asking for gross inflows and outflows on any account with an average balance of over $600.

And, this will affect nearly every bank account in the US. How is this helpful?

.....More data does not mean better enforcement of laws. At some point, you become "data rich and information poor."

Deposits generally equal income. If declared gross income does not align with gross deposits then it is suspect.

As a bunch of people have pointed out, deposits do not generally equal income. There are many kinds of payments that are not taxable income and that wouldn't show up on a tax return, and these can be pretty substantial amounts. Gifts, loan proceeds, insurance payouts, tax free pensions, employee expense reimbursements, compensatory damages received from a lawsuit, most types of welfare, social security, refunds, sales of personal property, sale of a personal home where the amount of gain is under $500k ($250k single).

And those won’t be flagged. They are looking for patterns that indicate money laundering and/or tax fraud, not an occasional transaction in an otherwise normal bank account.

I am not convinced of this at all.....innocent working people are bound to be caught up by this stupid, insane overreach.
I am adamantly against this proposal and I have against doubling the size of the IRS.
They can use other techniques to find money laundering and tax fraud. This ain't it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The IRS can barely keep up now. How is it going to handle an enormous increase in the number of transactions to analyze?

It's not difficult at all to automate. Just total up the deposits and cross reference wth what's declared. They already do that with W's and 1099's. The IRS is capable of doing most of our returns for us right now. What they cant keep up with are the high value returns that claim a lot of expenses, deductions and depreciation that have to be double checked.

It's not hard but it is a massive storage and search problem. That's going to need equipment and people to maintain that equipment.

Data storage is super cheap nowadays. Bank accounts are already tied to our TIN/EIN. The system is already built. This would just be adding one more data point and the burden would fall on us as individuals to justify that income doesn't count, hence the complaints about burden.

What isn't cheap is the data security infrastructure. There have been IRS data breaches in the past and cybersecurity is a huge concern tha is expensive to address well.

Pretty much this. Data is cheap if you use the cloud. Do you want your banking records in the cloud, managed by the IRS? Remember how OPM failed to protect millions of employees records?

The IRS is not asking for a list of transactions. They are asking for annual account summaries. It's just two extra numbers on the 1099 forms they already produce.

The legislation is asking for transactions over $600. Not an account balance. An account balance would be worthless to determine cash flow unless you had multiple years.

Incorrect--first PP is right. They are asking for gross inflows and outflows on any account with an average balance of over $600.

And, this will affect nearly every bank account in the US. How is this helpful?

.....More data does not mean better enforcement of laws. At some point, you become "data rich and information poor."

Deposits generally equal income. If declared gross income does not align with gross deposits then it is suspect.

As a bunch of people have pointed out, deposits do not generally equal income. There are many kinds of payments that are not taxable income and that wouldn't show up on a tax return, and these can be pretty substantial amounts. Gifts, loan proceeds, insurance payouts, tax free pensions, employee expense reimbursements, compensatory damages received from a lawsuit, most types of welfare, social security, refunds, sales of personal property, sale of a personal home where the amount of gain is under $500k ($250k single).

And those won’t be flagged. They are looking for patterns that indicate money laundering and/or tax fraud, not an occasional transaction in an otherwise normal bank account.

I understood this proposal to mean that those transactions all WOULD be flaggable, and the onus on the taxpayer to prove them to be innocent.

Also, what about if I own multiple bank accounts and want to transfer money between them? Will I need to explain each and every one of those transfers to the IRS as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All banking transactions should be reported to the IRS, regardless of amount.

If you aren’t doing anything wrong or illegal, you have nothing to worry about.

What to worry about?

Additional transaction fees--as PP mentioned. Banking will become more expensive.
More cumbersome paperwork for consumers explaining transactions.
Many more audits performed on everyday people--requiring time, and possibly funds, for defense of simple and non criminal activity.

We just received a letter from IRS telling us that we had the right to appeal a "correction" in our taxes and that if we did not resolve it, we would be subject to investigation or something like that. Since IRS had not asked us for payment, we were confused. The "correction" was $8 in our favor. It took us internet research to find that they had sent out letters advising of "right to appeal" to everyone who had received a "correction letter." Tell me, who is going to appeal a "correction" in their favor? The letter sounded ominous and should not require research to put mind at rest.

Just think of all the things that could go wrong with this regulation, if passed.

I listened to Cspan on Saturday and heard the Congressional hearing with Janet Yellen and Powell. Her justification for this reg was less than stellar.

Banks already track all your account transactions. Last year I moved some money from an investment account into my savings account, and my bank called me the next morning wanting to invest it for me. This is not a cumbersome requirement for banks. It’s a simple data download.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The IRS can barely keep up now. How is it going to handle an enormous increase in the number of transactions to analyze?

It's not difficult at all to automate. Just total up the deposits and cross reference wth what's declared. They already do that with W's and 1099's. The IRS is capable of doing most of our returns for us right now. What they cant keep up with are the high value returns that claim a lot of expenses, deductions and depreciation that have to be double checked.

It's not hard but it is a massive storage and search problem. That's going to need equipment and people to maintain that equipment.

Data storage is super cheap nowadays. Bank accounts are already tied to our TIN/EIN. The system is already built. This would just be adding one more data point and the burden would fall on us as individuals to justify that income doesn't count, hence the complaints about burden.

What isn't cheap is the data security infrastructure. There have been IRS data breaches in the past and cybersecurity is a huge concern tha is expensive to address well.

Pretty much this. Data is cheap if you use the cloud. Do you want your banking records in the cloud, managed by the IRS? Remember how OPM failed to protect millions of employees records?

The IRS is not asking for a list of transactions. They are asking for annual account summaries. It's just two extra numbers on the 1099 forms they already produce.

The legislation is asking for transactions over $600. Not an account balance. An account balance would be worthless to determine cash flow unless you had multiple years.

Incorrect--first PP is right. They are asking for gross inflows and outflows on any account with an average balance of over $600.

And, this will affect nearly every bank account in the US. How is this helpful?

.....More data does not mean better enforcement of laws. At some point, you become "data rich and information poor."

Deposits generally equal income. If declared gross income does not align with gross deposits then it is suspect.

As a bunch of people have pointed out, deposits do not generally equal income. There are many kinds of payments that are not taxable income and that wouldn't show up on a tax return, and these can be pretty substantial amounts. Gifts, loan proceeds, insurance payouts, tax free pensions, employee expense reimbursements, compensatory damages received from a lawsuit, most types of welfare, social security, refunds, sales of personal property, sale of a personal home where the amount of gain is under $500k ($250k single).

And those won’t be flagged. They are looking for patterns that indicate money laundering and/or tax fraud, not an occasional transaction in an otherwise normal bank account.

I understood this proposal to mean that those transactions all WOULD be flaggable, and the onus on the taxpayer to prove them to be innocent.

Also, what about if I own multiple bank accounts and want to transfer money between them? Will I need to explain each and every one of those transfers to the IRS as well?

Reported does not mean flagged for investigation. Regulators don’t question every reported transaction now or ever. They investigate very few. They look for suspicious patterns and outliers.