How To Spot And Avoid AI-Powered Tax Scams
Scammers are using AI to impersonate the IRS—learn how to spot the fakes and protect your identity ... More before it's too late.
Tax scams are nothing new, but in 2025, they're no longer the domain of clumsy phishing emails or suspicious phone calls with thick accents. Today's tax fraud campaigns are fueled by generative AI, deepfake audio, and smart social engineering that make scams nearly indistinguishable from legitimate IRS communications. The game has changed—and the stakes are higher than ever.
As the April 15 filing deadline approaches, cybersecurity experts are seeing a spike in sophisticated tax-themed phishing campaigns designed to exploit anxiety and urgency. According to Abhishek Karnik, head of threat research at McAfee, 'Generative AI gives scammers the tools to create more realistic emails, texts, and even voice-based messages.' A recent McAfee survey found that nearly half of Americans (48%) have received fake IRS messages, and over half (55%) believe these scams are more convincing than ever before.
Generative AI is now doing the heavy lifting for cybercriminals. As Truman Kain, a security researcher at Huntress, explained, 'Attackers can now clone the look and feel of an official IRS message with almost perfect accuracy.' Gone are the days of spelling errors and awkward phrasing. Today, an attacker can feed a prompt to an AI model and generate a convincing phishing email or even a voicemail in seconds—complete with personalized details.
AI-generated voice messages are especially dangerous. Using deepfake audio, scammers can now sound like IRS agents or tax preparers, delivering threats or refund offers with chilling realism. Kain warns, 'Just because it looks like the IRS is calling doesn't mean that it is.' Phone numbers can be spoofed, and attackers are banking on the fact that victims won't pause to verify.
Beyond email and voice, scammers are using increasingly deceptive methods to deliver malware and steal credentials. Chris Simpson, director of the National University Center for Cybersecurity, notes that malicious actors are now leveraging QR codes, URL shorteners, and infected PDFs to distribute malware strains like GuLoader, Latrodectus, and AHKBot.
QR codes, in particular, are on the rise. 'They're harder to vet than regular links,' says Kain. 'You can't hover over them to see where they lead, and they move the interaction to your phone, where people are less cautious.' Similarly, PDFs may appear harmless, but are often loaded with phishing links that redirect to fake IRS portals or credential-harvesting pages.
What makes these attacks so effective isn't just the tech—it's the manipulation.
Scammers exploit fear, urgency, and authority to push victims into fast decisions. According to Karnik, one of the biggest red flags is urgency: 'If a message asks for personal information or payment right away, it's a red flag.'
Simpson agrees, adding that the IRS will never request payment via gift cards, wire transfers, or cryptocurrency. Legitimate IRS communication almost always comes by physical mail, not email or social media.
So what can individuals do to protect themselves?
Start by layering defenses:
And above all, never click on links or scan QR codes in unsolicited emails or texts. 'Go directly to the source,' advises Karnik. 'If you're unsure, type in the official URL yourself. Don't trust the message.'
While tax season is peak time for these scams, the risks don't end when April passes. Stolen personal information is resold on dark web markets and reused for unemployment fraud, synthetic identity creation and other financial crimes throughout the year.
'Staying safe online all year long doesn't have to be complicated,' Karnik notes. Regularly checking financial accounts, setting up account alerts, and reviewing credit reports are simple steps that go a long way.
AI has transformed the cybercrime landscape, arming scammers with tools that were once the domain of Hollywood. As these threats evolve, so too must our defenses.
Cybersecurity is no longer optional—it's personal self-defense. With layered protections, skepticism and a commitment to verifying before trusting, individuals can stay one step ahead of the scam artists who want to turn their tax season into a payday.
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
GOP tax bill would mean 11.8 million people uninsured, $1.1 trillion in health cuts
The Senate Republicans' tax and spending bill, which is speeding through the chamber, would result in deeper health care cuts and more people without insurance than the version that passed the House, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office. The legislation would result in 11.8 million Americans without insurance by 2034, CBO found: nearly 1 million more people without insurance than the House version. That amount includes an estimated 1.4 million people without 'verified citizenship, nationality, or satisfactory immigration status' who would lose their state-funded coverage. The legislation would also cut federal spending on Medicaid, Medicare and Obamacare by $1.1 trillion, with more than $1 trillion coming from Medicaid. The CBO's analysis confirms that despite President Trump's repeated pledges he was only cutting waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid, the legislation would enact an unprecedented reduction in the program currently used by more than 70 million low-income Americans. The bill would achieve its savings in various ways, but the bulk of the cuts come from a strict national work requirement and new restrictions on state-levied taxes on health providers. Under the bill, for the first time in the history of the Medicaid program, beneficiaries would need to prove they are working or in school at least 80 hours a month to keep their health insurance. The Senate version extends the requirement to low-income parents of children older than 14, in addition to childless adults without disabilities. The work requirements are projected to save about $325 billion over a decade. The provider taxes were the second-largest Medicaid cut in the House bill, after the work requirements. The cuts are even larger under the Senate design. Those changes would reduce spending by nearly $191 billion over a decade, according to the CBO estimate. The provider tax provisions have been among the most controversial in the Senate. States impose taxes on providers to boost their federal Medicaid contributions, which they then redirect to hospitals in the form of higher reimbursements. Limiting provider taxes is a long-held conservative goal, as they argue states are gaming the current system and driving up federal Medicaid spending. But senators representing states with poor, rural populations have objected to the scale of the cuts, including Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). The House bill would freeze the tax rate for most states, but the Senate version would require many states to lower their existing rates. As an incentive for senators uncomfortable with the provider tax cuts, the bill includes a $25 billion fund to aid rural hospitals. But that amount wasn't enough to sway Tillis, who voted with Democrats against a procedural motion late Saturday night. Hawley voted for the motion and said he would support the bill despite his misgivings over the Medicaid cuts. Additional details of the bill are in flux as negotiations between Republicans continue and the Senate parliamentarian reviews key pieces of the bill to determine if they follow the legislative rules. Lawmakers are facing down a White House-pushed July 4th deadline to pass the bill in the Senate, and then again in the House, and put it on President Trump's desk.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Reforming Fannie and Freddie is just the first step
For nearly 17 years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — two pillars of the U.S. housing finance system — have remained under federal conservatorship. The debate over how to exit this limbo has consumed housing policy circles for over a decade. Most stakeholders now agree that reform is overdue. But even the best plan to restructure these institutions will fall short if it ends there. Fannie and Freddie matter. The government-sponsored enterprises guarantee nearly half of all new U.S. mortgages, ensuring liquidity in both good times and bad. They are also among the few institutions with a public mission to serve rural, low-income and historically underserved borrowers. Reimagining them as regulated utilities — with capped returns, cost-based pricing and clear service obligations — would bring transparency and durability to a system long overdue for a modern framework. But structure alone won't solve the affordability crisis gripping communities nationwide. Even perfectly governed Government-Sponsored Enterprises cannot close the gap between surging home prices and stagnating wages. Nor can they single-handedly fix the uneven access to credit or the persistent racial homeownership gap. The median U.S. home now costs over $420,000. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the nation faces a shortage of more than 7 million affordable rental homes. In many markets, even well-qualified buyers with stable incomes and decent credit are being priced out of the market. The gap between what families earn and what homes cost is no longer just wide — it's systemic. Without a broader effort, a restructured Fannie and Freddie would still be operating on top of a broken foundation. To truly modernize housing finance, we need to rethink how we underwrite risk, where we allow homes to be built, and who gets access to capital. A healthy system must go beyond liquidity. It must support housing production, economic inclusion and long-term market resilience. Here are three critical areas where policy must evolve: 1. Zoning and land use reform The Government-Sponsored Enterprises can't buy loans on homes that don't get built. In many cities, exclusionary zoning — such as minimum lot sizes, bans on multifamily units, and onerous parking requirements — chokes off the supply of new housing. While local governments control zoning, federal policy can provide powerful incentives. One approach is to link infrastructure or transportation grants to inclusive land-use reforms. Removing regulatory barriers to starter homes, townhouses and modular construction could unlock affordable housing supply without the need for new subsidies. 2. Credit Innovation for a changing workforce Today's credit models don't reflect how Americans live and work. Renters with flawless payment histories still struggle to build credit. Gig workers with steady earnings face outdated underwriting standards. Appraisals often undervalue modular and manufactured homes despite their key role in expanding affordability. Federal regulators should accelerate the development of alternative credit scoring models, expand underwriting pilots and recognize stable income sources beyond the traditional W-2. A modern credit system must reward reliability — not just conformity. 3. Equity through transparency The racial homeownership gap isn't closing on its own — it requires deliberate action. Any Government-Sponsored Enterprises reform must include strong data transparency on lending by race, income and geography. Public dashboards, equity benchmarks and stronger oversight should be part of the solution. If the Government-Sponsored Enterprises are to fulfill a public mission, their performance must be trackable, visible and grounded in outcomes — not aspirations. Fixing Fannie and Freddie is necessary — but it's not sufficient. These institutions are deeply ingrained in the core of America's housing and financial systems. Their influence extends from interest rates and loan terms to neighborhood stability and intergenerational wealth. Restructuring them without addressing the broader system would be a missed opportunity. Economists such as Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics and Jim Parrott of the Urban Institute have long supported a hybrid model: one that combines strong regulation with market participation. They argue that it's possible to balance broad access to mortgage credit with taxpayer protection. Their work affirms that reform doesn't require a false choice between efficiency and equity. We can — and must — pursue both. Recent public friction between Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is another reminder: Housing finance doesn't operate in isolation. Interest rate policy, inflation and credit markets all interact with the institutions that support the mortgage system. Reform must be built to withstand not only market volatility but also political and monetary turbulence. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have helped millions of Americans buy homes and weather economic downturns. But they can't fix zoning laws, modernize credit scoring or close the racial wealth gap on their own. Suppose we want a system that works not just in recovery but in resilience. In that case, we need a long-term vision — one that aligns public purpose with private capital and innovation with accountability. The next chapter of housing finance must be bigger than balance sheets. It must reflect the realities of today's economy and prepare for the demands of tomorrow's homebuyers. This isn't just about fixing what's broken. It's about building a housing finance system that works — for everyone. Omar Mbowe, Ph.D., MBA, is the Managing Partner of Auxilia Capital Partners, a New York–based real estate investment firm. He also serves as the executive director of the HED Initiative.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Senate tax bill includes largest cut to US safety net in decades
Advertisement But it offsets these expensive tax cuts in part through what several experts said may prove the most dramatic reductions in safety net spending in modern U.S. history. While last-minute changes to the bill text makes precise estimates impossible, the legislation appears on track to cut Medicaid by about 18 percent and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by roughly 20 percent, according to estimates based on projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Previously, the biggest recent cut to food stamps was a roughly 14 percent cut approved by Congress during President Bill Clinton's administration in the 1990s, according to Bobby Kogan, a senior policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, a center-left think tank. (Food stamp benefits also sharply increased, and then fell, after the expiration of covid benefits.) The biggest prior cut to Medicaid was during President Ronald Reagan's term in the 1980s, when Congress and the White House approved a roughly 5 percent reduction to the federal health insurance program that primarily benefits low-income households during his first two years in office, Kogan said. Advertisement The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Senate tax bill will lead to roughly 12 million fewer people receiving Medicaid and more than 2 million fewer people receiving food stamps. 'This is not only the biggest ever - it's by a mile the biggest ever,' Kogan said. 'You can very safely say this is the biggest cut to programs for low-income Americans ever.' The ornate corridor outside the Senate chamber. J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press The legislation achieves these steep reductions by imposing a slew of new requirements and restrictions on low-income Americans who rely on government assistance, although it includes some revisions sought by nonpartisan experts as well. On Medicaid, the bill institutes new federal work reporting requirements for the first time in the program's history - forcing millions of people to regularly prove they are working at least 80 hours a month to keep their health insurance. The bill provides exemptions for certain groups of people, including those who are pregnant, some caretakers and those with disabilities. But it also imposes burdensome paperwork requirements that experts say states are ill-equipped to take on, and they warn that both those who are meeting the requirements and who qualify for exemptions could lose coverage because they will struggle to submit proper documentation. The bill also mandates that people just above the federal poverty line begin paying out of pocket for Medicaid services, such as some doctor's visits or lab tests. States would be allowed to charge these enrollees up to 5 percent of their income in cost-sharing - a fee that could amount to hundreds of dollars annually. While Democratic-led states might opt for modest co-pays, Republican-led states could impose substantially higher fees, potentially pricing out many low-income residents, experts said. Although it's unclear if this measure will survive final passage, the legislation has also sought to crack down on loopholes that raise what the federal government is reimbursing hospitals for Medicaid services, said Marc Goldwein, senior vice president at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group. Advertisement The changes to Medicaid could also force already struggling rural hospitals to close or significantly pare back their services, hospital groups have said. Between a rise in uncompensated care and smaller federal reimbursements through states because of changes to what is called the provider tax, hospitals are expected to take a significant hit. 'No question - this is definitely the biggest cut. It's the biggest rollback in federal support for health care ever,' said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF. On food stamps, the bill rolls back decades of long-standing policy by tightening work requirements. Parents of children have generally been exempt from work rules, but under the new proposal, single mothers of teenagers as young as 14 would be required to work or lose benefits. The bill also raises the upper age for able-bodied adults without dependents who are subject to work requirements from 49 to 64, sweeping in millions of older Americans previously shielded from the rules. Additionally, it would make it harder for states to waive work requirements during times of high unemployment, effectively limiting assistance unless a generationally severe recession hits. Advertisement The legislation also changes how poverty and household budgets are calculated for the purposes of food stamp eligibility, potentially reducing benefits for millions. Under President Joe Biden, internet access was recognized as a basic necessity for modern life and factored into cost-of-living calculations that help determine eligibility and benefit levels. The new bill reverses that. Conservatives and Republicans have defended these changes as necessary to arrest the rising cost of safety net programs. Robert Rector, research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said U.S. food stamps are rife with fraud, saying the federal government's spending on welfare programs has risen from about $1 trillion per year before the covid pandemic to $1.69 trillion now. Rector said stricter limits in particular made sense for the food stamps program. 'Welfare spending is out of control. Fraud is out of control,' Rector said. 'There's extensive massive fraud. There's massive fraud in food stamps in particular.' Sen. Markywane Mullin (R-Oklahoma) on Sunday argued on 'Meet the Press' that the legislation was only 'getting out the ones that should never be' on Medicaid and was focused on 'able-bodied' individuals. 'We don't pay people in this country to be lazy. We want to give them an opportunity, and when they're going through a hard time, we want to give them a helping hand,' Mullin said. 'That's what Medicaid was designed for, and it's unfortunately, it's been abused.' But Republicans may face political blowback if the changes to the safety net programs result in significant reductions in benefits. The cuts also fly in the face of prior promises made by party leaders: Vice President JD Vance has long been critical of cuts to Medicaid, and Trump has repeatedly promised not to reduce benefits in the program. Even as the bill moves toward passage, some congressional Republicans from rural states have also expressed concern about the political impacts of cuts to Medicaid. Advertisement 'Let's watch and be careful that we don't cut into bone, don't hurt our rural hospitals,' Sen. Jim Justice (R-West Virginia) said late last week. 'If we do that, it's going to be a bad day.' Others had hoped large spending cuts would at least be used to reduce the nation's $36 trillion federal debt. Goldwein, of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said it is a shame that Republicans are using funding from spending cuts only to partially mitigate the more than $3 trillion cost of their tax bill. 'What bothers me is there are really hard savings to find in here. But all the money is being used not for deficit reduction, not to fully pay for tax cuts, but to reduce the amount of money we're borrowing,' Goldwein said. 'We're going in the wrong direction.' Yasmeen Abutaleb and Jacob Bogage contributed to this report.
