[Senate Hearing 105-190]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 105-190
PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 23, 24, AND 25, 1997
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-781--CC WASHINGTON : 1997
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., Delaware, Chairman
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
ALFONSE M. D'AMATO, New York Virginia
FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska JOHN BREAUX, Louisiana
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma KENT CONRAD, North Dakota
PHIL GRAMM, Texas BOB GRAHAM, Florida
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi CAROL MOSELEY-BRAUN, Illinois
JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada
CONNIE MACK, Florida J. ROBERT KERREY, Nebraska
Lindy L. Paull, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Mark A. Patterson, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997
Opening Statements
Page
Roth, Hon. William V., Jr., a U.S. Senator from Delaware,
chairman, Committee on Finance................................. 1
Moynihan, Hon. Daniel Patrick, a U.S. Senator from New York...... 4
Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from Iowa; member, The
National Commission on Restructuring the IRS................... 6
Kerrey, Hon. J. Robert, a U.S. Senator from Nebraska; co-
chairman, The National Commission on Restructuring the IRS..... 8
Graham, Hon. Bob, a U.S. Senator from Florida.................... 12
Conrad, Hon. Kent, a U.S. Senator from North Dakota.............. 14
Gramm, Hon. Phil, a U.S. Senator from Texas...................... 16
Bryan, Hon. Richard H., a U.S. Senator from Nevada............... 17
Nickles, Hon. Don, a U.S. Senator from Oklahoma.................. 19
Lott, Hon. Trent, a U.S. Senator from Mississippi................ 21
Rockefeller, Hon. John D., IV, a U.S. Senator from West Virginia. 22
Congressional Witnesses
Hoyer, Hon. Steny, a U.S. Representative from Maryland........... 10
Public Witnesses
Lane, Joseph F., enrolled agent, chairman, National Government
Relations Committee, the National Association of Enrolled
Agents, Gaithersburg, MD....................................... 23
Woehlke, James A., Director, tax policy, New York Society of
Certified Public Accountants, New York, NY..................... 29
Goldstein, Robert L., chairman, Relations with IRS Committee, New
York Society of Certified Public Accountants, New York, NY..... 29
SEPTEMBER 24, 1997
Opening Statements
Roth, Hon. William V., Jr., a U.S. Senator from Delaware,
chairman, Committee on Finance................................. 33
Murkowski, Hon. Frank H., a U.S. Senator from Alaska............. 34
Public Witnesses
Davis, Shelley, author of ``Unbridled Power'' and former
historian for the IRS, Manassas, VA............................ 35
Schriebman, Robert, author of eight books on IRS practices and
procedures, adjunct professor of tax practice and procedure,
University of Southern California Graduate School of
Accounting, Rolling Hills Estates, CA.......................... 38
Burnham, David, author of ``A Law Unto Itself: Power, Politics
and the IRS''; co-director, Transactional Records Access
Clearinghouse; associate research professor, Syracuse
University's Newhouse School of Public Communication,
Washington, DC................................................. 42
Hicks, Katherine Lund, Apple Valley, CA, accompanied by James
Hicks.......................................................... 75
Savage, Thomas, Lewes, DE........................................ 82
Ballweg, Monsignor Lawrence, New York, NY........................ 85
Jacobs, Nancy, Bakersfield, CA................................... 87
Strauss, Bruce A., Florida....................................... 105
Larsen, Darren, California....................................... 108
Patnoe, David, Camario, CA....................................... 112
Lilly, Lawrence, G., St. Augustine, FL........................... 116
Long, Jennifer, current employee of the Internal Revenue Service. 120
SEPTEMBER 25, 1997
Opening Statements
Roth, Hon. William V., Jr., a U.S. Senator from Delaware,
chairman, Committee on Finance................................. 141
Administration Witnesses
Dolan, Hon. Michael P., Acting Commissioner of the Internal
Revenue Service, Washington, DC................................ 198
Congressional Witnesses
Willis, Lynda D., Director of Tax Policy and Administration
Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC......... 245
Public Witnesses
Witness No. 1.................................................... 142
Witness No. 2.................................................... 146
Witness No. 3.................................................... 150
Witness No. 4.................................................... 152
Witness No. 5.................................................... 155
Witness No. 6.................................................... 156
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL
Ballweg, Monsignor Lawrence:
Testimony.................................................... 85
Prepared statement........................................... 255
Bryan, Hon. Richard H.:
Opening statement............................................ 17
Burnham, David:
Testimony.................................................... 42
Prepared statement........................................... 256
Conrad, Hon. Kent:
Opening statement............................................ 14
Davis, Shelley:
Testimony.................................................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 259
Dolan, Hon. Michael P.:
Testimony.................................................... 198
Prepared statement........................................... 261
Letter to Senator Moynihan, dated September 30, 1997......... 280
Responses to questions from Senator Nickles.................. 282
Goldstein, Robert L.:
Testimony.................................................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 283
Graham, Hon. Bob:
Opening statement............................................ 12
Gramm, Hon. Phil:
Opening statement............................................ 16
Grassley, Hon. Charles E.:
Opening statement............................................ 6
Prepared statements..........................................
286, 288...................................................
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G.:
Prepared statement........................................... 288
Hicks, Katherine Lund:
Testimony.................................................... 75
Prepared statement........................................... 289
Hoyer, Hon. Steny:
Testimony.................................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 294
Jacobs, Nancy:
Testimony.................................................... 87
Prepared statement........................................... 296
Kerrey, Hon. J. Robert:
Opening statement............................................ 8
Prepared statement........................................... 298
Lane, Joseph F.:
Testimony.................................................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 299
Larsen, Darren:
Testimony.................................................... 108
Prepared statement........................................... 307
Lilly, Lawrence, G.:
Testimony.................................................... 116
Prepared statement........................................... 309
Long, Jennifer:
Testimony.................................................... 120
Prepared statement........................................... 311
Lott, Hon. Trent:
Opening statement............................................ 21
Mack, Hon. Connie:
Prepared statement........................................... 312
Moynihan, Hon. Daniel Patrick
Opening statement............................................ 4
Murkowski, Hon. Frank H.:
Opening statement............................................ 34
Nickles, Hon. Don:
Opening statement............................................ 19
Patnoe, David:
Testimony.................................................... 112
Prepared statement........................................... 313
Reid, Hon. Harry:
Prepared statement........................................... 316
Rockefeller, Hon. John D., IV:
Opening statement............................................ 22
Letters from Lawrence Summers................................ 317
Roth, Hon. William V., Jr.:
Opening statements...........................................
1, 33, 141.................................................
Prepared statement........................................... 323
San Francisco IRS District, chart relating to................ 325
Savage, Thomas:
Testimony.................................................... 82
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 326
Schriebman, Robert:
Testimony.................................................... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 330
Strauss, Bruce A.:
Testimony.................................................... 105
Prepared statement........................................... 332
Willis, Lynda D.:
Testimony.................................................... 245
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 334
Witness No. 1:
Testimony.................................................... 142
Prepared statement........................................... 348
Witness No. 2:
Testimony.................................................... 146
Prepared statement........................................... 350
Witness No. 3:
Testimony.................................................... 150
Prepared statement........................................... 352
Witness No. 4:
Testimony.................................................... 152
Prepared statement........................................... 353
Witness No. 5:
Testimony.................................................... 155
Prepared statement........................................... 355
Witness No. 6:
Testimony.................................................... 156
Prepared statement........................................... 355
Woehlke, James A.:
Testimony.................................................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 283
PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Finance,
Washington, DC.
The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m.,
in room SD-215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. William V.
Roth, Jr. (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Also present: Senators Grassley, Murkowski, Nickles, Gramm,
Lott, Mack, Moynihan, Rockefeller, Breaux, Conrad, Graham,
Moseley-Braun, Bryan, and Kerrey.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., A U.S. SENATOR
FROM DELAWARE, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
The Chairman. The committee will please be in order.
This morning we begin the first of 3 days of oversight
hearings into the tactics, management, and inner workings of
the Internal Revenue Service.
There is no other agency in this country that directly
touches the lives of more Americans, nor is there any agency
which strikes more fear into their hearts.
The threat of an audit, the awesome power of the IRS looms
like the Sword of Damocles over the heads of taxpayers. As
Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I want to know why. I
wanted to understand where this fear came from. I wanted to
know if it was justified.
Our committee's responsibility is to provide the oversight
of this agency. This is a responsibility I take seriously. So
in January of this year, with the support of my friend and
colleague Senator Moynihan, I began an investigation into how
this agency conducts business with the American people.
Let me assure you, there is no political bias, no partisan
motive behind our investigation and these hearings. As I said,
they were initiated some eight months ago. What we have
discovered indicates that problems within the IRS are not
recent, they cover several administrations.
Let me also say that the IRS is made up of many fine men
and women, men and women of great character and integrity who
perform a vital and difficult job for this country.
In reflecting upon our investigation, I found this to be
especially true. I note that without the help of many such IRS
employees, our investigation would have been incomplete.
There is no doubt that the powers of the Internal Revenue
Service are extraordinary. The IRS can seize property,
paychecks, and even the residences of the people it serves.
Businesses can be padlocked, sometimes causing hundreds of
employees who are also taxpayers to be put out of work.
In some instances, the first time a taxpayer is aware of
any enforcement action by the IRS is when his or her bank calls
to notify that funds have been frozen. The IRS can take these
actions in many cases without giving the taxpayer notice or
opportunity to be heard.
This is an awesome amount of power to place in the hands of
any government agency. Is it appropriate? Perhaps. But with
such power there must be an effective counterbalance of
responsibility. Why? Because the greater the power, the more
extensive the damage that can be done if that power is abused.
Any agency with such power must be above reproach,
especially as that enormous power allows it to pervade the most
sensitive aspects of our citizens' private lives. Congress has
granted such power to the IRS. As a consequence, Congress has a
fundamental responsibility to see that the IRS operates with
the highest degree of integrity, honor, and ethics. As the Good
Book says, where much is given, much is required.
Unfortunately, our investigation today has found that in
many cases such high standards are not being upheld. Over the
course of the next 3 days we are going to see a picture of a
troubled agency, one that is losing the confidence of the
American people, and one that all too frequently acts as if it
were above the law. This is unacceptable.
Even high-ranking employees of the agency have come
forward, at some risk to themselves and their careers, to speak
with us. As a consequence of such risk, some employees who will
testify have requested confidentiality, and we have honored
that request.
We have also talked with many private citizens whose lives
have been altered by IRS actions. These men and women have
related their sometimes tragic experiences, not out of
vindictiveness or mean-spiritedness, but out of deep concern
and a fundamental belief that such a violation of their civil
rights should not have taken place, not in America.
We have listened to these men and women and we are holding
these hearings because one thing is certain: we cannot fix the
IRS without knowing what ails the IRS.
What we seek is constructive criticism, criticism with the
intent to improve, not destroy, to protect, not denigrate. This
is not IRS-bashing, it is oversight. There will be no condoning
of tax protestors or any others who would misinterpret our
objective to legitimatize anti-government attitudes or
behavior.
These hearings are about good government, about correcting
problems within government, problems that are acknowledged by
those whose lives are dedicated to public service.
Responsible oversight is the best way to ensure that not
only is the government meeting the needs of the people, but is
the surest way of letting the people know that they have
influence over, and a strong voice in, their government. That
is what these hearings are all about.
Just as the IRS is quick to say that no honest taxpayer
should fear an audit, no government agency should ever fear a
Congressional investigation into its activities.
While it is imperative that Americans pay their fair share
of taxes in an effort to establish and maintain necessary
government functions, it is equally imperative that the agency
charged with the responsibility for this activity be fair,
honest, open, and accountable. With this introduction, I
believe it is important to outline how we went about conducting
our investigation.
Our objective from the beginning was to keep our
methodology fair, yet still be able to get inside the agency to
uncover the facts. In reviewing the treatment of taxpayers we
took various cases to the IRS and reviewed every document that
we could obtain.
We interviewed the IRS employees involved in the particular
cases. Over the next 3 days, we will hear about a number of
these cases. We will hear from taxpayers, IRS employees. It is
important to understand that these witnesses are typical of far
greater numbers who have been moved to contact the committee.
These individuals serve as a sampling that demonstrate the
significance of problems and concerns with the agency. The
facts will be startling.
For instance, while the use of pseudonyms is forbidden by
the Internal Revenue Manual, except for those in the law
enforcement areas, criminal investigations, and inspection
divisions, many revenue officers have been issued false
identification credentials.
While the IRS suggests that that is to protect agents from
assault, I am concerned that it makes them unaccountable. Even
members of the Metropolitan Police force here in the District
of Columbia, despite substantial danger, wear their true names
on their uniforms.
In the next 3 days, you will hear about an audit called
Blue Sky Assessments. These are tax assessments made against
Americans that have no basis in fact or tax law. They can
either be designed to hurt the taxpayer or simply raise the
individual statistics of an IRS employee.
You are going to hear a lot about statistics and quotas. We
have learned that even at managerial levels the drive to
achieve the appropriate statistic has caused problems in many
areas of the country.
While the use of quotas is specifically prohibited in
rating the success of agents or officers in their jobs, it
appears to be commonplace. I believe this is outrageous, a
major problem that has become part of the agency's culture.
Levies and seizures are also measurements of employee
performance. In one case, we learned a revenue officer was
counseled for not keeping his statistics up, so he seized
several properties the next day. Some officers who are able to
collect the full amount of taxes due are often rated lower than
those who have seized property.
Seizures may be done for status and promotions as much as
for enforcement. Not only are levies and seizures measures of
an employee's performance, but so is the number of cases
referred to the Criminal Division.
In other words, while there may be no basis in fact for a
criminal referral, a taxpayer's life may well be turned upside
down simply to keep an employee's or district's performance
statistics up.
Liens and levies may be filed against those whom the IRS
knows have no liability for a particular tax. Parents,
relatives, a company employee may have liens filed against
their property or have a paycheck levied in order to get the
real taxpayer to comply. This is called the whipsaw technique.
This practice was explained to us, when we go after everybody,
we know somebody will pay.
Now, one of the most distressing things you will learn from
this hearing is the preference to audit middle and lower income
tax payers, as well as small mom and pop businesses. This is
almost incredible to understand.
Certainly it is not for the high revenue that these kinds
of audits bring to the Treasury. So why are these Americans
audited? Because it is easy. Most often, these are the
taxpayers who cannot afford to pay back.
Beyond learning about the fear taxpayers have concerning
the IRS, I was very much concerned about how agency employees
themselves feel. Many express fear of being retaliated against
for speaking out against the kind of abuses I have mentioned
here.
We have heard in our investigation that the use of false
allegations of wrongdoing against targeted employees takes
place. In fact, just the number of times we heard the term
targeting in relation to harassment of employees was stunning,
and certainly if this treatment bothers the front-line
employees of the IRS, it is devastating to the American
taxpayer.
Over the next 3 days we will hear more about these
concerns, as Congress has given the IRS significant power in an
effort to help the agency carry out its tremendous
responsibility. It is also Congress' responsibility to ensure
that such power is being used prudently, constructively, and
with regard for the taxpayer employees of the agency.
What we are learning suggests that there are problems and
begs that Congress address three fundamental questions. First,
does the IRS have too much power? Second, if Congress were to
limit that power, what expectations do we have that the new
limits will be more effective than the old? Third, how do we go
about changing the culture of the IRS?
What we seek to do is help the IRS get back to its mission
statement. That statement reads, ``The purpose of the IRS is to
collect the proper amount of tax revenue at the least cost,
serve the public by continually improving the quality of our
products and services, and performing in a manner warranting
the highest degree of public confidence in our integrity,
efficiency, and fairness.'' Well, this is our desire, to be
certain the IRS is not only good for taxpayers, but that it is
also good for government.
It is now my pleasure to call on our very distinguished
Ranking Member, Senator Moynihan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, A U.S.
SENATOR FROM NEW YORK
Senator Moynihan. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you and
congratulate you on the hearings that we have now commenced. I
have been a member of the Finance Committee for getting on to
21 years, and I do not believe we have had an oversight
hearing.
Oversight is our responsibility, and we are carrying it
out. There is surely room for improvement in the Internal
Revenue Service, and where we so determine, we should move
legislation in a fairly rapid order.
But I think it is also important to point out that a great
deal of the problems of the IRS come about because of
legislation which we ourselves have passed. There are now 9,451
pages in the Tax Code. In August, as not many of you will
forget, we added 820. I mean, you could hurt yourself if you
tried to lift it. That is a pattern we do not seem to be able
to break out of in order to address this as well.
I happened to have had the privilege for many years to know
Erwin Griswold, who was dean of the Harvard Law School,
Solicitor General, who wrote the book on American taxation.
He tells how, as a young man in the Solicitor General's
Office in the 1920's, he found himself being asked to do some
work on tax matters. He said he thought of going to the
Solicitor General, telling him I did not know anything about
taxes, but I decided to go to the library instead.
He would write to me, because he insisted right to the end
of an old and distinguished age that he make out his own tax
returns. He would tell me exactly how many hours it took. His
last letter was April 12, 1994. It had taken him 98 hours to
make out his relatively simple tax returns, and this was a man
who knew as much about the subject as any man living.
Well, all those IRS employees face the same problems Erwin
Griswold faced, and they need our help as well as our
oversight. I am happy to offer both. I think your theme of
power and responsibility is exactly right, sir.
Welcome, and let the games begin.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Moynihan.
There is no question but what the complexity of the tax
laws make the job of administration and enforcement very
complicated and difficult. At the same time, it must be
administered in a way that is fair and civil to our American
taxpayer.
Because we do have two votes coming roughly, I think, at
9:30, I thought we would call, next, upon our two colleagues
who are going to speak, as well as Congressman Hoyer, because I
know he has to go back. Then afterwards, we will call upon the
members for their comments about these hearings.
At this time, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I
call upon Senator Grassley, who was chairman of the Taxpayer
Rights Tax Force of the Commission on Restructuring the IRS.
Next, we will call on Senator Kerrey, who of course was
chairman of that important commission.
Finally, as I said, it is pleasure to have here the Ranking
Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury,
Postal Service, and General Government.
Gentlemen, I would ask that each of you restrict your
remarks for 5 minutes, as we do have a very full schedule.
Senator Grassley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM IOWA; MEMBER, THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON RESTRUCTURING THE
IRS
Senator Grassley. Mr. Chairman, the issue is one of
balance. The Federal Government, of course, needs to collect
all of its revenue which taxpayers are obliged to pay. But
taxpayers have certain rights that should not be abused. All of
us should support a proper balance between the two. Yet, over
the years such a proper balance has been lacking.
It is for this reason that some of us seem to be advocates
for the taxpayers without being mindful of the importance of
revenue collection functions of the IRS. Any serious objective
observer should acknowledge the necessity of balance.
But when evidence mounts of IRS abuses and mismanagement,
it is time to look beneath the surface and search for a
systemic, cultural problem. We did that and we found them. A
``we'' versus ``they'' mentality seems to exist, and that is
not a healthy situation.
This is not an indictment of the dedicated front-line IRS
employees. Typically they do an outstanding, yet thankless job
for the public. It is not they who should be the targets.
Rather, it is the management culture, mindless of the fact that
they are servants of the people.
If allowed to persist, such a mind-set often leads to
arrogance, unresponsiveness, disregard of one's rights, and the
very kinds of things that we have been hearing from our
constituents.
When the Congress attempts to investigate, we are often
derailed. A cloak of secrecy goes up. It is more veiled than
even the most elaborate secrecy arrangements at Langley.
In the language of the Federal Government it is called
6103. That is the section of the Tax Code that prevents
disclosure of taxpayer information. Designed to protect
taxpayer privacy, it does much more. It also protects the
privacy of those who abuse the taxpayers' rights, who mislead
Congress, and who might use collection quotas in tax
enforcement despite their illegalities.
Such abuses occur when independent oversight is lacking.
Oversight has a rather antiseptic quality about it. Hence, the
commission's recommendations for an independent board over the
IRS. This board would set appropriate performance standards,
would measure performance, then reward or discipline managers
according to that performance.
Oversight means more general openness. The commission found
that the IRS is a very insular organization. As a result, we
have put forward a first step to make the IRS more open to the
public and to the press. If we are to be successful in changing
the culture of the IRS, a key ingredient is openness. The
chairman of the commission, Bob Kerrey, was absolutely right
when he noted at one of our hearings a point about the media.
He said the media and the press are one of the key ways in
which Congress finds out what is going on.
So the commission, to encourage more openness as well as
more accountability, prescribed the following three remedies in
S. 1096. The IRS must be more timely and responsive in FOIA
requests. The IRS must not abuse its authority under 6103.
The commission found that the IRS did abuse its authority
in hiding from the press the fact that the agency had provided
false information to the Congress. The IRS must maintain and
preserve records. It has not. Many requests by the commission
for documents and data were met with a statement that such data
no longer existed.
Addressing these three areas of openness may not be
headline-grabbing, but in my experience, together with other
measures, these will help bring more accountability to the IRS.
The IRS should be held to the same high standards that the
agency itself applies to the American taxpayer.
The commission did not call for the easy solution that
often comes out of commission, to provide just more money. The
IRS, until 2 years ago, had seen continual increases in its
budget for 40 years. Indeed, the commission uncovered that
hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars had been wasted.
Clearly, the problem at the IRS is mismanagement, not money.
S. 1096 is designed to address many of these management
failures. I urge the committee to look favorably upon it.
Meanwhile, the commission did not conduct serious oversight
investigations to root out IRS cultural pathology. This is
where the commission's job ended and the job of this committee
begins with this week's hearings.
Understandably, these are controversial hearings. The IRS
is not used to be overseen. Untoward motives are assigned to
our oversight efforts, like partisanship, but that is a tired
argument. I intend to be an active participant in these
hearings.
In the 1980's, I was hardly partisan when I clashed with
the Republican administration over defense issues, the same
with the chairman of this committee. I have been overseeing IRS
abuses as far back as the Reagan and Bush Administrations.
In addition, I launched my efforts to oversee the IRS. I
was joined by my close friend, David Pryor, a Democrat, and a
close friend of the President's. We chose to make our critiques
responsible instead of partisan. I believe the record reflects
that. The charge of partisanship has no credibility with
respect to oversight efforts. It will be a fair airing of
questionable practices by an agency abusing its trust.
I have learned over the years, Mr. Chairman, that oversight
of the IRS is a step-by-step process, a long-term commitment.
We learned of the agency's quota system back in the 1980's and
we outlawed it. Suddenly, we find there might be an unofficial
back-door quota system still in place. It seems like you put
out a brush fire here and it pops up someplace else.
The moral of the story is, history teaches the need for
constant vigilance over the IRS. So, Mr. Chairman, I commend
you for your leadership in holding these much-needed hearings.
I would also like to say publicly how much I appreciated
working on the commission with Senator Kerrey. His guidance and
leadership produced a solid, credible effort.
So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for starting us down this
road.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Grassley.
[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. Senator Kerrey?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. J. ROBERT KERREY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
NEBRASKA; CO-CHAIRMAN, THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON RESTRUCTURING
THE IRS
Senator Kerrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I
want to congratulate both you and the Ranking Member for your
balanced opening statements. I appreciate that very much.
Holding these hearings is also very helpful. I would ask
unanimous consent that my entire statement be a part of the
record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kerrey appears in the
appendix.]
Senator Kerrey. Mr. Chairman, this commission held 12 days
of public hearings, we had hundreds of hours of testimony from
taxpayers and tax experts, we had 300 private interviews with
front-line employees. From my experience in oversight on both
the Appropriations and on the Finance Committee, we had an
unprecedented amount of access of the IRS.
We found a number of things. First, the IRS is relatively
efficient compared to other tax collection agencies worldwide,
spending about half of 1 percent of total collections, which is
substantially less than many other nations do.
But there was a disconnect between that efficiency and the
taxpayers' own view of this agency, and that is what we are
dealing with here. It is very important to note that the
dissatisfaction with the agency did not begin with our
criticism of the agency, it began with the taxpayers' own
evaluation of what the IRS was doing.
In the area of services being performed, there is a
breathtaking gap between what the IRS can do and what the
private sector can do.
Taxpayers do not compare the IRS with a tax collection
agency in Australia or the Federal Republic of Germany, they
compare it to what they can get with their ATM card. There is a
tremendous difference between what the IRS can do and the
private sector can do.
Another big area that comes in for criticism is secrecy.
Senator Moynihan has a new book coming out. I read the galleys
over the weekend. It really is a first-rate historical
examination of how secrecy has been built up inside of agencies
after laws have been passed.
Secrecy and power, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, run hand-
in-glove. So this issue of secrecy that Senator Grassley has
talked about was heard from consumers. The complexity of the
Code is obviously something that we create. Then layer onto
that the inability to apply technology. What started this
commission in the first place was the wasting of some $4-$6
billion of taxpayer money on a technology system that, in the
end, did not work.
So that was the first finding, that there was a disconnect
between apparent efficiency compared to other tax collection
agencies and what the consumers thought. Blame was evenly
balanced between Congress and the Executive Branch.
There was an awful lot of attention given to the fact that
85 percent of the American taxpayers voluntarily comply, 15
percent do not. But the 85 percent who voluntarily comply are
unwilling to give the IRS more enforcement power when they
appear to be exercising that power sometimes in a very
arbitrary and capricious fashion, and in a way that is
difficult for us to examine because of the survey issue I have
mentioned.
We recommended change in three big areas, Mr. Chairman,
with S. 1096. First, we recommend the creation of an
independent agency. Second, we recommend the creation of a
complexity index against which we can measure our proposals
dealing with tax proposals.
Third, we recommended a series of things that Senator
Grassley has already dealt with in the area of shifting power
to the taxpayer by giving the taxpayer more access to the
information and what is going on inside the IRS, in other
words, by shifting from secrecy to openness.
The common criticism that I have heard from opponents deals
with the independent board in S. 1096. Those of us who sat on
this committee and listened to the new commissioner of the
Social Security Administration understand the value of having
independence.
The value of independence is, you can be more accountable
to what the people are asking for rather than succumbing
sometimes to just an ideological view. This independent board,
has been called a take-over by American CEOs, giving corporate
executives the opportunity to run the IRS. You will hear that
over, and over, and over, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
I want you to hear what our proposed law says. It says,
``The composition of the board shall be 9 members, of whom 7
will be individuals who are not full-time Federal officers or
employees who are appointed by the President by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, and who should be considered
special government employees, one shall be the Secretary of the
Treasury and one shall be a representative of an organization
that represents a substantial number of IRS employees who is
appointed by the President.''
Mr. Chairman, our legislation has the support of not only
the National Taxpayer Union, but also the National Treasury
Employees Union. It has the support of professionals that work
with taxpayers to fill out their tax returns, it has the
support of the most recent IRS Commissioner Peggy Richardson,
and it has the support of two former Treasury Secretaries.
We attempted to respond in a balanced way to critiques of
our Board and our legislation. There may be ways to improve our
legislation, but it is going to be difficult to improve the
legislation unless, first of all, we get a chance to be heard
in an accurate fashion rather than to be heard in a fashion
that distorts the content.
Again, I congratulate you and I thank you for holding these
hearings. I appreciate very much again your balanced opening
statement, as well as the opening statement of Senator
Moynihan.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Kerrey.
Now it is my pleasure to call upon our good friend,
Congressman Hoyer.
STATEMENT OF HON. STENY HOYER, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MARYLAND
Congressman Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, Senator Moynihan, members
of the committee, thank you very much for giving me this
opportunity. I have spent about 13, 14 years as a member of the
Appropriations Committee overseeing IRS, and I am very pleased
to have this opportunity to be here.
I want to congratulate Senators Grassley and Kerrey for
their work on the restructuring commission. I think an
overwhelming majority of the work is very positive and I agree
with it and hope to support most of that report.
Mr. Chairman and Senator Moynihan, and the 102,000 men and
women of the IRS who are responsible for collecting 97 percent
of the Nation's revenue have, as Senator Kerrey has pointed
out, one of the most difficult jobs in government. They collect
the funds that pay to defend our freedom, educate our children,
and take care of the old.
At the same time Congress has flattened their funding and
cut enforcement, we have also implemented new parts of their
mission. The trend is asking the IRS to broaden its mission.
Recently, for example, the Congress instructed the IRS to
help in the important work of recovering child support
payments, an important objective but added work.
Against this backdrop, the commission wisely recommended
``Congress provide the IRS certainty in its operational budget
in the near future,'' and called for ``greater stability with
funding levels.''
As the commission has pointed out, Congress' failure to
pursue consistent policies, as Senator Moynihan, and you, Mr.
Chairman, have pointed out, have undermined the IRS in the
performance of its functions.
The vast majority of taxpayers in our country pay their
taxes on time, voluntarily. Nevertheless, the IRS only collects
about 84 to 85 percent of the taxes that are due.
There is currently a balance due of $216 billion. When some
do not pay their fair share, this increases the deficit and
raises the burden on all of the rest of us. From the point of
view of fairness alone, it is necessary for the IRS to carry
out its enforcement.
Nevertheless, in any large organization, however necessary
enforcement is, the power that goes with that enforcement may
be abused. Senator, you talked about power and responsibility,
that being the focus of this hearing. Absolutely correct, in my
opinion.
Two years ago, of course, Congress revisited the problem of
IRS abuses with the passage of the Omnibus Taxpayer Bill of
Rights. In its report, A Vision for the New IRS, the IRS
Commission on Restructuring found that this law ``had an
important effect on changing the culture of the IRS.'' Mr.
Chairman, you mentioned that. The commission has found that, in
fact, the culture is changing.
The commission went on to find ``very few examples of IRS
personnel abusing power.'' None of us deny that it occurs, all
of us believe we ought to eliminate it. But the good news that
the commission found was that it is the exception. Even one
instance, of course, is one too many.
IRS management has followed up on cases aggressively to
determine what went wrong and to take appropriate action. But I
believe that even appropriate action, after the fact, Mr.
Chairman, as you, I am sure appreciate, cannot erase the pain
that some taxpayers have experienced. I am encouraged,
therefore, that the IRS is following up with a service-wide
program to stop this kind of abuse before it happens.
This program includes centralizing and including training
on the provisions of both the first and second Taxpayer Bill of
Rights, creating taxpayer surveys that rate employees'
treatment of taxpayer, and other efforts.
Treasury and IRS has reaffirmed their commitment to the
original Taxpayer Bill of Rights. A joint Treasury/IRS National
Performance Revenue Task Force is currently conducting a 90-day
study of customer service. I am sure it will be spurred on by
this committee's actions, Mr. Chairman.
Ultimately, however, I believe that a solution to the
problem of taxpayer abuse cannot be separated from the larger
task of building the IRS of the future. Senators Grassley and
Kerrey have spoken of that.
The Treasury Department, the IRS, the Employees Union and
the Commission on Restructuring have identified a common set of
concerns. To build the IRS of the 21st century, they have
identified the need for renewed focus on oversight, leadership,
flexibility, improved budgeting and tax simplification. The IRS
has been rightly criticized in recent years for its failure to
manage well. Particular focus has been directed at attempts to
modernize the information systems.
For the first time in the 15 years, Mr. Chairman, that I
have been reviewing the IRS budgets, the Secretary of Treasury
and the Deputy, for the first time, are giving personal
attention to IRS management issues. This new focus is clearly
making a difference.
I am encouraged that Secretary Rubin has identified a
candidate in addition to that to head the IRS who has a non-
traditional background in management and information
technology, Charles Risotti. The Senate will be considering him
soon.
Mr. Chairman, I will leave the balance of my statement, but
let me conclude by saying this. It is important to point a
spotlight on areas of abuse in the collection activities. Our
constituents rightly expect us to protect us from abusive and
legal actions.
This objective is particularly important when such actions
are done in the name of law enforcement. At the same time, we
must do so in a way that does not undermine those who are
performing crucial law enforcement missions.
Mr. Chairman, you and I know there are scam artists,
criminals, who are trying to place an additional burden on
their fellow Americans by not contributing their fair share.
Law enforcement is never easy. It is always subject to abuse.
It is important that those of us in public life oversee and
ensure that the abuses are eliminated or, at the very least,
kept to the absolute minimum. I congratulate you, Mr. Chairman,
Senator Moynihan, and others for pursuing this worthy
objective.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for appearing here today.
We look forward to working with you in the future.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Hoyer appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. Now, we are coming towards the end of the
first vote, so I will recess the committee to enable us to go
down and make two votes. I ask the members to come back as
quickly as possible, because I am going to reopen the hearing
to permit members to make their opening statements.
Senator Kerrey. Mr. Chairman, may I with respect ask
whether or not you intend to ask me, Senator Grassley, or
Congressman Hoyer questions?
The Chairman. No.
Senator Kerrey. No questions?
The Chairman. No questions today. We have such a full
schedule.
Senator Kerrey. I see.
The Chairman. The committee is in recess.
[Whereupon, at 9:46 a.m., the hearing was recessed and
reconvened at 10:22 a.m.]
The Chairman. The committee will please be in order.
We will now turn to our fellow members of the committee for
any opening statement that they make care to make. I would ask
that they be limited strictly to 5 minutes since we have
already lost a great deal of time because of the vote, and
have, as I said, a full schedule.
I would also point out that we go down the list under the
early bird rule. The next person I have that is here is Senator
Graham.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GRAHAM, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
FLORIDA
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
express my appreciation to yourself and Senator Moynihan for
holding these hearings today. I would like to start by placing
a call. This is a call to the 800 number of the IRS, in order
to give us a laboratory test of how long it takes to get a
response to a citizen's message.
Senator Gramm. Hold it up to the mike so we can hear it.
Senator Graham. Mr. Chairman, this is obviously a critical
agency. We have now reached the computer response. We are not
interested in information on the new tax legislation. We know
too much about that already. [Laughter.]
Senator Graham. This is a critical agency. It is critical
that it be competent, fair, respectful of people, capable of
carrying out its function. It is also true that many aspects of
the Federal Government are anonymous, unknown to the American
people.
The activities of the IRS are often too well known to the
American people and form the basis of the American people's
assessment of how government, in general, operates, that which
they have contact with, that which they cannot see.
Unfortunately, what the citizens of my State and the Nation
are saying, is that they are having too many adverse impacts
with the IRS.
What is your name, sir? Mr. McDowell, first, I want to
thank you for having answered the phone in less than two
minutes. I would like to get back in touch with you, if you
could hold for a moment, and discuss some specific issues.
Could you hold? Good. Thank you. [Laughter.]
Senator Graham. What I would like to talk to Mr. McDowell
about are some of the concerns that have been expressed by my
constituents, including the difficulty of getting someone on
the telephone.
One lady from Ft. Meyers who says she is 69 years old said
that frequently it had taken her up to 30 minutes in order to
reach someone on the telephone. Another gentleman from Orlando
said that he has been waiting for 6 months to get a response to
a question, and that he has called the 800 number and has
encountered not a human being, but frustration. Those are some
of many examples of the response of citizens to their attempts
to make contact with this critical Federal agency.
As we proceed with these hearings, Mr. Chairman, I think
that it is important that we do a physician's quality
assessment of this agency in order to diagnose, what are the
components of its pathology. We will no doubt encounter, as the
commission chaired by Senator Kerrey did, a number of those,
but I would suggest, too, it might be particularly appropriate
for our concentration.
One, is the human dimension, whether it is a large
insurance company or Disney. Those firms which depend upon
their ability to relate effectively with the public make a
major commitment to the human beings within their organization
who are that contact with the public. I am concerned that the
IRS has not made that sufficient commitment in terms of the
standards of training, support, and leadership for its people.
I am struck with the fact that the IRS is not unique in
this circumstance. I have had the opportunity to have extensive
dealings with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and
many of the same concerns that we have and will hear about the
IRS are also said about that large Federal agency.
So we may, in the course of this set of hearings on the
IRS, develop some concepts that would have broader application
in the Federal service.
The second area is our primary responsibility, and that is
the complexity of the Tax Code. Senator Moynihan has already
dramatically illustrated the fact that we added another
approximately 10 percent to the complexity of the Tax Code, at
least in terms of pages, by the action that we took just a few
weeks ago.
I would hope that, as a result of these hearings, the
impact of that complexity on citizens' response would be fully
understood, and again that we would develop some concepts as to
how we might move towards the path of greater simplification.
It struck me as ironic that, whereas in 1996 one of the key
discussions of the Presidential election, including Senator
Dole's proposal for a 15 across-the-board reduction in tax
rates, were completely ignored in 1997 when the Budget
Agreement was struck and the tax reductions developed. Nobody
talked about using tax reductions as an opportunity for
simplification. They became the source of a fairly massive
degree of additional complexity.
So Mr. Chairman, I commend you and Senator Moynihan for
undertaking these hearings, and look forward to the diagnosis
and effective prescriptions that the hearings will bring to our
attention, and that we will then have the responsibility to
implement.
Now, back to my phone call.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Graham. This is the first
time I have seen anyone conduct business during a hearing, but
I congratulate you for your effective use of time.
I think, Senator Conrad, you are next in line.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KENT CONRAD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Conrad. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to call
anybody. I am probably the only person here who was a tax
administrator. I was the tax commissioner for my State before I
was elected to the United States Senate. So I think I have an
appreciation for----
Senator Moynihan. That has got to be sort of a record,
people rewarding a tax commissioner. [Laughter.]
Senator Conrad. Well, both Senators from North Dakota are
former tax commissioners, so that is a dual record. We were
elected to the U.S. Senate, I think, because we gave good
service to people. We were fair, we collected the taxes that
were owed, but we gave very good service and we did not have to
abuse people in order to collect taxes that were due.
Mr. Chairman and Senator Moynihan, I think most people
understand that, as a society, we have an obligation to pay
what is owed and due. That is how we support the common
defense, that is how we educate our young people, that is how
we support our elderly, that is how we build the roads,
bridges, and airports that allow us to function as a society.
So we have to collect the revenue that is necessary to pay the
bills. Frankly, over the last 5 years we have seen quite a
remarkable turnaround for the Federal Government.
The Federal Government was in a circumstance five years ago
in which it could not pay its bills, was not even coming close.
It was running record deficits. But because of actions that
were taken, we are now on the doorstep of balancing the unified
budget in this country, and that has led to an economic
resurgence. I say this, because I think it is important to put
into perspective what we are doing here today. Clearly, we must
have a revenue agency, whether it is the Internal Revenue
Service or some other such agency. We have to collect the money
necessary to pay the bills.
On the other hand, nobody can tolerate abusive behavior. I
think we also need to put that into perspective, because the
vast majority of men and women that work for our revenue
service do not abuse anyone. They go about their jobs quietly
and in a dedicated way, and perform very well.
I had, when I was tax commissioner, many exchanges with the
Internal Revenue Service and I found a high degree of
professionalism, a high degree of commitment, many people who
had dedicated their working lives because they believed what
they were doing was in the public interest.
So I do not want to be a part, and I do not think anybody
here wants to be a part, of some trashing of people who do not
deserve it. But this is a very large organization and there are
people who have made mistakes, and they are serious mistakes,
and that cannot be tolerated.
It is totally unacceptable that IRS staff abuse others,
that they threaten them, and that they use coercive tactics.
That is not acceptable and that should not be permitted. Those
who are responsible for it ought to be punished. We should make
that clear.
But, Mr. Chairman, I think we should also make clear there
are some here with an agenda that is beyond fixing something
that is broken, or at least in part is broken. There are some
who come here with a political agenda, and I also find that
troubling.
I note in a Washington Post story that there are some who
have been sending out fund raising letters with statements
like, ``We want to end the IRS's reign of terror.'' Well, I do
not think the IRS is engaged in a reign of terror. There have
been abuses, certainly. Are those abuses unacceptable?
Absolutely. I think to assert that the IRS has been engaged in
a reign of terror is pretty loaded language.
Another fund-raising letter that went out from a colleague
had the ``People vs. IRS Survey'' and said, ``Armed with your
responses and demands, GOP leaders can call for televised
Senate hearings on the IRS.''
A former IRS commissioner, Lawrence Gibbs, IRS commissioner
under President Reagan, as a matter of fact, is concerned about
any attempt to make a partisan issue out of this agency.
He said, and I think this is something for us to keep in
mind, ``Using highly partisan language to attack the IRS is
very irresponsible and can lead to undermining the public's
trust in the tax system, which is dangerous.'' Again, that is
the former commissioner under President Reagan.
So I think in conducting these hearings that it is very
important that we keep things in perspective. Where there are
abuses, they ought to be stopped. People who use coercive
tactics and who have violated the law ought to be punished.
But we also need to keep in mind we need a revenue agency
in the United States to do the very difficult work of
collecting those revenues that we as a Congress said people are
responsible to pay. We have done that because those revenues
support our National defense, they educate our young people,
they assist our elderly.
In saying that, Mr. Chairman, I think we all need to move
forward in a constructive way, identify what is wrong, figure
out ways to fix it, and implement those changes. I very much
appreciate the way the Chairman and Ranking Member began this
hearing. I think you have sounded just the right note.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Senator Conrad.
Again, let me emphasize, when we began these investigations
8 months ago, their purpose was to develop constructive
criticism, constructive criticism that would result in reform
to benefit the American public, as well as the employees of the
agency itself. That is the way these investigations have been
conducted. These hearings are not intended in any way to be
partisan or political, they are in the interest of good
government and that, I shall insist upon.
I think we will turn, at the suggestion of Senator
Moynihan, to Senator Gramm.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PHIL GRAMM, A U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Gramm. Mr. Chairman, let me join everybody else in
thanking you and Senator Moynihan for holding these hearings. I
think it is important that we take a long, hard, close look at
the IRS and how it works.
I do not think our dear colleague from North Dakota has to
worry about anybody undermining the credibility of the IRS. I
think if you look at what the witnesses are going to say here
over the next 3 days, the IRS has done a very good job of doing
that for itself.
I want to make three points in my opening statement. Number
one, I do not have any sympathy for people who are trying to
cheat on their taxes. I think the IRS not only has a license,
but a mandate, to go after people who are engaged in fraud and
who are cheating other taxpayers by not paying their taxes.
I hope that nobody gets confused here as to what we are
concerned about. I want the IRS to use the full power of the
law to make people pay the taxes they owe and to pursue people
who are cheating.
Second, I think we are all concerned about stories that we
hear every day from our constituents about how they are being
abused, about how heavy-handed the IRS is, and how it uses
tactics that we would view, and I think the average American
would view, as inappropriate.
Now, one of the things I always try to do is to take such
comments with a grain of salt, because I do not always know
what the facts are. I have never been one of these people that
automatically assumes the government is wrong because somebody
says they are engaged in bad behavior, but provides no proof.
But I have followed enough cases in my State through the
whole process to reach the conclusion that, while the vast
majority of the people at IRS with a very difficult job are
doing a good job at it, there are people who use the power to
intimidate that obviously working for the IRS gives them the
ability to do. We are all afraid of the IRS; I think every
American is.
I think it is important to have some system, to have checks
and balances, to oversee and hold people accountable for what
they do. Now, how to do that, how to get the balance between
going after people who are cheating and not abusing people who
are simply trying to comply with a very complicated law, where
most of us, even those of us who may have had at some time some
expertise in these areas, find it impossible to do our own
taxes? It is a very delicate balance. I came to the hearing
because I wanted to discover how to do it, not because I wanted
to tell anybody.
Finally, I would note the obvious point that today
government is spending about 31 cents out of every dollar
earned by every American. Next year we are going to have the
highest tax burden in American history. If we do not change
Medicare and Social Security, at an absolute minimum, within 25
years the payroll tax is going to be 30 percent, not 15
percent.
The average working family where husband and wife work, is
in the 28-percent Federal tax bracket. So 25 years from now,
with the status quo, at a minimum, the tax rate of the average
working blue collar family is going to be 56 percent. Obviously
it is going to be very, very difficult to collect those taxes.
So I think while we are looking at the IRS and while we are
looking at its abuses, part of the long-term reform is tax
simplification where it is easier for people who want to
comply, to comply.
But I think part of the reform is to look off in the future
25 years and say, is that the America we want? Do we really
want to have an agency that is trying to take 56 cents out of
every dollar earned by average working Americans? I think the
answer to that is no. We need to begin to try to make those
changes over the next 25 years to keep that from happening.
So, Mr. Chairman, this is a very difficult subject. It is
clearly a subject that deserves intense Congressional scrutiny.
I know what I would like to see us do. That is, use our
resources to go after people who are violating the law and be
sure we are respectful of people who are simply trying to
comply with a difficult law, but trying to tell the difference
between those two cases is very, very difficult.
Obviously, it is very difficult for a person at the IRS to
know the difference between the two. Clearly, change in the
code of conduct is due, and that is something that we ought to
be leaders in trying to produce. So, for all of these reasons
in a very difficult subject, I am very grateful for these
hearings, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Gramm.
Now I would call on Senator Bryan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD H. BRYAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
NEVADA
Senator Bryan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
No citizen should have to endure what Monsignor Ballweg,
Ms. Jacobs, Ms. Lund, and Mr. Savage, who will testify
tomorrow, encountered in their experiences with the IRS. There
is no excuse for this kind of conduct, attitude, or treatment
of law-abiding citizens who are attempting to comply with their
legal obligation to pay their taxes.
Having said that, the tax collector has never enjoyed great
public favor. From King Solomon's time, the tax collector has
been despised and reviled, so it comes as no surprise that the
IRS is an easy target for criticism and a convenient whipping
boy.
As pollster Frank Lance points out in his widely
distributed memo to Republican members of Congress, in the
language of the 21st century, nothing guarantees more applause
and support than the call to abolish the Internal Revenue
Service. I expect Mr. Lance is probably right about generating
applause, but that does not make it the right thing to do.
Unfortunately, someone needs to collect taxes. Federal tax
collection is a task of monumental proportions. Last year, the
IRS collected $1.4 trillion in taxes. It processed 209 million
returns, including 119 million individual income tax returns.
It disbursed $110 billion in refunds, and handled 105 million
requests for information.
By any standard, this is a very difficult job. I believe
that the great majority of the 102,000 employees of the IRS are
neighbors, our fellow citizens, who do their best to meet the
demands of this often unpleasant task in the best manner that
they can.
None of this is to suggest the kind of egregious conduct by
the IRS that we will hear about this week is or can be
justified, nevertheless, the IRS has made numerous improvements
which have made the always unpleasant task of paying taxes a
much less difficult ordeal for millions of Americans.
More than 19 million Americans filed their individual
returns electronically in 1997, an option that results in
faster, more efficient service and with greater accuracy. For
the 4.7 million of those electronic filers that used Telefile,
the annual ordeal of paying Federal income taxes amounted to
only a simple, 10-minute toll-free phone call to the IRS.
While these successes do not excuse the serious problems
the IRS needs to deal with in other areas, they do reflect a
continuing effort to improve the culture of the IRS and to
attempt to make it more taxpayer friendly.
The hearings before this committee this week will prove
titillating, shocking, and to a large extent will accurately
point out some very serious problems within the IRS.
Undoubtedly there are IRS personnel who behave badly, who
abuse their position, who are vindictive and abuse the
taxpayer. These employees ought to be identified and
immediately terminated. There is much we can do to improve the
management and operation of the IRS.
Senators Kerrey and Grassley led an important bipartisan
commission to examine the problems in the IRS. While there is
disagreement over some of the specific recommendations, the
commission report is an important starting point for what could
be a substantial reform of the IRS.
Many of the problems with the IRS, of course, as has been
pointed out by a number of my colleagues, lies right here in
the Congress. In many ways, the Congress has charged the IRS
with an impossible task. The ever-increasing complexity of the
Tax Code places enormous burdens on both taxpayer and IRS
employees, both of whom oftentimes are trying to do the right
thing.
This year's tax bill, of course, is no exception. The bill,
which most of us supported, creates entire new mazes of
confusing requirements that taxpayers will need to work their
way through. Many of the provisions are effective starting this
tax year, which means IRS personnel will need to have forms,
guidance, and appropriate training in place by the end of this
year.
Already we are told that we need to pass technical
corrections, which will then need to be incorporated into IRS
procedures.
The hearings before the committee this week will provide
more fodder for the IRS's critics, and I fear that some may use
these hearings to pursue partisan advantage in future political
contest.
Reckless, inflammatory criticism of the IRS may be good
political sport, but it can incite violence among tax
protestors. Nevadans were shocked in December of 1995 by a
botched attempt by so-called tax protestors to bomb the IRS
office in Reno, Nevada. Despite the unpopularity of their
duties, IRS employees are public servants who should not be
forced to work in hostile circumstances and should not be
expected to work under circumstances and conditions that
threaten their health and safety.
We do need to reform the IRS, get its computer system
working better, institute better management practices, and
terminate those in service who abuse their positions.
I am confident, Mr. Chairman, that you intend to use these
hearings as a basis to pursue real reforms of the IRS, and I
pledge to work with you as we undertake the business of
reforming the IRS.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Bryan.
Senator Nickles?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DON NICKLES, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
OKLAHOMA
Senator Nickles. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I want
to compliment you and Senator Moynihan for these hearings, and
also compliment Senator Grassley and Senator Kerrey for the
work that they have done in trying to reshape and rehabilitate
the IRS.
Mr. Chairman, it needs to be done. The Tax Code is far too
complicated, in many cases far too complex, and in many cases
not fair. This committee has an opportunity, I think, to
highlight some of the problems we have with the Code, maybe
some problems in enforcement of the Code, and some injustices
as well.
We have, as Senator Bryan mentioned, over 100,000 IRS
agents. That is a lot. I would certainly concur with Senator
Gramm's statement that most are very, very honorable and do an
outstanding job. They are, indeed, public servants.
But clearly there have been some real abuses, and those
need to be stopped and they need to be stopped now. The IRS has
unbelievable authority to wreck lives, ruin businesses. They
can cause anxiety.
There is not a phone call that can probably give people
more anxiety, than the IRS wants to audit you, or they want to
talk to you about your return. Automatically that sends chills
down the spines of taxpayers, taxpayers, in most cases who have
been very honest.
In some cases, maybe they are not honest and it is
certainly justified. But we will hear some cases of abuses and
those abuses need to be stopped.
Mr. Chairman, I believe we also need to make sure the IRS
is not being used for political purposes. It bothers me when I
read news accounts that organizations aligned philosophically
the opposite of the current administration have been audited. I
think we need to review that.
We need to find out and we need to make double-darn sure
that is not happening for political purposes. But when you hear
reports of audits of conservative groups and you do not hear it
from opposite-minded groups, that bothers me.
Mr. Chairman, just look at the Code. The Internal Revenue
Code, Senator Moynihan mentioned, I think, is 9,400 pages. We
recently added several hundred pages. This is the IRS code. The
Bible, to compare it, is quite a bit smaller. Senator Gramm was
studying it, and I would encourage him to continue studying it.
The Bible has something like 8,045 words. The IRS Code has over
5.5 million words of law and regulations. There is no
comparison.
I might mention, there is a lot more wisdom and value in
this book than there are in these books. We have added to the
complexity. In the last tax bill that we passed, and I think
most of us have said that it was a pretty good tax bill, we
added 285 new sections to the Tax Code, we amended 824. So we
made it even more complicated, more complex.
In my opinion, the tax code needs a significant overhaul.
We need to really reduce this to something that most people can
understand, and hopefully replace it with a fair, flat, and
simple Tax Code.
Mr. Chairman, when you have something like 5.5 million
words of rules and regulations, when you have 17,000 pages of
rules and regulations, we have got a real problem. So we have
102,000 agents trying to enforce the law. We have 480 different
forms.
Right now, the IRS sends out 8 billion pages of forms and
instructions every year. 8 billion. That is phenomenal. Last
year, the number of information forms exceeded a billion. That
is a lot of 1099s that somebody is supposedly trying to keep
track of. The number of corrections that were sent out are
estimated to be over 10 million per year. The number of
corrections. The number of penalty notices sent out in 1994
were 33 million.
In 1993, there were 8.5 million times that the IRS gave the
wrong answer to taxpayers who were seeking some information. In
1987, the GAO said that 47 percent of the calls to the IRS
resulted in inaccurate information. Congress recently spent $4
billion to upgrade IRS's computer capabilities. It has been a
dismal failure.
Now, Senator Bryan mentioned the electronic filing. That
has been a success. So, we have had some decent improvements in
their technology. But, as Senator Kerrey mentioned in his
opening statement, I think the IRS is way behind the 8 ball as
far as keeping up with modern technology. The EZ-1040 that
everybody is supposed to be able to understand and do so
quickly and simply has 31 pages of instructions.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think this committee has a big
challenge before us. I think we need to eliminate the abuses.
We need to be sure the IRS is in check, that it is doing its
job, that it is not abusing its power. I think we have a real
challenge and responsibility to see if we cannot simplify this
very complex and inequitable system. I thank you for your
efforts.
Senator Moynihan. Mr. Chairman, could I just take a moment?
The Chairman. Senator Moynihan.
Senator Moynihan. I would just remind all of our committee
members that you and I have asked the Joint Committee on
Taxation to examine politically motivated audits, and we will
have a report later this year.
Senator Nickles. I appreciate that.
Senator Moynihan. If there are, they had better stop, and
fast.
Senator Nickles. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Next on the list is Senator Lott.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT LOTT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
MISSISSIPPI
Senator Lott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief so
that you can go to your panels that you have lined up. I ask
consent that my entire statement be placed in the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lott appears in the
appendix.]
Senator Lott. I want to also join others in commending you,
Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking Member for having these hearings.
I have maintained for years, including this year, and will
continue to push for it in the future, that as a matter of fact
Congress should have a lot more of this type of hearing.
We should have investigative and oversight hearings into
how the laws are working, how are the agencies' bureaus and
departments functioning, not from the standpoint of trying to
be punitive, but trying to find out how the laws are working so
we can do a better job in changing them and making them better
for the American people.
So I think we are performing our duty here in having this
oversight hearing, trying to find out, what are the abuses at
the Internal Revenue Service. No agency should be above the
law, no agency should take matters into its own hands,
regardless of whether it is convenient or not.
So we need to check into these allegations that we have
heard about intimidation and pressure and threats. Because of
these hearings, I have been receiving calls from around the
country, including my own State.
Just yesterday I had one from a former IRS revenue officer,
now a CPA. He pointed out a particular case where he said,
``there was no doubt in my mind that the goal was not to find a
way to get the taxes paid that were owed, the purpose was to
put the business out of business.''
I have had other calls that really alarmed me along those
lines. I think that the purpose here should be to have a good,
strong bipartisan hearing. I know that is the intent, and that
is the way it will be. I hope it will not be the last step, but
only the first step.
The next step would be leading us to the necessary changes,
perhaps, in the law that will change the culture that maybe has
developed over a period of years in this agency, and I hope
that it can be the first of this type of hearing, that maybe we
will look at other agencies by other committees.
So I think we have a worthy goal here, to find out what has
been happening, where there are abuses, if any, what the
problems are, and see what we could maybe do then in terms of
legitimate, needed reform. I look forward to the hearings both
today, on Wednesday and Thursday.
I am trying to cooperate by, in fact, the Senate not coming
in until noon on Wednesday and Thursday so that we can have our
full attention devoted to these very important hearings. I
thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Moynihan.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Lott, for those words. Now
I would call upon Senator Rockefeller.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, A U.S.
SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be
very brief.
I would join in what has been said, at least around this
hall, in that I hope that these are bipartisan, I hope that
they are fair. I note in the witness list that the General
Accounting Office comes on panel number 6, which probably will
take place at about 2:30 or 3:00, and they would be the only
ones who would be trying to look at this in perspective.
Some of us have been Governors. Senator Graham has been a
Governor, Senator Bryan has been a Governor, I have been a
Governor. It is very interesting, when you get to the problem
of bureaucracies, even at the State level, and the behavior
within.
As Senator Nickles has said, and others, most people--and
Senator Conrad, I am told, said that before I came in, and I
know Senator Bryan said it--are trying to do the right thing in
the most unpopular job in the history of the world, I think,
being an IRS agent.
Unfortunately, not all Americans do pay the taxes which
they owe and which is part of the cost of a democracy, to have
your shores protected, your homes relatively safer.
The only way that can be achieved is to work through
something called enforcement, and enforcement I think is what
we are going to see has some flaws in it, because there are
always cases where people go out and they do things the wrong
way. Those people should be terminated and those people should
be shown in these hearings to be what we mean when we say we
are trying to straighten out the system.
I think it is also interesting that, over the last 5 years,
there have been 3,200 cases of assaults or threats on IRS
agents, and those folks are humans, too, the good ones, and
then whoever the bad ones are, they have the right to do their
jobs with some sense of security, except if they do them
wrongly, in which case they should be fired.
I know that Secretary Rubin has done a whole series of
things to try and correct this situation, and criticism of the
IRS has an effect on our ability to enforce our tax laws, as
has been noted by even President Reagan's IRS director. The IRS
always has been an agency to criticize. So I hope we are going
to get the whole picture. I have in my book letters from a
variety of Senate and House leaders who have turned the issue,
it seems to me, into a fundraising issue.
Each of the letters that they send out say some of the
things that have been said here this morning, or will be said
here this morning. Then they said, by the way, please send in
$25, $50, or $100 to whichever national committee or to
whichever Senate campaign committee is trying to raise money by
IRS bashing. I find that distressing.
In other words, is this a real issue that we are trying to
do something about or is this an issue that we are trying to
make political capital off it? If it is the latter, I find that
distinctly unuseful. If it is the former, I find it thoroughly
worthwhile.
The two large volumes of the Tax Code and the regulations
that Senator Nickles had in front of him are, in fact, caused
by us. We are the ones in the Congress who caused those to
appear. It would be in that spirit then that what we are
talking about here is not just the abuses, which is important
and necessary for us to hear, but also, how can we fix it. That
is the kind of thing which tends to engage my attention, and I
am confident it would be the same with my colleagues.
I thank the Chairman.
The Chairman. Let me say once again that the purpose of the
investigation and these hearings is not a partisan one. The
purpose is good government, not partisan purposes.
Our focus is on whether the average taxpayer is being dealt
with fairly by the IRS and the internal operation of the IRS,
irrespective of what party may be in control of the Executive
Branch. A number of our cases go back 17 years, so it covers
several different administrations. This is an internal
examination, as I say.
Let me set the record straight. Any fund-raising efforts
are in no way connected with this investigation that we
commenced some 8 months ago.
I think we are now to the point where we can turn to the
first panel. The members of these associations, which I call
the ``view from the trenches,'' represent the public in all
types of tax matters, as well as disputes with the IRS. In the
case of enrolled agents, these are men and women who are
licensed to represent taxpayers before the IRS, with many of
their members being formerly with the IRS.
The panelists are Mr. Joe Lane, who represents the National
Association of Enrolled Agents, representing the New York State
Society of Certified Public Accountants; we have Mr. Robert L.
Goldstein, chairman, and James A. Woehlke, Director of Tax
Policy--if they would come forward.
Now, it is our practice in these oversight hearings to
swear the witnesses, so I would ask each of you to stand and
raise your right hand.
[Whereupon, the three witnesses were duly sworn.]
The Chairman. Do you so swear, Mr. Lane?
Mr. Lane. I do.
The Chairman. Mr. Goldstein?
Mr. Goldstein. I do.
The Chairman. Mr. Woehlke?
Mr. Woehlke. I do.
The Chairman. Please be seated.
Senator Moynihan. You realize you are in a lot of trouble
now.
Mr. Woehlke. Yes, indeed.
The Chairman. We will start with Mr. Lane. I would ask that
your testimony be limited to 10 minutes in each case, but your
full statement, of course, will be included as if read.
Mr. Lane?
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH F. LANE, ENROLLED AGENT, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS COMMITTEE, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
ENROLLED AGENTS, GAITHERSBURG, MD
Mr. Lane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Moynihan.
It is a pleasure to be invited to appear before the Senate
Finance Committee today to discuss these matters. We understand
the focus of the hearings is to look into IRS practices and
procedures.
Enrolled agents are uniquely positioned to provide some
valuable insight to you, since our members deal with thousands
of IRS employees every day in representing taxpayers. I was
heartened to hear the opening comments about the bipartisan
nature of these hearings. There has been a tremendous amount of
media hype in connection with this hearing, and we were a
little bit concerned about it ourselves.
We spoke to both the Majority side and the Minority side,
and were assured by both parties that the intention of these
hearings was to be a balanced approach to looking at the IRS,
with the attempt to arrive at some constructive suggestions for
change that would improve the tax administration system.
Mr. Rockefeller, I would be happy to assure you, we are
here strictly to offer unbiased viewpoints. I think GAO has a
view, but I think the rest of us also have viewpoints that are
on an even keel.
I think probably the best way to demonstrate the bipartisan
nature of this Commission would be to recommend out of this
committee the Kerrey-Grassley bill. That was a year-long effort
in the National Commission on Restructuring to arrive at
informed viewpoints on how best to change the tax
administration system this country has and to assure that we
have taxpayer rights protected and we have an organization that
is responsive to taxpayer input, and at the same time creates
an effective work force that is able to collect the taxes this
country needs to survive on. So the best way to ensure that you
have bipartisanship, I think, is to enact that legislation, and
we would urge that that be done.
We would like to start today by talking about some of the
things IRS is doing right. I think the Service should be
commended for the fact that it has embraced the majority of
these recommendations that the Commission has given them, and
they have announced that they intend to enact administratively
whatever they are capable of doing from the commission.
I think that that probably has not been an easy pill to
swallow for the IRS, but they have stepped up to the plate and
done it. I think that is indicative of an agency that is
willing to accept constructive criticism and change.
We also salute the selection of Bob Barr, the new Assistant
Commissioner for Electronic Tax Administration. He is an
outsider from the industry. He served previously as the vice
president of the Intuit Software Company, and I think that the
IRS is responding by going out and trying to recruit expertise
they do not have in-house to market electronic filing, and that
is a good development and I hope to see more of that continue.
We also applaud some of the initiatives the local field
components of the IRS are doing. They are trying to bring in
more practitioner input, and we praise those districts that are
involved in that area.
We also think the IRS national office is making a concerted
effort to have better communications with the practitioner
community, and that always improves relationships when problems
can be discussed in an open manner and flushed out.
One of the biggest concerns we have today about the IRS is
the status of employee morale in the Service. Our voluntary
compliance system depends on both sides of the table being
staffed by competent people. On the practitioner's side, we
have a procedure for making sure our people are up to snuff and
are competent and able to handle things, and we train them.
One of the concerns we have on the IRS side is this
constant din of criticism and public attention and media
barrages that we see that has the effect of making morale in
that organization decline.
So we are concerned about that morale and we would like to
see some additional focus on GAO looking into what they could
do to instill some additional feelings of worth among some of
these people in the Service, because if you have unhappy tax
administrators you inevitably have unhappy taxpayers, because
they have to deal with these people on a regular basis. That
human element that Senator Gramm talked about is an extremely
important element in any law enforcement capacity.
We have some specific issues that we would like to address
with the committee today in the area of taxpayer rights, and
particularly in procedures with collection and exam. Then we
would like to go on and offer some additional suggestions for
your consideration.
One, we believe the American Bar Association has drafted
some legislation they will be submitting which bars the IRS
from using statistically-generated average expenses in making
collection case determinations. We support that legislation and
we would like to see the Service consider the unique facts and
circumstances of every taxpayer's case on a case-by-case basis.
We believe that the use of these expense statistics has
increased the number of bankruptcies substantially in the last
year. We had a 25-percent increase in bankruptcies in 1996,
during a period of economic improvement throughout the country.
We think that a big component of that bankruptcy increase
had to do with the collection division in October of 1995
implementing this procedure of using Bureau of Labor Statistics
standard expenses allowances instead of allowing taxpayer to
take the expenses they are actually incurring when they are
making collection determinations. So we would like to see that
investigated and we would like to see Congress act on that.
The other problem we always have is the perennial one of
inconsistent enforcement policies around the Nation. We have 33
IRS districts and we frequently run into issues where the
national office promulgates a policy or procedure, then we see
deviation from the procedures. We need to see more attention
paid to that, and that is particularly in the collection area.
The other issue we have problems with is the new procedure
recently where the IRS has started to ask taxpayers for statute
extension requests on collection cases, even though there might
be nine and a half years of the 10 years left on the statute.
That is an inappropriate use of the statute extension
provisions. We think that the Congress ought to take a look at
whether they ought to have a right to have a statute extension
at all in collection.
Just in 1990, you extended their statutory period of
collection from 6 years to 10, and now we have a situation
where we have a taxpayer, by example in the testimony we gave
you today, someone goes out and files a tax return, owes the
money, and calls the IRS, tries to set up a payment agreement.
If the payment agreement that they could afford to pay each
month is insufficient to full-pay the tax within the 10-year
period, the IRS is asking for a 5-year extension today. We do
not think Congress ever intended the IRS to go into the
mortgage business or have a lifelong relationship with these
people. Ten years ought to be sufficient. We do not think we
want to see 15- and 20-year installment agreements with the
IRS, and we urge Congress to take a look at that whole area.
The collection appeals process we think ought to be beefed
up and allowed to be a true appellate review of the judgment
and conduct of the revenue officers involved. Right now, it is
strictly a procedural review and it does not have much of an
impact. I think the lack of use by practitioners and taxpayers
alike indicate that they view that as really not a legitimate
forum.
In exam, we have the current exam program letter that
evaluates districts based on yield per hour. I think one of the
things you are going to focus on in this hearing is the
inappropriate use of enforcement statistics.
If you look at how much money per hour is generated by
revenue agents, then the first casualty you have in an
environment with a quota system, like a traffic cop, is
taxpayer rights. You should not have an environment where you
evaluate people based on how much money you rake in per hour.
We think that ought to be addressed by the Congress.
The other issue we are concerned about is the inappropriate
use of the financial status audits, or the economic reality
audits. We had a lot of publicity about this last year, a lot
of hearings about it. The IRS issued a national directive
saying they would only use this approach when there was an
indication somehow in the case file that there was unreported
income. We still see and get complaints from members and
taxpayers alike that this procedure is being implemented when
it is inappropriate.
I think one of the suggestions we would like to see to head
this off is that the IRS ought to be required, whenever they
send an audit notice to a taxpayer, to include with that audit
notice all of the IRP data, the Information Returns Program
data, that the IRS has on that taxpayer in the file. The reason
for that, is it avoids the ``gotcha'' game in the audit
process.
If taxpayer and practitioners alike, in preparation for
going in for the audit, know that the IRS has been reported
some income such as a dividend or miscellaneous compensation
that was paid but it is not reflected on a tax return, they can
prepare to argue either it is correct and was inadvertently
omitted, or it was an erroneous filing to begin with. That is
one of the issues we always run into as a justification for
using this economic reality approach.
Another area we think the committee ought to look at in the
hearings you are doing, is the market segment specialization
program. This program is probably the best thing IRS has done
in the last 25 years in identifying pockets of non-compliance
in specific industries and focusing their efforts, going out
and getting other State agencies and other Federal agencies
together, bringing all the people to the table that are
affected by it, and doing something about it.
Probably the best success story you can look at is out in
the Central California district in Fresno, where they have
focused on farm labor contractors. They have just accomplished
a tremendous result as a result of the implementation of this
approach, and I would suggest you hold a field hearing out
there, if you have the time.
I extend an invitation to come out to California. Everybody
in Washington likes to get an invite to come out to the coast,
I know. Come out and see what they are doing out there. They
are doing some terrific stuff and they ought to be commended
for that.
With respect to exam quality review, one of the concerns we
have about employee morale and the lack of IRS's ability to
recruit quality people, is the quality of the work that is done
at the initial stage in the audit process is declining.
One of the things that is interesting to us and I think is
something else you ought to look at, is the Pacific Northwest
district has just announced a test study which they are going
to implement using a district conference staff. That is a
positive development.
We would like to see, additionally, the committee consider
protecting taxpayers' rights of confidentiality by enacting
legislation that gives the taxpayer the right to protect from
IRS summons the counsel and advice they have gotten from their
tax advisers.
We would like to see all commercial tax return preparers
registered. We have a ludicrous situation in this country today
where the tax preparers that have made the most commitment to
their profession, the enrolled agents, the attorneys and the
CPAs, are the most regulated, and the ones that have no
commitment to a professional organization, have not agreed to a
code of professional conduct, have no code of ethics to adhere
to, and could open up a card-table shop on January 1, and
disappear on the 16th of April, are completely unregulated.
I think the most basic taxpayer right in this country ought
to be that if you pay for advice on taxes to make sure you
comply with the law, you ought to be confident you are dealing
with a competent person.
Today, we regulate barbers more than we regulate commercial
return preparers, and you can recover from a bad haircut in 3
weeks.
The other thing we have got to do is provide full credit
for Social Security and self employment taxes that are paid in
on delinquent tax returns. Taxpayers are not getting full
credit for their Social Security, even though the IRS is
collecting the taxes. That ought to be reversed.
The other thing we would like to see the committee do is
decide that, as a general principle of tax administration, you
will never have a situation where the penalties are allowed to
exceed 100 percent of the tax due for a particular tax period.
We would also like to see tax penalties not used for revenue
raising.
Senator Nickles gave an excellent demonstration before with
the Bible and the Code. That is because the good Lord, in his
wisdom, inspired four evangelists to write the Bible and not
535 members of Congress. We would have the same situation if we
had 535 evangelists, I am sure. We would have a 5 million word
Bible, and it would be just as difficult to figure out.
One of the things you have to review is the whole penalty
structure in the Code. There are too many penalties for too
many infractions and you cannot expect anybody to understand
them.
The other thing we would like to see changed, is there were
some recent changes in some court cases that developed where we
saw elderly people make an estimated payment of $7,000 when it
should have been $700. The person had Alzheimer's.
The court reviewed the case and said, we would like to be
able to give this person a refund, but the daughter did not
discover this until three or 4 years later. Therefore, the
statute barred them from getting a refund. That law should be
changed. There should be reasonable cause that allows a refund
beyond the 3-year period.
The other thing we did in our testimony before the
Commission last year was to offer a suggestion that perhaps one
of the ways of approaching the problems we are dealing with in
tax administration was to divide the IRS into two separate
agencies, one for taxpayer service, and the other for tax law
enforcement.
The Commission did not choose to follow that
recommendation, but we would suggest to you that it might be an
appropriate thing to discuss with the Commissioner-designate
during the confirmation hearings to see if they could
accomplish virtually the same thing within the umbrella of the
organization, to set aside and provide a network and an
organization within the IRS to provide for employment and
promotion opportunities for people to move up in the
organization, when they have a customer service attitude.
The IRS says 85 percent of taxpayers are in compliance.
Eighty-five percent of their efforts ought to go towards taking
care of those people in terms of focusing on making sure if
someone calls in and wants a question answered, it gets
answered in a courteous manner and they get the information
they need as expeditiously as possible.
One of the problems you deal with in law enforcement is,
the same personality that makes a good cop makes a lousy
waiter, and vice versa. So you need to have more emphasis on
customer service in that organization and a little less on
enforcement.
We have outlined the specifics in the example. Senator
Gramm made reference to the INS having the same problem. Thank
you.
The Chairman. Your time has expired and we must move on.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lane appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. Mr. Goldstein?
Mr. Goldstein. I will let Mr. Woehlke start.
The Chairman. I would point out it will be 10 minutes for
the two of you, so I would ask that you keep within that time
limit.
Senator Moynihan. New Yorkers are notoriously fast talkers.
Mr. Woehlke. We can probably accommodate that, Senator,
yes.
The Chairman. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JAMES A. WOEHLKE, DIRECTOR, TAX POLICY, NEW YORK
SOCIETY OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, NEW YORK, NY
Mr. Woehlke. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Moynihan,
members of the committee.
I am James Woehlke, CPA, director of tax policy for the New
York State Society of CPAs, and I am here with Robert Goldstein
today, the chairperson of our Relations with the IRS Committee.
Our society is privileged to testify before you today about
our day-to-day work with personnel at the IRS. But before we
begin we must say that we have tremendous respect for the IRS
in its gargantuan task of administering our Nation's tax
system. We are supportive of the mission of the IRS and are not
among those, unrealistically, we believe, calling for
abolition.
Also, some of the media reports about this week's hearings
indicated your witnesses would portray an IRS run amok. We are
unable to corroborate that particular message. Quite frankly,
the IRS has over 100,000 decent, dedicated employees who carry
out their responsibilities without guile and to the best of
their ability. It is both unfair and inaccurate to portray the
entire agency as running amok.
This is not to say, however, that the IRS has no internal
problems and challenges to face. Recent accounts for the $4
billion tax system modernization boondoggle and the IRS's
complete inability to understand the degree of intrusiveness
inherent in its financial status approach to auditing indicate
that there is a disconnect between the inside and outside IRS
views of what its appropriate function is. Our testimony before
the National Commission to Restructure the IRS distilled a
number of what we called root causes at the heart of the IRS's
problems.
Mr. Goldstein will touch on several of those today because
they are helpful to understanding the problems and challenges
practitioners face in their day-to-day interactions with the
IRS. The root causes we will be touching on are structural
dysfunction, the IRS's self-image, and the IRS's siege
mentality.
We went into much greater detail regarding these and other
root causes in our testimony before the National Commission.
Time today, of course, will not permit that to be related in
detail, and we therefore respectfully request that you admit
that testimony, along with today's testimony, into the
hearing's official record.
[The information appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Woehlke. Let me now turn the microphone over to Mr.
Goldstein.
The Chairman. Mr. Goldstein.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. GOLDSTEIN, CHAIRMAN, RELATIONS WITH IRS
COMMITTEE, NEW YORK SOCIETY OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS,
NEW YORK, NY
Mr. Goldstein. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Moynihan, and members of the committee. I am privileged to
testify before you today.
In my practice I deal with the men and women of the IRS on
almost a daily basis. In my experience and that of those of the
colleagues I represent, we have found that the vast majority of
IRS employees are dedicated public servants who try to do the
best job they have with the tools available to them.
In our region we have found the executives and staff of the
service to be open to liaison meetings and, within limits,
responsive to taxpayer and practitioner concerns. These liaison
meetings and joint IRS practitioner forums have allowed the
practitioner and service personnel to share their concerns,
understand the problems of the other, and try to work through
these problems before they reach the point of confrontation.
There are, however, problems which need to be addressed.
That is why we are here today. I dare say that the majority of
IRS personnel would also agree that these issues need to be
addressed.
The decentralized management structure of the IRS has made
coordination of some important functions, including employee
training, tax administration, and education difficult to
achieve.
We believe one case illustrates the gap between national
level policy-setters and regional management. Regionally
produced IRS pronouncements, including market segmentation
specialization program papers and market segment understandings
have been issued with strident commentary regarding worker
classification, while at the same time new training methods and
legislation on a national level are implemented expressing
conciliatory and taxpayer friendly approaches to the worker
classification issue.
Regarding the IRS's self-image, we noted that a number of
IRS employees testifying before the National Commission
referred to the IRS as one of law enforcement. We cannot
disagree more with this perception.
We recognize that there is an important element of law
enforcement in the role of the Service. But to view that as its
primary function creates a level of insularity and heavy-
handedness which often makes it impossible to achieve its core
customer service objectives.
The mere existence of the Problems Resolution Program
illustrates this point. The primary role of the taxpayer
advocate is to resolve taxpayer issues which have floundered in
the normal process.
The Problems Resolution Program has been extremely
successful and praised by practitioners and taxpayer alike, and
offers an example of how different attitudes by IRS personnel,
taxpayers, and their representatives emerge when the customer
service model is used.
The very success of this program points to the failure of
the normal process because it means the IRS is succeeding the
second time around.
An example of the enforcement mentality that we address or
that we have problems with exists with the increasing use of
bypass actions, wherein an IRS examiner contacts the taxpayer,
in spite of the fact that that taxpayer has an appointed
representative pursuant to a power of attorney.
In a recent survey by the AICPA, over a third of the agents
whom the responding CPAs came into contact with insisted upon
interviewing taxpayers directly, even after the first Taxpayer
Bill of Rights should have eliminated this practice. We
recognize as practitioners that there are times when bypass
procedures are appropriate. But these are drastic actions and
require strict supervision. A one-third failure rate is
inappropriate.
The IRS misconception regarding the primacy of its law
enforcement role leads to our third root cause, the IRS's siege
mentality. It is overly insular in nature. In our written
submission we quote at some length the Deputy Secretary in the
Department of Finance and Management of the Service as testify
before the National Commission that the IRS is a law
enforcement agency at heart. We disagree with that. We believe
it is a customer service agency at heart, and has a tangential
law enforcement element.
We would be remiss in any discussion of problems with the
IRS if we did not address tax law complexity. Taxpayers
primarily use professionals to prepare their tax returns and
represent them before the IRS, in the event that such
representation is required, because of the complexity of the
tax law.
Over the past 11 years, we have had 8 years with tax law
changes, significantly increasing the complexity of our tax
system. The law that you gentlemen have just passed ranks near
the top of the complexity scale.
The professional staff of the Congress should consult with
practitioner organizations on a regular basis in connection
with writing new tax legislation. In this way, they can better
understand the compliance effect of the law that you pass. This
becomes clearer to the members of your staff.
The examination and collection issues which we are going to
discuss may appear mechanical, however, they are symptomatic of
systemic problems that we see in the field. For example, we are
aware of an S corporation audit that took in excess of 24
months and resulted in a minimal adjustment.
Another S corporation took in excess of 18 months from the
date of the initial audit to the 30-day letter. An individual
audit covering a period of 2 years endured for more than 20
months and has just been taken into the Problems Resolution
Program.
IRS personnel who participate in the FlexiPlace program
wherein certain personnel work at home for part of the work
week, cannot be reached by telephone when they are at home. A
modern voice mail system should be installed and such personnel
working at home should be required to monitor that system.
We do have some suggestions. We believe that the interim
extensions for partnerships, trusts, and individuals should be
eliminated. They serve no useful purpose. They do not increase
the government's cash flow, they cost the IRS time and money,
and are a thorn in the side of extending taxpayers and
practitioners.
We endorse the report of the National Committee for
Restructuring. We think they did a very fine job. However, we
definitely do not agree that the independent board they suggest
should hire and fire the commissioner or set the IRS budget.
The Chairman. Mr. Goldstein, your time is up. I do have to
announce, our time is up as well. The Democrats have objected
to any committee continuing hearings at this time.
Senator Moynihan. It is a rule that can be invoked.
The Chairman. So we will have to continue this later. I
would like to recess and see if we cannot work that out, so I
would urge everybody to stay here for the moment.
Senator Moynihan. Mr. Chairman, at the risk of censure by
the whole body, I am going to extend long enough to thank these
witnesses. They have been very helpful. They have both endorsed
the Kerrey-Grassley Commission report. The idea that we ought
to consult with persons such as the CPAs and enrolled agents on
questions of complexity before we pass another tax bill is a
good idea.
The Chairman. No question about that, that complexity is a
serious problem.
Senator Gramm. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes, Senator Gramm.
Senator Gramm. Mr. Chairman, could we, before we adjourn,
since this order has come over from an objection on the Senate
floor, could we finish this round? It very seldom happens to
me, but I have had an idea. [Laughter.]
Senator Gramm. I would like to have an opportunity to ask
some questions and make a comment. Could we at least finish
this round before we shut down?
The Chairman. I think the answer to continuing has to be in
the negative. I regret that.
Senator Mack. Do we know who objected? Can we raise a
question here as to who objected, and what was the purpose?
Senator Moynihan. It was Senator Daschle, but you will not
get anywhere asking us why.
Senator Mack. It is an unfortunate situation. I think that
this morning the tone was created that this was going to be a
bipartisan effort.
Senator Moynihan. Oh, it has nothing to do with this
committee. Nothing to do with this committee.
The Chairman. The objection is to all committees meeting
during the session of the Senate. I would like to continue, but
I think we would probably lose our Democratic members. I am
insistent upon this continuing as a bipartisan effort, so let
us see if we cannot work it out.
I would point out, tomorrow there will be no Senate
business in the morning. We will start at 9:00 and we will be
able to continue at least until 2:00, and hopefully later.
I apologize to our witnesses who were to testify today.
Senator Moynihan. We thank our witnesses, too.
The Chairman. Yes. But some are also here who have not had
a chance to speak. So I just want to make it very clear, we
appreciate your being here. Your testimony is important and we
desire to secure it in full. I would ask that you stay around
temporarily.
The committee is in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m. the hearing was recessed until
Wednesday, September 24, 1997 at 9:00 a.m.]
PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Finance,
Washington, DC.
The hearing was convened, pursuant to recess, at 9:00 a.m.,
in room SD-215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. William V.
Roth, Jr. (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Also present: Senators Grassley, Hatch, D'Amato, Murkowski,
Nickles, Gramm, Lott, Moynihan, Baucus, Rockefeller, Breaux,
Conrad, Graham, Moseley-Braun, and Kerrey.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., A U.S. SENATOR
FROM DELAWARE, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
The Chairman. The committee will please be in order.
Since we were cut short yesterday we will submit questions
in writing to both the Enrolled Agents and New York State
Society of CPAs, and their responses will be included as part
of the hearing record.
So I would ask our members to provide the Finance Committee
staff with their written questions by the close of business
today. Of course, I do apologize to our witnesses for this
change.
[The questions and responses appear in the appendix.]
The Chairman. This morning I would like to welcome three
distinguished authors, each of which is an expert in the area
of the workings of the Internal Revenue Service.
Ms. Shelley Davis has had the distinction of being the
first and last IRS historian. She is the author of a book
entitled ``Unbridled Power.''
Mr. Robert Schriebman is a practicing tax attorney who has
written eight books on IRS practices and procedures, and he is
also an adjunct professor at the University of Southern
California Graduate School of Accounting.
Finally, we have Mr. David Burnham, who is an associate
research professor at Syracuse University, and has written
several books including ``A Law Unto Itself: Power, Politics
and the IRS.'' He is the former New York Times investigative
reporter who wrote the Serpico police corruption series that
led to the formation of the NAT commission.
I would ask these three witnesses to please come forward.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. I wonder if I may make a very short
observation at this time. Yesterday the hearing was cut short
and I would just like to add one short horror story to the list
and commend you for holding this hearing.
The Chairman. All right. We will get back to the witnesses
in just a minute. In the meantime, Senator Murkowski.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to share with you an Associated Press story of
September 22, and I will read it as follows. It is just one
page. ``Hundreds of Alaskans have received notices from the
Internal Revenue Service that their permanent fund dividends
were being seized because of tiny back tax debts, some as small
as 4 cents.''
The IRS says the problem was a computer glitch, one that
involved some 800 of my Alaskan constituents, who got the
notices allegedly by mistake. ``We are extremely sorry,'' the
IRS spokesperson said.
''I thought it was a practical joke that one of my friends
was playing,'' said Dan Coyne, owner of the Sourdough Sporting
Goods in Wasilla when he received the notice Monday of his 4-
cent debt seizure. But the notice looked official enough, and
soon Coyne got mad. Can you imagine how much money this costs
the taxpayers?
He tried to call the IRS office, but could not get past the
readings and the hold music. He called the State Department of
Revenue, he called his Congressman, and he called me. ``I was
up in arms,'' he said. The tax collectors had never told him he
owed this 4 cents. ``Well, it was all a mistake,'' said Kraft
at the IRS. ``A technical glitch was traced to an IRS computer
in Ogden, Utah.'' No offense, Senator Hatch.
``The IRS normally does not levy permanent fund checks for
any amount less than $25,'' Kraft said. ``In some cases, these
pennies were not even owed in the first place.''
But Willie Bannon, a potato farmer in Sutton, received a
notice saying he and his wife owed the government 7 cents.
After 20 minutes on the telephone, and then on hold, Bannon
finally received an IRS representative. ``And she wanted to
argue with me that it was not 7 cents,'' Bannon said.
``Surely,'' the representative told him, ``if the IRS was
levying his check he must owe more.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
I would say to each of our witnesses, we are indeed very
pleased to have you here. I would ask that each of you in your
opening statements limit it to 10 minutes. Your full statement
will be included as if read.
It is our practice to have witnesses in these hearings to
be sworn, so would you please rise and raise your right hand.
[Whereupon, the three witnesses were duly sworn.]
The Chairman. Ms. Davis?
Ms. Davis. I do.
The Chairman. Mr. Schriebman?
Mr. Schriebman. Yes, I do.
The Chairman. Mr. Burnham?
Mr. Burnham. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you, and please be seated.
Ms. Davis, it is our pleasure to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF SHELLEY DAVIS, AUTHOR OF ``UNBRIDLED POWER'' AND
FORMER HISTORIAN FOR THE IRS, MANASSAS, VA
Ms. Davis. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator
Moynihan. I am glad to be here. I very much appreciate this
opportunity.
I am going to start out by just telling you I read with
great interest, as I am sure all of you did, an article in the
Washington Post last Saturday announcing these hearings. But if
this article is to be believed, these hearings are a partisan
effort by Republican members of Congress to blacken the
reputation of the IRS.
Even an unnamed Democratic Congressional staff member said
in that article that much of what you hear over the next 3 days
will be ``for show,'' that hiding the identities of IRS
employees who will testify before you is nothing but a ploy to
generate media attention.
But I tell you, nothing could be further from the truth. I
sit before you today in the open as a former employee of the
IRS, because I have nothing to hide. My career is over.
But I have much to share with you about the IRS. I would
like you to refer to my written testimony for a summary of my
experiences with the arrogant and dangerous culture of the IRS;
about how I discovered that the IRS does keep list of American
citizens for no reason other than that their political
activities might have offended someone at the IRS; about how
the IRS believes that anyone who offers even legitimate
criticism of the tax collector is a tax protestor; about how
the IRS shreds its paper trail, which means that there is no
history, no evidence, and ultimately no accountability. So, I
urge you to read my written testimony.
But today I am going to speak to you from the heart. This
is not a partisan witch hunt. To help you believe that, I will
tell you up front that I am a lifelong Democrat. I do not come
to you today with any kind of partisan agenda. I come to you
today as a citizen who witnessed things that should never
happen in our government that I saw during my more than 7 years
as the first, last, and only official historian for the IRS.
As their former historian, I can sit here and tell you that
abuse of taxpayers, abuse of authority, and abuse of power by
the IRS happens on both sides of the political fence. There is
evidence that both the Democratic and Republican
administrations in the past have tried to use the IRS to
further their political agendas. There is absolutely nothing in
the current law to prevent this from happening.
There is also nothing to prevent the IRS from doing it on
their own in an attempt to perhaps please or appease whatever
party happens to be in power. It is important to remember that
the IRS itself is not a particularly partisan agency, it has
only one political appointee and that is the commissioner.
But it is an agency composed of career bureaucrats,
bureaucrats who have spent their careers learning how to spin
IRS arrogance and abuse into an impenetrable defensive shield,
who have learned how to hide behind the privacy laws that are
meant to protect taxpayers to protect only themselves.
The bottom line, is that the IRS is the best secret-keeping
agency in our government today. They are better than the CIA,
better than the FBI. I mean, think about it. You and the
American people do not have a clue about how the IRS goes about
doing its job, and that is just the way they want it.
Nobody is more masterful at this spin than the current
acting commissioner, Michael Dolan, who I worked with the IRS.
Mr. Dolan actually succeeded in getting the media to air his
patently absurd allegation that IRS computers should be blamed
for many of the horror stories that you hear about. I am sorry,
but can computers seize the entire inventory and shut down a
business because they were insulted?
Can computers magically materialize early in the morning on
your doorstep, as they did to taxpayer Shirley Barron? Not long
after, her husband gave up on his fight with the IRS and took
his own life. Can a computer accept a bribe from a Federal
agent, setting in motion an armed invasion of an American
corporation? No, computers cannot do these things, people do
these things.
But by blaming those darn computers, Mr. Dolan deflects
attention from the real perpetrators, the IRS employees who
allow these actions to go forward, from the agents who
participated to the executives in Washington, DC who did
nothing to stop this abuse and nothing to discipline the
perpetrators.
These hearings are about people, living, breathing
entities, not computers. I mean, goodness knows, Congress has
held enough hearings about IRS computers. It is time that the
people have their say, people who have been harmed by their
government, by people who are paid with their tax dollars, by
an agency that seems to think it is all right if just a few
taxpayers fall through the cracks.
I would like to turn, quickly, to something a bit more
personal. Also in that same Washington Post article Mr. Dolan
denied that the IRS punishes employees who speak out. I tell
you today, Mr. Dolan is lying. The IRS punished and retaliated
against me when I gathered up all my courage and went forward
with allegations that the IRS was breaking the law.
But what I want to do today is, rather than telling you my
story myself, I am going to read you a few excerpts from some
correspondence that my father, a retired professor of
economics, has had recently with the Democratic National
Committee.
Earlier this year he received a solicitation from the DNC
for money to help the Democrats, and he wrote back. He said,
``As a lifelong liberal Democrat, my decision not to give
financial support to the DNC at this time was not made
lightly.'' He talks about campaign finance reform, which I will
not bore you with here today.
Then he says the second reason that he has decided not to
give money any further is more personal. He says, ``This is the
treatment my daughter received from the Clinton Administration,
whose election in 1992 she, like me, greeted with high hopes
and rejoicing. Soon after taking her position as historian for
the IRS she discovered that through both neglect and design the
agency, in violation of Federal law, was destroying records
pertaining to decisions and actions of the IRS throughout the
20th century. She sought continuously to bring these acts to
the attention of the commissioner in the hopes that the
practices would be stopped.
What a once in a lifetime political opportunity this
administration let slip through its fingers. Here was an
agency, much feared and hated by the American public in
violation of Federal law, which a new, fresh administration
could set right.
Unfortunately, this did not happen. Instead, the
commissioner, Ms. Richardson, acting through her deputy
assistant commissioner to whom my daughter was assigned,
reprimanded her and launched an internal investigation against
her.
With President Clinton's commissioner unwilling to support
her, my daughter felt she had no choice but in good conscience
to resign. Thus, for the sake of principle and a deeply-rooted
belief in the worth and dignity of public service, her 16 years
as an honorable Federal employee came to end.''
Then he says, ``I have been a Democrat for all my life
because I always believed that the Democratic Party was about
justice and fairness. This does not seem to be true when it
comes to matters like this. I see no reason whatsoever for the
Democratic Party or a Democratic President to be defending
illegal practices of the IRS. This is a matter of simple
justice.''
I can just say, I hope that anonymous Democratic staffer is
listening today. Everything that you see and hear here over the
next 2 days will be a matter of simple justice, not partisan
politics.
One final point on what happened to me. When I originally
took my allegations of the legal document destruction I went to
the IRS Inspection Service, which is supposed to be the
internal watchdog for the IRS.
I took them to IRS Special Agent Steve Rashe. Agent Rashe
promised me, looked me in the eye and told me he would look
into my allegations, I took him at his work. But later I
discovered that it was Agent Rashe himself that was
masterminding the internal investigation of me on completely
false and trumped up charges.
So then I went to the Treasury Department Inspector General
to complain that the IRS was retaliating against me, and also
to raise the issue that to have the very same agent to whom I
had entrusted with my information about illegal activities at
the IRS turn around and begin to investigate me was a conflict
of interest.
Well, guess what the Treasury Department IG said. The
Treasury Department Inspector General investigated my
allegation by going to the IRS. They never came to me and they
never asked me anything. They went to the IRS.
They went directly to Special Agent Steven Rashe and asked,
well, is this a conflict of interest? Agent Rashe and the IRS
Inspection Service shook their heads and said, no, this is not
a conflict of interest. Of course, not. That was the end of the
Treasury Department investigation of my allegation of
retaliation.
This is how the IRS and the Treasury Department
investigates internal allegations of wrongdoing. America, we
have got a problem.
So to Mr. Dolan and to you I say that, yes, the IRS does
retaliate against its own employees who speak out. Special
Agent Rashe is still hard at work, probably leading the charge
to silence any other potential whistle-blowers inside the IRS.
Now, what you will see here over the next few days is not a
show and it is not a media circus. What you will see are some
incredibly brave Federal employees who do not want to end up
where I am, unemployed, pensionless, and bitter. Seven years
ago, another Congressional committee sat and heard testimony
from IRS employees about ethical misconduct that reached to the
highest levels of the IRS.
Very quickly, the key points of that investigation 7 years
ago were that there has been a serious failure on the part of
the IRS to manage employee integrity; wrongdoing by IRS
managers is often ignored entirely or ineptly investigated; a
pervasive fear exists among IRS employees that reported
misconduct or cooperated in an investigation will result in
retaliation against them. A mind-set exists within IRS that
seeks to preserve the agency's public image above all else.
Does any of this sound familiar? In 1989 I sat in the
audience and I listened. I never imagined that I would be
sitting here, testifying to you 7 years later. But 7 years ago,
after listening to three days of very damaging and damning
testimony about IRS ethical conduct, Congress went home and did
nothing.
If you do that again, in another 7 years, if not before, we
will be back here again. You have an opportunity to make a
difference. Please do not let it slip through your fingers or
get caught in diatribes of partisan politics.
I will end very quickly here with a plea to the American
people who might be watching these hearings. I hope the people
of this great country of ours will take a moment to call you,
to write you, to send an e-mail and tell you how they feel
about what they are hearing today, because that is the way for
the message to get through. If the message comes through loud
and clear, perhaps this will be the last time we have to listen
to the anguish of wronged taxpayers.
I thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Davis.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. The committee will please be in order.
Mr. Schriebman?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT SCHRIEBMAN, AUTHOR OF EIGHT BOOKS ON IRS
PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF TAX PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GRADUATE SCHOOL OF
ACCOUNTING, ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA
Mr. Schriebman. Mr. Chairman, Senator Moynihan, Senators,
thank you for the opportunity to allow me to express my views
on the current state of the Internal Revenue Service.
I am going to take a different tack here. I am a practicing
tax attorney in the city of Rolling Hills Estates, which is a
suburb of Los Angeles. I have been doing this for about 20
years, and my practice is limited exclusively to handling
matters of tax litigation, tax collections, and tax audits. I
represent people in all walks of life and in all tax brackets.
I am in the trenches every day, eye to eye with the IRS,
with auditors, and tax collectors. I am the author of several
books on IRS practice and procedure. I have written the first
practitioners' manuals on IRS collection defense and California
collection defense procedures.
If I can just correct for the record, I am a retired
professor at USC. After a while, Mr. Chairman, those students
get a little smarter than their professors, and I think maybe
it is time to leave.
You know, Senators, most IRS tax collectors, they are
called revenue officers, and they are distinguished from the
tax auditors who audit you. They are decent people, they are
overworked people, and they have a heck of an unpopular job.
But I believe that they do their utmost to follow the law in
the provisions of their internal manual known as the IRS
Manual.
Unfortunately they do not keep current on changes within
the IRS, and very often their internal libraries are seriously
outdated.
Recently revenue officers have told me that the IRS is
adopting a ``get tough'' attitude toward tax collections. Now,
the first Taxpayer Bill of Rights that was passed in 1989 did
away with the formal keeping of internal statistics on tax
collections, but it still appears that the only way to really
make a name for yourself within the collection division is by
the number of seizures under your belt.
I brought with me today quite a horror story. It is in the
record. It is in my formal opening remarks. I have other things
to say that I think are equally as important as the horror
story.
I want to point out to you some things that you might not
be aware of regarding how the IRS works. I want to make it
clear that I am talking about dealing with the IRS on a day-to-
day basis, working with taxpayers who have problems.
The IRS has fixed standards relating to allowable living
expenses in order to grant taxpayers an installment payment
arrangement. You might be surprised to know that a taxpayer has
absolutely no right under the Code, even under the first
Taxpayer Bill of Rights, no right at all, to an installment
payment arrangement.
The allowable living expense standards that the IRS sets
out for people are really unrealistic. They do not take into
consideration financial commitments made by people prior to
their becoming delinquent in their taxes.
These same unrealistic IRS standards apply to the cost of
owning and operating a car and other essential living expenses,
such as food, clothing, personal maintenance. A taxpayer is not
allowed educational expenses for a child's private school, or
religious school education, or college education. A taxpayer is
not allowed, under these standards, to support his or her place
of worship.
These unrealistic expense standards have driven many
taxpayers into unnecessary bankruptcy. Now, in bankruptcy they
have something called an automatic stay. You get into
bankruptcy, that stops the IRS cold. It is the only guaranteed
way of really stopping the IRS cold.
However, what is happening here is you have productive
taxpayers, solvent taxpayers, who would otherwise not be in
bankruptcy but for these unrealistic expense standards.
Now, this causes not only myself by my colleagues around
the country quite a disturbing concern, and it appears that the
bottom line is that the IRS would rather force a taxpayer into
bankruptcy than to accept a fair monthly installment payment
arrangement or a settlement that is technically known as an
offering in compromise.
The IRS can take a taxpayer's home by just the signature of
the district director alone. The irony of that rule is that it
was part of the first Taxpayer Bill of Rights.
There is no court hearing, there is no notice, there is no
opportunity to litigate the merits of the IRS's claim. The IRS
can close down a business, as Ms. Davis said, and take away a
taxpayer's livelihood by merely filing a few papers in Federal
court. The judge simply signs the seizure order. That is all
there is to it. The taxpayer gets absolutely no notice,
absolutely no opportunity to contest the legality of the
assessment that the IRS claims is owed.
In so doing the IRS can commit perjury in these
declarations and they can get away with it. What is sad, is
this type of criminal conduct seems to be condoned by the tax
collector supervisors. To me this violates not only the 4th and
5th amendments of our constitution, but one's basic civil
rights as well. In other words, it is just plain not fair.
In order to obtain a court order to close down a business
all that is needed is a formal application and a sworn
declaration that the revenue officer followed a few specific
procedures set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case
known as GM Leasing, Inc. vs. United States. It is all very
secretive. The taxpayer is never given notice of these
proceedings and is never afforded an opportunity to contest the
merits of the IRS's claim.
The revenue officer simply obtains the seizure order
represented by the U.S. Attorney, the judge signs the order,
and then the taxpayer is served with the order and must
immediately vacate his business premises.
The taxpayer's only recourse is a long and costly tax
refund procedure which most likely will wind up in court. In
the meantime, the IRS sells the assets of the business and the
taxpayer's business is gone.
Some IRS auditors and tax collectors have taken the
position that the Congressional directives that you have set
forth in the Internal Revenue Code are simply guidelines, that
they are free to accept or reject at will.
If IRS employees do not follow the law and if they commit
perjury before Federal judges, their conduct is often condoned
by their superiors, including those at the highest level.
With increasing frequency I find that I have to go over the
revenue officer's head to the manager, and over the manager's
head to the branch chief. It is getting increasingly more
difficult to distinguish arrogance from bully tactics and over-
zealousness. I do believe that revenue officers are being
pushed by their superiors to undertake more seizures in order
to achieve promotion within the system.
The examples that I have given you today reflect a lack of
accountability within the system, to the taxpayer, to the
American people, and reflect an institutional arrogance.
This is especially true in exceptional situations where a
rogue or renegade tax collector throws aside the Code, throws
aside the Internal Revenue Manual in order to achieve self-
promotion and recognition by his or her superiors.
Now, I have a few suggestions for improvement of IRS and
for improvement of taxpayer rights. If you will look at the
letters IRS, they stand for Internal Revenue Service, Service,
Service. We are not getting the kind of service as we should
for our money these days.
Taxpayer abuse is not going to stop by just putting in new
high-tech computer systems. While electronic technology is very
important and it is necessary, we have to keep in mind that
these are just machines and machines can further widen the
distance and alienate the American people from their
government.
Creating a new Board of Governors who will sit in their
insulated ivory towers is not the answer either, a wheel within
a wheel, a bureaucracy within a bureaucracy. We need something
responsive to people's problems now, when they are in the
field, when they have them.
So what I suggest, Mr. Chairman, is to put some real teeth
into the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Of primary importance, Mr.
Chairman, the IRS should not be allowed to take any property of
any kind from a taxpayer without notice and an opportunity for
that taxpayer to be heard.
The IRS should pay damages, not only when its agents
violate the written provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.
That is the way things are now. But they should also pay
damages for violating internal procedures of their own manuals.
They should also pay punitive damages if they violate
taxpayers' rights.
A taxpayer should be allowed a change of IRS auditor or a
collector for reasonable cause. Right now, it is impossible. If
you are not getting along with your collector or your auditor,
you feel there are problems, a personality conflict, you are
going to have a hard time to make a change. It is just not
going to happen. They are not going to allow it.
What is needed is an external check and balance system
where a taxpayer can afford to be heard without first having to
pay what the IRS says is owed. Collection activity must
immediately stop until the issue is heard and ruled upon, a
forum where the burden of proof is shifted to the IRS, instead
of the way things are now where taxpayers are presumed guilty
until proven innocent.
May I respectfully suggest the institution of an
independent administrative system of review of IRS collection
and audit activities before they are allowed to be implemented.
Taxpayers should be allowed to appeal IRS action to an
administrative law judge and, if necessary, appeal that judge's
decision to an Administrative Appeals Board. If that is too
expensive, let us use the Tax Court. If that is too expensive,
let us get some practitioners out there who will act as
arbitrators.
In conclusion, let me say that not all people who owe the
IRS deserve a kinder and gentler hand. Some of these people
need a fist. Some do not take their obligations seriously, but
most people do.
What we want is a level playing field. We want some
respect, that is all. That is the bottom line, respect for our
laws, our courts, and our constitution.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Senate.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Schriebman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schriebman appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. Mr. Burnham?
STATEMENT OF DAVID BURNHAM, AUTHOR OF ``A LAW UNTO ITSELF:
POWER, POLITICS AND THE IRS''; CO-DIRECTOR, TRANSACTIONAL
RECORDS ACCESS CLEARINGHOUSE; ASSOCIATE RESEARCH PROFESSOR,
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY'S NEWHOUSE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Burnham. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
thank you very much.
I would like to begin by commending this committee for
having this hearing. At the same time, I would like to pick up
on Senator Moynihan's remarks yesterday that this is the first
time that the Senate Finance Committee has had an oversight
hearing in the 21 years that he was with it.
I believe, actually, it is the first time that the Senate
Finance Committee has ever had a full hearing on oversight. I
think, if you think about that and you think about the impact
of this agency on the American people, that this is not a great
moment in the Senate's history. I think it is a really serious
problem.
The record clearly demonstrates that the lack of effective
oversight of the Internal Revenue Service by Congress, the
courts, news organizations, tax practitioners, and other
concerned individuals has done, I think, grievous harm to the
American people for many years.
While it is now a worn cliche, it nevertheless remains a
basic truth: the price of liberty is eternal vigilance; you
have to keep looking at large, powerful institutions all the
time.
Because we, all of us, have failed to hold the IRS
accountable, I believe the agency has often operated in an
abusive, sloppy, unresponsive, improperly political, and
occasionally corrupt ways.
The IRS's continuing problems are dangerous to the Nation
for two reasons. First, a badly managed agency does not collect
as much as might be expected of the relatively small but still
significant portion of Federal taxes that are owed by non-
complying taxpayers.
The second cost is harder to measure, but probably much
more important. A badly managed agency is unfair. Substantial
numbers of individual citizens are radically subject to
wrongful actions. Such treatment contributes to a corrosive
public cynicism that undermines public confidence in the
government in a dangerous way. We are now seeing some of this
around the country, this cynicism.
My belief that strong oversight can have a positive impact
on government is not theoretical. It is based on my direct
experience. As a reporter who has investigated large, powerful
bureaucracies like the New York City Police Department, the
National Security Agency, the FBI, and the IRS for the last 30
years, I have seen clear and certain examples where public
exposure of serious government problems have led to genuine
improvements in government operations. This can be done.
The IRS, of course, is the subject of the committee's
hearings, not the New York City Police Department. More than 10
years ago, I began an investigative book and published it
called ``A Law Unto Itself: Power, Politics and the IRS.'' I
found quota systems, I found horror stories. I found all of the
stuff that you are going to be seeing in the next day or two.
It was all there.
The book is unique, I do not think anyone has written like
it, and was praised by many people, including Fred Goldberg,
the IRS commissioner at the time. He surprised me by telling a
national audience that my critique of the agency had got it
right.
Perhaps one reason Commissioner Goldberg did not condemn my
book, is I did not heap blame on the Bush Administration. My
research, in fact, and this is a point that Shelley made, has
found that the IRS has suffered mishaps and misadventures under
almost every President, Republican and Democrat, going back at
least to Herbert Hoover.
In the documents that I looked through I found examples.
Herbert Hoover. He was irritated at the criticism of his
budget-cutting policies by the Navy League, a conservative
group that wanted to have the Federal spending continue on the
Navy. So Herbert Hoover got the FBI and the IRS to investigate
the Navy League. They tried to find out who the contributors
were, they went after them.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt regularly used the IRS as a
political hit squad. He ordered the agency to mobilize its
enforcement powers against former Treasury Secretary Mellon,
Senator Huey Long, the singer Paul Robeson, the Republican
representative and neighbor Hamilton Fish, Father Charles
Coughlin, and many others. I believe he was the champion abuser
of the IRS, from my record.
During President Truman's watch, a massive and long-
festering IRS corruption scandal erupted, during which hundreds
of agency officials and agents were implicated, including one
Treasury Secretary, one Commissioner, one Assistant Attorney
General. The Assistant Attorney General went to jail for
corruption, taking a bribe. A good number, hundreds of agents
were convicted and sent to prison in that period.
With the full knowledge of President Kennedy and his
brother, the IRS commissioner of that administration
established a program to go after extremist organizations.
Although memos describing the program said the extremists
of concern were on both the right and left, it appears that all
those that lost their tax-exempt status in connection with this
program were Fundamentalist conservatives who had been
criticizing the President.
President Nixon, among other abuses, established the SSS,
which we all know about. It was going after dissident groups
and individuals.
During the Reagan years, the IRS forgot the lessons of
corruption and there was a mini-ground swell of really quite
widespread corruption in offices in Los Angeles, Philadelphia,
and Chicago.
Although it may not at first be obvious to you, my point
here is not that the IRS is inevitably a corrupt and badly run
organization. On the contrary, growing out of the exposure of
the problem of both the Truman and Nixon Administrations came
periods of serious public concern and genuine reform. This can
be done with serious oversight.
Now, one reason there is not good oversight, it seems to
me, is that there is not very much good information about what
the agency is doing. I think Congress, the news media, and even
the GAO do not look with sufficient rigor at what this agency
is doing.
In 1989, I got interested in and formed an organization
that is a part of Syracuse University, and we use the Freedom
of Information Act and we get internal administrative data
tapes out of the agency and we examine them, we add Census
data, and then recently we have been putting this up on the
World Wide Web so that citizens all over the country and news
organizations, and Congress, you can look at what you are
doing.
Now, that does not sound very interesting, but let me give
you a couple of examples of the data. I think it fits into the
horror stories that you are going to be hearing. It is going to
show you a erratic enforcement, cowboys, districts going off
and doing what they want to do.
From 1980 to 1995, IRS criminal enforcement underwent a
dramatic shift in emphasis. That is during the Reagan, Bush,
Clinton years. During this period in 1980, three-quarters of
all IRS prosecutions were aimed at individuals accused of
traditional tax crime, like failure to file, filing a
fraudulent return.
By 1995, less than half of the IRS prosecutions were going
after traditional tax violations. The IRS had moved into money
laundering, drugs, and other criminal things.
Now, while one can argue that drugs is more important than
tax cheating, one could also say, why is the DEA not doing
that, why is the IRS not concentrating on the collection of
taxes; is that not its responsibility?
Second, from 1988 to 1995, civil audit rates of non-
business taxpayers with over $100,000 declined by a factor of
four. The percentage of taxpayers over $100,000 has declined by
a factor of four from 1988 to today. The percent of taxpayers
being audited at $25,000, at $50,000, has doubled.
Why is the IRS auditing fewer and fewer $100,000, wealthy
people, upper middle class people, you can define them as you
want, and doing more relatively less affluent is the question.
I do not know the answers, but it is a very good policy
question. The Ways and Means Committee ought to be asking it,
the newspapers ought to be asking it, and they are not.
I can give you a lot more example about the IRS performance
that raised questions about erratic enforcement, about the
median sentence if you are convicted of a tax crime in one city
is 60 months, the median sentence in New York City is zero
months for tax fraud. Why are we allowing this erratic
enforcement effort to go on? I think it is unnecessary. I think
if we pay attention to it we can make this agency work.
I think you need an IRS, I think you need a New York Police
Department, but it has got to be held accountable. The hard
numbers are there, the good questions are there. All that has
been lacking are a skeptical group of Congressional committees,
reporters, scholars, and tax practitioners willing to invest
the time and energy to understand the numbers and to ask the
questions.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burnham appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Burnham.
We will now open the panel to questions from the members.
Let me ask you this question, Ms. Davis. You worked as an
historian for how many years?
Ms. Davis. Just over 7 and a half. Well, it was 16 years as
a Federal historian, 9 years for the Department of Defense,
then 7 and a half for the IRS.
The Chairman. In what other divisions or departments did
you serve?
Ms. Davis. Other than the IRS? I worked for 9 years in the
Department of Defense. Most of those years were with the United
States Air Force, and then a couple of years with the Defense
Mapping Agency, one of the intelligence agencies of the
government.
The Chairman. Did you have similar problems in the Defense
Department?
Ms. Davis. Oh, absolutely not. In fact, I brought with me
those years of experience. The Defense Department, for all of
its other troubles, has a tremendous sense of the value of
understanding its past and preserving its documents.
One of the things I like to point out to people is that,
although we may hear complaints about government secrecy, and
Senator Moynihan is very familiar with those and there is a
serious problem with that, I did see, perhaps, a tendency in
the Defense Department to take that rubber stamp, Top Secret,
Top Secret, Top Secret, over and over again on documents that
might not necessarily merit that.
There is a problem with over-classification. But there is a
huge difference between what I saw in my years with the
Department of Defense and what I saw at the IRS. There is a
huge difference between putting a Top Secret stamp on a piece
of paper to withhold it from the American people, from the
media, from Congress for a period of time and simply shredding
everything.
That was what I found most shocking at the IRS, and it took
me really, I would say, probably a year and a half into my
tenure to really believe this was happening. I spent the first
period of time saying, I am just not asking the right people, I
am not looking in the right places, because I, myself, could
not believe that one of our government agencies had literally
shredded its entire paper trail. But that was what was going
on, because nobody was looking.
The Chairman. Let me ask you this question. As you I know
appreciate, the privacy laws, of course, as you indicated, are
used to protect the IRS from scrutiny. On the other hand, we do
have a responsibility to protect, I am sure you will agree, the
rights of taxpayer privacy. So how do we change the law to make
the IRS more accountable, and yet at the same time protect the
privacy of the American citizen?
Ms. Davis. I appreciate that question because it gets to
the heart of part of the legislation that is currently pending
before Congress.
One of the problem is, the section of the Internal Revenue
Code that includes the privacy protections is Section 6103.
Currently, there is no provision in that part of the Code which
would allow the National Archives, which is the repository for
the documents of our entire Federal Government, whether they be
from the CIA or the IRS, whatever it might be, those records.
While the National Archives is permitted to hold and review
and store documents from every other agency of our Federal
Government, the IRS has stood fast and firm in saying, without
an exemption, the National Archives cannot even look at our
documents to evaluate whether or not they are historical.
Now, the problem that I did see, and I saw evidence of this
and this is actually what led to my resignation from the IRS,
is that the IRS claims that material that simply does not
contain any taxpayer information, any 6103 information, does
contain such information.
The problem is, there is no one but the IRS to look at what
is true. You have the National Archives able to look at Top
Secret information from other government agencies to store it,
to protect it, but they cannot look at IRS records to determine
whether or not it should be protected, it should be saved.
There is a provision in the legislation that came out of
the Commission on Restructuring the IRS to allow the National
Archives to have that access, and I think it is paramount that
that section of the law, at least, be passed.
I have problems with other parts of that legislation, but
that particular section, I think, is the most important because
until we start having access to the information and stop
allowing the IRS to control that access and to claim, wrongly,
that everything they do has taxpayer information, nothing will
change.
The Chairman. Mr. Schriebman, I agree with you when you
talk about the importance of protecting the taxpayer, having
the right to be heard, and an opportunity to participate in
this process before his/herbusiness, his/her residence is
seized.
How do you believe that Congress can protect taxpayers'
rights when it comes to IRS seizures?
Mr. Schriebman. There is a provision in the Internal
Revenue Code, Mr. Chairman, I think it is Section 7402, that
gives a Federal judge the right to sign--in fact, I brought it
with me. If you would like, I can just read it. It is very
short. It says basically they can sign any writs, any kind of
orders.
But, you see, we have got to work within the framework of
the 4th and 5th amendments here. I think that was troubling the
Supreme Court in the GM Leasing case back in 1975. But if you
have this section here, 7402 has to be amended to make it clear
that the word ``writs'' where it says, ``shall make and issue
civil actions, writs, and orders of injunction,'' no ex parte
writs.
This is the problem. You have got these ex parte writs
where all the revenue officer has to do is knock on the
taxpayer's door and say, hi, I am here to close you up; are you
going to let me do it voluntarily, or am I going to have to get
a court order?
Well, if the taxpayer has any sense at all he says, I am
not going to let you come in here voluntarily. So the revenue
officer says, all right, I have to get a court order. It takes
about three or four weeks to get this order. But what is
involved in it? Very little. The U.S. Attorney's Office
prepares a document called an ``application,'' and cites some
standard legalese.
But the heart of it is the revenue officer's
``declaration,'' and that declaration says that on a certain
date I went to the taxpayer, I asked the taxpayer if I could
enter and seize the business premises, the taxpayer said no;
ergo, your Honor, I want my writ.
The judge does not see anything else but these two pieces
of paper. I do not know any judge that does not sign those
things. I do not know any judge that says, ``Wait a minute. I
want to talk to that taxpayer. I want to see if you are right
here. I want to see if the taxpayer owes what you say is owed.
I want to see if the assessment that underlies this bill is
correct here, Mr. U.S. Attorney.'' No, the judge just rubber
stamps it and the taxpayer's business is gone. What I would
like to see, is that this cannot happen.
I want to see notice being given to the taxpayer, I want to
see a certain date set in court for the taxpayer to argue the
merits of the assessment. If the taxpayer does not want to
exercise those rights, that is up to the taxpayer, but at least
he has them. He does not have that now, Senator.
Then when you read the Code, you read Section 6334(e) of
the Code where it says the District Director can take
somebody's house by just his signature. How would you like it?
How would you like to have a situation where, let us say the
computer sent you a bill.
You say, ``I do not owe this money.'' And you're right, but
the computer does not answer and people do not answer. One day
a revenue officer shows up and says, ``Say, Mr. Roth, when are
you going to pay this bill?'' You say, ``I do not owe this
bill.'' ``Well, Mr. Roth, that is not my problem. I have got a
collection notice here that says you owe this bill. Now, when
are you going to pay it?'' You say, ``I am not going to pay
it.'' Mr. Roth, he says ``I am sorry, but I am going to have to
ask the District Director to take your home. That is all.''
I do not know of a District Director who does not sign the
approval. I have not seen a case yet where the District
Director says, ``Hey, wait a minute, let us see what is going
on here before we take somebody's home.''
That does not happen, at least not in the Los Angeles,
Southern California area where I am, or other areas, because I
get calls from all over the country from practitioners asking
for help. I have never seen one case yet where the District
Director said, ``Whoa, let us back up here.'' That is the
problem we have.
The Chairman. I am going to ask the witnesses today to
please be as concise as possible in your answers, because we
have a full day and we want to get as many witnesses as
possible.
Mr. Schriebman. I am sorry, Senator. I get a little carried
away by this issue. If I have an agenda here today, I think
this is it.
The Chairman. I appreciate that.
Mr. Burnham, you make the very serious charge that
increasingly the taxpayer that is audited is the middle class
or low income one, increasingly less for those over $100,000.
Why do you think that is the case?
Mr. Burnham. One part of the answer, Mr. Chairman, is that
the number of taxpayers over $100,000 has gone up considerably
in this period, so the percent goes down. That is part of the
answer.
However, it is still fact that the percentage of people
over $100,000 being audited has gone down a factor of four.
They seem to be putting their effort on, as I understand it,
the tax credit that was given for the people whose income is
very low, and there apparently was a lot of fraud there. Well,
if you are going to put a lot of effort into one area you do
not have people to do another area.
So there are some good reasons, explanations for this,
which would be worth asking the IRS. The IRS does not really
speak to me very much when I come to them with this data.
However, it also is true that the number of taxpayers being
over $100,000 who are having face-to-face audits is just off
the map. It has really just gone off the chart.
I think that really may be a problem in long-term
compliance. I think you need some auditing going on. An
increasing percentage of the audits for those over $100,000 are
those done out of the service centers where they just sort of
check the documents.
It is a good question. Is it policy? Did the Bush
Administration, the Clinton Administration, say we want to go
easy on wealthy taxpayers? I do not know. I cannot get that
answer. You can get the answer.
The Chairman. We will wait and see. Well, my time is up.
Senator Moynihan?
Senator Moynihan. I will take the liberty, Mr. Chairman, of
predicting you will not get the answer. We have had wonderful
testimony from a very thoughtful, scholarly panel. I am going
to take the liberty, if I may, and ask the indulgence of my
colleagues to read you a passage on the subject of secrecy,
which you have all raised on one level or another.
It says, ``Every bureaucracy seeks to increase the
superiority of the professionally informed by keeping their
knowledge and intentions secret. Bureaucratic administration
always tends to be in administration secret sessions insofar as
it can.
It hides its knowledge from action and from criticism. The
pure interest of the bureaucracy in power, however, is
efficacious far beyond those areas where purely functional
interests make for secrecy.
The concept of the official secret is the specific
invention of bureaucracy, and nothing is so fanatically
defended by the bureaucracy as this attitude which cannot be
substantially justified beyond those specifically qualified
areas.
In facing a parliament, the bureaucracy, out of sheer power
instinct, fights every attempt of the parliament to gain
knowledge by means of its own, from experts, or from interest
groups.''
Mr. Burnham. Amen.
Ms. Davis. Hear! Hear!
Senator Moynihan. All right. Come on, Mr. Schriebman, you
were an adjunct professor. Who wrote that? Max Weber. In
Wirtschaft and Gesellschaft, published after his death in 1920.
Weber was a German professor, and I see my friend nodding down
there, Dr. Gramm. He probably wrote this before the war. He was
describing the appearance of bureaucracy in Wilhemite Germany.
This is the nature of this beast. If we do not pursue it, it
will keep to its organizational instincts.
Mr. Burnham. Excuse me. It will pursue you.
Senator Moynihan. Yes, it will pursue you.
Mr. Burnham. You do not pursue it.
Senator Moynihan. I could not more agree. Sir, do you
realize the list of people you read off to us about this
organization and its secrets, Herbert Hoover checking out the
Navy League, every one 100 percent Republican, but getting the
IRS to find out if they had paid their bills; Franklin
Roosevelt checking out Huey Long.
When an executive starts using the IRS to check out a
Senator, Senators better pay attention or they will not be
Senators long. I mean, there is a real institutional problem
here. Do you recognize it?
Mr. Burnham. It is an institutional problem. I mean, the
reality is that the bureaucracies in this town are responsive
to the President in power, and they are supposed to be. I mean,
the problem is, they are supposed to be, up to a point. That is
why you elect a President. But it is so easy to go over the
line, and we do go over the line.
Historically, we have gone over the line over and over
again. You have to give them discretion. You cannot make rules.
You cannot prevent this from happening, if you are going to
have an IRS. But you have got to have oversight. That is the
only thing, you have to have oversight.
Senator Moynihan. We have to have oversight. You have to
have some sunlight.
Mr. Burnham. And break up the secrecy.
Senator Moynihan. Break up the secrecy.
Mr. Burnham. Yes.
Senator Moynihan. You have to fight against it. You cannot
issue a rule that says, no more secrecy, or not too much
secrecy, then turn your back, because it will come right back
at you; is that not right?
Mr. Burnham. Yes.
Ms. Davis. That is right. It is important to realize that
all of the examples that Mr. Burnham is giving, the evidence
for those does not come from IRS records, it comes from records
that he ferreted out out of other historical files,
Presidential libraries, other things, but not IRS. If you think
about it, think about what the American people would think if
we had no records at all from the Department of Defense for
this entire century.
We would have no records of World War II, the Cold War,
World War I, the growth of the defense industry, any of the
Secretaries of Defense and their decisions. I think there would
be a massive public outcry. CIA. We have access to CIA records
many years later.
Senator Moynihan. We have mostly access to CIA records that
are found in Moscow. [Laughter.]
Ms. Davis. Right. This is true. I will not disagree on
this. But it is just amazing. You go looking for the records of
IRS commissioners. In my years at the Department of Defense,
what an historian does, is you go and you research the records
of the Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of the Air Force,
or whomever it might be, and you gain all sorts of insights
from even scribbles in the margins, drafts of documents, what
the chief in charge of the agency did.
There is not a single collection of records from any IRS
commissioner ever, from 1862 to the present, in the National
Archives, so all that evidence that Mr. Burnham is talking
about comes from other sources. He is a very diligent
researcher and it is very hard work to find evidence of what
the IRS does. We do not know what the commissioner is writing,
we do not know what the commissioners are thinking, because
they have gotten away with shredding everything.
Mr. Burnham. Senator Moynihan, the story about the Kennedy
years. I went to visit a lawyer in this town who had worked for
the IRS commissioner at that time and he had the copy of the
memorandum describing this attack on the dissident groups, and
he was afraid to give it to me because of the privacy laws.
But I came into his office and he said, well, I have to go
out for lunch. He went out for lunch, and I assumed that he was
letting me look at these documents, so I looked at them.
One of them was a memorandum describing this attack on
dissident groups, and up in the left-hand corner there was a
handwritten scribble saying, ``The President called and says
full steam ahead,'' in handwritten note. So this was approved
by the President.
Senator Moynihan. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further to
say. We had better start institutionalizing oversight, and I
think a little history of what we have heard today would do no
harm.
I think that is what we have investigators for, and that is
what we have a Department of Justice for, but it is a
bureaucracy too. I worry about that. You solve the details, I
have set down the theory. Phil Gramm can do the rest.
The Chairman. We will call on Senator Grassley, next.
Senator Grassley. I want to dwell on just a little bit of
history, because I hear so much of it being repeated in these
hearings. When I conducted oversight hearings of the Defense
Department and the Justice Department in the 1980's, I, by the
way, had near unanimous support from members of the Democratic
party to do that. They obviously enjoyed seeing me as a
Republican overseeing agencies headed by members of my own
party.
Those Democrats thought that oversight was very important,
very necessary, and very antiseptic back then. My Republican
colleagues at the time defended those agencies. They saw that
as their obligation, since an administration of their own party
was being attacked. I viewed it differently, from my
perspective of my constitutional responsibilities.
Here are some examples of how my Republican colleagues
defended Reagan Administration mismanagement practices back
then. You would hear accusations that all I was doing was
defense bashing, or the excuse was that the real problem was
Congress, or that it was an anomaly that there was $640 paid
for a toilet seat, or we wished that we could explain why we
have all these problems, but we cannot because it is classified
to protect the national security.
Having gone through oversight battles in the past, I am now
hearing kind of an echo. IRS bashing. These horror stories are
anomalies. The real problem is the laws passed by Congress.
There are no problems with IRS management, but we cannot
demonstrate it because of 6103 secrecy.
Anyone who cannot see through this folly, this tired and
weak defense of the IRS, is not a serious observer of the
workings of government. That is my view, based on my
experience. I guess it has got a longer history, based upon
what Senator Moynihan just quoted for us.
There are those among us here who will feebly defend the
IRS using the same old, tired defense. But the public can see
right through it, because they are on the receiving hand first-
hand of IRS abuses.
So let me ask four fairly general questions. I am going to
ask them all at once, and you do not all have to answer each
one, but collectively I hope you will respond to them.
Do you believe that these oversight hearings constitute IRS
bashing? Is the real problem the laws passed by Congress? Are
these horror stories that we are hearing only anomalies? Is the
IRS Section 6103 authority abused and used too often to cover
up mismanagement? Those are the four questions. I would like to
have all of you speak to some of them.
Mr. Burnham. There are different answers to different
parts, but clearly the laws passed by Congress have put a
terrible burden on the IRS. I mean, it would be better if it
were simpler. You have to give them more and more discretion.
That contributes to the problem. I do not think that is the
basic problem, and I clearly do not believe this is IRS
bashing, to look at the IRS. I will let my colleagues respond.
Ms. Davis. I want to jump in with a quick story. I referred
in my testimony to the 1989 hearings that were held on the
House side. Back at that time, Fred Goldberg was the incoming
commissioner, who I think had just been confirmed or was headed
into confirmation hearings. Anyway, he was brand-new and
ultimately could not be held accountable for any of the things
that were going on as a result of that.
It is interesting that once again today we find ourselves
between commissioners. Somehow, it is just an interesting
little twist. I do not think there is anything behind it, but
it is a twist because there is no one there to point fingers at
when you have someone new coming in, hopefully.
But Mr. Goldberg sat there in 1989 and he told the House
Committee on Government Reform that he felt that really it was
not important to get into the real nitty-gritty of the horror
stories that were heard at that time, that it was not that
important to go and hold the individual IRS employees whose
stories were being told at that time accountable for what they
did. He sat there and he said, it is more important that we
just move ahead, and I commit to you as the new commissioner of
the IRS that I will take care of all this and I will turn it
into the premiere ethical agency of our government today.
Well, we all know that did not happen. But therein lies the
key problem to this whole thing, and primarily the answer to
your question about whether or not the horror stories are
anecdotal. They are not anecdotal, they happen. They are
recurring. It does not happen to the majority of taxpayers, but
if it happens even once, I heard many of you say this
yesterday, that is too much.
I think the gist of the problem is that the IRS itself does
not hold its own employees accountable. Congress, with its
oversight responsibilities, does not force the IRS to hold its
own employees accountable.
So ultimately, until IRS employees are held accountable for
their individual actions, I would like to see the IRS employees
who falsely investigated me, were able to bring false charges
against me, to be investigated seriously for what they did.
I would like to see every IRS agent who interacted with one
of the taxpayers you will hear here investigated. I would like
to know from the IRS what exactly they did to the employees who
were the perpetrators in these tax cases. That is what we are
not getting.
The IRS sends a message to its own employees when they do
not discipline them that it is all right to do what you do. It
is a tacit endorsement. Congress endorses the IRS's tacit
endorsement by not demanding that level of accountability. So
there is no question that, ultimately, if you get away with it
and nobody does anything, it is a license to continue.
Senator Grassley. Ms. Davis, you testified to our National
Commission to Restructure the IRS. Based on that testimony, I
have included in this legislation your idea to require the
archiving of IRS records. Will that help?
Ms. Davis. Oh, without question it will help, because right
now the IRS is using 6103 and abusing 6103 to withhold all
information, information that does not have any tax
information, information that may be simply embarrassing to the
IRS. That is ultimately what led to the false investigation of
me, and my resignation from the IRS.
I mean, I was attempting to respond to a wonderful Freedom
of Information Request from a history professor who actually
wrote this book. I brought it here just in case I needed it. It
is a great book. It is an academic book about the Kennedy
Administration.
This professor was doing what professors all over the
country do, he was trying to research and write a book. He sent
Freedom of Information requests to the IRS. They landed on my
desk. I found just a tiny bit of documentation to support what
he was looking for.
The Chairman. I am going to have to ask you to try to bring
your response to a close.
Ms. Davis. Sure. What happened, was this information did
not include any taxpayer information, but the IRS wrongfully
withheld it from him because they did not want to be
embarrassed.
The Chairman. We are allowing 10 minutes for each member to
ask questions. We are going to have to strictly enforce that,
because unfortunately we are still continuing with what was to
be yesterday's hearing, so we have a very, very full day. So I
do ask the witnesses to please not repeat, but to be as concise
as possible.
Senator Hatch.
Senator Hatch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One reason I ran
for the Senate is because I tried a number of tax fraud cases,
and frankly they were so unjustly brought that I really got
offended by it and got involved. I have not seen many changes
since.
Your testimony here today has been very, very essential. It
has been suggested by some that this committee is on a witch
hunt. That could not be further from the truth. There is
certainly no vendetta against the IRS. I will only say two
things about that.
First, we are not here to destroy anyone or anything. We
quite obviously need a strong and effective IRS. We are not
here to burn anybody at the stake, but we are here to try to
get the answers to some very serious and some very real
questions, and you folks have been very helpful here this
morning.
But the current regime of the IRS is feeling a little heat.
I hope because of that they will remember this experience. It
is exactly what they put the taxpayers through when the IRS
calls and starts asking questions and requiring more
information and more documentation.
For example, the IRS initiated an audit of a taxpayer who I
know quite well, and assessed deficiencies for the tax year in
question. During the ensuing period, the case was transferred
to six different revenue agents, with several instances of
agents not communicating or relying on the work already done by
a previous agent.
With each new agent came a set of different adjustments
and, naturally, delays. This went on for 8 years, two of which
saw no IRS activity or attention at all. There were extensions
of the statute of limitations.
The taxpayer made offers in compromise to resolve the
disagreement. The IRS would not even discuss, let alone work,
on any such resolution. You have been indicating that that is
your experience, Mr. Schriebman, is it?
Mr. Schriebman. Yes. Schriebman, Senator.
Senator Hatch. Schriebman. All right.
They would not even discuss it. Finally, the taxpayer was
informed that all of the items under examination were
disallowed and he owed a substantial amount. That was not all.
Because of the long period of time that had elapsed for the
audit to be completed, the interest was nearly three times the
amount of the additional tax assessed. It now amounts to almost
a million dollars.
Now, think about it. It was a legitimate question whether
he owed the taxes to begin with. But the taxpayer is willing to
pay, but they have, with penalties, interest, and delays,
raised this almost triple what it was.
This taxpayer is now making payments, has made them
faithfully, has paid faithfully more, as I understand it, or
pretty close to the actual amount that was owed to begin with
through regular payments, diligence, doing what was right and
living up to the obligations that they had.
So the taxpayer is now making payments that amount to
little more than interest on interest, with little chance that
the debt will ever be paid. Now, that is not unusual, is it?
Mr. Schriebman. Are you asking the question to me?
Senator Hatch. Yes, I am asking you as a tax practitioner,
Mr. Schriebman.
Mr. Schriebman. I hear this, I deal with this every day.
First of all, this fellow made a mistake initially by signing
the statute extension. That is one of the things the IRS
brainwashes the public about. You do not have to sign the
statute extension.
Senator Hatch. Well, they threaten to indict you if you do
not. They threaten to bring charges against you if you do not.
Mr. Schriebman. If you would not have signed the statute
extension, they probably would have run out of time to do it.
This interest situation that your person has, that is part of
the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, too.
Senator Hatch. It is not just interest, it is penalties and
interest.
Mr. Schriebman. I understand.
Senator Hatch. It is crazy.
Mr. Schriebman. Well, your man should now again, under the
new IRS liberal position on offers in compromise, now is the
time to go into that offer in compromise. Now is the time.
Senator Hatch. Well, he has done it. I have done it. I have
asked them to see what they can do to resolve this problem, and
it is just a no. They are at least partially responsible for
the interest and penalties that have been assessed.
Mr. Schriebman. I certainly, under the Taxpayer Bill of
Rights, too, would bring an interest abatement administrative
claim and take it to the Tax Court.
Senator Hatch. They did. They did, and abatement was
denied.
Mr. Schriebman. Well, did they take it to the Tax Court?
That is part of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, too.
Senator Hatch. Well, the taxpayer court denied it also.
Mr. Schriebman. The Tax Court denied it?
Senator Hatch. Yes. Then they filed for an additional
abatement proceeding, and then of course was denied again. I
mean, I have got to tell you, looking at the facts, it is very,
very unjust.
Mr. Schriebman. Somebody does not like your client, it is
obvious. [Laughter.]
Senator Hatch. Well, this particular client is one of the
most loved people in the whole world, but the IRS does not love
him.
In another situation, a taxpayer attempted to work with the
IRS to pay the amount that was owed. However, the IRS refused
each one of her suggestions. Consequently, they lost
everything, their cars, their home, and all other assets that
they had.
The IRS was totally uncompromising with this taxpayer.
Unfortunately, the seizure mentality is all too common,
especially when agents seem to be evaluated and promoted based
on dollars collected and property seized.
Let me give you another example. An elderly couple made
some poor investment choices that led to the disallowance of
certain deductions and losses. The tax is rightfully owed.
However, because of their age they have little income and
their only asset is their home. As with so many of these cases,
the interest on the debt has piled up to be a considerable
amount compared to the actual tax debt.
Again, the IRS was unwilling to discuss a compromise to pay
the debt over time. They had the option of getting a loan to
pay part of the debt, however, the taxpayers would still be
liable for not only the interest on the loan, but the penalties
and interest on the tax debt as well.
Instead, these elderly taxpayers were forced to sell their
home when faced with the threat of the IRS seizing the property
and selling it for them at a cut-rate price in order to satisfy
the tax obligation.
Now, where has all the reason gone? These are just some
examples that highlight the need for the hearings that we are
having, and I want to commend our Chairman and Ranking Member
for being willing to do this. It is the first time ever,
perhaps, but certainly the first time in my 21 years here, and
I think it is about time.
Let me just ask one question to all of you on the panel.
Each and every one of you have mentioned, and even painted a
picture of a terrible culture at the IRS. Can you be more
explicit for us in suggesting ways to change the IRS culture
for the better? And maybe we could start with you, Mr. Burnham,
Mr. Schriebman, and end with Ms. Davis.
Mr. Burnham. Well, several of the witnesses mentioned this
yesterday, Senator. One of the basic problems is that the IRS
has come to think of itself as a law enforcement agency rather
than a service agency. How you change that, is very hard. If
you did a careful analysis of the IRS budget, you will see a
big chunk of their budget goes for enforcement and audit, very
little goes for the service.
Comparatively little goes to the service part. Congress can
change the budget. You can change the emphasis of the IRS. A
lot of people who were in noncompliance overpaid. Did you know
that? I mean, a lot of people overpaid. A lot of people
underpay because they do not understand. The rhetoric yesterday
when you referred to the people not paying, you say they are
tax cheats. A lot of the people who do not pay or over-pay are
not tax cheats, they do not understand.
I mean, did you know President Lincoln overpaid his taxes.
There was an income tax during the Civil War. He overpaid them,
and after he died they got a refund. The tax law is complicated
and it is hard. The taxpayers need help and they need a lot of
that.
It is this cop mentality, the ``us'' against ``them.'' To
fall into the easy use of the words ``tax cheat'' for everyone
in noncompliance is very dangerous. You do it, the newspapers
do it, and we ought to try to change it.
Senator Hatch. Mr. Schriebman?
Mr. Schriebman. Senator, I heard your three stories.
Senator Hatch. Well, I can give you a lot more.
Mr. Schriebman. So can I, believe me. But I have to say a
couple of things, in all fairness, in all objectivity here. I
think a lot of people get into trouble with the IRS because of
their own ignorance. A lot of them get into the IRS because
they are too penurious to get good advice.
The cases that you have mentioned here, while egregious, if
these people might have gotten some good advice, I think some
of the bankruptcy laws could have helped these people. I think
that you in this room are part of the problem. You have written
these provisions in the Code that allow the District Director
to take a house on a signature. I am a grunt; I am not an
investigative reporter and I am not an insider. I am a guy who
was never with the IRS.
Everything I know, everything I have written about I have
had to experience. I deal with these things every day. I will
tell you something, a lot of what I see people go through--I
mean, I have had a client, a widow, come to me when her husband
had blown his brains out in the lobby of the Lawndale IRS field
office. I have represented the widow. I want to say in that
particular case the IRS could not have been kinder to the
widow.
Senator Hatch. I guess my time is up.
The Chairman. The time is up, I regret. But we have to move
on. I would point out that the members are called upon in the
order they appear. We have the early bird rule. So we are not
just letting the Republicans go first.
We have, next, Senator Gramm.
Senator Gramm. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I want to thank our witnesses. I had made the point
yesterday when we had another panel that I wanted desperately
to have a chance to ask them some questions. They are not here,
but I want to refer back to their comments and then pose a
question to you.
We had a panel yesterday that was made up of people who
were representatives of major groups that interfaced with the
IRS, such as the CPAs, and enrolling agents.
Maybe I am over-simplifying what they had to say, but their
basic approach was a sort of a sociological approach which said
that the problem at the IRS was that these people at the IRS
think of themselves as law enforcement agents and not as people
who are a service agency. In essence, what they were saying is
that we need this massive effort to sort of change the thinking
at IRS.
I profoundly disagree with that approach. I do not find
that approach to be very successful because it does not change
the basic parameters in which people work. I think one of the
things that each of your testimonies has done today, is to make
it very clear that what the problem is here is that the IRS has
massive power, and power corrupts.
As a result of having no checks and balances, as a result
of having an agency that investigates, prosecutes, and makes
judgments all by itself, you do not have the checks and
balances that you might have in the criminal justice system
where a police officer makes the arrest, has a fact report, it
goes to the district attorney's office, and so on through the
courts.
There is to some extent a check and a balance in that the
district attorney looks at what the police officer has done.
Then you have the whole case go before a court that looks at
what the district attorney has done and what the police
officers have done.
So it seems to me that our problem is not a sociology
problem. Our problem is not that the people that work at the
IRS are bad people. My guess is that, by and large, they are
good people, even the ones who act badly.
The problem is, these people have too much power, they have
no checks and balances, we have no access to information, and
people are afraid of them. The system that people operate under
changes the behavior both of the people who have the fear, and
the people who are feared. I think that is basically the
problem.
Now, the question is, what can we do about it? That is what
I want to focus my question on. But let me say that I think a
couple of you have made the point that Congress is, to some
degree, culpable, and I agree with that. I think we have
written a very complicated code that not even we can comply
with without expert assistance.
I have not forgotten all the budgets that were passed over
the years where we added more money for the IRS compliance
office and then counted it as generating additional revenues,
which if that is not a clear indication----
Mr. Burnham. A quota system.
Senator Gramm. That is right. If that is not a clear
indication of what we want done, then I do not know what is. So
I believe we need some fundamental changes in the system,
structural changes. I think what should come from these
hearings is a change in law and not just oversight, but
changing the structure of the system itself.
I would like to ask each of you, as short as you can give
the information and be brief, what structural changes do you
believe should be made. If you could change the laws in only
two or three ways, based on your individual experience, what
changes would you make?
Let me start with you, Ms. Davis?
Ms. Davis. This is tough. I am going to give you a little
bit of a very quick sociological answer to your very specific
question. Last year in some of the early testimony before the
Commission on Restructuring a former high-ranking IRS official
told the commission that he believed from his, I do not know,
about 30 years of experience with the IRS that the key to
effective work of the IRS was mystery, to keep the tax system
mysterious, I could not agree with that more, because mystery
just breeds fear and distrust among the American people.
I guess during my 7\1/2\ years with the IRS I tried my own
little sociological experiment, because one of the things I
tried to tell them, I agree with everything you say, most IRS
employees, if not all, are fundamentally good people. They do
not mean to be bad people, and I am not totally opposed to the
IRS. It is an agency that has an incredibly fascinating and
interesting past and tradition and it is part of the
sociological fabric of the United States.
What I did, was I tried to tell them, if we taught our own
employees at the IRS and if we taught the American people about
the role of the tax collector throughout the past, about how
important it has been in the development of this great country,
maybe taxpayers might be more inclined to comply. I do not
think you make taxpayers comply only by beating them over the
heads.
But when was the last time that the IRS, or even members of
Congress, reminded the American people about the terribly
important role--I mean, everybody does bash the IRS; it is
great fun. But we do not talk about how important it is.
That is one reason I told them over and over again, you
need an historian, you need an historian to gather the research
and write the documents that will show people the importance of
this. So I will just leave it at that, because I think that is
just so very important.
Senator Gramm. Yes, sir?
Mr. Schriebman. You have asked for some concrete
suggestions and I would like to give you some.
Senator Gramm. Great.
Mr. Schriebman. First of all, let us get rid of these ex
parte writs.
Senator Gramm. Tell us what that is.
Mr. Schriebman. Well, ``ex parte'' is Latin. It means that
you can go into court, close somebody's business down or take
somebody's house without giving that taxpayer a notice.
What we need to do, is we need to give a taxpayer notice,
the court needs to set a hearing date. Now, if a taxpayer does
not use that, that is the taxpayer's problem. He has got a
right to it, whether it is his house, his business, his bank
account, his wage garnishment. We need that.
Now, where can we go to get that? Well, we have got the
U.S. Tax Court. You probably need a few more tax court judges
and you have to put them in residences in several cities.
Right now they travel in circuits, except for Larry
Nameroff, who is based in Los Angeles permanently. We need more
Larry Nameroffs. We need them in cities where they are
permanently based instead of working out of Washington and
traveling in a circuit.
Senator Gramm. Is there a shortage of Tax Court judges?
Mr. Schriebman. Big time.
Senator Gramm. All right.
Mr. Schriebman. I have some more suggestions. I will tell
you, Senator, these will work, because I know my experience
here.
Let the Tax Court have jurisdiction over employment tax
cases. It does not have any jurisdiction over employment taxes.
If somebody gets hit with this thing called the 100 percent
penalty, now call the Trust Fund Recovery Penalty, big deal, it
is the same thing. The Tax Court cannot hear that. There is no
assessment.
See, the problem that you have is that you have got an
internal conflict of interest within the IRS. They are their
own judge and jury over people's lives. Let us remove that.
This will cure the ``Ivory Soap's'' worth of taxpayer abuse.
Repeal Section 6344(e), where the District Director has the
right to sign and take somebody's house. You should not be able
to take anything from anybody without giving those people 4th
and 5th amendment rights.
I say over employment taxes and collection problems,
because the Tax Court does have a little jurisdiction over
collection problems right now, but it is esoteric. They are all
in Sections 6212 and 6213 of the Code. They are real esoteric
stuff.
A person has a collection beef, has an assessment beef,
whether it is with income taxes, excise taxes, employment
taxes, estate taxes, let the Tax Court have jurisdiction over
all of those. No assessment without a right to a hearing.
Senator Gramm. Let me go to Mr. Burnham, because I see the
yellow light on.
Mr. Burnham. In my high school year book, Margo Wood, I
will never forgive her for it, wrote under me, ``It is easier
to be critical than correct.'' I spent all my years
criticizing, and it is hard to come up with a correct answer.
But, with due respect, I think I agree with the witnesses
yesterday that said that the enforcement mentality dominates
the IRS rather than the service, and that not that you can do
away with enforcement, you have to have enforcement, there are
bad people doing bad things and you need an enforcement arm,
but maybe an idea would be to separate the IRS into an
enforcement sort of cop arm and a service arm more than it is
now. Maybe that would make sense.
Senator Gramm. Well, I think that is the checks and
balances we are looking for. But I think the idea of putting
people through sociology training is not going to have any
permanent impact.
Mr. Burnham. We are not talking about that.
Senator Gramm. We respond to the world that we live in, we
respond to the rules that exist. I think again here the problem
is power corrupting.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman is up.
I would point out to you that in our legislation that we
recently adopted we did expand the jurisdiction of the Tax
Court to employment taxes, but you might take a look and see
whether you think it is adequate.
Mr. Schriebman. But the only expansion on that, with
respect, Mr. Chairman, is the determination whether somebody is
an employee or an independent contractor. That is just not far
enough.
The Chairman. Not far enough.
Mr. Schriebman. No, sir.
The Chairman. Senator Lott.
Senator Lott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have been very interested in your statements and your
responses. We appreciate your time. I think you are giving us
some very helpful suggestions.
One of you commented about, a lot of the problems with
taxpayers is that they just do not know what is the right thing
to do, or it is ignorance. But, as a matter of fact, some of
the most egregious cases that I have been familiar with have
been caused by actions by the taxpayers after having received
so-called expert advice.
Mr. Burnham. That is true.
Senator Lott. Tax lawyers and CPAs.
Mr. Burnham. They do not understand it.
Senator Lott. And that is the problem, though. You are
giving advice. You have got a little extra money, you work in a
shipyard and you have got a farm on the side and you are given
advice by a CPA or a tax lawyer that here is something you can
invest in that would be beneficial to you, and it turns out it
was on the margin, it turns out maybe IRS said maybe this is
all right, and later they say it is not all right.
They wind up having their lives destroyed, losing their
farm, and just about everything they have. What can we do about
that? Expert counsel is not a defense, apparently, unless of
course you then can come back and take action against them for
incompetence.
Mr. Burnham. But are they expert? The law is so
complicated.
Senator Lott. Tax lawyers and CPAs are supposed to be
experts.
Mr. Burnham. I know of a situation in New York. The editor
of one of my books went to a very high-priced tax lawyer who
did not know how the IRS functioned. He was not familiar with
IRS procedures. He knew tax law. Those are two entirely
different things. If you do not get the right advice, you are
in trouble.
Mr. Schriebman. I disagree.
Senator Lott. What about the poor taxpayer? I mean, he has
done his best to get expert advice, then he finds out later
that it was not expert.
Mr. Schriebman, go ahead, sir.
Mr. Schriebman. You are talking about the tax shelter wars
of the 1980's, I presume, and hopefully those days are behind
us.
But you know, Senator, there is an awful lot of greed in
that equation. You can advise somebody any way you want. If you
have got an inherent conflict of interest, if you are being
retained by their promoter and you are getting a commission off
of the investment, you have got a big greed equation there,
especially in those days where you thought you could not get
tapped by the IRS and they were all a bunch of buffoons.
Well, the IRS showed them. In all fairness, some of that
stuff that people went into was ridiculous, and the attorneys
who wrote the opinions were motivated, in my opinion, by greed.
I do not know how you legislate greed.
Ms. Davis. I guess what I would say to that--were you done?
Mr. Schriebman. Sure.
Ms. Davis. The growth of the tax preparation and help
industry has exploded in recent years. I think one of the
things I see as a very dangerous thing is, I guess, the hand-
in-hand working of that community with the IRS. One of the
things that bothered me, and I was one of the few people
thinking this and talking about this, I think, was the
development, as it was developed by the IRS, of the electronic
filing program.
I saw this as a very dangerous precedent, because nobody
was focusing on the fact that when IRS launched its electronic
filing program this was the first time in the history of our
tax system where taxpayers, in order to take advantage of a so-
called increase in benefits or simplification of their filing,
were literally forced into the arms of the tax preparation
community. If you wanted to file your tax return
electronically, you had no choice but to pay a professional tax
preparer to do it. I went to the IRS in 1988, and they had
launched electronic filing just a few years earlier in 1985. It
was one of the first subjects I looked into.
I asked them the question, why did you not wait until you
could offer this to taxpayers, first of all, at no cost, or in
a way in which they did not have to use a tax preparer, because
I was thinking of all those middle and lower income taxpayers
who have simple tax returns who for years had prepared their
own 1040's, 1040-A's, or EZ's all by themselves who were now,
in addition to their tax liability, having to pay even more
money to a tax preparer who may or may not, as you point out,
know the law. I think that is one of the problems.
Senator Lott. Let me ask two other questions. I know we
have the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights I and II. One of the things
I do not think we did, is when the IRS makes a mistake or when
they have some of your money improperly and hold it for a
period of time and they eventually have to pay it back, they do
not have to pay, on behalf of the government to the people that
were wrong, interest and penalties. Why not? The government
pays interest and penalties to the taxpayers?
Mr. Schriebman. Oh, not penalties, no.
Senator Lott. All I am saying there is, if you make a
mistake you pay interest and penalties. If the government makes
a mistake, they do not. Once again, I feel like for the
taxpayers, there is not a level playing field there.
Ms. Davis. Well, that is definitely in the category of a
law that you have not passed, and it is within your power to
pass such legislation.
Senator Lott. I guess that is what I want to ask you. Is
that something worth doing, Mr. Schriebman?
Mr. Schriebman. Well, Senator, I think it is a good idea.
It is like the first two Taxpayer's Bill of Rights are good
starts, but I think if you are going to do another Bill of
Rights, let us put some real teeth into it.
Senator Lott. All right. Now let me go to one other
question before my time runs out. I believe Mr. Burnham, it was
your testimony. Yes. You point out that it seems that IRS
agents prefer to target less wealthy taxpayers because they are
less likely to be able to afford the lengthy defense, and so
forth. You note in here something that caught my eye.
On the civil side, taxpayers in the IRS's San Francisco
district, Mississippi, Idaho, and New York City stood the
highest chance of being audited. Now, that is very odd. The
highest adjusted gross income and the lowest were represented
in that group of only three areas. Now, why is that?
Mr. Burnham. I do not know, Senator. Again, it is a good
question for you all to ask. When we put this data up on the
World Wide Web the IRS denounced the data and said it was
wrong, it was the government's data.
We asked, well, what is wrong with it, and would you meet
with us, and will you come? They refused to meet with us. For a
year and a half, we have sent repeated letters to them to
discuss their problems with the data. There is nothing wrong
with the data.
Senator Lott. What would your speculation be as to how New
York City and Mississippi would fall into that trap?
Mr. Burnham. I mean, one possible speculation is that the
people of Mississippi, it is a much poorer district, less
expert, is easier pickings. New York City is a more
sophisticated city, more income, more lawyers, more
accountants. It is harder work. But there may be others. I
mean, I really do not know whether that was a policy decision
or part of the ad hocracy of the IRS.
Senator Lott. Anybody else want to comment on that? Ms.
Davis.
Ms. Davis. Yes, I have a theory I will share with you. I
think it all comes down to who the district director happens to
be. There is tremendous power placed in the hands of individual
district directors. I will tell you a quick story about the
taxpayer Carol Ward, whose story you probably heard about on 60
Minutes this past weekend.
When I first became familiar with the outlines of her story
I was unemployed by the IRS by that time, but I went to some
old friends of mine who work at pretty high levels of the IRS.
I outlined the case and I said, how could this happen? They
told me, I do not think that that is right.
I do not think it really happened. We do not do things like
that. They just denied it. These are people that I really
trusted that I had had good working relationships with, and
they were confiding in me. They said, I just cannot see that
that could happen. So then I learned a little bit more.
I went back to one of my sources who was a former district
director, and I said, well, here is the name of the person who
was the district director in Denver at the time that this
incident occurred. This former IRS district director, who is
now working in Washington, said to me, oh, I did not know that.
That explains everything.
In other words, what this IRS executive was telling me was,
once he or she--to hide the identity of my IRS informant--once
I told them who it was, they said, well, that was not
surprising because they knew that person and that person had a
personality to do that.
Senator Lott. Mr. Burnham?
Mr. Burnham. I would like to add to that. Our data shows
all this erratic business. From my research, I do not think the
IRS commissioner and the upper echelon of the IRS look at these
erratic, crazy patterns and find out if there is some
legitimate reason for it. They just sort of sit there. It is
not well-managed.
We do not want every district to be exactly the same, that
would be wrong. Montana is different than Miami. But they do
not look at it that way. There is a surprising lack of serious
management at the top levels.
Senator Lott. One last question, I think, that can be
answered briefly. I have known a lot of people who were
accounting majors and became CPAs and tax lawyers and wound up
at IRS, nice folks, then something happens. [Laughter.]
Ms. Davis. Good thing I got out when I did.
Senator Lott. Now, I guess the answer is, I presume there
is a culture there, this law enforcement culture, or the
arrogance that comes from power. Is that it, is that what
happens to, in many cases, good people? All of a sudden they
are the local agent in the hometown and they become nasty
people.
Mr. Schriebman. May I?
Senator Lott. Yes, sir.
Mr. Schriebman. I have a lot of contacts that are that way.
Some of my students, of course, have gone that route. I think
that it is not so much nasty people, I think it is some kind of
insulation, because when you have a problem with an agent and
you try to get their manager or you try to get their branch
chief, they are always in a meeting. They have more meetings
than President Clinton. They are always in a meeting. They
never return your calls, never respond to your faxes.
There is one lady whom I think is so fantastic. She happens
to be a branch chief in the Long Beach field office. There was
a problem. She handled it right away. She met with me and the
revenue officer, and she sat in the meeting. I was so impressed
with that. But she is about the only one. I do not know. They
just feel like they do not work for us.
Senator Lott. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Lott.
Senator Conrad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I believe I bring a special perspective to this as a
former tax commissioner of the State that elected me to the
United States Senate. I think one of the reasons they elected
me was because we gave good service to people.
One of the things that I instituted when I was tax
commissioner that I think paid great dividends, and it is a
very small thing. We sent people out to audit, because there
really are people who cheat, there really are people who abuse
the system, there really are people who will go to great
lengths to avoid paying what they legitimately owe. That is
totally unfair to the vast majority of citizens who do pay what
they owe and who do pay their fair share.
So there is a certain adversarial relationship with those
who try to cheat and those who try to avoid paying their fair
share. But one of the things we did when we sent out auditors,
was send out a questionnaire after an audit was completed. It
was very brief, and ask them, how are they treated?
Our people knew that we were going to engage in that
process, that we were going to check on how they were treating
people. I tell you, I think it made a great difference. There
is a tendency by some to abuse their power. I want to again put
this in perspective because I have dealt with the IRS in my
previous career and I found the vast majority of people there
were honest, were hardworking, and did not abuse people.
When we talk about a culture, that strikes me as kind of a
condemnation of everybody there. I do not buy it. I have worked
with these people, honest, hardworking, decent people. Are
there people who are not? Absolutely. I have seen that, too. I
have seen people who abuse their authority. I have seen people
who got arrogant. The quickest way to stop that is to hold
people accountable and to check on how they treat people.
I tell you, that simple device of sending out a very brief
questionnaire. How were you treated? Were you treated with
respect? Were the people on time? Did they answer your
questions? At the end of the audit did they explain to you the
findings of the audit?
Amazingly enough, we had some people who went in and would
audit and would not tell the people the results of the audit.
Well, that is arrogant and that is frightening to people.
Mr. Burnham. I do not believe I recall the IRS having such
a questionnaire.
Senator Conrad. And I tell you, I think maybe that is the
kind of action that could come out of what we do here, that
after an audit there be a procedure to ask people how they were
treated.
I tell you, I think they would find what we found, that in
fact you do have some people who get a little filled with
themselves, and they are out there on their own, they had a bad
day, they had a disagreement with their spouse, and by God,
they are going to take it out on the taxpayer. Well, that is
not acceptable.
One way to avoid that is to hold them accountable. One way
to hold people accountable is to have information on how they
acted. You might find a taxpayer who misreports, who is one of
those abusive taxpayers, because there are some abusive
taxpayers out there too, but you can find a pattern.
If one person says the auditor did not treat them with
respect and then you get subsequent reports that they did not
treat them with respect, then you have a pretty good indication
you have a problem, and it is time to deal with it.
The Chairman. Would you yield for a question?
Senator Conrad. Yes.
The Chairman. You talk about filing the paper, which is a
good suggestion. But did the people in North Dakota not know
that there was a tax commissioner that was going to follow
through and check those papers?
Senator Conrad. Yes. Yes.
Senator Gramm. And who was elected.
Senator Conrad. I was elected as a tax commissioner, the
only elected commissioner in the country. I think it has a
tremendous impact, too, on accountability.
One other thing that has been said here today, I think, may
have a fairly simple solution. I hear that, well, the IRS
targeted lower income people. This committee has complained
repeatedly about fraud and abuse in the Earned Income Tax
Credit section of the Code. We have colleagues here who have
talked about it repeatedly.
In fact, there has been fraud in the Earned Income Tax
Credit and I would not be surprised if the IRS actually
listened to this committee; sought to do something about it and
focused on the whole question of fraud in the Earned Income Tax
Credit. Well, of course, that would involve lower income
people. Mississippi is, I think, perhaps the lowest-income
State in the country.
It might not be surprising that you would see a
disproportionate number of people who are in the Earned Income
Tax Credit program being looked at because there have been
suggestions by this committee of fraud in that program. In
fact, it has been more than assertions by members of this
committee, there has been pretty good evidence that there has
been fraud in the Earned Income Tax program.
I would just like to ask the witnesses here, do you think
something as simple as what I have suggested might do some
good, that is, send out a questionnaire after people have been
audited and ask them, ``how were you treated?''
Mr. Burnham. I think it is a very good idea, assuming that
someone at the IRS looks at them and acts upon them. That is
not necessarily an assumption we can count on.
Senator Conrad. Do you think there should be something like
an ombudsman at the IRS?
Mr. Burnham. There is.
Ms. Davis. There is an ombudsman at the IRS. It is a career
IRS employee.
Senator Conrad. Do you think there should be somebody that
has a specific responsibility for a program like this one, that
maybe this would be an assignment given to the ombudsman?
Mr. Burnham. Maybe the ombudsman ought to just do that,
have that kind of program going.
Ms. Davis. Let me jump in here. I cannot more strenuously
disagree with that. I think your idea is an absolutely
wonderful idea, but I think the surveys should not be sent to
the IRS. That is the key to this kind of idea succeeding. If
you send them to the IRS, they will go into the IRS black hole.
Have the surveys sent to the Senate Finance Committee, have
the surveys sent to the Joint Committee, some oversight body
that could review them. If you put them in the hands of the
IRS, I will tell you very quickly, it is one thing to have
information, it is another thing to make use of that
information.
Senator Conrad. To act on it. Yes, you have to act on it.
It does not do any good to get information if you do not act on
it.
Ms. Davis. The IRS conducted an internal survey program,
which had this bizarre name of Survey Feedback Action, while I
was there, and then continued after I left.
I will tell you, from my conversations with IRS employees,
not executives but the IRS employees, the general sense was the
results of that survey indicated that there was a serious
morale problem at the IRS and the morale reflected IRS employee
attitude towards the top executives of the agency.
When those results came in, because they were not what the
IRS wanted to hear about its own employees felt about what was
going on inside the agency, the results were quickly buried and
nothing ever came of that. So, once again, have your survey,
but have it sent to an outside, independent body.
Mr. Burnham. Senator Conrad, you know you all have an
interesting survey. You all have State offices that take
complaints about Federal service. As I understand it, the
majority of those complaints coming in to offices in every
State involve the IRS.
It would be interesting for you to pool, with the
permission of the individual taxpayers, those complaints and
examine them and see how valid they are. You have got 25
Senators, 25 offices. You could really look at the complaints
coming into your offices in a systematic way and do not treat
it as an individual thing, but look at it and see if there are
patterns and trends. Get the Senate Finance Committee looking
at that.
Senator Conrad. Well, I would just say that my colleague
Senator Moynihan has just given me something that apparently
has begun along the lines of what I was suggesting, that is, a
questionnaire sent to taxpayers who have been dealing with the
IRS to ask them how they have been treated.
Now, perhaps Senator Moynihan can tell us when this was
instituted.
Senator Moynihan. I believe just in August.
Senator Conrad. Just in August.
Senator Moynihan. Yes. So we can follow-up on your idea.
Senator Conrad. Well, I tell you, I know this is effective.
Not only does the taxpayer have a chance to give feedback, but
the person who is going out there to audit knows that they are
going to be ``audited.'' That has a real way of affecting
behavior.
The Chairman. We are running out of time. We have got
several members still needing to ask questions, and we have
several panelists. So, I must move on.
Senator Grassley. Could I have 30 seconds just on this
point? Mr. Burnham brought up that they are now putting out a
questionnaire of this type. This is another example of so many
good ideas coming out of the IRS just since the IRS
Restructuring Commission has been studying and making
suggestions, because in our legislation on page 36 we call for
this same survey. So it is nice that the IRS is waking up, but
they are waking up because we are doing our oversight and not
because they are good ideas.
The Chairman. Senator Nickles.
Senator Nickles. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Burnham mentioned that he thought that this was the
first time in the history of the Senate that we have actually
had IRS oversight.
Mr. Burnham. By the Senate Finance Committee.
Senator Nickles. By the Senate Finance Committee. I would
guess that there might have been some when we have had
commissioners nominated and come before the Senate, but Mr.
Chairman, I would certainly think that this should be possibly
a recurring activity, whether it is annual or by each Congress.
But I think there is a lot of legitimate necessity,
frankly, to have oversight over all government agencies, and
certainly the IRS, because it is one of the most important and
it is also one of the scariest for our constituents. It is one
that our constituents fear most. So I compliment you for doing
it, and I hope that we do it regularly.
I will say also the very fact that we are having these
hearings, I have been besieged. I have had Congressmen calling
me saying, ``I have something I would like for you to expose.''
I have had constituents come up and say, ``I have got a horror
story.'' I just read one that was about 15 pages.
Actually, the letter came from a person that I have been in
business with for years, or actually did some of our work in my
private sector days. He was talking about the relationship with
an IRS agent. This is an accountant. He has been in business
for 35 years, telling me about a horror story about an abusive
IRS agent. He said, he had dealt with hundreds of agents over
the years and never had a problem like the one that he
described.
I mentioned in my comments yesterday, I do not have any
doubt that most all of the 102,000 IRS employees do an
outstanding job, but on occasion there are some people that
abuse their power. I think we have to have some means of
rectifying that situation. I think I heard Mr. Schriebman,
maybe in your comments, you mentioned some actions that could
be taken against the IRS if they have been abusive. Could you
mention a couple of those again?
Mr. Schriebman. Yes. Right now, the Taxpayer Bill of
Rights, the first version, under Section 7430 of the Code
provided monetary damages against IRS people who violate the
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. But they do not
violate the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code very often.
What they violate, are their internal manuals, press releases,
things like that. See, those are not considered law under
Section 7430.
I want to see an amendment to Section 7430 that does three
things. Number one, provides taxpayer damages for violation of
internal manuals and internal procedures, because they are
taught those.
Number two, I would like to see some punitive damages,
because there is only one place in the Internal Revenue Code
where there are punitive damages, and that is for Privacy Act
violations. There are not any punitive damages for violating
basic taxpayer rights.
Also, I would like to see the ceiling raised. It was raised
in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II from $100,000 up to $1
million. I do not think there should be really a limit on that.
Senator Nickles. All right. Let me thank you for those
suggestions.
Mr. Burnham, you mentioned something in your opening
comments that kind of made me step back. You mentioned
historically--and Ms. Davis, you might want to comment on this
too, or any of you--that there have been some abuses by the IRS
by previous administrations.
I think you referred to the Hoover Administration and the
Navy League, you mentioned FDR, I also think you mentioned
President Kennedy, President Nixon. I do not know if you
mentioned LBJ or not. Are all those correct, that you have
uncovered evidence that maybe the administrations have abused
the IRS?
Mr. Burnham. Absolutely. The IRS has been used for
political purposes on quite a regular basis.
Senator Nickles. Let me bring it up a little closer. You
touched kind of briefly on Reagan, Bush, and I do not know if
you mentioned Clinton or not. Did you find evidence that the
Reagan Administration or the Bush Administration used the IRS
for political purposes?
Mr. Burnham. During the Reagan Administration there were
several groups that were opposed to the Reagan Administration
position in Central American who were audited. Now, whether
that was political harassment, they believed it was. An audit
happens, and it may be done for a good reason.
There was also a very interesting case during the Reagan
Administration, and I am sure President Reagan had nothing to
do with this, where a group of teachers in Minnesota formed an
organization to promote the idea of Darwinism, of evolution.
They asked for tax-exemption, and they got a really incredible
letter back from the IRS saying, who are you to say Darwinism
is right? Are you going to show the other side? An IRS lawyer
was apparently a Creationist and felt very strongly about it,
and wanted this other side.
Now, these people had it together and they went to their
Senator. It was a Republican Senator, I believe, from Minnesota
at the time. He wrote a letter, and the thing disappeared. But
this kind of thing happens.
Senator Nickles. But be careful, because there are
allegations being made on this administration and I have not
really heard, and I was here during the Reagan and Bush
Administrations, but I have not heard anyone say that either of
those two administrations audited their enemies.
Ms. Davis?
Ms. Davis. I just want to add a quick historical note
because it is important to understand what really happened. The
two instances with which I am most familiar are the Kennedy era
abuses and the Nixon era abuses. In the Kennedy era the IRS had
a program called the Ideological Organizations Audit Project.
It was quite a mouthful to say.
In the Nixon years, it was called the Special Services
Staff, or the SSS. These were the entities inside the IRS that
performed the political targeted audits, if you will. But it is
very important to understand that both of these organizations,
from the historical record that does exist, did not come about
as the result of someone at the White House directing the IRS
to do this.
In both cases, the evidence that I see indicates that the
IRS in the Kennedy era listened to a news conference that
President Kennedy held in which he railed about the problems of
the right wing, and we had to do something about these tax-
exempt organizations, and by gosh, the only way to control them
is through the IRS. It was shortly, if not immediately
thereafter that the IRS internally created this organization.
No one directed them to.
They were reacting to a perceived need of the
administration. The same thing happened with the Special
Services Staff, which was launched in 1969, quite some time
before, if you look at the archival evidence, the term
``enemies list'' became in vogue in the White House.
They did it as a result of Congressional hearings in which
concerns were raised about activities of extremist groups
across America, and IRS bureaucrats got together, hunkered
down, and said, well, gosh, we can do something about that
here. That is the most important point I make when I talk about
whether or not the Clinton Administration or any administration
is conducting political audits.
It is not as simple as the White House calling the
commissioner and saying, go get these guys, because if there is
a perception inside the IRS that this it the type of activity
the administration wants to protect its budget, to protect
itself from this kind of scrutiny, then the IRS may very well
do it on their own. It does not take direction from the White
House. The IRS has the power on their own to do it. There is
nothing to stop them from doing it now.
Mr. Schriebman. Senator Nickles, may I just make one point?
Senator Nickles. Yes.
Mr. Schriebman. I would like you, if you have some time, to
review an article in the Washington Times. I do not know when
it came out, but it is Volume 434. I have copies for the
committee. It talks about people who have gotten judgments
against the IRS and the IRS keeps appealing and appealing and
wearing them down so they do not have to ever pay anything.
That is a very insightful article that I would direct your
attention to.
Senator Nickles. All right. I appreciate that.
Also, Mr. Schriebman, you mentioned one other thing. You
said you thought we should change the section in the Code that
allows, is it a district manager?
Mr. Schriebman. District director.
Senator Nickles. Director. To be able to seize assets.
Mr. Schriebman. Yes.
Senator Nickles. Right now, he is able to, over his
signature, seize assets whether it is a paycheck, a home, a
car, or other assets?
Mr. Schriebman. The IRS does not need his signature to go
after a car, a paycheck, or a business. The Code is specific.
In order to take a home, just a home, a residence, the revenue
officer cannot do it without his signature. But I know of no
case where a revenue officer has gone to a DD and the District
Director has refused to sign.
Senator Nickles. In some areas of the country they have had
a lot higher, I guess you would call it, seizures rates than in
other. Maybe is that because of more aggressive district
directors?
Mr. Schriebman. I would only have to assume so, Senator.
Senator Nickles. Are you saying they should not have that
authority or they should have to go through a Tax Court before
they could get that information?
Mr. Schriebman. Yes, that is what I am saying. Let them go
to a Tax Court or an independent forum in order for them to be
able to seize anything, but let the taxpayer have a notice and
a right to be heard under the 5th amendment.
Senator Nickles. All right. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Moseley-Braun.
Senator Moseley-Braun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you and congratulate you for convening these oversight
hearings. I think it is absolutely appropriate that this
committee undertake to provide this kind of oversight. It is
certainly part of our charge and our responsibility. It is
important in order to be responsive to the public, generally.
I would take issue with Mr. Burnham. Mr. Burnham suggested
that the most cases we heard from our constituents have to do
with the IRS. I think it has been overtaken by immigration of
late. But certainly we hear enough horror stories that this
kind of oversight is very, very timely, and the work of the
commission is to be commended and congratulated.
I think the point has been made that the taxes are what we
pay to support our expectations as a society, and that most of
the people who work for the IRS are honest, hardworking
individuals who perform an important community service.
At the same time, I know taxpayers view with horror the
prospect of having to come in contact with the IRS, and we do
have a lot of difficulties getting through. The citizens
generally are confused and upset about the mystery associated
with the IRS, the seeming capriciousness of what they do, and
the lack of accountability.
I think if there is one level of objection that we hear the
most about, it is that nobody can figure out how to get through
the maze of procedures or how to get through to where they need
to go to get an answer.
I have, and I am going to pass this on to the people from
the IRS here, again, a constituent issue from Fannie Woods
about her military retirement. She goes A through Z of steps
that she took to try to reconcile a problem with the IRS, that
she could not get information, she even traveled to Kansas
after being told that that is where her case could be resolved,
only to be told that Kansas was the wrong place and that she
should have gone to her local office. She has gotten different
phone numbers. Even this letter is directed to two different
places.
So people do not know where to go, they do not know who to
talk to, they do not know how to get through the process, and
they wind up, in her case, having a bank account levied over a
military retirement. Military retirement. This is somebody who
had a service-connected retirement, and had to go through what
seems like, just to be charitable, a catch 22.
Having said that, I want to focus in on Section 7430 and
what, if anything, we can do about it. It is always easy to
talk about the apocryphal stories, but the question is, how can
we make this process work better?
I was looking at Section 7430(a), which has to do with the
cost on appeal. Assuming for a moment that a taxpayer goes
through the process and goes to Kansas when they could have
gone to the hometown, or makes phone calls and cannot get
through, has to hire a tax preparer or a tax assistant or an
accountant to go through, has to order back copies of credit
card bills, or whatever.
Section 7430 does not allow, on the face of it, for those
costs to be recovered if they go through the process and win
and it is determined, after administrative appeal, or
alternatively after going to court, that the taxpayer really
was right, they had paid their taxes, they had done an honest
job of it, they had done the right thing, and they were not
liable for the lien, the levy, or for the collection action
that had been charged, and somebody had done something wrong
with the computer.
Assuming that happens and the person appeals and wins, to
what extent can these costs of the accountants, of the tax
assistants, of the travel, of even attorneys fees--the section
provides for a $75 an hour attorney fee.
Mr. Schriebman. Which was raised.
Senator Moseley-Braun. Right. And not to put down legal
assistance, but you cannot get legal assistance, even a
paralegal, for $75 an hour.
So assuming you go through the process, you were right to
begin with, you have gone through the aggravation, your mental
health cannot ever be compensated for, but certainly your trips
to Kansas, your telephone bills, your tax assistant's costs,
your accountant's costs, and your legal fees ought to be
recoverable.
So my question is, how can we provide taxpayers with some
assurance that if they go through all of this and they are
right, that they will not be further burdened and out of pocket
for the costs associated with getting justice done to them?
Mr. Schriebman. Well, it just so happens that I was at the
Government Printing Office yesterday, and something told me I
had better get a copy of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II, that I
might need it.
First of all, 7430 was amended by the Taxpayer Bill of
Rights essentially to do two things, raise the hourly from I
think $75 to $110, which you are not going to find anyone
competent for $110 these days. So, I think that is unrealistic.
I think if you are going to put some teeth into the 7430,
you should not put any dollar amount at all, the rate should be
the prevailing professional fee in the community.
Number two, you have got a ceiling here that you had in
Taxpayer Bill of Rights I, which I think was $100,000 and was
raised to $1 million in the TBR II. But you do not get it, as
you said. You are 100 percent right. You do not get it for
every dollar of professional fees or costs that you incur
because it starts, I believe, at the appellate level.
So the exhaustion of the administrative rights, Senator,
you have to either get or ask the IRS to give you an appellate
conference; you have to request an appellate conference. It
starts with the appellate conference.
Anything that you have incurred prior to an appellate
conference, you are out of pocket and I think that is wrong, I
think, the money that you have incurred for an unjust audit
should be awarded. Of course, in a collection action you do not
get an appellate conference.
Senator Moseley-Braun. Would it be possible to break this
down and give some additional authority to the appeals entity
at the administrative, as well as at the court level? That is
to say, if at the administrative level an individual could
recoup his or her cost of defending him or herself, that might
provide some balance in the situation.
You have unlimited resources on the IRS side, and the
taxpayer is out of pocket. Sometimes I think that may go to the
heart of why people feel so burdened, because they cannot in
all cases continue to meet those costs on an ongoing basis.
Mr. Schriebman. You are 100 percent right, Senator. The
couple of flaws in 7430 are, number one, when it kicks in. It
should kick in from the beginning when you are contacted by the
service, whether it is an audit or a collection matter. I think
the ceiling should be raised way beyond $1 million. After all,
as the old joke said, $1 million does not buy what it used to.
The attorneys' fee provision, the accountants' fee
provision, there should not be any ceiling at all, it should be
whatever the prevailing fee is in your particular community.
Now, maybe in Mississippi $110 an hour is the going rate. Where
I come from it is a little higher. But it is an unrealistic
dollar amount and I do not think it should hinge on whether or
not you get an appellate conference. I think it should start
from the initial IRS contact letter.
Senator Moseley-Braun. Ms. Davis?
Ms. Davis. Can I respond to that by sort of issuing a
challenge back to you, the entire Senate Finance Committee. I
think it would be interesting if you would, as a body, as the
IRS to provide you with detailed information on the number of
cases of taxpayers who have challenged the IRS and who have
been successful in their challenge against the IRS who have
actually been paid by the court system.
I can tell you that I did some background work with 60
Minutes on the piece they did last week, and one of the things
they told me, is this is a question that they repeatedly asked
the IRS, and the IRS simply refused to respond to their request
for that information. But the IRS could not refuse you.
So, because we the American people cannot get that
information, my guess is you are not going to find very many
taxpayers who have ever been paid.
Senator Moseley-Braun. Well, I thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the service, and we can
perhaps continue with this tomorrow, if they would give us some
numbers, not only on the number of audits that are initiated,
but the extent to which they go on further in the process, and
then the extent to which taxpayers are able to recoup at least
even the costs that are presently authorized after the
conclusion of the appeals process. If we can get those numbers
for our next set of hearings, I think it would be very helpful
to this.
The Chairman. You will have that opportunity tomorrow when
the representatives of the IRS will be here.
Senator Moseley-Braun. Well, if they are here, that way
they will not come and say, well, we will have to get back to
you. It would be really helpful to get it, if they could work
on that today in preparation of the hearing tomorrow. Thank
you.
The Chairman. Senator Hatch has asked for 30 seconds to
make a correction.
Senator Hatch. I just want to correct the record. To
correct the example I used in my earlier comments, the taxpayer
did not go to the Tax Court to have the interest that was
assessed abated. Unfortunately, this case began before the
Taxpayer Bill of Rights II allowing the tax court review was
effective. So it is a very unjust case and something that I
think would upset most people who looked at it fairly. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Moseley-Braun. Mr. Chairman, 30 seconds indulgence
before Senator Kerrey. If someone would take Ms. Woods' case
and take a look at this, because it really is kind of a
nightmare and I would like, if they would get started on this I
would appreciate it.
The Chairman. All right.
Senator Moseley-Braun. I do not know who from the service
is here, but if someone could take this. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Senator Kerrey.
Senator Kerrey. Mr. Chairman, one of the things I would
point out is that one purpose of oversight is to answer the
question, ``What should the law be?'' I mean, we are, in the
main, writers of laws. There are laws governing the Internal
Revenue Service today and I am prepared to argue strenuously
that those laws need to be changed.
Senator Grassley and I have introduced legislation that has
in it a long, detailed section dealing with many things that I
have heard the panel discuss having to do with taxpayer
protection rights, new penalties on the IRS, new rights for the
taxpaying citizen.
We have a section dealing with accountability that gives us
a greater capacity to do our oversight. I mean, one of the
problems is, we just do not get a sufficient amount of
information across the board to know what is going on over
there.
In that section we deal with the funding of the date change
to the year 2000, which is a huge problem and could create
enormous friction between the IRS and taxpayers. We deal with
the complexity of the Code as well. Very often we are the
people, as Senator Moynihan indicated the other day,
responsible for creating complexity in the Code and difficulty
as a consequence for administering the Code.
We are not always as good as we were this year in enacting
tax legislation early. It is not uncommon to pass a tax law
around here late in October or early in November, well into the
filing season, creating, obviously, some difficulties with
filling out taxes.
We have a section on electronic filing, which I believe
offers enormous potential for reducing costs and increasing
service. The rate of errors with electronic filing is less than
1 percent, with a 25-percent error rate in the paper
environment.
We do have a section as well on governance, as well as
senior management policy. There is considerably less authority
with the commissioner in making management decisions and
management policy decisions than meets the eye, though I know
that some regard the governance, I think one of the panel
members said, as window dressing. I think it is a critical
issue.
We saw with the Social Security Administration, with the
new administrator that was nominated by the President, already
a willingness to be independent of the President and say this
is the problem, this is the situation.
I would love to see an IRS commissioner at some point in
time say, great tax idea, Mr. President, great tax idea Senator
Blowhard, but this is what it is going to cost the taxpayer,
this is what it is going to do to our capacity to be able to
get the job done. So this independence, in my judgment, is a
critical issue in order to be able to get accountability to the
taxpayer.
Again, in the interest of time, I appreciate very much the
panel taking the time and exposing yourself to come up here and
be witnesses. I would appreciate very much if you could look at
the legislation that Senator Grassley and I have introduced, S.
1096, and all these various sections and just get back to us
and give us your constructive input as to how to make this
proposed law even better based upon your vast amount of
personal experience in this area.
Senator Moynihan. Mr. Chairman, could I just say one word
here.
The Chairman. Senator Moynihan.
Senator Moynihan. Would it not be a special moment when a
commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service came before this
committee and said, that provision is too complex, nobody can
understand it, we will never be able to enforce it?
Senator Kerrey. Yes.
The Chairman. Well, I want to express my appreciation to
all three of you for being here today. I think the discussion
this morning has been very helpful. It is only a beginning. We
look forward to your continued advice and assistance.
Mr. Schriebman. It is an honor, Senator.
Ms. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Burnham. Thank you.
The Chairman. I would now like to ask our next panel,
Father Ballweg, Mrs. Hicks, Mrs. Jacobs, Mr. Savage, to join us
at the witness table.
Now, I would point out to the members of the committee that
we will hear now from four taxpayers about their experiences in
dealing with the IRS. There is a common theme in three of these
cases: the inability of the IRS to perform a simple
administrative task and the lack of will by the IRS to correct
the problem. Then a parade of horror is unleashed against the
taxpayer.
We will hear from Monsignor Lawrence Ballweg, how he was
unable to get a copy of his tax filing within a reasonable time
so that he could respond to the IRS allegation that he owed
thousands of dollars of tax.
We will hear from Mrs. Katherine Hicks how the IRS was
unable to send her a bill for the out-of-court settlement she
made with the IRS almost a decade ago.
Because of the IRS mistake and its inability to track her
account, Mrs. Hicks has been subjected to tax liens against her
house, levies against her husband's wages. She even took the
drastic step of filing for bankruptcy and divorce to try to
escape from the heavy hand of the IRS. She is accompanied today
by her husband, Mr. James Hicks.
We will also hear from Mrs. Nancy Jacobs how the IRS was
unable to straighten out the employer identification number for
her husband Dr. Barry Jacobs' optometry practice. Their case
spans 17 years, with the Jacobs being subjected to liens,
interest, and penalties for someone else's taxes.
Each of these taxpayers attempted to deal with their
problem in good faith for an extended period of time. The IRS
made little effort to resolve their problems. Instead of
treating them as customers, they were treated as if they were
tax cheats.
Now, let me repeat. The problems were created by the IRS's
inability to perform a simple administrative task and the lack
of will to correct the problem. If these had been credit card
disputes, they would have been resolved expeditiously. It is
telling that these cases were resolved when this committee and
the media began to probe.
The fourth case we will hear about is in many ways even
more disturbing. It did not start with an administrative error.
We will hear that the IRS intentionally went after Mr. Tom
Savage and his company to collect taxes owed by an unrelated
business. Faced with a choice between saving his business or
fighting the IRS, Mr. Savage's company paid $50,000 in taxes
that it did not owe. I find this absolutely indefensible.
I want to thank each of our witnesses for taking the time
to come before the committee today. I will now administer the
oath to each of you and I will ask you each to respond
separately. Will you please rise and raise your right hand.
[Whereupon, the five witnesses were duly sworn.]
The Chairman. Mr. Hicks?
Mr. Hicks. I do.
The Chairman. Mrs. Hicks?
Mrs. Hicks. I do.
The Chairman. Mr. Savage?
Mr. Savage. I do.
The Chairman. Monsignor Ballweg?
Monsignor Ballweg. I do.
The Chairman. Mrs. Jacobs?
Mrs. Jacobs. I do.
The Chairman. Thank you, and please be seated.
We will now ask you, Mrs. Hicks, to proceed with your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF KATHERINE LUND HICKS, APPLE VALLEY, CA,
ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES HICKS
Mrs. Hicks. Thank you, Chairman Roth and members of the
Senate Finance Committee. Thank you for allowing me this
opportunity to appear here this morning to relate to you my
experience with the Internal Revenue Service.
Like many women who have gone through a divorce, I was the
one stuck with the tax bill for our last joint return for the
tax year 1983. The IRS assessed that return for additional
taxes of $7,000, but sent all the notices to my former spouse.
Unfortunately, it took him over a year to notify me of the
assessment.
I immediately contacted the IRS. The IRS had ceased to be
willing to examine my records and was demanding that I pay them
$16,000 instantly. At the time, my former spouse was earning in
excess of $40,000 a year as a glazer and had no dependents. My
income was approximately $15,000 a year as a newly-hired bank
employee, with a dependent 14-year-old daughter. For the 2
years following my divorce, I was financially destitute. I had
just managed to get an apartment, a real home for the two of
us.
I mention this to remind you good people that when an IRS
collection procedure gets out of control, the victim of that
collection still has to deal with all the other traumas of
their life.
An honest collection by the IRS with no snafus of an amount
actually owed is incredibly stressful in itself. Therefore, it
is critical that the IRS not be allowed, whether by design or
accident, to pursue taxpayers for erroneous debts. At present,
there are no effective protections against this.
In my case, I had to file a Tax Court petition to force the
IRS to examine my records, which I did in 1988. This is not
unusual if the IRS does not get a response to early requests
for records and I did not feel resentful or persecuted.
However, it did cause problems and added to my stress. I
had to use my rent money to pay the accountant and lawyer, and
so I lost my apartment. My daughter and I were reduced to
sharing a rented room. I consoled myself with the thought that
we had survived worse, and we would get another apartment
later.
It is important to note here that my ex-husband was not a
party to this petition in Tax Court. We settled out of court
and the IRS agreed to a reduced tax, from $7,000 to $2,709, a
reduced total demand from about $16,000 to approximately
$3,500.
I went to the meeting in July 1988 to sign the agreement
and, checkbook in hand, prepared to pay the amount in full at
that time. The IRS refused my payment until they had sent me a
bill, because they would not have anywhere to credit the money
without the bill. They claimed they needed time to calculate
the exact interest due.
I wanted the payment properly credited, I wanted this to go
well and to be permanently resolved. I thought, in a few weeks
I will have a bill. But the IRS said that the bill would take 6
months to prepare and arrive no later than January 1989. Six
months.
I recall asking if I was going to be charged interest for
the 6-month waiting period, and the IRS attorney, through my
accountant, said no, the interest would be calculated through
the date of the agreement and as long as I paid it right away
in January, there would be no additional interest.
He said it would be about $3,500 total. I never understood
why they could not just whip out their calculator right then
and there and tell me what I owed and get this whole thing over
with. The bill never came. In February, 1989 I started calling
the IRS, asking where it was.
I called the Fresno office and they suggested I also call
Laguna Nigel. Both offices had no record of any taxes owed by
me. I found this hard to believe. I wanted to be absolutely
certain they were correct. I wanted to remarry and I did not
want to bring this tax bill into the marriage.
I called both offices again in March and again before July.
I was told the same thing, that I owed nothing for 1983. I
asked for a receipt or something to show this was paid, because
I was simple-minded enough to believe this was a reasonable
request.
The IRS employees all said that they ``don't do that.'' I
had to take the word of the IRS that I owed nothing, and in
this, I had no choice.
At the time, I was not aware that my account had been set
up on a separate bookkeeping system to which the IRS employees
with whom I spoke did not have ready access. It works like
this. When you file a tax return it is recorded in a master
file. This is what the IRS clerks pull up on their computer
when you call and ask if you owe money.
However, at some point in 1989 the IRS split the master
file of our joint 1983 return and transferred separate
assessments into two non-master files in each of our individual
names and respective Social Security numbers. This was due to
the fact that I had gone to tax court and my ex-husband had
not. The IRS set up separate accounts.
These non-master files do not show up on the computer when
the IRS clerks check a taxpayer's Social Security number for a
balance owed. According to the attorney who explained this to
me in 1997, the master file continues to exist, but may show a
zero balance until the IRS recombines those accounts.
It will then reflect the correct amount owed according to
the agreement. Until that happens, every time the IRS clerk
pulled up my or my joint signer's Social Security number they
would see a zero balance owed and conclude that no taxes were
due.
To add to the confusion, there is no notation in this
master file that it has been split. Therefore, there is no way
for the IRS clerk to know that you might have an outstanding
collection in a non-master file.
As a result, I was repeatedly told by the IRS clerks that I
owed nothing. So far as I know to this very day, these accounts
have not been recombined and the master file continues to exist
with a zero balance, while the non-master files show a balance
owed.
Yet the IRS has been aware of this error at least since I
notified them of it earlier this year, if not even earlier. I
have made repeated requests of the IRS to recombine these
accounts ever since I learned of the problem. As far as I know,
it has not been done.
It is incredible to me that non-master files are allowed to
co-exist with master files at all. It creates two accounts
under the same name, with the same Social Security number that
can reflect conflicting balances due for the same tax year for
the same person.
Such a practice substantially increases the potential for
error and confusion inside the IRS, while simultaneously making
it impossible for a taxpayer to get reliable information from
the IRS. The taxpayer either gets conflicting information, or
in my case, consistent but incorrect information.
Every day the taxpayer is unable to get accurate
information from the IRS about a balance owed is another day's
interest added to the debt. Even while the taxpayer is
wandering around in this IRS maze of multiple accounts, the
clock never stops running. This is incredibly frustrating and
unfair to any taxpayer.
Unable to overcome this obstacle to compliance through no
fault of the taxpayer, he or she is charged penalties as well
for their failure. Much of my misery was caused because the IRS
could not accurately answer the simple question, how much money
do I owe? As far as I know, that condition has not changed.
To add to the confusion, my former spouse telephoned my
fiancee to complain that he had paid the tax and now the IRS
was after him for it again. He refused to share his records
with me, but his story and the IRS story both matched. Still, I
had no independent records to prove either one.
I requested his payment records from the IRS in 1988,
records to which I believed I was entitled. I made a second
request for those records in 1997. The IRS has refused me these
records, or even a statement as to their content.
Why, if my joint signer has never paid anything on this
tax, is the IRS hiding that information from me? How can I know
for certain what my liability is without the records of my
joint signer? Perhaps he has paid nothing. But if that is so,
then their refusal to share that information with me makes no
sense.
Mr. Chairman, I did everything humanly possible to obtain
correct information. I made every attempt to get this tax paid
and every conceivable request for some kind of record to
evidence what the IRS was telling me. I know of nothing else I
could have done.
So after being wrongfully informed that there was nothing
owed, I remarried in July 1989. I carried on business with the
IRS without incident, and my new husband and I filed a joint
return in 1990 and received a refund. We were not convinced, of
course, that if I owed any money to the IRS, the IRS would
never have issued a refund. So now we were confident that the
IRS information was correct. It was not.
In September 1990, without any notice and without our
knowledge, the IRS filed a tax lien against me. On December 19,
1990, the first lienholder on our home sued us as a result of
that Federal tax lien in the sum of $6,161.41. The lender
threatened to call our loan if we did not immediately get the
IRS lien released.
We would have lost our home, a home, by the way, that my
new husband bought for himself 6 years before he ever laid eyes
on me. So the real damage was being done to him, an entirely
innocent spouse. All of this, after I had been so careful to
pester the IRS repeatedly for a bill and had been repeatedly
told that no money was owed.
Worse than that, the lien did not reflect the terms of our
earlier settlement agreement. The tax lien reflected an
assessment nearly twice that of the IRS agreement, and the IRS
refused to discuss that fact with me.
Meanwhile, the assessment was ripening and it had gone up
to over $8,000. I tried to reopen my tax case and was told that
the Federal Tax Court did not enforce out-of-court settlements
made with the IRS. How convenient this is. Only the taxpayer is
held to the agreement, not the IRS. I was adamant that this was
just morally wrong. I was very upset.
I fought this collection for two reasons. One, because
based on information provided by the IRS itself I sincerely
believed I owed nothing, and two, because I believed the IRS,
even if they intended to collect twice, was obligated to
calculate my collection in accordance with our agreement.
My new husband contacted the revenue officer who had filed
the lien. The revenue officer informed my husband, and later
me, that he had my former spouse's file right here on my desk,
and he knew that my former spouse had paid the taxes, but that
it was not relevant because these were separate collections.
He insisted that if we wanted my former husband's payments
to offset my liability we would have to produce those records.
Otherwise, we would have to pay it again; the duplicate payment
would balance the IRS books, and he would help us file for a
refund of the overage. Imagine my new husband's frustration at
the prospect of effectively paying $8,000 that we believed had
already been paid.
At this point, which was early 1991, I requested a problems
resolution officer who, after some inquiry into my account,
came to the conclusion that I, indeed, did not owe anything for
the 1983 taxes and that, once she got written confirmation of
this from the Fresno office, she could get everything abated to
zero. Meanwhile, she said, the IRS agent should stop collection
activity, which he did not.
However, I thought, great, this is all going to be
straightened out soon. I was wrong. A few days later she called
me and informed me that the IRS Fresno office had changed its
mind about providing her with the necessary documents, and
without those there was nothing she could do.
I made one final attempt at reasoning with the collection
agent. He merely repeated that he knew the tax had been paid
and he knew I did not owe the money, but it did not matter. The
only way to get rid of the tax lien was to pay the $8,000,
whether we owed it or not.
The collection agent then offered to assist us with regard
to the refund application. He knew we were being sued by the
bank because the IRS was a co-defendant, so he just refused to
do anything and let the bank force us to pay what we did not
owe. With the bank about to call the loan, we had no choice but
to pay the IRS demand in full.
Mr. Chairman, although I am giving you a rather general
description of these events for the sake of overall continuity,
it is important for me to tell you that both my husband's and
my own physical and emotional well-being suffered tremendously
under the constant strain of these repeated attempts to get the
IRS to honor their agreement and collect only what I owed.
It was physically exhausting. We almost never slept. Every
conversation had to be memorialized in a letter. There were the
visits to the attorneys and the accountants, their bills, and
their depressing advice: pay it, it is cheaper than fighting,
and the very real prospect of losing our home to the bank if
they called the loan.
You do not eat, you do not sleep, you are afraid to talk
too much to each other for fear you will take it out on your
spouse. If you do talk, it is about the IRS. We were newlyweds.
I cannot describe the guilt, knowing that I had brought my new
husband into this.
My parents became so concerned for my health that they
cashed in a retirement CD and loaned us the money to pay the
IRS. Since they were living on a fixed income, this was a big
deal for them to do. I know they made sacrifices to do this. It
was a selfless act of love.
On February 21, 1991, we handed the collection agent a
cashier's check for the entire amount they demanded, $8,194.73.
Please keep in mind, the original underlying tax was $2,709,
and that the original amount due was supposed to be no greater
than $3,500. The balance was interest that accrued from July
1988 to February 1991, a period of 18 months.
In that time frame, the bill that I could not get anyone to
give me to pay nearly tripled from the original amount. I was
forced to pay $4,500 for their mistakes. In exchange for this
payment we were given a Certificate of Release of Federal Tax
Lien.
My cashier's check reflected my name, my Social Security,
the tax year to which it was being applied, 1983, as well as my
Tax Court docket number. In other words, the IRS had everything
it needed to properly credit the payment. I could not have made
it any clearer where to apply the proceeds of the check.
In February of 1992, a letter arrived from the IRS office
in Maryland signed by a woman with the authoritative title of
Chief, Accounting Branch. The letter said the IRS had received
a payment, and if we had made this payment, please send the IRS
a copy of the check with an explanation, which we did.
We also asked her in that letter not to refund the money or
any portion of it unless she first made sure neither of us owed
any money anywhere, for any year. In March 1992, we received an
unsigned IRS form letter indicating that the payment had been
applied to our 1990 joint return.
I actually telephoned the IRS and asked about this and was
told simply that if the Accounting Branch determined that there
were no taxes owed for any year, the only way to refund the
money was to credit it to the most recent tax year. In other
words, they could not credit the payment to my 1983 tax year
unless there was a balance due.
Therefore, we logically concluded that the Accounting
Branch did what we asked, checked out our taxes, found nothing
owed, and was merely refunding us the overpayment in accordance
with their own bookkeeping system. We had absolutely no reason
to think that the refund was in any way erroneous.
In November of 1996, nearly 5 years later, out of the blue,
without so much as one prior notice, we received a certified
letter from the IRS containing a Notice of Intent to Levy. The
particulars of the tax being levied were identical to the
particulars of the tax lien that had been released in 1991. For
reasons unknown to us, they changed their mind and wanted more
money again. Why?
I telephoned the agent who sent the letter and was told, it
was a different assessment, because even though everything else
was identical, the tax year, the amount, the assessment date,
there was an ``N'' after my Social Security number on this
assessment and, therefore, I had to pay it again. The ``N,'' I
later learned, is a tag for non-master file. Remember those,
the separate collections that nobody seems to know about? Well,
this was one of them.
Whether the IRS failed to close it at the time we paid it
in 1991 or whether they reopened it because they wanted to get
the refund back they gave us in 1992, does not really matter
much to me. Whichever one occurred, the fact remains the IRS
made yet another error. Once again, they demanded that I
balance their books and pay for their mistakes.
How many times was this going to happen, I wondered? A tax
attorney informed me that my Release of Lien was meaningless,
adding, the IRS refiles these all the time. I cannot tell you
how many people come in here clutching these things, Release of
Lien, for dear life, thinking that they offer some kind of
protection.
He stated the Taxpayer Bill of Rights did not allow the IRS
to collect interest from the taxpayers based on its own errors,
and even suggested that I write to my Congressman, but
cautioned me not to expect a significant outcome because
``they,'' Congress, he meant, ``cannot really do anything.
Congress is less than effective when dealing with the IRS on
behalf of taxpayers.''
I gave problems resolution another try. This time they were
less an advocate for me than an arm of the IRS collection
office. It was, in fact, the problems resolution officer who
told me, you know, you kept a refund to which you knew you were
not entitled, and her tone of voice was not friendly; keeping a
refund that you know you are not entitled to is a crime. She
demanded I pay back the refund. So much for the problems
resolution office.
After a brief hospitalization for surgery resulting from a
freeway pileup that totaled our car, my husband resumed work in
January 1997, only to discover that while he was recovering
from surgery the IRS had levied against his salary. My husband
would be allowed to keep $18 a week to support me and the
children for approximately two months.
Anyone entering a grocery store today knows that is
tantamount to condemning us to a soup kitchen for our meals.
Two months of being unable to meet our other financial
obligations would have sent us into bankruptcy and foreclosure.
Again, the innocent spouse was going to be published for my old
tax problem.
To protect his ability to provide for his children and
myself, my husband set up a separate residence in San Clemente
and filed for divorce on February 3, 1997. In California, the
day you file for a divorce your salary is your sole and
separate property. The IRS ignored that fact and left the levy
in place.
In an unusual determination, the county refused to comply
with the second levy and my husband's income was safe. However,
his retirement fund was not. That was community property, and
we fully expected the IRS to swoop in the next day and take the
whole thing.
So on the 5th of February, 1997, I filed bankruptcy to stop
the IRS long enough for us to figure out what to do about this.
The bankruptcy notice was hand-delivered the same day.
The following day, the IRS notified me that my Schedule Cs
for 1993, 1994, and 1995 were questionable and asked me to
reconsider them. We took this as a thinly veiled threat to
punitively audit our returns. The IRS refiled the lien for
which I had a release. We discovered this in March of 1997. I
am informed that this is common practice.
The liens threatened my husband's residence, which was his
separate property, but the IRS ignores this in community
property States. I have been informed that the liens would
survive the bankruptcy, as all liens do. So even though this
was his sole and separate property, it was possible the IRS
would take it.
My now widowed mother could not bear watching us go through
this and took out a loan against her retirement so we could pay
the IRS and get this over with. However, my husband and I knew
that paying the demand would never resolve this. We tried that
in 1991. They would screw this payment up too, and in a few
years be back for more, with interest.
We needed closure, some way to end this forever. Since the
real problem occurred back in 1989 and the IRS never correctly
set up my account for $3,500, and because every penny over that
amount was a result of their own error, we determined that
under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights provision that the IRS could
not make us pay interest for their mistakes. We should not owe
more than $3,500.
If we could get the IRS to correct their errors, we should
be able to pay $3,500 and be done with it. So, that is what we
did. We made a directed, voluntary payment of $3,500. We put
the rest of the money in a CD in case the IRS swooped in to
destroy us unannounced. We waited.
Our lives are now forever altered. Joint tenancy, joint
bank accounts, joint tax returns are no longer a part of our
life. We will pay additional taxes every year as a result. Our
confidence in the integrity of the IRS has been completely
shattered.
This year we got a refund on our 1996 taxes, and it sits in
a CD, as does the $3,500 that the IRS recently returned to us
without any explanation. We do not dare cash refund checks
anymore. My credit is completely destroyed, and my husband's
credit is seriously damaged. We will suffer the effects of this
IRS collection for the rest of our lives.
I originally wrote to you, Mr. Chairman, because the IRS
should not be above the law. Couples should not have to divorce
because of the IRS. Once you became involved, the IRS released
all of the liens and sent us the $3,500 back.
Senator Roth, your effort saved us from being forced to
live apart and preserved our ability to provide for our
children and for this we will be forever grateful. However, the
conduct of the IRS remains the same, and for thousands of other
taxpayers there is no help. Ours is a hollow victory if the IRS
is allowed to continue this type of conduct.
People tell us how terrified they would be to do what we
have done. They are convinced that the IRS will target us for
punitive audits. One person put it this way when she learned we
had written to Congress. She said, that is like painting a
bull's eye on your chest and giving the IRS a loaded gun. She
believes the IRS will never forget this, and some day get back
at us in retaliation. Mr. Chairman, she could very well be
right.
The IRS is judge, jury, and executioner, answerable to
none. We do not believe that our experience is isolated. For
over 10 years the IRS has conducted itself as a legalized
extortion operation, willing to commit abusive acts to collect
money, even that which they know is not owed.
An agency of the U.S. Government allowed such sweeping
authority as that granted to the IRS should be held to the
highest standards of honesty and integrity. The IRS is not.
Those of us subject to that authority should be guaranteed an
accessible and effective remedy for its abuse, and we are not.
It is a disgrace to our Nation that an arm of our democratic
government is allowed to behave as if it were an extension of a
police state.
I hope that Congress can act to end this National shame.
Thank you for allowing me this time.
The Chairman. Thank you.
[Applause]
The Chairman. The committee will please be in order.
Mrs. Hicks, I thank you for being here today. I apologize
and regret that you and your husband have been put through this
kind of an ordeal since 1983. It should not happen, and that is
the reason we are here today.
Mrs. Hicks. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Hicks appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. Next, I would like to call on Tom Savage for
his testimony.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS SAVAGE, LEWES, DE
Mr. Savage. Good afternoon, Senator. Thank you for allowing
me to come here, and distinguished people on the panel, for
being here to hear our case.
My name is Tom Savage. I run a small construction
management company in Lewes, DE that my wife and I own. I want
to thank the committee for the opportunity to share my story,
which has been no less than a true horror story for my wife and
me.
We were unfortunate to have been the subject of a zealous,
unrelenting, and abusive pursuit by an IRS revenue officer,
with assistance and complicity of the attorneys, particularly
the lead attorney at the Department of Justice who was charged
with advising the IRS. They were in a position to stop the
abuse and yet permitted it to continue, perhaps even causing
much of it.
In the interest of time, I will simply say that the
emotional damage done to my wife and me outstripped the
financial damages we suffered, which was not insubstantial.
There were many sleepless nights. Believe me, when the
resources of the government are unleashed on you, you are in
trouble, no matter how good your case. Few people know what it
is like to be in the cross-hairs of the IRS. We, unfortunately,
do.
I am here today in hopes that by telling my story and by
participating in these hearings I might help bring about the
real and lasting changes at the IRS. For the sake of other
taxpayers, I hope this happens.
The nightmare began when a subcontractor of Tom Savage
Associates, or TSA, my company, fell behind paying his
unemployment taxes. The case ended with an intense litigation
in the U.S. District Court. Tom Savage Associates was forced to
bring an order to recover a payment check issued by the State
which had been wrongfully seized by the IRS.
In order to keep my company afloat, we had to settle the
case. Much of this offended our desire to stand on principles.
We allowed the IRS to keep $50,000 of the check that was seized
in order to get the case over with, since the litigations were
bankrupting our company financially and us emotionally.
We regret not having pursued the case to the end, but we
had to save our business. The government has endless resources
to drag the case out, we did not. In settling the case, the
government extorted $50,000 before giving back the check. The
government attorney knew that it was going to cost an
additional $50,000 to litigate the case and use it as leverage
on the IRS position.
In brief, the subcontractor had tax problems that surfaced
during the period that he was working for my company, TSA, on a
project for the State of Delaware. Unknown to TSA, the
subcontractor had not been paying his employment taxes for
approximately 1 year before the project commenced.
TSA, with the subcontractor's assistance, was building a
women's correctional facility. The subcontractor performed the
construction, while TSA oversaw the project and provided a
performance bond for the project.
Towards the end of the job, the subcontractor's tax
problems came to light. The IRS investigated the subcontractor,
but quickly concluded that the amount of taxes due were
uncollectible.
The revenue officer, in his zeal, set his sights on TSA.
First, he attempted to hold me personally responsible for the
unpaid taxes, asserting that I was a responsible person
representing the subcontractor.
This approach failed when my tax advisor filed a legal
memorandum explaining the severe deficiencies with this theory,
so the IRS then went after my company. The IRS now asserted
falsely that TSA and the subcontractor were partners, and that
the employees of the subcontractor working on the project were
actually employees of this fictitious association between TSA
and the subcontractor.
My tax advisor pressed the revenue officer for some
authority for asserting the existence of this fictitious
partnership that he had established between TSA and the
subcontractor. The revenue officer pointed to a non-tax
Delaware case that was totally inapplicable.
Undaunted by the challenge to provide the authority in
support of this fictitious partnership, the revenue officer
caused the IRS to issue a 30-day letter which proposed an
assessment against the fictitious partnership.
We immediately filed a written protest with the IRS appeals
officer and eagerly awaited an appeals conference to put the
case behind us. As things turned out, we were never given an
opportunity to present our case to the appeals office.
While awaiting the appeals conference to be scheduled, the
IRS seized a large check paid to my company by the State of
Delaware for the project. At the time of the seizure, and this
is significant, there was no assessment entered against either
TSA or the fictitious partnership between TSA and the
subcontractor.
Even if there was one, assuming the partnership existed,
which is a generous assumption even for the sake of the
argument, the only assessment on the books allowing the IRS to
enforce the collection was against the subcontractor.
The seizure of this check thus constituted a wrongful levy,
open and shut. Existing IRS revenue rulings clearly hold that
``assessment of a partnership on another partner may not be
seized to satisfy the debts of another partner.''
It is a fundamental principle of the tax law that the
government may not seize any taxpayer's property or undertake
any type of enforcement action against the taxpayer until there
has been an assessment entered against a taxpayer. For those of
you not versed in tax procedure, an assessment is the
administrative equivalent of a judgment.
In our case, the right to be free of the government
collections action until such time as an assessment had been
entered was flagrantly violated. Not only was this right
violated, as will be explained in a moment, the IRS would now
later attempt to sweep this fact under the rug in U.S. District
Court.
Indeed, the government's attorneys were so hell-bent on
winning that they waged a behind-the-scenes campaign during the
proceedings in the District Court to sanitize the record
presented to the judge.
The government requested an extension of time to respond to
the plaintiff's brief in support of its motion for summary
judgment, then during the extension in an assessment against
the fictitious partnership between TSA and the subcontractor by
hand-delivering a notice of demand the Saturday before the
government's answer brief was due.
The government attorney had the audacity to argue in their
answering brief that an assessment had been entered against the
fictitious partnership, but no mention was made in the
government's brief that the assessment was entered 25 weeks
after the IRS seized the check, and literally days before the
answering brief was filed. And these were the attorneys we
thought would stop the abuse?
When we instituted the suit we were convinced that the case
would be resolved quickly, that the government would concede
the case once it got into the hands of competent attorneys. We
guessed wrong. The government had my money and it was not going
to give up without a fight.
Faced with this ``win at all costs'' attitude, we were
clearly in a protracted battle with the IRS. As much as it
offended my wife and me, we chose to settle the case and permit
the IRS to keep $50,000 of the proceeds. We wanted to pursue
the case to the end, but to do so would have destroyed our
business.
On top of the $50,000 that the IRS kept, I had other
financial losses. Although my attorney reduced her fee
substantially, in encouraging me to settle the case their fees
were substantial. We spent $51,000 in legal fees in connection
with this case. We lost approximately $600,000 in business
during the proceedings with the IRS in its wake.
Finally, we lost our sense of well-being, confidence, and
freedom from government intervention. I believe the IRS, the
revenue officers, the district counsel's attorneys, and the
attorneys with the Tax Division of the United States Department
of Justice should be held accountable for their conduct.
Unless abuse of this type committed by the IRS and its
representatives are met with strong responses including
legislation to compensate the victims of these IRS abuses, they
will continue. I thank the committee for the opportunity to be
here today.
The Chairman. Mr. Savage, we thank you for being here
today. Again, as I said to Mrs. Hicks, it is hard to understand
how these occurrences do occur, and we apologize for the
problems you have been put through.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Savage appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. Now I would like to call on the very
distinguished Monsignor Ballweg for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF MONSIGNOR LAWRENCE BALLWEG, NEW YORK, NY
Monsignor Ballweg. Good afternoon, Chairman Roth and
members of the Senate Finance Committee. I found this to be a
very interesting and educational experience, and I thank you
for inviting me to come here this afternoon.
I am Monsignor Lawrence F. Ballweg. I have been a priest in
the Catholic Church for over 57 years. I was retired in 1990 at
the mandatory retirement age of 75.
My mother, Elizabeth Ballweg, died in August 1988, and in
her will established a trust, the benefits of which go to
charity. In the will I was named the trustee and, since her
death, I have faithfully and conscientiously performed my
duties as trustee. I have submitted an annual report of the
trust activities to the IRS each year without any problem at
all.
During the year 1995, I made more numerous transactions
than in previous years. In order to record all the income of
the trust I listed the various items on separate sheets
entitled ``Statement 1,'' ``Statement 2,'' and so on, then
placed the totals in the appropriate spaces on the IRS Form
1041.
I did this more for the convenience of the IRS than for my
own convenience. Since I did not pay a professional to prepare
the trust return, I spent hundreds of hours collecting the
necessary papers and balancing the figures. I asked for an
extension of time for 1995 so that I could be more confident
that the report was as accurate as possible.
Two months later, the return that cost me so much time and
effort was returned, requesting that I put all my figures on
the appropriate forms that were enclosed.
My second report was done hurriedly and returned on July 7
to make sure that it reached the IRS office in the few days
that were allowed. In my hurry to return this report on time it
may not have been done as perfectly as the first, although the
figures were exactly the same.
I spend 6 months in Florida and 6 months in New York. The
day after I arrived in Florida, November 4, 1996, I received a
letter from the IRS Atlanta office stating that I owed more
than $18,000 in taxes and penalties for the trust.
Since I had left a copy of my final report in New York, I
asked that a copy be sent to me. I was informed that I had,
first, to request an application for a copy of my report, and
then return the application with a check for $14. When the
application arrived I filled it out and enclosed the check.
About 6 to 8 weeks later, I received a form that indicated
that I could not receive the copy since my name, Lawrence F.
Ballweg, was different from the name of the trust, which was
Lawrence F. Ballweg, Trustee, under the Will of Elizabeth D.
Ballweg, and reflected on line 1 of Form 1041, Elizabeth D.
Ballweg, my mother, who had died 8 years before.
I wrote a long letter dated January 6, 1997, explaining
that I had submitted annual reports since 1988 and that my name
was the signature on each report. At the same time, I submitted
another request for a copy of my file. The request was ignored.
Instead, I received a final notice dated January 20, 1997
in which I was told that the IRS intended to take steps to take
my bank account, auto, and other property if they had not
already done so.
I have read several stories about threats of this kind and
how they have caused extreme physical and mental suffering to
taxpayers, and now began to understand what those stories
meant.
I must confess that I spent sleepless nights thinking of
the possible consequences, not knowing where to turn, since by
this time I was certain I would get no help from the IRS.
Mr. Chairman, it was at this time that I heard of your
investigation into the conduct of the IRS. I immediately wrote
to you and received prompt action. CNN presented my case on
television.
The next day I received a call from an IRS taxpayer
advocate who later received a copy of my file and advised me
how to make the necessary adjustments. On March 24, 1997, I
received notice from the IRS Atlanta office that I did not owe
any tax.
For 8 months I lived in constant worry, if not fear, that
the trust that my dear mother had established to help the poor
would be penalized because of what I can only call the
unprofessional, calloused, and indifferent behavior of IRS
employees who are devious enough never to sign their names to
any notice that they send out. The taxpayer is dealing with
people who can do inestimable harm, and cannot even be
identified.
I can only thank you, Senator Roth and the Senate Finance
Committee, for trying to correct such abuses. I pray that as a
result, conscientious citizens will be spared the humiliation,
embarrassment, fear, and anxiety that I have experienced. Thank
you very much.
The Chairman. Father Ballweg, again, I must apologize to
you for what you were put through. This is the kind of
treatment of a taxpayer that should never happen. While we are
glad that it was finally resolved, you should not have had that
emotional suffering.
[The prepared statement of Monsignor Ballweg appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. It is now my pleasure to call on Mrs. Jacobs.
Would you please proceed?
STATEMENT OF NANCY JACOBS, BAKERSFIELD, CA
Mrs. Jacobs. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the
Senate, Mr. Roth. I just want to say a quick word, that it is a
great privilege and honor to be here today speaking to the
Senate, something I never thought I would ever do.
The Chairman. It is an honor to have you here, and we thank
you for coming.
Mrs. Jacobs. Well, I am here on behalf of the people of the
United States. I am not here on behalf of any Democrat or
Republican, and I want everyone to know that. I am hoping that
someone will see our stories here today will take a real grip
on what their life is all about and give them some hope.
Chairman Roth, Senators of the Finance Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you this morning to
present my personal experience with the Internal Revenue
Service. I am sorry.
The Chairman. That is all right. Just take your time.
Mrs. Jacobs. I am Mrs. Nancy Jacobs. My husband, Dr.
Frederick Jacobs is a practicing optometrist from Bakersfield,
California. We have operated for approximately 30 years.
When my husband first opened his practice in March 1965 in
Stockton, California he was assigned an employer identification
number, or EIN, for reporting purposes to the IRS. Between 1977
and 1979, my husband closed his practice.
But in November 1979, he reopened in a new location in
Riverside, California. We applied for an EIN number at that
time, because we were restarting the practice at a new site and
we needed an EIN for tax reporting purposes.
What neither of us knew at the time was that the EIN is
like a Social Security number; it never needs to be changed or
renewed. The original EIN from the IRS had been assigned to us
forever.
However, when we requested the new EIN from the IRS it
complied with a request that the IRS provide us with a second
number. What we did not know at the time is that the EIN that
the IRS provided to us in 1979 actually belonged to someone
else, someone that we would not be aware of until the year
1992.
By March of 1981, we were unexpectedly assigned yet a third
EIN number from the IRS via a preprinted label on a quarterly
941 tax return. However, we continued to use the number we were
assigned in 1979 on all of our quarterly tax payments.
In June 1981, out of the blue, without any warning, the IRS
placed a lien against us for $11,000 for unpaid back payroll
taxes. We could not find anyone at the IRS that would do us the
courtesy of checking into the lien and to find out who the lien
was for.
After attempting to deal with the IRS, my husband and I
were so intimidated by the tactics used by the IRS that we
agreed to pay $250 a week until the balance was paid. For
anyone who has not had to deal with the IRS under such
circumstances, you probably cannot understand why we agreed to
pay $11,000 that we did not owe. Only after having experienced
what my husband and I endured would you consider paying an IRS
bill that you did not owe.
Even after the $11,000 was paid, we continued to receive
subsequent liens from the IRS. My husband and I were forced to
comply with these IRS demands under the penalty of experiencing
further enforcement actions, with the possibility of the IRS
closing down my husband's practice. We were forced into debt,
our credit was damaged, and the mental stress was overwhelming.
During all this time we could not convince anyone at the
IRS that we did not owe these taxes. In fact, during one of our
visits to the San Diego IRS office we were flatly told by an
IRS employee that she was too busy to help us any more. She
refused any additional assistance in straightening out our
account also.
We were then informed by her supervisor that this matter
would be cleared up. It was a kind offer, but that was all it
was. Our nightmare continued. By 1987, we had received
additional liens totalling roughly $15,000.
In 1982, we did seek the assistance of a congressional
representative. He contacted the IRS on our behalf, requesting
that the IRS stop all collection efforts and for them to
contact us in an effort to straighten out the problem.
We did hear from the IRS in 1982, and we met with someone
from the Laguna Nigel office who told us that we had received
four refund checks. We assured him that we had only received
one for approximately $3,600. He promised that he would get
copies of the other checks. Unfortunately, he never did.
The only consistent occurrence over the course of the years
was the occasional appearance of the original EIN number on
notices that we had received from the IRS, while all others
reflected our second EIN number.
My husband and I began to wonder exactly where the taxes
were going that we had been faithfully paying. No one with the
California IRS office that we contacted could explain it
either. But they were adamant that, whatever the reason, we
owed those taxes.
By 1987, we again contacted a congressional representative,
seeking intervention on our behalf. This time we heard from the
IRS, but that too led to another dead end.
In 1992, a patient of my husband's, a tax attorney, agreed
to review our case and was the one who discovered the confusing
EINs going back to 1979. Someone with a name quite similar to
my husband's, but with an entirely different Social Security
number, shared the EIN.
Back in 1979, had the IRS employee properly informed us
that we did not need a ``new'' EIN number, or at least checked
the status of the number, this 17-year nightmare would have
been avoided.
Mr. Chairman, since 1992 when we first discovered the
mistake IRS had made my husband and I have been trying to get
our money back from the IRS, money that was wrongfully taken
from us by the IRS, but to no avail. We have never received the
money from the IRS as we had been promised. We estimate the IRS
still owes us $10,000, if not more, plus interest, stemming
from the wrongful liens, penalties and interest.
Only in 1994 in an encounter with the IRS's Bakersfield
office did we meet the first truly helpful person who was
willing to work with us and investigate the cause of our
problem. We were informed that our problem was, indeed, due to
a clear case of an erroneous employment identification number.
Unfortunately, this employee became ill and our case was
apparently lost.
After yet another congressional inquiry on our behalf in
1996, we learned that our ``lost'' case was not really lost,
not at all, but had been referred to an IRS employee at the
IRS's Fresno service center. Unfortunately, she was not
responsive to our case and almost another year languished
without any satisfaction.
Out of sheer frustration, my husband and I went to our
local newspaper and told our story. Roughly two hours after
this story appeared, the same IRS employee was on the telephone
informing us, ``we discovered that you were right,'' and
proceeded to discuss how our money would be returned to us.
We then received a fax from her stating that all liens had
been lifted and the IRS was at fault for the incorrect EIN
number. However, when this IRS employee extended her ``sincere
apologies'' in writing, she did not mention a refund of the
money the IRS unfairly took from us.
She did state, however, ``the liens previously filed under
our employment identification number were not correct and
should not have been on Dr. and Mrs. Jacobs' accounts. The
liens were not for their liabilities. Within the next 6 to 8
weeks, Dr. and Mrs. Jacobs will be in full compliance on all
taxes, both individual and business.''
Mr. Chairman, both my husband and I are certainly pleased
and greatly relieved that this 17-year confrontation with the
IRS is almost over, but we cannot agree with the IRS that it is
completely over. We would appreciate receiving our refund with
the same enthusiasm and speed with which the IRS collected it.
However, the real reason I am here this morning is to bring
to light what my husband and I feel is an attitude that
permeates the IRS. It is one of manipulation and control of the
taxpayer. Both my husband and I were met with indifference when
dealing with the IRS offices. IRS employees were not interested
in listening to us, much less investigating our assertions.
They assumed we were guilty, that we did owe the money.
The IRS is beyond the law. Congressional inquiries on our
behalf met with only limp response. Mr. Chairman, an agency
with this type of power over American citizens requires someone
to rid it of such abusive conduct. My husband and I commend you
for the efforts here today in accomplishing that goal. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Jacobs appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. Well, let me start out again by thanking each
of you for being here today. I know it is not easy to appear
before a Senate panel, but it is critically important, not only
from your standpoint, but for the taxpayer as well. We are here
to learn and each of your testimonies has been extremely
helpful.
I am going to ask the members of the panel to try to limit
their questions, but everybody will be given an opportunity to
ask questions. I would hope that they could keep within a 5-
minute rule, everyone but Senator Moynihan and me. [Laughter.]
The Chairman. Mrs. Hicks.
Mrs. Hicks. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Did I correctly understand from your
testimony that you separated from your husband?
Mrs. Hicks. That is correct.
The Chairman. Filed for divorce.
Mrs. Hicks. That is correct.
The Chairman. And eventually filed bankruptcy because of
actions taken by the IRS.
Mrs. Hicks. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Now, Mrs. Hicks, could you have avoided years
of grief if the IRS had had a procedure to properly post your
account and send you a bill which you could have paid in 1988?
Mrs. Hicks. Oh, yes. Yes. I would say if a taxpayer is ever
faced with what I was faced with, and you are told by anyone at
the IRS, do not pay us now, wait for a bill, do not wait for a
bill. Send the money to the main office and sit on your
canceled check. That is what I wish I had done now. I should
have just paid it anyway, despite their advice.
The Chairman. Let me ask you this. Did you find that, in
general, you confronted an agency not interested in helping you
resolve your problem? How would you have been treated if you
had had a glitch with a credit card?
Mrs. Hicks. Well, that is a different story because they
generally care about whether or not they actually collect the
debt. I am no longer convinced the Internal Revenue Service's
primary goal with some of us is collecting the debt. They
obviously did not want me to pay this debt. I kept giving them
the money, they kept giving it back. They did not want the
payments.
Yes, a credit card company would have taken my money for
sure. If a credit balance showed up on my Visa card and I owed
them money on another card that they held, they would snatch
that credit balance over to the balance due. I mean, this is
silly. They could have collected this three times over.
The Chairman. One of the important points, I think, to
recognize is that your problem was not just one employee, it
was the fault of the system.
Mrs. Hicks. Yes. Yes.
The Chairman. How many IRS employees and offices do you
think you dealt with over the years that your problem lingered
on with the IRS?
Mrs. Hicks. Well, I would not say I dealt with a large
number of offices, but quite a few employees. The list is like
three pages of different individuals that I dealt with.
The Chairman. Three pages.
Mrs. Hicks. Yes, it is about three pages.
The Chairman. Let me ask you this. How many times did you
try to pay the taxes owed as a result of your settlement with
the IRS?
Mrs. Hicks. Three. The first time when they would not even
take my check, then I waited for the bill, then when they
levied us the first time. When they liened me and the house was
threatened, I paid it and then they did not keep the money,
then recently again. So, three times. They did not keep that
money either, by the way.
The Chairman. How many times did the IRS tell you that you
owed no tax?
Mrs. Hicks. About six. About every 45 to 60 days, just that
6 or 7 months before I got married. So five or six times.
The Chairman. Five or six times.
Let me now turn to Mr. Savage. Thank you, Mrs. Hicks.
Mrs. Hicks. You are welcome.
The Chairman. I see you breathing a sigh of relief. I do
not blame you.
Mr. Savage, is it your testimony that IRS employees
fabricated a case against you by creating a false entity that
linked your company and your subcontractor in a partnership?
Mr. Savage. Yes, sir. The internal revenue agent created a
totally false company, Tom Savage joint venture with such and
such subcontractor partnership, gave a new EI number,
established the EI number, sent a bill for roughly $177,000 the
first time, $138,000 the second time. He created the company.
It did not exist, it does not exist to this day, and it never
existed, with my authority or anybody else but the internal
revenue agent himself. He created the company.
The Chairman. Now, I want to be very clear about this. Was
there any common ownership between you individually or your
company and the subcontractor?
Mr. Savage. None whatsoever. In fact, that was the first
time I had ever worked with this man. I had been in business
approximately at that time around eight years, and this is the
first time I ever had any contact with this particular
individual.
The Chairman. Now, if that is the case, why did you settle?
Why did you settle with the IRS, allowing them to retain some
of the funds that you say you did not owe, that they were not
entitled to keep?
Mr. Savage. As I explained a little earlier, basically what
it amounts to is they seized a check of mine for $145,000
immediately. I had used that money. Actually, it was set aside
to pay bills and so forth. So right then and there, I am out
$145,000 to the Internal Revenue Service. I had to pay off my
bills.
In turn, I had a line of credit. I borrowed $150,000 to
keep my business going, paid interest on it during that period
of time, paid attorney's fees during this period of time,
trying to get this case settled for over a year and a half or 2
years, it has almost run.
In the meantime, anytime they send the assessments and so
forth my attorney filed the proper papers to show we did not
owe these taxes, it was not our company, it was a self-created
company by an internal revenue agent. The company did not exist
other than through his procedure of issuing an EI number, and
so forth.
The Chairman. Now, as I understand what you are saying,
that when they attached the lien there was no assessment of tax
made against you, individually or against your company, and
that is contrary to the rules and regulations.
Mr. Savage. That is correct. There was no assessment
whatsoever on the books against Tom Savage Associates, or
Francis T. Savage, me, personally.
The Chairman. And you also testified that it is incorrect
to seize the assets of a partner when another partner is
liable.
Mr. Savage. That is correct. That is the general tax law. I
mean, my attorneys are competent attorneys in the State of
Delaware for tax laws.
The Chairman. I would like to call your attention to an
exhibit over there, a letter. This letter is from the U.S.
Department of Justice addressed to the District Counsel of the
Internal Revenue Service.
In that letter, this is the U.S. Department of Justice
writing saying, ``Specifically after reviewing the complaint,
the motion for summary judgment, your defense letter, and all
the information forwarded by revenue officer, we believe that
the levy in question was wrongful.''
Mr. Savage. That is correct. That is the first time I have
seen this morning, when it was presented to me by one of your
staff. The only reason this letter has even come about is the
fact that you had the authority to go into the Justice
Department and the IRS and obtain this letter, or else God
knows, nobody would ever receive it. What it amounts to is what
we were arguing all along. From the day they seized our check,
they had no legal right whatsoever to this check. That was
totally wrongfully seized.
The Chairman. Let me reemphasize. What this letter from the
Justice Department says is that the levy in question was
wrongful. Now, if you had known that was the position of the
Justice Department, would you have settled?
Mr. Savage. No way. After all, look at some of the dates.
Our case started in the eighth month of 1993 when we answered
the brief. As of November 1, these attorneys representing the
IRS knew they were legally wrong. They had been advised by the
Justice Department they are wrong. They kept this case going on
for another year and a half. They did not care for anybody but
themselves.
Now, if I had known this was wrong, no way in the world. If
you read further down, ``We do not believe that the IRS can
levy on a partnership for unpaid Federal taxes.
In fact, we read your defense letter to essentially concede
that the levy was wrongful.'' I mean, these people, here they
are getting a letter from the Department of Justice telling
them, you are wrong going after this man and his money. But
they did not care. They went and continued to do it.
I hate to lose my temper, but if you live under this and
the pressures that we were under to do this, we have a
business, we had an obligation to our subcontractors to keep
them working, and so forth. I had an outstanding record. I had
never owed taxes.
In fact, the first day the gentlemen--I use the word
loosely--the internal revenue agent came to my house, we had
our home up for sale because we planned on retiring. I am 69
years of age. Four years this has been going on.
I opened the door and said, who are you? He said, well, I
am here to collect the taxes. What are you doing, trying to get
out of town before you pay your bills? I said, what ails you? I
do not owe any money. He explained what he was there for. I
said, well, come in. Here are my books; look at them. I had no
attorney or anybody at that time. I said, here are my books. He
looked them over. He went over every page that I had, and I
kept all of the records.
I said, I do not owe taxes. He said, no, I checked on you.
You always paid your taxes monthly. I had never even paid them
quarterly. Federal taxes have always been paid monthly. He
left, then this harassment of letters started and so forth that
I owed money. First he tried to hold me personally responsible,
then he held the corporation responsible, then he created a
corporation that does not exist and did not exist.
So, I mean, how illegal can they get? But here they have.
Like I say, thanks to you today we have a letter that says
these people knew they were acting illegally. Illegally. Let us
stress that. They knew it and they deliberately did not care.
The Chairman. So you paid $50,000 you did not owe.
Mr. Savage. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman. You have not been able to be repaid for that,
is that correct?
Mr. Savage. No way. In other words, this case itself, up to
that time and I will give you a quick run-down as an example.
My total settlement costs, counting attorney fees and so forth,
$101,023.05.
During the period of time from 1994 to 1997, I have paid
interest and lost interest on my accounts to keep this account
going. For a total of over three and a half years, the Internal
Revenue Service has cost me $167,16.32, and that is as of
September of 1997. These people do not care.
They have cost me over $600,000 as far as income. Right
now, I still have debts that I am paying off. I have worked 4
years longer than I planned to. When I retire, hopefully by the
end of this year, I am going to have to take out $80,000 more
to pay off the balance that I owe on this $167,000. So these
people have cost me in excess of $250,000, and I want my money
back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Savage.
Now I would like to turn to you, Father Ballweg. Again, I
find this situation incomprehensible. Let me ask you this
question. You probably do not deal with credit cards, but if
this had been in the private sector, could your problem not
have been solved by picking up the telephone?
Monsignor Ballweg. Senator, this could have been solved
with the simple telephone call that I made to the IRS office
the day after I received the notice that I owed them $18,000. I
called and I said, what is the problem? They would not tell me.
So I said to them, I do not have my tax report or a copy of it
down here, it is back in New York.
I had thoughts overnight of going back to New York just to
pick up that thing so I would have it before me. But I called
the next day and said, could you send me a copy of the report.
They gave me a long lecture about being conscientious about
making out your income tax for the trust. He then informed me
that in order to get a copy of that report that I had submitted
I would have to apply for an application and fill it out and
return it with a check for $14, which I did.
I waited 6 weeks until I received a notice saying that I
was not entitled to a copy of it because my mother's name was
on the top of the trust, Elizabeth D. Ballweg, and it should
have been Lawrence F. Ballweg under the Will of Elizabeth
Ballweg. But I had sent in my reports all these years and my
name was on it.
They do not sign anything at all, but all they do is
highlight something. I had to look to find out what the problem
was. On the back page there was something highlighted that
indicated that since my name was different from my mother's
name, they could not send me a copy.
So I sent a long letter back and I said, please bring this
to the attention of the supervisor, because I thought it came
from somebody or it would reach somebody who did not know how
to handle this kind of thing. So I said, bring this to the
attention of your supervisor. Well, the response to all of that
is that I received the final notice shortly after that, telling
me that they are going to levy my house, my car, and so on.
That really scared the living daylights out of me. I called
again and I was told that it was being reviewed. My case was
being reviewed. But I wondered how it could be reviewed because
there was no additional input into all of this, so how were
they going to review it?
It was around this time that I read in the newspaper about
your committee being organized and I wrote you immediately, and
got a call the next day from Eric Thorston offering his
assistance. The next thing I knew, CNN was on it. They did a
little segment and put it on the news.
Apparently the tax advocate down in South Florida heard
about this, and she was probably embarrassed that this poor,
old man is being harassed by the IRS, and she tried to get in
contact with me. She called my chancery office back in
Rockville Center, and they heard it was the IRS and they would
not even tell her where I was. [Laughter.]
Monsignor Ballweg. So I was kind of a fugitive, you know.
But she took a chance and addressed it to my address at 220
Main Boulevard in Boynton Beach. As soon as she caught up with
me, things began to happen. She got a copy of my report and in
a couple of days the whole thing was resolved.
Now, this went on from November until March until the
things was finally resolved. All that was necessary was that I
get copies of the K-1 form which I had not received and
neglected to do. As soon as I filled those forms out, the whole
situation was solved.
Now, in the meantime I went through all of those months of
sleepless nights, worry, and anxiety, fear, and everything
else. It could have been solved very, very simply. All of the
persons in the Atlanta office had to do was tell me what the
problem was. I needed the K-1 form. They would not tell me.
They would not send me a copy of my file. No response at all.
No response at all.
The Chairman. Would you characterize your experience with
the IRS as being consumer friendly, or would you call it
bureaucratic us against them; how would you characterize it?
Monsignor Ballweg. Adversarial, no question about that. Not
consumer friendly at all. They made no effort at all to help
me. I had been a pastor for 14 years and I was director of the
Propagation of the Faith for 12 years. If I treated people like
that when I was pastor, you can be sure the pews in my church
would be empty. The people would not bother coming if I treated
people like that, ignored them.
If somebody came to me and said, Father Ballweg, could I
have a report, an annual statement, about my contributions to
the church during the past year and I ignored that person, the
person made another request, I ignored that request again, the
person would look for another parish, I am sure of that.
I am sure the Senate here, if they did not respond to
people, they would not be holding office too long either. So it
could have been solved very easily, that is all I can say.
The Chairman. The thing that is so much a matter of concern
is the emotional distress this kind of situation causes the
taxpayer. We cannot just say it is one case as some would do.
The fact is, these situations can create not only great
emotional problems, but the kind of problems as Mrs. Hicks has
pointed out of even having to file for divorce and other
actions. These circumstances are not the result of just one
single anecdote.
Monsignor Ballweg. Mine is not a horror story. I listen to
these stories and I say, what am I doing here. Mine is just a
little situation where all they had to do is send me a form and
they did not do it, so my story does not compare with their
stories. I feel for these poor people here.
The Chairman. Finally, I would just like to say, basically,
was any additional information submitted after we got involved
here?
Monsignor Ballweg. No, everything was basically the same. I
think they started off the whole thing by saying in the first
notice that I received from them that there was a little error
in arithmetic, but when I checked on it I found out that the
error was in my favor, so substantially there was no change at
all.
I had distributed all the funds that should have been
distributed, and they recognized that fact. The only thing is,
I failed to send the K-1 form to the IRS and they got me for
that.
The Chairman. Well, again I apologize, Father. I thank you
for the good work you are doing.
Monsignor Ballweg. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you for administering your mother's
estate for the good of the people.
Mrs. Jacobs, in your testimony you state that you were so
intimidated by the IRS tactics that you agreed to pay, even
though you did not owe a debt. Would you please explain, why
would you pay something you do not owe?
Mrs. Jacobs. Well, when you have someone come to you from
the IRS and tell you they are going to take your home, your
vehicles, whatever you own, close your business so you have no
way of making a living, you do what they tell you to do.
The Chairman. And these threats were made directly to you
and your husband?
Mrs. Jacobs. Yes, they were.
The Chairman. By more than one?
Mrs. Jacobs. By more than one person? Oh, yes.
The Chairman. How many would you say?
Mrs. Jacobs. I have worked with 18 people, and I was
harassed by every one of them.
The Chairman. Over a period of how many years would you say
this harassment took place?
Mrs. Jacobs. It has covered basically from the year 1981.
The Chairman. Mrs. Jacobs, is this a copy of the letter of
apology you received from the IRS?
Mrs. Jacobs. Yes, it is.
The Chairman. It stated, as I understand it, that you are
in compliance with all taxes.
Mrs. Jacobs. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Now, did you ever receive a full refund from
the IRS?
Mrs. Jacobs. No, we have not.
The Chairman. What reason has the IRS given you?
Mrs. Jacobs. They have not given me any at all.
The Chairman. Have you requested----
Mrs. Jacobs. We requested information on the disbursement
that they did give to us, and we have yet to receive that
information at this time.
The Chairman. And how much do you estimate is still owed
you?
Mrs. Jacobs. About $26,000.
The Chairman. A total of $26,000.
Mrs. Jacobs. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And you have received no part of that
$26,000?
Mrs. Jacobs. We received a portion of approximately $12,000
from the IRS with no explanation, not really telling us much of
anything other than just giving us the checks, with some
interest, but with no explanation as to where they came from or
what they were for.
The Chairman. Again, I have to tell you, Mrs. Jacobs, I
appreciate your coming here today. You are among friends. I
hope that justice is done before this matter is completed.
Senator Moynihan?
Senator Moynihan. Well, briefly, Mr. Chairman, I think the
most revealing information we have learned all morning is that
the chancery at Rockville Center, when they learned that the
IRS was after a monsignor, clams up. [Laughter.]
Senator Moynihan. But you are very generous to say how
relatively mild your experience is compared to the duration of
much of your other fellow panelists. But that relation was
adversarial throughout and that speaks of an organizational
culture.
Senator Kerrey and Senator Grassley have asked about this
matter of, is the IRS a law enforcement agency or is it a
service agency. They would wish it to be the other. The most
difficult thing you run into in civic life is, what do you do
when law enforcement offices break the law? David Burnham, who
spoke earlier today, was very much involved in these matters in
New York City some 10 years ago or so.
I mean, it seems to me, Mr. Savage, that that letter in
1993 to the district counsel with a line-up that says immediate
response requested, says the levy in question was wrongful. It
could mean that that could extend to being criminal.
Mr. Savage. I was not aware of this letter until this
morning.
Senator Moynihan. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Chairman, I think we are going to have people from the
IRS before us. We have to ask, what disciplinary measures have
been taken or will be taken.
It is just the famous bit of lore from the Napoleonic wars
in which an Admiral Bing, who retreated too quickly from
Maorca, was shot on board his flag ship on the way back by
executive order, an order from the admiralty, and it was said,
``Pour encore a jais le sault,'' to encourage the others to do
better.
I hope we will ask for accountability. We are deeply in
your debt. You have had some awful experiences. I hope it makes
a difference to you that you are being heard in the Senate
Finance Committee and we have learned a lot from you.
I thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Moynihan.
Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley. Yes. We cannot help but feel shame that
our government would carry on this way. It is a sad situation
that we have stories like yours, because it is obvious that you
as taxpayers have not been shown the same respect and the same
speed of resolution of your problems that they expected of you
and every other taxpayer in America to pay their taxes.
They really have a double standard. They expect right now
you pay up. They want you to respond right now on everything
that they say. They want you to meet the law. If you do not
meet the law, you get a letter from them. They want you to
respond right now. But when you want resolutions and answers to
your questions, you are not able to get that.
So obviously that sort of double standard in our society is
not right. I do not know what we can do about it. I know that
within every bureaucracy there is a great deal of peer pressure
to go along, to get along. We are lucky to have a few people
coming up in the next couple of days to testify who, from
within, want to tell us what is wrong.
There are probably a lot of other people that would like to
do that, except that they just know that if they were being
right to the taxpayers the same way that the agency expects the
taxpayers to deal right with the IRS, they would probably lose
their job.
I would say that if the IRS is going to come up here and
testify, that one of the ways that they can show their good
faith efforts to admit that something is wrong and changes are
going to be made, every one of the wrongs that are still
unresolved here ought to be righted. There is no reason for
them not to be.
That would be a good faith effort showing on the part of
the IRS leadership to those of us that have oversight
responsibilities that they are really sincere in their efforts.
Now, for every one of you I suppose there are thousands of
others out there that I could say that about that ought to have
their cases righted, and they would not have time between now
and the time they come before this committee to do this. But
they surely ought to have the time and the capabilities of
taking care of five very obvious cases of wrongdoing, and to do
those things.
Then following up on what Senator Moynihan said, we ought
to have the name of every person you have dealt with and, where
your rights have been wronged, what sort of contrary action has
been taken by the agency to make sure that there has been
discipline taken? Because when there is that sort of discipline
taken, when heads roll, then it sends a clear signal to other
people that this sort of action will not be tolerated.
Anything short of that, it seems to me, is going to show
that this sort of action is all right and it can be done by
others as well. We ought to have that as well before our
committee.
Mr. Savage, if you were an IRS senior manager and the
people who asserted this unlawful levy in your case worked for
you, what would you do to make sure that there were no more
unlawful levies?
Mr. Savage. They would be fired the next day, without
question. But I know the Federal procedures. As far as that
goes, that could take 20 years to get rid of a bad agent. But I
do agree with Senator Moynihan, Senator Roth, and yourself,
sir. I regret to say, I do not know if you are a Senator.
Correct?
Senator Grassley. Yes.
Mr. Savage. I mean, I see so many gentlemen up there, but I
thought everybody up there was a Senator, but I do not
recognize all of you.
Senator Grassley. Some people might wonder whether we are.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Savage. But what I was speaking about is, yes, we must
correct these people who have abused their position. I assume
right now we can send them to Timbucktoo. That would be the
easiest way to get rid of them.
But also, we must be reimbursed fully for all of our
expenses, interest, lost business, and so forth. I mean, that
is the only way. Unless you hit a person with penalties such as
this for their incompetence, nothing will ever be resolved.
So I will be definitely keeping in touch with yourself,
Senator Roth, Senator Moynihan, and anybody else on this
committee to let you know as to the status of the Internal
Revenue Service. I expect to hear from them very soon. My two
attorneys who represented me completely are still present, and
we will be glad to see them even this afternoon. But I want to
take home a big check.
Senator Grassley. Mrs. Hicks, I will say that you must have
in the world the most understanding husband. Second, I want to
say that it appears that you were a victim of incompatible
computers at the IRS. You were also a victim of poor IRS
customer service.
For Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska over there and me, these
are two things that we have been listening to from over 600
contacts of the IRS of the Commission to Restructure the IRS.
He was chairman of it, I was a member of it.
So what you are telling us about computers, what you are
telling us about lack of customer service, were the most oft
repeated problems that we heard at the IRS. So did you know
that we gave the IRS, for instance, over the last few years $4
billion for new computers and they still have computers that do
not talk to each other.
Mrs. Hicks. Yes.
Senator Grassley. Which was greater in your case, which
created the most anxiety for you, your IRS computer problem or
your IRS personnel/customer problem?
Mrs. Hicks. Personnel.
Senator Grassley. Personnel.
Mrs. Hicks. You can understand, because a computer does not
have the capacity for meanness. It is a machine. When you deal
with people that behave the way some of the people I dealt with
behaved, then that is very distressing.
I would like to say right up front though, I have relatives
and friends who work for the service, as they call it, and I am
acutely aware that most of the people employed there are folks
like us and equally subject to the same abuses and problems we
are subject to, but not as likely to speak out because of where
they are employed. I would like to say that I think most of the
personnel problems taxpayers encounter with the IRS are with a
small number of employees that directly deal with collections.
Once you leave that master file for some reason and become
a case not being collected automatically by a computer and
being processed by nice, smiling clerks, and there are a lot of
them who answer the phones with sweet voices and are very
helpful, once you leave that arena and they shift you over to
this non-master file system or any other special form of
collections, that is where I think I see a culture difference,
not in the first part, but in the second part.
So I would not be able to say all IRS people are this way
or that way. They are people. But the ones I dealt with out of
collections could be extremely nasty.
The second thing I would like to say is that I did note
that every time collections agents looked at my case and said,
after a couple of telephone conversations, you know, I am going
to check this out, this looks odd, that agent disappeared and
the IRS transferred my case to a new agent.
So if you do not like the agent because he or she is nasty,
you cannot get away from that person. If the agent is offering
you help when someone does not want them to, you cannot keep
that person. So this is a dilemma. I do not know. It is your
job to figure out how to fix it.
Senator Grassley. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Kerrey.
Senator Kerrey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the panel for their
willingness to come before this committee and present these
problems. As Senator Grassley said, these are not new. These
are problems we have heard repeatedly for the past year on our
IRS Restructuring Commission that actually began as a result of
the observation that we had spent a lot of money for tax system
modernization, but had not gotten much benefit.
So my hope is that we are able, as a consequence of this
hearing, to take action. There are things that we can do to
change the law, to give immediate relief to these individuals
and others.
We reached the conclusion that relief should be provided so
that they can go on with their lives. We, it seems to me, could
fashion relief if we choose to do so, and I would suggest that
we not act as if we were powerless and exercise the power that
we have to try to provide relief where we think relief is
deserved.
Second, I want to say that I have received over the last 24
hours, Mr. Chairman, as a result of your first day of hearings,
lots of additional notes and faxes from citizens in Nebraska
who are facing problems. I would like to, if I could, read one,
or at least a couple of paragraphs from one.
This is from a small business person, someone just starting
business out in Nebraska. It says, ``My biggest problem in
business today is not new accounts, it is not my computers, it
is not changing technology. My biggest problem in business is
dealing with the IRS.
``As a small business owner, I spend countless hours on the
phone trying to work out the problems associated with these 941
payments being credited to the wrong quarter.'' He said, ``If
we all must pay taxes, we should not have to hire someone just
to tell us how.'' As a small business owner he files 14 times a
year. He says he has got clients he does not talk to that
often.
We have, it seems to me, an accumulation of evidence that
we need to change the law, both, it seems to me, to provide
some long-term opportunity for the IRS to operate more
efficiently, and perhaps in the short-term.
If nothing more, it seems to me that we ought, as
representatives of the people, with a change in the law provide
some relief to individuals we have concluded deserve to have
relief, demonstrate to the IRS that we are willing to stand up
to them, that we are not intimidated.
Instead, we find ourselves not being able to intervene on
behalf of a constituent out of fear that we are going to be
identified as having done something unfair, unjust, and so
forth.
So it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that just what we have
heard thus far has provided us with a sufficient amount of
evidence both to change the law for the long-term, but also, to
change the law in the short-term to try to provide some relief
to individuals and demonstrate that this Congress is writing
the laws of the land and that we are prepared to stand and
intervene on behalf of citizens whom we believe have been
treated unfairly and unjustly.
The Chairman. Senator D'Amato.
Senator D'Amato. Mr. Chairman, let me commend you for these
hearings. I think that you have touched a very real point of
contention and one of the reasons that people are so angered at
times at the whole government, because they feel that they pay
their taxes, then they wind up getting abused.
It is pretty tough to figure out even how to pay, when to
pay. If you run a business, a small business in particular, and
I am looking at two of our witnesses who give ample testimony
to that, and I think that Senator Kerrey touched on something
that is rather important.
Number one, I think, Mr. Chairman, we have to look at, how
do we empower the Congress with the proper kind of oversight,
because I know even the Chairman has had to jump through all
kinds of hoops, get various permission in order to be able to
put these cases here. Here you have the resources, and I want
to commend you for them, to bring to light these horrific
stories.
We have been getting e-mail now of examples since your
hearing of these kinds of things, and we cannot even intercede,
so to speak, to make an inquiry. We have got to get a release
from the person, and by the time with the back and forth, it is
incredible.
So I join with the Senator in saying I hope that we would
look at that, because proper oversight and people knowing that
there are consequences for their acts will more aptly be held
accountable.
In every one of the cases here, they put human faces on the
story and it is not just a number. That is why it is so
important that we get hold of that. But right now there is no
oversight, were it not for these hearings that you have
conducted. What a story, Mr. Savage, in terms of what you went
through, where the Justice Department itself said, do not
pursue this case.
You know what? You will now undoubtedly have a situation
where, under the law, they will say, well, you agreed to a
settlement, therefore you will be precluded from getting your
money back because you settled this by way of a quasi-judicial,
or even a judicial, proceeding. Therefore, it would take a
special act of Congress, Senator Kerrey and I were talking
about it, in order to get your money.
Mr. Savage. That is all right with me. [Laughter.]
Senator D'Amato. But you are one person. But think of how
many thousands of others that may have been before you and
continue to be in this process. How do we assure them that you
do not need a special act of the Congress and that there is a
special committee hearing where this one person comes forth?
How do we get you justice, and Mr. or Mrs. John Q. Public, all
of those nameless faces?
You put a face to this and you were able to come forth,
fortunately, and so did others. Mrs. Hicks, really an
incredible tale of how many years. Imagine having to go through
a divorce so as to keep your new spouse from having his assets
seized, et cetera. Again, you demonstrate just how horrific.
Of course, the good Monsignor, whom they chased from our
Rockville Center diocese down to Florida, when he has paid his
taxes repeatedly. There has got to be a better way.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will be able to make some
meaningful reforms and not only simplify the process as it
relates to the little guy, the small businessman and
entrepreneur, the homemaker, but in addition see to it that
people are not abused and that, where they are abused, that
there is proper action. I understand the person involved in
this case against Mr. Savage, the agent who fabricated a
business relationship that did not exist and pursued this, is
still working for the IRS. I am wondering and I would like to
know, when the lawyer got this, this was sent to a district
counsel, Mr. Kesselman, we ought to put his name out there, how
did he respond to this memo that was up there in 1993? How did
they respond when they said you do not have a case? Even
viewing this in the most favorable light, that is what they
said. In other words, if we were to look at everything you
said, you still do not have a case. Just to bring these people
up here, and I commend you, this is a start, I think we have
got to go further. Then I think we have to say to Kesselman,
what did you do, why did you do this, and was there somebody
else involved? Otherwise, this culture is going to continue.
So I applaud the Chairman. I think we have an obligation to
see to it that this horrific system is changed where it can be,
recognizing, and I think Mrs. Hicks put it well, that there are
some tremendously competent, gracious, good, hardworking,
talented people in the IRS. But when it reaches a certain
level, there are some that just go out of control.
Well, how do we protect the American taxpayer from those
who were out of control and who were accountable to basically
no one? The stories here I think have put faces to this
problem.
So Mr. Chairman, let me commend you. I look forward to
working with you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Kerrey, in seeing
if we cannot bring about some legislative reform that will help
curb these abuses so that honest, good, decent citizens are not
treated as if they have committed a crime.
Again, the Monsignor's testimony as to how he was treated,
I think, is an example of all too often that kind of attitude,
that you are guilty, you are wrong, and people going after
them. So we commend you, Mr. Chairman, and look forward to
working with you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator D'Amato.
Let me thank each of the individuals who came forward.
Senator D'Amato. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
Monsignor, did you want to say something?
Monsignor Ballweg. I just wanted to say that I think that
the best kept secret of the IRS is that taxpayers have an
advocate. I do not know of anybody who pays taxes who ever
heard of an advocate. I would not have known about the
existence of such a person until that person contacted me.
So I think the IRS should be made to publicize the fact
that there are advocates available, and how you get in touch
with them. Now, this person happened to be somebody in South
Florida in Ft. Lauderdale. I think if you looked her up in the
telephone book I do not think there would be any listing at
all. You do not even know these people.
That is one of the big problems with the IRS, they are all
phantoms. Nobody signs a name to anything, any documents that I
received. You talk to somebody on the phone and they do not
identify themselves. You feel very helpless in a situation of
that kind.
The Chairman. Father, you raised a very good point about
the taxpayer advocate. I would just like to ask, the others
here, did you have any contact with a taxpayer advocate, were
you aware of that, and were they of any help?
Mrs. Hicks. I had contact with problems resolution
officers. If there is another advocate office, I do not know
about it. They behaved like a collection arm. The first time
they did not, but the second time they behaved like a
collection arm of the IRS. So I think that somewhere in here
the IRS has kind of snatched them up and now they do not belong
to us anymore, they belong to the IRS.
Some years back they were as helpful as could be expected
and very nice, but this time they were like, ready to come out
and get me. So I do not know of another office. Is there
another one besides the problems resolution office?
The Chairman. Well, this is a change, I think, in name and
title.
Mrs. Hicks. Oh, maybe. It might be the same office.
The Chairman. But my concern is, how independent are they,
and what kind of service, in fact, they are offering.
Mrs. Hicks. Right. I would not call them very independent,
not the people I dealt with. I think this may vary from region
to region, district to district, State to State. I do not think
that it is as homogeneous.
It would be simpler if it was more homogeneous because we
could say you are all evil and we are lining you up and we are
going to let God make a decision, but we cannot do that. But
you know what you could do? You could get rid of this double
bookkeeping. That thing could go. That would be a huge help. I
would not have had any of these problems without that.
The Chairman. I understand your problem.
Mr. Savage. Regretfully, Senator Roth, I do not think that
a tax advocate that is anywhere connected with the Federal
Government can be effective. He has to be totally independent
because he cannot be affected otherwise. You had best have a
good tax lawyer. A tax advocate has got to be totally
independent, salary and everything else. It would be nice to do
it, but I do not think it will work because it is just like the
IRS agents, they answer to nobody.
The Chairman. Mrs. Jacobs, in your 17-year ordeal did you
have any contact with an advocate?
Mrs. Jacobs. No, we had never encountered an advocate. In
fact, to mention to you that just prior to coming to DC my
husband received a call at his office from an IRS advocate,
stipulating that he wanted to really help us solve our case
after all these years that we had suffered. And my husband
basically asked the question like, well, why now, why not
before? But I think a lot of it had to do with what was
happening here today.
Senator Kerrey. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Kerrey. Mr. Chairman, during the deliberations of
our commission----
The Chairman. I would ask you to be brief because we have
to move on.
Senator Kerrey. During the deliberations of our commission
we considered actually recommending in statute that the
problems resolution officer be made independent of IRS. We took
a step in that direction, and it is something that this
committee needs to look at very carefully as to whether or not
it needs to be made independent.
Another good suggestion that was made that we did not
incorporate into the legislation, but I certainly think it has
merit in this whole question of taxpayer powers dealt with in
Title 3 of our bill, is establishing a citizen committee at the
local level that would enable these kinds of problems to be
examined in a responsible fashion and for common sense to be
brought to bear and a resolution to occur in a low-cost,
expeditious fashion.
I mean, that is really the problem here. These cases drag
on forever, and ever, and ever, and you really cannot get a
resolution. So if it there is one recommendation in this area
that I would make, it is to change the law that would require
an expeditious, community-based resolution of these kinds of
problems.
The Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, again I want to thank
you for being here. You have made a very significant
contribution to what I hope is good government. I know for many
of you it was truly an ordeal to even get here, but it was very
important for the purposes of these hearings and I want to
thank you for making this contribution.
Mrs. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Hicks. Senator Roth, be sure to come back and do this
again often, all right?
The Chairman. Thank you, Mrs. Hicks.
There has been a lot of discussion about the IRS employees
and I want, once again, to emphasize that the vast majority of
employees of the IRS are competent, dedicated, well-meaning
employees.
So today I am very pleased to have before us four former
IRS employees and one current employee who have been very
helpful to our investigation. These individuals all represent
many years of experience and we are privileged to be hearing
from them today.
Will you all please come forward and take your seats. Mr.
Bruce Strauss had been with the agency for 31 years. He was the
senior division chief within the Collection Division of the IRS
at the time of his retirement. He is now an enrolled agent
practicing in Florida.
Ms. Darren Larsen was an attorney with the IRS for 14
years. Her last 3 years were as an assistant district counsel
and acting district counsel. Her expertise was in collection
issues. Today she is a practicing attorney representing
taxpayers with tax matters.
The next witness is Mr. David Patnoe, who is now an
enrolled agent having over 10 years experience as a revenue
officer in the Collection Division of the IRS. While working
for the IRS he was an instructor for revenue officers and an
expert in the area of offers in compromise.
Next, we have Mr. Lawrence Lilly, who was both an attorney
and special agent with the Criminal Division for 28 years. For
the last 9 years of his service with the IRS, Mr. Lilly was the
assistant district counsel in Miami and the district counsel in
San Jose, CA.
Ms. Jennifer Long is currently a revenue agent with the
IRS, with 14 years of experience. She joins the panel today
after originally intending to keep her identity concealed.
The only condition she asked of the Chair and the Ranking
Member was that her identity be protected until she took her
place at the table. Senator Moynihan and I agreed to that
condition and her statement is now being released.
We want to welcome each and every one of you. We appreciate
your being here today.
As you know, we swear in all witnesses. So would you please
rise and raise your right hand.
[Whereupon, the five witnesses were duly sworn.]
The Chairman. Mr. Strauss?
Mr. Strauss. I do.
The Chairman. Ms. Larsen?
Ms. Larsen. I do.
The Chairman. Mr. Patnoe?
Mr. Patnoe. I do.
The Chairman. Mr. Lilly?
Mr. Lilly. I do.
The Chairman. Ms. Long?
Ms. Long. I do.
The Chairman. Thank you. Please be seated.
I do want to remind the witnesses and my colleagues that
the witnesses are prohibited from disclosing confidential
taxpayer information which is protected under Internal Revenue
Code Section 6103.
Mr. Strauss, we will start with you.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE A. STRAUSS, FLORIDA
Mr. Strauss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a larger,
more in-depth presentation or document for the record if you do
not mind, Senator.
The Chairman. I would say to each of you, your full
statements will be included as if read.
Mr. Strauss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Strauss appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Strauss. My name is Bruce A. Strauss. I am currently an
enrolled agent licensed to represent taxpayers before the IRS.
I have been president of the enrolled agents in our five-county
area in Florida for the past 3 fiscal years.
I retired from the Internal Revenue Service after 31 years,
the last 18 years of which I held the position of division
chief within the Collection Division. I also received nine
consecutive performance awards from 1983 through 1991. At the
time of my retirement, which was April 1992, I was senior
division chief in the collection function.
I tell you this, trusting that you will accept the fact
that I have considerable expertise regarding the operations of
the IRS. This includes its history, its authorities, its
personnel practices, and also its problems.
Just beginning my practice representing the public as an
enrolled agent, I have been increasingly concerned about the
ability of the IRS to be fair and objective in dealing with the
American public. I am also concerned with the public's fear of
the IRS. This environment of fear must change. This is why I
sit, primarily, before you today.
The IRS has been very successful in its primary mission of
collecting taxes, bringing in over $1.5 trillion in fiscal year
1996 as a role model for other countries to follow and has
played no small role in the economic success of this Nation.
Obviously, I do not believe that the system is broken.
However, my experience and the feedback I received in my
work tell me that the public's confidence in the IRS is being
eroded by the perception that it is losing its ability to apply
the Internal Revenue Code and the resulting morass of
regulations in a fair and objective manner.
When a dispute with the IRS arises, the current systems in
place to deal with the dispute are cumbersome, expensive, time-
consuming, and oftentimes ineffective. The result is that the
fear of the IRS continues to grow, and this is an unacceptable
condition.
In a democracy, the first condition that must be met is
that the government must respect the citizens it serves. I am
not sure that condition exists today within the IRS. My purpose
today is to assist in restoring the confidence of the American
public in the Internal Revenue Service.
One of the problems which affect the way the IRS personnel
interact with the taxpayer is the drive to achieve statistical
operational objectives. One of the primary drives, if not the
primary drive, for the examination function is dollars
recommended for assessment.
The statistic does not measure how much money was actually
collected, nor does it measure how much additional tax was
actually assessed by the examination process. It only measures
what the examination function proposes to assess against a
taxpayer with their 30-day letter.
The examination function made this measurement one of the
operational objectives for branch managers and above, as I
recall, in fiscal year 1990. About the same time, the formal
quality review cases being issued 30-day letters was ceased.
A fundamental principle of any organization is that
employees will give their managers what their managers tell
them what is important. Or, expressed in a different manner, an
organization is driven by the objectives on which the managers
are evaluated.
As a result, an environment or culture has emerged within
the IRS that has made its employees often callous to the rights
and concerns of taxpayers. Statistical objectives for any
agency with the power of the IRS are inappropriate. But when
one considers the IRS has a measurement of what is recommended
for assessment, this drive to achieve specific objectives
becomes untenable.
I have significant compassion for the IRS employees in
their most delicate responsibility of ensuring that each
citizen files and pays their fair share of taxes. But, based on
my knowledge, the primary problem lies with the ineffectiveness
of the top management of the IRS. Instead of assessing the
current problems and taking appropriate steps to ensure
correction of these problems, what I see taking place is a
``circle the wagons'' mentality.
This management approach has led to significant problems
which include denial of mistakes which then lead to integrity
issues, using a sledgehammer to resolve compliance problems,
for example, IRS files are returned to the taxpayer with the
tax is significantly overstated, use of Bureau of Labor
Statistics to assign additional income or to arrive at
additional income, and not applying Internal Revenue Code
sections which benefit the taxpayer. There is a mentality in
the IRS that mistakes are rare. Those that do gain notice are
blown out of proportion.
In fact, I would not be surprised if, as a result of this
hearing, you hear that any complaints by a taxpayer that may
arise, while unfortunate, is statistically irrelevant due to
the 200 million returns that are successfully processed each
year.
Based on my knowledge, such a statement would not be
factual. The truth of that is, in the examination function
cases that I have seen as a representative of the taxpayer, the
IRS often does not operate within its proper authorities.
When called on these matters, the IRS response is often a
denial or a spin is put on the issue in an attempt to protect
their position. Such conduct shows a complete disregard for the
taxpayer and their fundamental rights as citizens. The concept
shown above that the IRS now has the authority to assign
additional income to a taxpayer at its discretion, without any
basis in fact, is frightening and absolutely unacceptable.
I admire the current efforts of Congress, such as the
Commission on Restructuring the IRS, to encourage the IRS to
become more responsive to the public.
I also appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this
process by testifying at this important hearing, and I commend
you, Mr. Chairman, for the courage to engage in this effort.
But I do believe that Congress must share some of the blame
for what has happened. Funding must be consistent, with a long-
term philosophy. The oversight of the IRS must be significantly
improved. This hearing today is a great start, but long
overdue.
For each of you dealing with your constituents, I would
offer the fact that the ability of any single congressional
staff to resolve a taxpayer issue with the IRS is extremely
remote.
I can testify on a personal basis on that on some client
issues. I will suggest forming a single staff of highly-trained
and skilled individuals that could be a central clearinghouse
for all taxpayer complaints received by Congress.
This would also provide a database of problems that one
noticed to be widespread, could be used to take certain system-
wide corrective actions. It is only in this way that the
management of IRS could be held accountable to the Congress and
to the American people.
I know in numerous cases where the IRS has specifically
exceeded its authority. One of the most egregious examples, the
IRS collections apparently predetermined that 637 taxpayer were
liable for employment tax.
They did not conduct legitimate investigations. Instead,
they used extortion tactics to have taxpayers sign returns
which the IRS prepared. They did not use any Internal Revenue
Code sections which benefitted the taxpayer, and disregarded
established law, authorities, and procedures. And 630 taxpayers
were also denied their due process rights.
When I brought this matter to their attention, instead of
taking corrective action, they circled the wagons. After 3
years, Mr. Chairman, 3 years of my pursuing a resolution in
this matter, the IRS has boxed itself into a position with
significant integrity issues in question. The current status,
is that I have been unable to obtain a legitimate response from
the regional commissioner.
Another example is the tactic of assessing a tax twice for
the same 1040. This tactic involves accepting a Schedule C
income, but disallowing all the related business expenses.
When the taxpayer requests the case to be reopened, in this
case I am using as an example, the deductions were allowed. But
then the IRS reopened the income issue, which was in direct
contrast with the Code, and assesses additional taxes based on
the Bureau of Labor Statistics information to boost the income
of taxpayers. Then the taxpayer was informed he had no appeal
rights to contest the additional resulting tax.
I am submitting a more comprehensive statement for the
record which includes some of my recommendations to remove the
fear of the public when dealing with the IRS. I sincerely hope
that my 31 years of experience with the IRS has helped in some
small way to create a clearer picture of the agency. The many
good people at the IRS who perform a difficult task every day
and the taxpaying public deserve your best efforts by cleaning
up this important national asset.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Strauss. We do,
indeed, appreciate your testimony today.
Next, I would like to call on you, Ms. Larsen.
STATEMENT OF DARREN LARSEN, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Larsen. Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity
to allow me to address the committee today.
I began working for the Office of Chief Counsel for IRS in
1981 and I was there until 1994. During that time I dealt with
all of the different functions of the IRS, examination,
collection, criminal investigation, and disclosure.
I also served as a special assistant United States attorney
representing the IRS in bankruptcy court. I was a nationwide
instructor for attorneys, and I also instructed IRS at their
continuing education. Because I specialized in collection
matters, I did spend a lot of time with collection groups in
various places and I really developed a good relationship with
the collection agents, for the most part.
I come to the committee today as a tax professional who has
spent many years representing the IRS in court, not only
bankruptcy court but Tax Court, and I was involved in District
Court actions as well. I worked with and advised IRS personnel
on many cases and on many issues.
Then over the past 2\1/2\ years I have had the opportunity
to represent taxpayers and deal with the IRS as an adversary in
some cases, but generally as a representative of taxpayers who
have problems that need to be resolved.
Overall, from my experience I have to say that my feelings
toward the IRS as an institution are mixed. It is sometimes
very easy to express frustration and outrage at IRS conduct.
But I have to state at the outset that there are many
individuals whom I have dealt with over the years who are
currently employed there, and some who are no longer employed
there. But they have, I would have to say, superior technical
knowledge. They are devoted to their jobs, they work hard, and
they really are committed to fairness.
But at the other end of the spectrum there are employees
who do not really possess these qualities. I have encountered
them both when I was a government attorney, and also now as a
practitioner.
Some of these people, I would say, lack technical skills
that I think are necessary. They really are not concerned with
justice or fairness, they are bureaucratic in every sense of
the word and are focused primarily at just maintaining their
jobs and collecting their paycheck.
But, having said that, I would like to move on to some more
specific areas or some examples of problems within the IRS that
I have seen.
As an attorney for IRS I was often appalled by the lack of
basic technical knowledge on the part of the front-line
collection managers that I dealt with.
Now, that is not to say that they were all in that
situation, because I knew some group managers who were
excellent. They used their own initiative to gain knowledge and
to make sure they kept up with the law, and they wanted to make
sure they knew that their revenue officers were doing, that
they were doing it correctly.
However, I did know group managers who really did not
understand the basic requirements for such things even as
issuing summonses, the service requirements or content
requirements for summonses.
I knew one manager I ran across who really did not
understand the distinction between a lien and a levy and
basically said, well, lien, levy, whatever, which in some
instances can cause problems.
The revenue officers who worked for these managers usually
knew that the managers were deficient. The result of that was
that the revenue officers would either choose not to consult
the managers for assistance, or the revenue officers who were
not experienced enough to realize that their managers did not
know this would still consult them, then they would be possibly
led astray.
Also, within the Collection Division they often use on-the-
job instructors to help the newer revenue officers, and some of
the on-the-job instructors were also missing some of the basic
understanding of some of the basic elements of tax law,
especially in the tax collection area.
The problem with the on-the-job instructors having this
deficiency is that they then passed their techniques or their
beliefs onto the new revenue officers, and some of these
problems are perpetuated.
In addition to simple lack of knowledge, I also ran across
revenue officers who understood the legal and procedural
requirements, but they chose not to follow them, or they
consciously bypassed some of these things.
I have known of revenue officers who, on more than one
occasion, would issue nominee or alter ego liens without going
through the procedures that are set up in their manual for
review.
Typically, this revenue officer would end up receiving
payment of the tax, would close the file, and that would be the
end of it. If there was a problem, only then would this revenue
officer go through the required steps.
He was considered to be a good revenue officer in that he
collected a lot of tax and closed a lot of cases. Consequently,
he was given a lot of latitude in how he worked his cases. He
felt justified in taking shortcuts because he felt that he had
good instincts and he got what he felt were the right results,
meaning that the taxpayer pays the tax.
Later on, this person was promoted to a group manager and
it was my feeling that the revenue officers in his group sort
of had the same attitude, that they were allowed to work their
cases in this manner as long as they did not make any mistakes.
I felt that there was a prevailing notion in some of these
groups that if a particular procedure was not exactly followed
to the letter, that first of all, the taxpayer probably would
not know the difference.
Second of all, the manager might not even know the
difference. As long as everything turned out all right, as long
as the tax was collected, then there was really no harm done.
In fact, the revenue officer would probably feel they were
doing a good job because they were collecting the tax without
using a lot of resources. They were getting the right result.
In essence, it was a matter of the ends justifying the means.
In one district in California, I became aware that some IRS
managers blatantly disregarded the law, even though I believe
they understood it. This had to do with the ownership of
personal residences in California.
In California, if married people hold title to property as
joint tenants it is presumed under State law that they mean to
have it be joint tenants, so that if only one spouse owes tax
the IRS is only entitled to seize half of the house.
This presumption of joint tenancy can be overcome by a
factual showing that, in reality, it was held as community
property. If the house is held as community property, the IRS
can seize the whole house.
In this particular district the IRS took the position that
all joint tenancy property would be presumed to be community,
even though this was not what State law prescribed. They set up
a procedure where it was up to the taxpayer to prove otherwise.
The result was that the IRS was treating 100 percent of the
residents as being subject to the tax lien and subject to
seizure and sale rather than one-half. The reality is, I
believe, that most taxpayers do not know really the difference
between joint tenancy and community property and they rely on
the IRS in this case to do the right thing.
The IRS, on the other hand, in this situation was really
taking advantage of the fact that most taxpayers do not know
the difference and that the general public is ignorant on what
may be considered a technical legal issue. This would be to the
detriment of the non-owing spouse, the spouse that did not owe
the tax.
Now, these people that I spoke with in IRS admitted that
they knew that the law was otherwise, but they justified this
policy by saying, well, we believe that most people, even if
they hold their property as joint tenancy, they really believe
it is community anyway so this is just more expedient for us to
do it this way. It is this mind-set of IRS that really concerns
me.
I also found that in the bankruptcy area I was privileged
to work on a national task force involving IRS procedures in
handling bankruptcy cases, and I had the opportunity visit
several different districts around the country and interview
people in and out of IRS regarding bankruptcy.
We found that in some offices in the country the IRS was
basically ignoring the bankruptcy law regarding the IRS
obligations regarding bankruptcy discharge, the automatic stay,
and they justified it based on the fact that they really did
not have the staffing to do it, and since it was not exactly a
program area that they were directed to follow, they just did
not do it, they used their resources for other things.
I should add also though the fact that the IRS did not
really tend to these basic tasks also was detrimental to the
IRS. In some cases they were unable to collect taxes that they
rightfully had, or should have been, collecting.
As a taxpayer representative in my current position, I am
now even more aware of how important it is for the IRS
representatives to follow the procedures that are set up by the
IRS manual and the Internal Revenue Code in collecting taxes.
I found that for the most part taxpayers are intimidated by
the IRS and they will do whatever is asked of them. Because
most taxpayers do not know much about tax law, they rely on the
IRS with respect to many issues and they put their trust in
them as public servants. After today, maybe not so many of them
will.
But even if the taxpayer feels that the IRS is not acting
properly in their case, it is often too costly for the taxpayer
to hire representation to fight the IRS. The end result is that
many taxpayers are paying more tax than they rightfully should,
and some individuals are paying tax that they are not
personally liable to pay.
I do believe, based on my experience, that if a taxpayer is
right and a taxpayer presses an issue and takes it up through
the system, that ultimately the taxpayer will prevail.
However, the process is very costly in terms of fees, time,
aggravation. Because of this, it is very important for the IRS
to avoid taking procedural shortcuts, and the IRS should treat
the taxpayers fairly up front so that mistakes are not make and
taxpayers are not put in the position of choosing whether to
pay the wrong amount of tax or to pay for assistance to fight
it out, because either way the taxpayer loses.
As an organization, the IRS has excellent technical
resources which it really does not use to its best advantage.
Tax collection is a complex process, given the number of
Federal laws and regulations that apply. Revenue officers can
be expected to require assistance in some cases.
The special procedures function is set up within the
Collection Division of the IRS to provide technical assistance
to the tax collectors in the field. I found that in those
districts where special procedures is given the staffing and
the funding it needs, it has proven to be very valuable.
But each district is given the discretion to decide how
much funding and how much emphasis it wants to put on special
procedures, and how they will staff it and how it will operate.
I found that in some districts special procedures is not
effective at all. In fact, the people who are assigned there
are inexperienced. They are put there because possibly they
have other problems in their jobs. That is even true for some
of the managers who end up there.
In those cases, the field revenue officers have little
confidence in special procedures and they do not really rely on
the advisors for technical assistance.
On the other hand, the districts with excellent special
procedures staffs have advisors who have worked in their
program areas for many years, they work well together, they
learn from each other, they work closely with district counsel
and they are respected by the field officers and they do
provide assistance to them so that they do not make as many
mistakes.
The IRS would be well served by requiring all districts to
step up the level of their special procedure staffs so that the
IRS nationwide can more effectively and justly collect the
taxes owed.
In conclusion, the IRS, in my view, has much room for
improvement in the way it deals with taxpayers and in
collecting delinquent accounts. While there are many positive,
productive forces and individuals at work within the IRS who
are constantly trying to make improvements, some of the chronic
problems remain.
The IRS is there to enforce the tax laws. However, it is
also there to ensure that the law is applied fairly and
consistently. The IRS representatives wear two hats. When
dealing with willfully non-compliant taxpayers they are
adversaries, but at the same time they are public servants.
There is no excuse for cutting procedural corners or legal
corners or establishing presumptions which place citizens at a
practical or economic disadvantage.
Better training of revenue officers, as well as their
managers, and in tolerance of blatant violations of the law,
would go a long way toward improving the overall quality of tax
collection and improving the level of public trust in the IRS.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Larsen, for your
helpful testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Larsen appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. Mr. Patnoe?
STATEMENT OF DAVID PATNOE, CAMARIO, CA
Mr. Patnoe. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Senate Finance Committee.
My name is David Patnoe. I am currently an enrolled agent
in Camario, CA, representing taxpayers before the Collection
Divisions of the Internal Revenue Service for over 7 years.
Prior to this I was a revenue officer for the Internal
Revenue Service for over 10 years. During my tenure with the
IRS I was a revenue officer, and on-the-job instructor for
trainee revenue officers, an instructor for revenue officer
training schools, Phase I and Phase II sessions, and an offer
and compromise specialist and an advisor in the special
procedures function.
I have worked in the Anchorage, Alaska, Shreveport,
Louisiana, and Brooklyn, New York IRS offices, which provided
me with a great opportunity to see how collection worked in
different areas of the country.
Now working as a taxpayer's advocate I have had the
opportunity to see things from the other side. It is from this
wide range of experience that I speak to you today. Despite
what I believe to be a rather unique background, I have found
dealing with the IRS personnel to be quite disturbing in a few
cases, and downright maddening in others.
In particular, I have had my worst experiences with people
I believe had insufficient training to be performing the jobs
they were assigned. In some instances, these actions were
outright illegal and highly abusive. The trouble with
discussing abusive tax collection is that there is no line
drawn between regular tax collection and abusive tax
collection.
When you consider that the very act of a revenue officer
imposing their will on a taxpayer by the use of a levy on wages
or retirement funds, or the seizure of assets such as a
personal residence will probably be considered by a lot of
people, and surely by the taxpayer themselves.
My definition of abusive tax collection is the illegal use
of certain collection tools, or when the collection tool used
is not warranted in that given situation. Let me give you an
example that I think will demonstrate what I believe is
occurring far more frequently than people may realize.
I was hired to assist in a matter involving the improper
use of a levy. A levy is generally the seizure of a money in
some form. The IRS had issued a levy on one of my client's
receivables owed to his business, a sole proprietorship. But
the tax that the IRS was trying to collect on the levy was not
owed by my client, but was in fact owed by a company that my
client had worked for at one time as an employee with no
ownership interest whatsoever.
The revenue officer, who at the time was acting as an on-
the-job instructor for another revenue officer, went to my
client's business with seizure papers in hand. The client,
being faced with a seizure of his new business, became very
afraid and paid a payment of $7,000 to forestall the seizure.
Now, he paid this despite the fact that he did not owe any
tax. The IRS basically scared this person, or extorted him,
into paying money that he did not owe with the threat of
seizing his business for the debt of a company that he had at
one time worked for.
After the initial payment of $7,000, the same revenue
officer issued a levy on one of the client's accounts
receivables for roughly $21,000. That money was going to be
used to pay the client's payroll, and the seizure of those
funds would have effectively put the client out of business.
The levy itself was an amazing flight of fancy by that
revenue officer. Remember, there was no relationship nor common
ownership between these companies. The client simply had been
an employee of the company that owed the tax.
The IRS was well aware of these facts. Despite having the
explanation laid out in black and white, the revenue officer
would not release the levy nor refund the $7,000 she had
collected illegally by scaring the taxpayer when she first
showed up at his door.
In fairness, let me add there are instances when a tax can
be collected from someone other than the taxpayer. A third
party can become liable if there was a transfer of assets for
less than fair consideration or if a party is holding property
in their name simply to evade the seizure of these assets for
taxes due.
However, prior to collecting from a transferee or nominee,
the IRS must go through a number of steps involving a group
called special procedures in the Office of District Counsel.
In this particular instance, none of this had been done. I
informed the revenue officer that she had not taken any of the
required steps and had acted without benefit of legal counsel.
I added that her actions were not just abusive, but blatantly
illegal. The revenue officer responded with one word, ``and?''
Only when the revenue officer realize that we would make
every effort possible to expose this action did she come back
with a release of the levy. When you consider that this was an
experienced revenue officer acting with her group manager's
approval, and not to mention also trains other revenue
officers, her actions were absolutely beyond comprehension.
It is this type of action that is designed to intimidate
and instill such fear that the IRS's actions can succeed
without question. I would also like to say that this type of
action did not occur while I was a revenue officer.
Unfortunately, it did. I know of seasoned tax collectors who
were well aware of the law and took actions that were out of
the realm of legal tax collection.
In one instance, a revenue officer who made up a seizure
document titled ``Nominee Levy on the Spot,'' prior to seizing
assets from someone who was not the taxpayer was soon after
made a group manager.
In another case I dealt with, a revenue officer who had
access to the IRS computer system to get information on a case
I was assigned. When I questioned the revenue officer why he
was accessing information on my case he stated, my wife works
for this company, and if I can help her straighten this out,
the company problem, it will be a real feather in her cap. I
told the revenue officer, put the print-outs away. That revenue
officer also became a group manager.
These actions were particularly annoying because I believe
both these revenue officers knew what they were doing was
outside the scope of correct tax collection.
When I left the IRS in December 1989, I considered writing
my own thesis about tax collection. I wanted to suggest that
IRS tax collectors be held to some standards of training prior
to promotion.
Not only should they be held to standards of training, but
they should also demonstrate their knowledge on proficiency
tests. No revenue officer should be promoted or allowed to
train others until they are able to pass increasingly difficult
proficiency test.
While I was working at IRS I was seriously concerned about
the agency's escalating tendency to place unskilled collectors
into management positions. I used to call these people the 90-
day wonders, 90 days being the span of time they spent during
revenue officer work between Phase I and Phase II revenue
officer training classes.
Basically, I found that people hired as revenue officers
would be detailed to do special projects. Usually these
projects were thought up by either first-line managers or by
upper level managers. More often than not, the project was to
justify some type of statistic related to cases closed or money
collected.
The projects were administrative work that did not lead to
a knowledge of collection procedures or requirements put on a
revenue officer by the laws and regulations. Because management
had put these revenue officers on these projects, these same
managers would not hold them back when it came time to be
considered for promotion.
Many times, someone who had only attended the two phases of
revenue officer training was promoted, even though that
individual may never have actually knocked on a door, collected
tax, or worked with others in the process of collecting taxes.
This led to people being promoted who, in turn, qualified
to be management based solely on the fact that they were at the
right grade level. I cannot remember the number of times I
heard, you do not have to know how to collect taxes to be a
manager, you just have to know how to manage.
It is amazing that someone who does not know much about
collection is put in charge of people who are sent out to
collect. The person the revenue officer is supposed to depend
on for their first level of advice for difficult cases only
needs to know how to manage, but not how to collect taxes.
It is especially frightening because these managers are
required to review and approve certain actions of revenue
officers based on their own understandings of what action is
appropriate under the IRS policies, as well as the law.
As a result of this training and promotion practice, new
revenue officers have become less and less effective, while
many of the current managers do not know what the revenue
officers are supposed to do.
Additionally, many of these managers are basing day-to-day
decisions on whatever they determine important to their own
supervisors in order to look good. What were these managers
judged on? Sheer numbers. How many dollars collected, how many
cases are closed? That is the bottom line.
Make no mistake about it, there are goals, quotas, that may
be unstated but well-known to the agent or revenue officer that
are driving many of the actions you will hear about today. So
what we have now are managers who are not thoroughly schooled
in the collection of taxes, but making decisions based on how
they can get their numbers up.
Now the cycle is complete. Managers knowing little about
what their employees are supposed to be doing are evaluating
their employees on how they could collect more tax or close
more cases. Since these managers do not know enough about tax
collection, they have a tendency to require the revenue officer
to take actions that might not be correct, but which the
manager feels would lead to a higher closing rate or a higher
dollar collection.
Sometimes the action might even be illegal, but the
managers did not know it, simply recognizing that a particular
action resulted in more closures. The newer revenue officers
might not know a particular action is illegal because they have
not been around long enough or are simply not sufficiently
trained.
The new revenue officers who have been taking direction
from these managers get promoted and are now placed in the
position of an on-the-job instructor. So you see, the cycle
continues and the quality of tax collection gets worse. As it
gets worse, Congress gets more complaints from irate taxpayers.
In closing, I would like to add one thing. I know too many
people who collect taxes for the IRS that are fine, hardworking
honest people to paint the IRS tax collection with a broad
brush.
To a great number of employees at IRS these abuses are not
more tolerable than they are to this committee. It is a shame
that these abuses can cast a cloud over these same people. The
number of abuses compared to the number of cases is still
small. It nonetheless is way too large to be acceptable. No
abuse is acceptable.
There are many people with great technical knowledge and
skill whose talent would better be utilized teaching and aiding
others. The managers who did not have the knowledge or skill to
direct tax collection could learn a great deal from some of
these people. They might not learn anything about management,
but they need to learn about tax collection.
This may mean a reduction in production as far as closures
or dollars collected for a few months, or even a year. But over
the course of one to 2 years it should result in an increase in
collection of revenues and less complaints for the members of
Congress to address.
The Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of Problem
Resolution Program should be manned with highly-skilled tax
collectors who are capable of resolving these issues before
they become highly contentious issues argued at higher levels.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, for allowing me to speak here today about a few
things that have been on my mind for the last several years.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Patnoe.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Patnoe appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. Mr. Lilly?
STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE G. LILLY, ST. AUGUSTINE, FL
Mr. Lilly. Mr. Chairman and committee members, my name is
Lawrence G. Lilly. I am a tax attorney living in St. Augustine,
FL at this time.
I have been a tax attorney for more than 30 years. For 28
years I was an employee of the Internal Revenue Service. For
the first 4 years of my employment I was a special agent, which
is, as you know, a criminal investigator. I then went on and
became an attorney in the Office of District Counsel in
Atlanta.
Ultimately, I progressed up through the chain of command in
the counsel's office, became a special attorney for criminal
tax, an assistant district counsel, and ultimately the district
counsel in one of our larger districts, that being in San Jose,
California.
A fair and efficient tax collection agency is recognized by
everyone as being vital to the future of this country. Although
no one likes to pay taxes, all reasonable people know that our
taxes are the price that we pay for our liberty. No one can
properly voice a legitimate complaint about shouldering a fair
share of paying for our system of government.
Now, I strongly believe in honesty in government, as I
think each of us here does. In that vein, I make a
recommendation to the committee at this time. That is, that you
rename the agency which collects our taxes. You should add an
``A'' at the end of its title and drop the word ``Service,''
because they render no service. You should rename the agency
the Internal Revenue Statistical Agency. That summarizes the
problem, lack of service and too much statistics.
My purpose today is to present constructive criticism of
the IRS for consideration by the committee. It is my hope that,
with your guidance, the credibility of the service can be
restored to the high level which prevailed at earlier times. It
is vital to our system of taxation that the citizens who are
paying the taxes have trust and confidence in the fairness of
the system.
I personally was extremely proud to be an employee of the
Internal Revenue Service for the major portion of my career. I
worked with good people.
During the 1980's, however, I began to note what I
considered to be significant deterioration of the service and
its concern for serving the public. It appeared to me that the
Internal Revenue Service had consciously or unconsciously
dropped the service aspect of their job in order to focus
exclusively on making upper management look good statistically.
This, I fear, has led to undermining the culture of the
organization, lowered the self-esteem of many employees, and
caused the organization to become unfair and oppressive in its
treatment of some taxpayers.
Before proceeding, I want to make it clear to you that I
was not technically an employee of the Internal Revenue Service
for most of my career. Organizationally, the attorneys who work
with the IRS are not subordinate to the district directors, or
even to the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.
Attorneys work within a parallel organizational structure
which reports to the chief counsel and to the general counsel
of the Treasury Department. This is intended so that the
attorneys will be able to render objective opinions and give
good advice to the functional people on the commissioner's
staff. Certainly, that separation of powers is very good.
In view of this distinctive organizational structure, I had
the opportunity to see the IRS from a viewpoint that is quite
different than that of most former IRS employees, or indeed
most present IRS employees.
Whereas most employees, present or past, worked within a
particular area such as examination, collection, or criminal
investigation, I, as a manager of attorneys, was involved with
each and every one of those functional areas.
From this perspective, I had the opportunity to make
detailed observations about the service's operations and also
had the time to develop what I hope are a few solid
recommendations for its improvement.
I do not intend to tell you any horror stories as I
progress. I could do so, but I think other witnesses have
served that purpose. Certainly, I have seen many.
I believe there is far too much focus set on achieving
statistical goals set by upper management. These are generally
known as the SES, or senior executive service, goals.
Now, I want to make it clear that goals are important and
necessary in the management of any organization. The problem is
not in having goals, the problem is how you define your goals.
The goals, as currently drafted by management, focus on how
many levies you make, how much tax you assess, how many returns
you examine, things which are readily measurable. They are
taking the easy way out.
Those goals should be rearticulated to measure quality.
What is the quality of the service they are rendering? That is
what they have forgotten. The goals which they now have are
generally not sensitive to the perceptions of the average
American taxpayer at all.
The organizational structure of the IRS is still too
decentralized. Directives from the top are implemented or not
implemented in the manner decided upon locally. Directives with
which local employees or managers disagree take considerable
time before they are implemented.
As just a single example, some time ago Peggy Richardson,
the commissioner at that time, announced publicly with great
fanfare that there was going to be a newer and fresher, more
taxpayer-sensitive approach to offers and compromise. They
welcomed offers and compromise, they encouraged people to
apply.
The district in which I reside did not favor that policy,
evidently, for several months later they were still applying
the old procedures and were being very hard-nosed about offers
and compromise.
I had one which I submitted for review and it met all of
the criteria. I got it back from a revenue officer in the SPF
staff saying, simply, we will not consider this offer and
compromise. They did not even look at it. It was just rejected
out of hand.
I wrote a letter to the district director personally and
stated that it appeared to me from this experience that the
commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service apparently had no
jurisdiction over the management of that district, since that
district could do what they wished to do in spite of the
commissioner's direction.
The regional offices of the Internal Revenue Service, or at
least the regional offices of the chief counsel with which I am
most familiar, serve little or no purpose except to dilute the
authority of the national office and to delay the
implementation of national directives.
I recommend that consideration be given to eliminating
these last four regional offices or, if there is some reason
why they cannot be eliminated, move them to Washington. Let
them sit in the same building as the commissioner where the
commissioner can control what they do. If the span of control
is such that regional organization is necessary, it could be
accomplished in that manner.
Right now, and during all of my experience with the
service, the regions were functioning as fiefdoms, where the
person in charge, the regional commissioner or the regional
counsel in the appropriate case, was considered a prince,
whereas the commissioner or the chief counsel was the king.
They were like royalty. They decided what they wanted to do,
and they did it.
Now, selections for managerial positions is another problem
area. They are made based solely upon whether the employee has
performed well in his current position. Was the person being
considered for promotion a good attorney, was he,
theoretically, a good revenue officer, or was he a good agent?
It is my opinion that they give little or no consideration to
whether the person has people skills which would enable them to
be good managers.
Being a good revenue officer does not mean you will be a
good manager of revenue officers. What you do, is you take your
better technical people and you promote them into management
positions. By doing that, you have lost a good technical person
and you have not necessarily obtained a good manager. We need a
way to identify people with management skills.
Now, I share the opinion which I heard from the gentlemen
who spoke before me that it is important that the managers of
the revenue officers be technically knowledgeable. It is
absolutely essential at that level. The higher up you go,
however, the less important is it they have that technical
knowledge and the more important it becomes that they have
management skills. But that is not the way the organization
runs at this time.
The IRS organization is too insular. It has little infusion
of new blood. Traditionally, everybody is promoted from within.
While that is good, it is very good that management is loyal to
its employees, it leads to the situations where, as I heard one
of the Senators say, people go along to get along. You wind up
that you are elevating people based upon their willingness to
go along with the entrenched views. Innovation and imagination
are frowned upon within the Internal Revenue Service.
I would like to indicate at this time that it has been my
feeling for approximately as long as I have been an attorney
that the American Bar Association has much, too much influence
over determining who the commissioner of the Internal Revenue
Service is.
I am very pleased to see that we are hopefully going to
have a commissioner in the near future who does not come from
that background. You can be a very fine attorney and not be a
good manager. The commissioner should be a manager more so than
a good attorney.
You do not even need to be, at the commissioner's level, an
expert in taxation. You have all kinds of advisors to give you
advice on tax. If you can manage your assets and use them
fairly, that is what a commissioner should do.
Employee satisfaction with the IRS has been on a downward
spiral due, at least in part, to the slavish attention to the
numerical goals. Employees are given mandates by management to
take positions known to be incorrect in order to obtain
preordained results.
I know many people who have retired from the Internal
Revenue Service or who have left before retirement, but I do
not know a single one of them who regrets that they no longer
work for the organization. I personally left the organization 8
or 9 years before I had intended to leave because I found that
the management was so deplorable at that time.
It is my considered opinion that a few of the problems
which I have addressed can be readily resolved. As I indicated,
the four remaining regional offices should be completely
eliminated, if possible. If not, they should be relocated to
Washington. What that will do, is it will permit the
commissioner to more readily make any needed changes in the
direction of the organization.
With the condition of the organization at this time,
whatever changes are implemented will need to be implemented
quickly and the existence of those regional offices will not
assist in that.
IRS management or this committee can take action to ensure
that the goals in the future place greater focus on the quality
of performance by IRS managers and employees. This should cause
all IRS employees down to the lowest level to become more
cognizant of the sensitivity of their work and result in fair
and equal treatment of all taxpayers.
Selection boards for all positions above the first-line
management level, above the group manager level, should include
at least one representative skilled in management outside the
IRS. They should learn how real organizations manage assets and
employees. This will result in a greater focus on management
skills and at the same time be a step in opening the
organization to an infusion of new blood.
I personally commend the many dedicated and responsible
employees of the Internal Revenue Service for their valiant
attempt to fairly administer the laws in an even-handed manner.
The culture of the IRS organization, however, has eroded to
the point where the dedicated employees are leaving the agency
as fast as possible. You will find very few employees who are
eligible for retirement who remain within the agency. They
leave. They go on to different things. The management of the
IRS must stop sacrificing the employees in order to make
themselves look good.
One last thing that is not in my prepared statement but
which I would like to call to your attention, is that one of
the problems I have noted within the IRS is that there is
nobody under the district director who has any cross-functional
authority to resolve problems.
You have somebody who knows examination, you have somebody
who knows collection, but it seems like there is nobody who has
the authority to really solve problems. You need somebody who
can resolve a problem in any function.
When I was a district counsel it was my practice to have
all disgruntled taxpayers referred to me personally. I found
that as long as I was willing to put it in writing I could
accomplish most anything, so I was able to resolve a lot of
problems. But I do not know of many, or any, other managers
within the Internal Revenue Service who have that same
approach.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to appear
before you and this committee. I greatly appreciate being able
to offer what I hope are constructive and positive comments
regarding the future role of the IRS.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Mr. Lilly, for your very
helpful suggestions and comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lilly appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. Now it is my pleasure to turn to Ms. Long,
who I would point out is a current employee of the IRS. I want
to thank her for appearing here today. I know that doing so, at
least in many people's judgment, puts a future career at great
risk. But I admire her courage and willingness to come here
because of her dedication to the IRS.
Ms. Long?
STATEMENT OF JENNIFER LONG, CURRENT EMPLOYEE OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE
Ms. Long. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Senators, thank you for
allowing me to come before you this afternoon to provide an
accounting of activities within the Internal Revenue Service.
As you know, my name is Jennifer Long and I am currently a
revenue agent. Please be assured that I do not take any
pleasure in what I am about to say. I regret that the untenable
conditions permeating the IRS have compelled me to this point.
I am here today, along with my colleagues who will be
speaking tomorrow, in hopes that by exposing some of the
unauthorized but tolerated procedures that I personally have
witnessed by members of the IRS management, congressional
oversight will bring a positive change.
I can personally attest to the use of egregious tactics
used by IRS revenue agents which are encouraged by members of
the IRS management. These tactics which appear nowhere in the
IRS manual are used to extract unfairly assessed taxes from
taxpayers, literally ruining families lives and businesses, all
unnecessarily and sometimes illegally.
The IRS will often pursue a taxpayer who is viewed to be
vulnerable. To the IRS, vulnerabilities can be based on a
perception that the taxpayer has limited formal education, has
suffered a personal tragedy, is having a financial crisis, or
may not necessarily have a solid grasp of their legal rights.
Please understand, many agents are encouraged by management
to pursue tax assessments that have no basis in tax law from
individuals who simply cannot fight back. However, if that
taxpayer does object or complain, every effort will be made by
the IRS to run up their tax assessment, deplete their financial
resources, and force them to capitulate to IRS demands.
The IRS's mission of examination states: ``Reduce non-
compliance by identifying and cost effectively allocating
resources to those returns most in need of examination and
taxpayer contact.''
As of late, we seem to be auditing only poor people. The
current IRS management does not believe anyone in this country
can possibly live on less than $20,000 per year, insisting
anyone below that level must be cheating by under-stating their
true income.
Currently, in a typical case assigned for audit there are
no assets, no signs of wealth, no evidence that would support a
suspicion of higher unreported income. So when the IRS does
initiate and audit on these people, these individuals are
already only one short step away from being on the street.
Clearly, such actions do not encourage or promote voluntary
compliance, even in legitimate cases. Before we began to ruin
their lives, these people were at least paying something.
However, because of the tactics used in auditing and condoned
by the IRS management, abject fear compels many of these
individuals to go completely underground and, as a direct
result, pay nothing at all.
In other cases, IRS management can determine that a
particular taxpayer is simply ``someone to get.'' In other
words, they become a target of the IRS. Management will go
about fabricating evidence against that taxpayer to demonstrate
that he or she owes more taxes than was originally claimed.
Clearly, it goes without saying that evidence should never,
ever be fabricated. It also goes without saying that any
evidence used against a taxpayer should be examined first
before guilt or innocence is established, not the other way
around.
In certain instances, the IRS management has even employed
its authority to intimidate the actual taxpayers into
fabricating evidence against its own IRS employees. In return
for their compliance, the taxpayer may be offered a reduction
in their taxes or a no change case.
I also know that management uses this same power to extort
fabricated evidence from IRS employees against their own
colleagues by offering cash awards, promotions, and lightened
work loads as rewards for their compliance.
The unfavorable information assembled by management against
its own employees is used against those whom the IRS has
identified as someone who is unsupportive of its unwieldy
methods of collection.
The IRS Inspection Division, which is somewhat akin to
Internal Affairs in a police department, has also been used as
tool by management to harass and intimidate its employees.
However, complaints to the IRS Inspection Division about
possible management misconduct are routinely ignored, but often
result in retaliation against the IRS employee reporting the
problem. This is due to the fact that employees' identities are
disclosed when the Inspection Division reports the infraction
to management.
The IRS mission statement states, ``The purpose of the
Internal Revenue Service is to collect the proper amount of tax
revenue at the least cost, serve the public by continually
improving the quality of our products and services, and perform
in a manner warranting the highest degree of public confidence
in our integrity, efficiency, and fairness.''
I have actually witnessed IRS management manipulate income
tax return figures just to increase their office collection or
division collection statistics. It did this through various
means, including not permitting valid changes in a tax return
that would favor a taxpayer.
To allow those changes would wipe out the assessment placed
by the IRS and run counter to the management's collection
numbers. For those who choose to fight, it automatically
guarantees a significant financial and emotional toll.
Mr. Chairman, the American taxpayers are not stupid. They
clearly recognize unfairness. Under present IRS management it
has become so distorted that, when reviewing a tax case, it is
now our job to ``stick it'' to the taxpayer rather than
determine a substantially correct tax assessment for that
taxpayer.
In the past, the latter was our job. If our present task
has changed, then the IRS mission statement needs to be
revamped to reflect what the service's current mission really
is, and God help the taxpayers.
The IRS mission statement of the IRS Examination Division
states, ``Examination supports the mission of the service by
encouraging the correct reporting by taxpayers of income.''
Yet, in reality, when valid changes could be made by the IRS on
a taxpayer's return that favored that taxpayer, we are
instructed not to make those changes.
However, on the other hand I know of certain IRS employees
that have been instructed by IRS management not to conduct
audits of particular taxpayers who happened to be personal
friends of someone in management.
Far too often, the IRS management automatically assumes
that everyone is a criminal. When a taxpayer comes to the IRS
office to negotiate a tax payment issue in good faith, they are
subjected to provocative behavior on the part of the IRS in
order to set them off. Management will then use the taxpayer's
response as proof that they are, in fact, a reactionary,
saying, see, this person is a troublemaker, a real hot-head.
Based on this pretext, the IRS can then justify taking
severe action contrary to the law in order to pursue the
collection. The immediate and direct consequences of these
actions is the deprivation of the taxpayer's lawful rights.
I look forward to your questions, and I hope that in some
way I will have assisted you in restoring the IRS to a level of
integrity that will regain the respect of the American people.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Long.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Long appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. I have to say to each of you, your testimony
is certainly indicative of a troubled agency. It is a matter of
real concern to this committee that the agency be seen by the
American people as serving them.
I have a series of questions I would like to ask each one
of you to answer. I would ask that you try to be as brief as
possible because the hour is growing late.
One of my concerns is the IRS' use of goals and statistics.
Any number of you have indicated that that is the practice.
Now, by use of goals, quotas, statistics, I am talking about
employees being evaluated on the number of dollars assessed or
collected, the number of cases closed, the number of liens and
levies imposed. How widespread is this practice? Mr. Strauss.
Mr. Strauss. Senator, it has already been testified to that
that specific action does not occur. What is occurring is that
this culture drives the organization in determining what is
important.
The question is, how do you get promoted or how do you
retain your job? If the managers are being evaluated on
specific operational objective goals or statistical goals, then
that is what dictates the issues. I have never seen, from all
my years, any specific employee evaluated on achieving specific
statistical objectives. That does not mean the influence is not
there, Senator.
The Chairman. Ms. Larsen?
Ms. Larsen. As Mr. Lilly stated earlier, I was an employee
in the Office of Chief Counsel, so I was never actually an
employee of the Internal Revenue Service. So my impressions and
my beliefs about how the Internal Revenue Service operates
really comes sort of indirectly, either from people I have
known that have worked for IRS or my conversations with other
managers and such.
But my understanding is, at least with respect to the
Collection Division, is that individual employees are not
evaluated based on the number of seizures that they make or the
number of dollars they collect. I do not even believe that they
keep those statistics by employee.
However, my understanding is that the managers themselves
as you go up the line, they are evaluated based on overall
efficiency of their group or their division, and then they do
look at total number of cases closed, the total number of
dollars per staff year, that kind of thing.
So even though each individual employee is not told, go out
and collect $10,000 today, there is always this pressure, their
job as a revenue officer is to collect taxes, close cases, and
move things along. So, there is always that pressure to do
that.
But I do not have any specific examples of where they have
told people to go do certain things, to meet a certain
statistical goal.
The Chairman. Mr. Patnoe?
Mr. Patnoe. Senator, having been evaluated many times as an
employee, I was never evaluated on how many seizures I did,
although I did plenty. I was never evaluated on the basis of,
well, you closed so many cases per hour.
But what was interesting were the group meetings when the
quarterly or the monthly reports would come out, and it would
be pointed out to the employees of the group where that group
stood in relation to other groups in the district and where
that branch stood in relation to other branches, and you would
see where you sat on this chart that showed you are the last
one.
The manager would say, nobody wants to be the last one
because it does not look good. So I never knew of anybody that
was just pulled aside and said, you really need to get your
numbers up. It was not that way.
Basically, Congress itself has got to evaluate the IRS on
something. One of the things it evaluates the IRS on is, hey,
we have so many dollars uncollected, we have so many cases
open; what are you going to do to improve this?
That is a direct statement to the IRS saying, we want you
to produce, we want you to do something. You have got to find a
way to get the very bottom employee to produce and they cannot
really say, boy, we want you to go out and close 20 cases
today. But our group sits right here, and we cannot stay there.
We have got to do something. That is the way it is done.
The Chairman. Mr. Lilly?
Mr. Lilly. I think the prior speakers have put their finger
on the way it is done. The lower ranking agents, revenue
officers, and attorneys do not receive goals, per se. Their
higher managers receive quite definite goals of what to
accomplish. Then when they talk to their subordinates, they
talk to them in the terms of what their goal is.
Now, if I am a manager and I have a goal to obtain 10 of a
certain item and I have 10 agents working for me, I think you
know what I am going to do, I am going to tell each of my
subordinates that I want them to do one of these actions. If
one of them does three, then I am going to praise that person.
So what is happening, is that the goals are being used
indirectly because it is forbidden to use them directly.
The Chairman. Ms. Long?
Ms. Long. Well, just in the last month I was told I would
be getting a cash award because I had closed and collected the
third-highest amount of tax in cases in the group. In the last
meeting I was in, it just seems like every meeting with upper
management all we are talking about is hours per case, dollars
collected. I do feel like the statistics are definitely kept on
all the agents and that they are used in evaluating the agents.
Mr. Patnoe. Senator, may I say one additional thing,
please.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Patnoe. The RD issue, the accounts receive delinquency
inventory that has been around between Congress and the
Internal Revenue Service since the early 1980's and the
continuing growing of that delinquency or the growing of that
inventory, which was stated earlier was $216 billion currently,
if you include the interest and the penalties.
That has been a major drive for the IRS. They have been
very defensive about it and have not been able to solve it,
obviously. So we may have to think about what kind of issues we
bring up from the congressional side.
The Chairman. I have put up a chart, and I am asking that
it be passed around to all the people on the panel. This is a
chart that I requested from the IRS. The document pertains to
the San Francisco district and certainly appears to suggest
quotas and goals. Now, we have a revenue agent here, although
she is not from San Francisco. I wonder if you could explain
what this chart appears to mean.
[Chart appears in appendix on p. 325.]
Ms. Long. Well, it just tells you what the dollars per hour
are, the average dollar per hour on 1040 cases, individual tax
cases. It tells you what the average dollar per hour is on 1120
corporate cases. It is from the revenue agent's side, then it
tells also what the tax examiner's 1040 individual dollars per
hour are. It tells what the goal is and what the average
collections were.
The Chairman. Let me make sure that I understand what this
is saying. On the left-hand side it says, ``Category RA.'' That
is revenue agent?
Ms. Long. Yes, RA is revenue agent.
The Chairman. 1040 dollars per hour. It says, ``Goal:
$1,000.'' Now, what does that mean, $1,000 goal?
Ms. Long. That means that the goal is to collect $1,000 per
hour.
The Chairman. At what level is a revenue agent?
Ms. Long. I guess Grade 5. You start out as a Grade 5,
Grade 7, Grade 9, probably up to a Grade 13.
The Chairman. So is it fair to say that this is setting a
goal as to how much revenue agents should assess?
Ms. Long. Well, we talk about this in our district and I
certainly try to beat the goal. To me, that is the way to be
considered a good performer or doing a good job.
The Chairman. And you have the same thing, it says ``TA.''
You say that is tax auditor?
Ms. Long. Tax auditor.
The Chairman. The goal is for them to collect $1,012 per
hour.
Ms. Long. Yes.
The Chairman. Below that it says, ``For both RA and TA 1040
dollars per hour, a general improvement is needed. A large
improvement can be made by bringing down hours per return.''
Mr. Lilly, I think you spoke about quality, or one of you
gentlemen talked about quality. Does creating goals, incentives
of this type make for quality treatment of the taxpayer, or
does it provide other incentives?
Mr. Lilly. No, Senator, this would not provide quality.
What you are saying is, spend less time with each taxpayer,
produce more dollars. That means that you have to look quicker
at what the taxpayer has to offer. You may not have time to
consider it fully.
Now, they are setting goals here measured in dollars. I
again remind the committee that I believe similar goals to
measure quality can be established. That is what is needed.
The Chairman. Well, does the emphasis on quota and
statistics for employee evaluations put pressure on IRS
employees to artificially inflate taxpayer income or to focus
on taxpayers whose cases will not take much time? Mr. Strauss?
Mr. Strauss. Well, certainly that has to be the result of
this type of approach to managing the employee. This is the
first time I have seen something like this, quite honestly.
Again, I have been gone for 5 years so I do not know what is
currently going on in the organization, per se. But this is
wholly unacceptable. I do not know how this is being used, but
if it is being used and given to the first-line employee, that
is wholly unacceptable and we see the results in the
testimonies.
The Chairman. Ms. Larsen?
Ms. Larsen. Well, I think that if the goal of the IRS is to
become more efficient, and by setting up these figures they are
telling their employees, we want you to work smarter, I mean,
they have some kind of a sense of how productive an examiner
should be and they have come up with this $1,000 an hour as
being a goal to reach, I think that it could be worked out
where if the work is reviewed by the manager and they see that
they are not artificially creating numbers but they actually
are working more efficiently, they are more skilled at what
they are doing, they are able to review returns quicker without
sacrificing anything, then I think this could work. But again,
I have never seen this either, so this is something that may be
relatively new.
The Chairman. Mr. Patnoe?
Mr. Patnoe. Indirectly, it could be a way to put pressure
on employees. I mean, I did not deal with the exam side that
much, I just dealt with collection all the time I was there.
When it came out that other people were closing cases at a
certain rate, then it would be nice if the group I was in
closed cases at that rate.
It just turned out, if the revenue officers got out there
and closed cases over that rate they seemed to do a little
better than revenue officers that seemed not to be working.
The Chairman. Mr. Lilly?
Mr. Lilly. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I do think this puts
undue pressure on the agents. The best place to resolve tax
issues is at the agent level. The agent has more discretion
basically in determining issues than anybody else in the whole
process.
But by having such a goal as this, what you are doing is
you are saying, agent, do not resolve it, set it up as a
deficiency, let us make the assessment and get our statistics
up. It works directly contrary to providing service and quality
to the taxpayers.
The goal of the Internal Revenue Service is to collect
every penny to which the government is entitled, but they
forget the other aspect of it: not a cent more.
The Chairman. Ms. Long?
Ms. Long. Well, I think in doing these goals, and I agree
that you do need some idea of what you are supposed to be
collecting and the mission statement of examination says that
we are going to cost effectively allocate resources to those
returns most in need of examination. But the problem is, as a
revenue agent I do not have that much control any more about a
choice of cases.
Before, I did have a much wider choice of cases that I
could choose from and I could do that. Now I do not know how
the cases are being chosen, but the quality of the cases, like
I said, I feel like there are a lot of poor people that are
being chosen, or lower income people.
Just because someone does not report a high level of income
does not mean that there is not something there, but the type
of people I am auditing are not people I would think would have
anything. It would not be cost effectively allocating resources
to audit the type of people I have been sent out to audit.
The Chairman. I have a number of separate questions.
Mr. Strauss, in your prepared statement are you stating
that on its own initiative the IRS can simply inflate a
taxpayer's stated income based solely on Bureau of Labor
Statistics figures?
Mr. Strauss. I have one case in progress where that
specifically happened, and I know of at least two other cases
where that specifically has happened. So my answer to you is,
yes.
The Chairman. If you impose a stated income on BLS, how
does the taxpayer defend himself, prove to the IRS that he or
she did not earn that much?
Mr. Strauss. Well, obviously he cannot, certainly not to
the satisfaction of the IRS. The fundamental concept of
taxation when it goes to an examination issue should be that
the taxpayer has the responsibility to prove the deductions and
the IRS should have the primary responsibility to prove any
additional income. Obviously, that appears to be no longer the
case regarding the income issue.
The Chairman. Let me ask you this. I have heard vocabulary
I never expected to hear, words like blue sky, or box car
assessments, water, whipsaw. What do they mean; are they
commonly used among IRS employees?
Mr. Strauss. Whipsaw I am not fully familiar with. Blue
sky, box car, water, I am. They have been around the agency for
years.
The Chairman. What do these terms mean?
Mr. Strauss. It goes to the issue of inflating taxes,
proposed taxes, what I testified about, Senator, taxes which
they know are not owed. The motivation is primarily to try to
have the taxpayer come in. That is one of the motivations if,
in fact, a taxpayer is uncooperative or has not filed.
The other issue is, what we testified about regarding what
drives the organization--the statistical figures and
operational goals. I have several examples. If you have got
time, let me just cite a couple of examples.
There is a process that has been going on for years in the
service center called Substitute for Return. These are prepared
for folks who have not filed 1040's per the records of the IRS,
and include data as to wages, 1099 data, interest, whatever.
The program was set up in the early 1980's. The concept has
been for years that, we will go ahead and prepare returns for
the taxpayer. But if we have a joint return being filed with
four or five exemptions, we will file the taxpayer as married
filing single, with no other exemptions and no dependents, and
then they go ahead and send those out to the taxpayers. Most of
those wind up not being signed and it goes into the collection
process, and very, very few of those are ever collected.
The Chairman. Do any of you others have any comment on
those terms, are they fairly commonly used? Mr. Lilly.
Mr. Lilly. Mr. Chairman, those terms are quite common.
There is always water in every statutory notice. I have never
seen one which correctly stated the amount of tax due. As an
attorney who was involved in managing a great deal of
litigation before the Tax Court, I can tell you that it was
indeed a rare situation where we were able to prevail 100
percent if we had to settle the case out for lower numbers. We
did win some, of course, 100 percent. But there is water in all
assessments, for the most part.
Ms. Larsen. I would like to add though that often the
reason why there is water is because, at the previous levels,
at the revenue agent level, that the taxpayer has not been
totally forthcoming with their own information because the
taxpayer ultimately does have the best information about his or
her own income.
Where that information is not there, the IRS will proceed
to set up the tax based on the best information it has. In the
substitute for return situation especially, the IRS really does
not have any option if the taxpayer is not cooperating. If the
taxpayer does provide the information, obviously that is a
different story.
Mr. Strauss. Let me debate the issue just briefly with my
colleague. If, in fact, a taxpayer has historically filed
married with four dependents, for example, and for whatever
reason he has not filed for a given year, there is absolutely
in my mind no reason and no authority to take a position that
we are going to water this case and over-assess a tax. That, to
me, is wholly unacceptable.
Ms. Long. I would like to say something on that, too.
The Chairman. Yes.
Ms. Long. The taxpayer does not know that this is
inflating, that in this part of the process we are inflating
the adjustment. It is very frightening to them because they
think, my gosh, I can never pay this. I never even made this
much. So that does happen, even when the taxpayer is
cooperative. I feel like now, with the problem with the lack of
response to legitimate complaints, it is really happening a
lot.
The Chairman. Any further comment? Mr. Lilly.
Mr. Lilly. Could I relate a horror story which exemplifies
the problem. I am currently representing a taxpayer who was
subjected to an examination that took approximately 5 years,
which is inexcusable. It started out as a criminal
investigation because this taxpayer had not filed tax returns,
so he was wrong in that respect.
He pleaded the 5th amendment and declined to furnish his
records to the Internal Revenue Service. Of course, that was
his constitutional right to do that while he was under such
criminal investigation. The criminal investigation was
concluded because it was determined that he had not willfully
violated the tax laws.
The records which had been accumulated by the internal
revenue agent were then transferred to yet another revenue
agent, who set up the deficiency for civil purposes. The civil
agent set up the gross income. This happened to be a restaurant
operator, and all the money taken in and deposited is treated
as gross income.
While this agent had, or at least the service had, the
records indicating the expenditures, there was no money allowed
for food. No deduction for food in a restaurant. This was based
upon information before the agent.
That is a situation where you have water in a statutory
notice of deficiency. The service knew that the man was selling
prepared meals. The service knew that he had to buy food, but
allowed no deduction for food. They had the records with which
to do it.
The Chairman. Let me ask you this question, Mr. Lilly. Do
you believe that regions and districts determine their own
directives and ignore those from the national office if they
prefer not to implement?
Mr. Lilly. I do not want to say they will basically ignore
it. They will be dilatory in implementing. They determine how
much manpower they will give to these things and how quickly
they will do them. I do not want to say that they would flat
violate a directive, but they might not be very aggressive
about doing it.
The Chairman. Let me ask you this, Ms. Long. You stated
that some managers actually use their position to influence
subordinates into fabricating evidence against fellow employees
who have been targeted for dismissal. Have you witnessed such
behavior?
Ms. Long. I have been asked to do that against fellow
employees.
The Chairman. You yourself have been asked to do that
against fellow employees.
Ms. Long. Yes.
The Chairman. Have you any idea, is this a common practice?
Ms. Long. It has been my observation that it is being done,
that people are promoted for doing this.
The Chairman. Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley. I was thinking as you were talking about
water, Mr. Chairman, is it not ironic that your constituent,
Mr. Purdue, has the water that he can put in his chickens
regulated by the USDA, but we do not have any government
regulation in the amount of water that the IRS can put into a
tax assessment.
The Chairman. That is ironic.
Senator Grassley. I am not going to take a lot of time
because there are a lot of other people who want to go here. So
I am just going to ask Ms. Long not really some in-depth
questions, but I have got some observations and basically I am
just asking you to say whether or not I have got this figured
out right or wrong.
But first of all, I think we have to acknowledge your
courage in coming forward today at a very great risk to your
career to help us understand the questionable practices of IRS
management.
I know this is a very anxious moment for you. But I would
like to put you somewhat at ease this way, because often when
people like you show the courage to come forward, their
agencies retaliate. I have been dealing with people who have
been willing to talk like you are for a long period of time in
other agencies, and I know that is true.
Now, I am not alleging that the IRS will retaliate against
you, but I also was not born yesterday when it comes to
understanding how the government operates. So I want you to
know that, as a witness of this committee, we will not tolerate
retaliation by the IRS, and you can be sure that if it happens
we will take action. In fact, not only that, we have a
responsibility to take action. There are codes protecting
people like you who are willing to talk to the Congress of the
United States.
You have described, in essence, a system of incentives that
might explain IRS managers' behavior. As you describe it, they
are motivated to pursue the collection, as you said. In the
process of pursuing the collection, I get the impression that
the taxpayers' rights are trampled on.
In other words, a citizen's rights which he or she enjoy
vis-a-vis other law enforcement agencies like the FBI or your
typical police department are simply in the way of the
collection process, and that is why there is allegedly so much
abuse by the IRS. Is that a fair description of your testimony?
Ms. Long. I do feel like taxpayers' rights are being
violated. I think, to speak in defense of employees, we are
terrified by what is going on. It is terrifying. We are afraid
to turn in a case that we cannot find an adjustment on.
The chart that you have up here, I mean, this is shown to
us frequently and you feel that pressure to turn in cases with
more than what the goal is. You try to find technical ways that
are correct to do it, but you are evaluated poorly if you spend
time reading IRS manuals or reading the Code to try to find
legitimate adjustments to make.
Senator Grassley. In other words, there are certain rights
that a person has if they come in contact with the FBI that
they obviously do not have with the IRS. To me, this is the
real key to our understanding of why things work as they do at
the IRS.
There is a parallel that we have found with the FBI. You
may have read about problems with the FBI crime lab, as an
example. The lab managers were getting careless about the use
of good science in the laboratory, and instead they would
pursue a conviction rather than just pursuing the truth.
They would often cut corners with science and with the
truth just to get a conviction, and that is an abuse of power
and obviously of civil liberties. Is that FBI parallel not
somewhat what we are talking about here as it relates to the
things that have been described on this panel?
Ms. Long. I see many, many similarities with that case and
with the IRS. When I was reading the articles about that I
thought about the work situation where I am.
Senator Grassley. Yes. Now, you have made some very serious
statements and charges in your opening statement. I would like
to ask you if you are prepared to document and back up these
charges. That is, for instance, the fabrication of evidence,
the manipulation of collection numbers, the incentive to pursue
collections, and there are others. Could you help us with
documents in regard to this?
Ms. Long. Now, some of this information, I would have to
have the proper disclosure release to help you with.
Senator Grassley. Yes. Well, I know what you are talking
about there.
The Chairman. I think it is important that everyone
understand that.
Senator Grassley. That is a 6103 situation.
The Chairman. That is correct.
Senator Grassley. But, Mr. Chairman, I think then this is
something that I should ask you. It is a problem and we have
got to make sure that the privacy rights of the taxpayers are
protected, I understand that.
The Chairman. That is correct.
Senator Grassley. I would not argue otherwise. But could I
ask you, if under the proper people with the proper credentials
that could pursue this, if we as a committee should not be
pursuing these documents so we get a chance to look these over,
it seems to me that that is what we should do.
Ms. Long. I wanted to say something else just on an issue
basis. But one of my problems with what they are doing is they
are making these assessments on these people that I feel like
are not honest and are unfair, and this money will never be
collected. Then what happens, is these people are encouraged to
file or do an offer and compromise.
When the offer and compromise comes in, it is like,
Collections does not want to deal with it, so they pass it to
Exam. Exam does not want to deal with it, so they pass it back
to Collections. Basically, they are going to have to write off
the assessment and nobody wants to write off the assessment
because it will hurt the statistics. It is just something that
has gone on for a long time.
Senator Grassley. Did you ever raise your concerns and the
charges contained in your statement with the appropriate
officials at the IRS?
Ms. Long. Yes, I have.
Senator Grassley. This is my last question. Why did you
decide to come forward today with your identity known as
opposed to coming forward tomorrow when your identity could be
protected?
Ms. Long. Well, on the advice of my attorney I decided to
do it openly.
Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley. I do hope you will think about what I
said about 6103, because we need as many documents that we can
legally have where the taxpayer can be protected to back up
what has been said here today.
The Chairman. Senator Gramm.
Senator Gramm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Long, I want to join Senator Grassley in making it
clear that we are not going to tolerate anybody retaliating
against you. Now, obviously we expect you to be judged like any
other employee, based on your performance and what you do, but
I think it ought to be clear that when somebody is willing to
come forward publicly and do what you have done today, that we
are not going to tolerate people trying to take reprisal
against them. I want to thank you for coming, and I want to
thank all of our witnesses.
Ms. Long, you say on page 4 of your testimony, ``I know of
certain IRS employees that have been instructed by IRS
management not to conduct audits of particular taxpayers who
happen to be personal friends of someone in IRS management.''
Now, that is a very, very serious charge, it seems to me,
and I would think any IRS manager that issued such a directive
ought to be fired, at a minimum, and probably ought to be
prosecuted for obstructing justice.
Let me go back to Senator Grassley's question. Is this one
of the areas that you have shared with whatever internal
mechanism IRS has in terms of self-policing?
Ms. Long. I was not personally involved in this case, but
it was reported to the Inspector's office and no action was
taken against the manager who did this.
Senator Gramm. Now, was this something that somebody heard
or something someone was told?
Ms. Long. The person that was told this made a very big
scandal about it and it is very hard to be around these two
people together because it is a very tense, unspeaking
situation. You cannot be around them without asking someone,
what is the problem here, what happened. It is commonly known
that this happened.
Senator Gramm. Well, one of the two of them ought not to be
there. That would be the solution to that problem. I would like
to just say, Mr. Chairman, I know somebody in this audience is
from the IRS. I would like to ask that these accusations be
looked at, that there be an investigation, that there be a
report to this committee.
If we have got somebody who is a supervisor in the IRS that
is ordering people not to audit the tax returns of their
friends, I think that is criminal activity and something ought
to be done about it.
I would like to ask the IRS officials that are present to
look at this, to go through this testimony, to look at each and
every one of the points raised and try over the next 30 days to
at least give us a cursory review of what is going on here and
is there substance to each of these charges, or any of these
charges.
I think, at an absolute minimum, that is what ought to be
done. I would like to make the request to whoever is here that
something be done, and 30 days from now I am going to follow up
to find out what has been done.
You talk about the types of people that are being audited.
Now, let me make it clear, I think poor people, not-so-poor
people, and rich people ought to all pay their fair share of
taxes.
Ms. Long. So do I.
Senator Gramm. I have no sympathy for tax cheats of any
kind.
Ms. Long. I do not, either.
Senator Gramm. But I want you to tell me, Ms. Long, more
about this singling out low-income people. Do we do it based on
somebody buying a Cadillac or something? How are these people
singled out?
Ms. Long. Well, Senator Gramm, the last, I would say, 6
months to a year--and you are from around Houston. I have been
going out to people's homes that do not have air conditioning.
In my opinion, you are going to get air conditioning before you
get the Rolls Royce in a city like Houston. I cannot see any
signs of wealth.
I cannot find any resource that would indicate that these
people had assets that they would be hiding from me. If maybe I
was sent out to one person like that I would think, well, maybe
something has come to someone's attention, but it is common.
Senator Gramm. Who sends you? Who makes this decision?
Ms. Long. Well, the cases are assigned to you and you are
told to work them. I do not know why there is this small amount
of inventory, but I really do not have anything else to work on
and I am not going to just charge my time to nothing. I have to
account for my time, and this is all I have to work on. So, I
go and work on it.
Senator Gramm. Well, do you think that is an indication
that we have got too many people, or what kind of agenda can
you imagine anyone would have? God knows, if you live in the
Houston area and you do not have air conditioning, it is hard
to imagine that you have got any money for anything. I cannot
think of anything----
Ms. Long. Anything that would be before air conditioning.
Senator Gramm [continuing]. Other than food and tickets to
the Texas A&M football games, I cannot imagine what would be
more important than air conditioning.
Ms. Long. Yes.
Senator Gramm. Do you have any theory as to why you get
these assignments?
Ms. Long. Comments have been made, and I have asked agents
in other areas like in International. In the past, I would
audit people that would hire, like, someone from a large
accounting firm downtown or a well-known attorney to defend
them. That is the type of people I would deal with. I do not
see that anymore. I do not know what has happened to those
people. It is like, they are afraid to audit people that can
hire a big-name attorney or a big-name accountant to defend
them.
Senator Gramm. But you have no theory as to why you are
auditing people who do not have air conditioning.
Ms. Long. Well, I feel like it is because they are
defenseless, they cannot fight back.
The Chairman. Could I just interject a question there.
Senator Gramm. Sure.
The Chairman. Is that true of the other employees that hold
the same position you do, is that common practice?
Ms. Long. This is commonly being said all around the
office.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Long. It is something that is hard for me to do this to
somebody. I mean, this is not the kind of person that I am. I
can be very tough on someone who is not following the tax law,
but to go out to somebody who is in their 60's, who has worked
very hard all their lives and they do not have air
conditioning, they are old, their employees are like in their
80's, they are providing jobs for people that would have a hard
time getting a job someplace else, and to just harass this
person, and I am encouraged to harass them, I do not like it. I
do not think it is right, I do not think it is ethical.
Senator Gramm. Not only do you not like it, but it just
does not make any sense.
Ms. Long. I agree.
Senator Gramm. I mean, I have always assumed, and maybe I
am naive, Mr. Chairman, that when you audit somebody, that you
have got a reason. You have got somebody who is reporting
$18,000 worth of income and they bought a Cadillac. I would say
that is a good reason to audit, and they ought to be audited.
Ms. Long. I assume that myself. But when I actually go out
there and look at the books and records and look at the
evidence, I am wondering why I am out there. But I am also
getting an enormous amount of pressure not to bring that case
back in without making some kind of an adjustment.
Senator Gramm. Well, I do not get it. If the objective is
to collect money, and I understand it----
Ms. Long. And I have actually asked in training classes
members of upper management, what are we looking for with
someone who does not have air conditioning? I do not see a way.
He said, well, there is a way, there is a way. I am like, well,
where is it? Where are the procedures that we would use with
somebody like this? And he just ignored me.
Senator Gramm. Well, maybe we can find out.
Ms. Long. Maybe so.
Senator Gramm. My time is up Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Moseley-Braun.
Senator Moseley-Braun. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
At the outset, I would like to thank the panel and the panels
that have gone before for the courage that they have
demonstrated and the public service nature in which you have
come forward, because this really is a public service that you
are performing today.
Particularly, I was an assistant United States Attorney
when I started off in my career, and I know the kind of sense
of camaraderie and the closeness that you feel when you are
engaged as a member of the service.
It is kind of like a family. You almost feel hesitant. You
generally would feel hesitant to say anything outside of the
family. But the fact is, here the family is the American
people. We are all in this together and we have to try to find
and strike some balance here.
The service feels a little beleaguered. I mean, you kind of
get that from the sense in all the employees who are sitting
there saying, I am working hard, trying to do my best, why are
they picking on us like this. But the truth is that this
testimony and this effort, I think, is a reality check for all
of us. It is a reality check for the service in the first
instance, but it is also a reality check for the Congress.
Rather than seeing it as an assault on the IRS, I hope that
we all see this as an opportunity to try to correct some of the
abuses and to fix what is broken, particularly as it pertains
to the administration.
Quite frankly, we in the Congress tend to focus more on the
global big picture issues of tax policy and the Tax Code and
not on the administration. We do not focus in on the details.
It is absolutely the truth, the devil is in the details and
this may be where he is to be found.
Because the testimony today, some of it--I was talking with
one of the staffers, Senator, your staffer in fact, and she was
saying how it almost brought tears to her eyes. I said, well,
it did bring tears to mine and I had to leave the room for a
minute because the horror stories are just heart-wrenching.
Again, I hope that this is not only a reality check for the
Congress, but that we will be vigilant in making certain that
there is a conclusion to what we do, because the worst thing we
could do here would be to open up this Pandora's Box, rummage
around in it a little bit, then go away.
I think there is more than a little suspicion that the
politicians will hit on this issue and then move off and do
something else, and the bureaucracy will still be there, the
people will still be there, there will be hard feelings, there
will be some anxiety, a little moving the deck chairs around,
but essentially the ship will not have been radically
refigured. There is no question but that we have to do some
reform here. There is no question but that we need to take
these stories as reality checks.
There is no question but that we all have, I think, an
investment in seeing to it that the true facts come out, the
true facts with regard to the cases, the true facts with regard
to practice and procedure as part of the administration.
In fact, every time you look at something like your chart
over there, Mr. Chairman, more questions get raised, and I will
ask a couple of them. But I would just say to all of you, I
very much appreciate your helping us.
I believe that the Chairman and the members of this
committee are trying to find common ground between a fair and
honest effort to support the service on the one hand so that it
can collect taxes where due, but then to make certain that the
controls and the checks and the balances are there so that the
service does not overbear, does not mistreat, and does not
treat unfairly with any, any taxpayer of any sort.
So, having said that, Mr. Chairman, again, I just hope that
we make certain that not only that Ms. Long does not get drawn
and quartered when she goes back to work, but also that any
other Ms. Longs out there, any other people who are willing to
help us, are not penalized by virtue of their public service.
The Chairman. Let me say to my distinguished colleague and
friend that this investigation is only a beginning. I intend to
follow through. We have heard some facts and figures of
discussions that are, indeed, troublesome. I think it is
important that we shall continue to investigate.
I want to emphasize that maybe there has not been any
monitoring or oversight hearings in the past, that this is the
first one, but I can assure you, we will make it a continuing
practice. I think that is the one way we have that can
effectively bring about change.
I will not be satisfied until every American feels that
they are going to get fair and civil treatment by the IRS, as
well as other agencies.
So your point is well taken and we will continue these
hearings to ensure that. We want an IRS that operates like
Congress and the President intends, and nothing short of that
will be satisfactory.
Senator Moseley-Braun. Well, I very much appreciate that,
Mr. Chairman, again, because the transparency has to be
achieved here so there can be some accountability. We have a
bureaucracy, and what is coming out is nobody exactly knows how
it works. I mean, that is kind of a fundamental problem, and
particularly if you have got different pieces of it working
different ways.
I have got a few questions.
The Chairman. Please proceed.
Senator Moseley-Braun. This actually goes to the IRS,
because I know they are going to testify tomorrow, but with
regard to your chart I am interested to know, it says in the
first paragraph, ``Below are the goals for fiscal year 1996.''
Where do these goals come from; is there some internal circular
that goes to all the districts or is this just within this
particular district? Mr. Strauss, you apparently have something
to say.
Mr. Strauss. Well, historically you had a functional
program letter being issued which becomes part of each
executive and upper level management officials' operational
objectives for the year. That is traditionally how the goals
are set, Senator.
Senator Moseley-Braun. Which gets to my next question. The
upper executives then, are they accountable for the horror
stories that we have heard? If within a department some people
get put out on the street, Ms. Long, to use your analogy, if
they wind up being put out on the street, is that district
director accountable for that? Who in the organization is
accountable for the mistakes and the problems?
Mr. Strauss. That is an excellent question. It is not quite
that simple, as I recall the process.
Ms. Long. I wanted to comment on that. I have known of
employees who have been harassed and their rights violated by
members of management. They have taken the case to court, won
the case, got their jobs back, got something in writing that
would say that management would not harass them or bother them
again, and nothing changed. It continued.
Nothing happened to those managers, nothing happened to the
people that perpetrated the problem with the employee. The
employee comes back to work and the same thing goes on and it
continues, and it is just like with these taxpayers, that it
goes on for years, and years, and years.
It is my observation that several employees have died as a
result of this treatment, either from a heart attack or
committed suicide. I do not have any actual proof of that, but
it just seemed like that is what happened. That is being said
around the district.
Mr. Patnoe. Senator, I would like to just say something
about that. You are talking about assigning responsibility for
these acts. Well, unfortunately some managers are insulated by
silence. For instance, upper level management, in many cases,
will never hear what happened. They never know that an illegal
act or an abusive act has occurred because the taxpayer will
not come forward.
The reason a taxpayer will not come forward, is if you just
had somebody harass you, take away half your live savings, but
you still owed tax and it was still in the hands of that
person, are you going to come forward knowing what that person
just did and was capable of? So you will find managers who are
totally ignorant of what has happened at the lower levels.
This fear by the taxpayers, some of it rightly earned
because people have done things that are outrageous, some of it
has been earned just by rumor, keeps the taxpayer silent. For
every case you hear today and you have been reported, there are
hundreds that have not come forward. Upper management, a lot of
times, they do not know it has even gone on, and they will not
know. All they know is, the numbers have improved.
Ms. Long. Well, I disagree with that because I think that
they do know. My personal experience is that there is a total
lack of response to legitimate complaints. I have observed it
and I have personal experience with it.
No matter what proof you bring to them, no matter what you
do, there is just no response. If they are forced into a
situation where they have to answer for their mistake, I just
cannot think of any other description but cowardly. They have a
cowardly way to address their own mistakes.
I cannot understand it. They have more power than any other
entity in our society. They have a fiduciary responsibility and
a higher level of responsibility to admit and correct their
mistakes in an honorable and professional way.
My experience is that, instead of doing it in an honorable
and professional way, they try to discredit and harm the
unfortunate person who accidently gets involved in one of their
mistakes.
Mr. Strauss. Senator, could I just add one last thought.
The answer to your question is, yes, upper level management is
responsible ultimately, and they ought to be understanding and
knowing what is taking place if they are actually engaged as to
what is taking place at the lower levels, and that is part of
their responsibility.
If you read my statement, you find that I cite in several
examples where they have been alerted to the issues and they
are still stonewalling the issues. So I am just looking for the
resolution.
Mr. Patnoe. My experience has been, if I may, that lower
level managers, sometimes if they find a mistake that has been
made, they will do their best to sweep it under the carpet.
They do not want to report it because, heaven knows, you do not
want to report that inside your group you have got an employee
causing problems. It does not make you look good.
Senator Moseley-Braun. Again, I did not mean to cut you
off, but I do not want to run out of time either, Mr. Chairman,
unless you want to indulge me my questions in this area.
But I guess my question to the service is, what happens if
an employee, for example, takes a complaint to the
commissioner? What happens to it? Or is there some intermediate
to whom a complaint will be taken; what happens to it? Does
that get tracked and evaluated?
Ms. Long. When I have had a problem I went to every single
level, and I never got a single response until I went to
Congressman Bill Archer.
Senator Moseley-Braun. Well, that will be a campaign ad for
him, I am sure. [Laughter.]
Ms. Long. But, I mean, you could have gone to any
Congressman. But I have known taxpayers that have gone to every
single level and they never got a response. When they went to
their Congressman they might get a response that was just for
show, and then calls were stopped.
Sometimes they would not even call back the Congressman
anymore. They had clear evidence that a mistake was being made
and nobody would acknowledge the mistake on the record. What
these taxpayers said today, it is true.
Senator Moseley-Braun. It is a reality check, that is
right.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I know I am running out of time here. I
just have a couple of questions that I hope we can get answers
to when the service testifies tomorrow. Part of it touched on
in these witnesses' testimony and other parts touched on it
before.
As to this chart, it would be very helpful to know, again,
what goals are they referring to, what categories in the last
paragraph it mentions, or the penultimate paragraph, ``The
percent above delineates the district's effectiveness rating in
the categories.'' What categories, is this standardized or is
it just for this district?
The second, is does the calculation include all the time
that is devoted to a given 1040, a given person's filing? That
is to say, are there investigators involved or is this just the
agent who is being evaluated as to this thing? I mean, I would
like to know specifically with regard to this form if it exists
in other districts and how the calculation is arrived at.
Then finally, an issue raised by Ms. Long when she talked
about the cases, how cases are chosen, the exercise of
discretion in the first instance in terms of what goes forward.
Everything I have heard suggests that more than a computer
is involved. But if it is just a computer involved, if it is
all kind of randomly cranking out the names, then what are the
determinants that go into that computer? I mean, people program
computers.
What are we asking the computers to tell us? Are those
recommendations reviewed once the case has been burped out by
the computer? Where are they reviewed and the decision made,
does the discretion to go forward with a case simply reside
with the agent? I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I would urge you to be here tomorrow.
Senator Moseley-Braun. I will.
The Chairman. We will have a representative from the IRS,
and I think a number of those questions would be very
appropriate to propound then.
Senator Moseley-Braun. Well, I thought if they got the
questions now then they could not just sit there and say, well,
we will get back to you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Moseley-Braun.
Senator Moseley-Braun. Thank you.
The Chairman. Again, I want to express my appreciation to
each of you. I know that there is significant risk for any of
you to appear here under these circumstances, but I think it is
critically important.
I want to underscore what Senator Grassley and others said
to you, Ms. Long, that you are only doing your civic duty by
being here today and we will watch with interest your future
opportunities and career.
Ms. Long. Well, I thank you very much for your assurances.
The Chairman. I thank all of you again. We undoubtedly will
be in contact with you later as we proceed with these hearings.
Thank you very much.
The committee is in recess.
[Whereupon, at 3:27 p.m. the hearing was recessed, to
reconvene at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, September 25, 1997.]
PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Finance,
Washington, DC.
The hearing was convened, pursuant to recess, at 9:06 a.m.,
in room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. William V.
Roth, Jr. (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Also present: Senators Chafee, Grassley, Hatch, D'Amato,
Murkowski, Nickles, Gramm, Lott, Mack, Moynihan, Baucus,
Rockefeller, Breaux, Conrad, Graham, Moseley-Braun, Bryan, and
Kerrey.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., A U.S. SENATOR
FROM DELAWARE, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
The Chairman. The committee will please be in order. This
is the third day of this set of hearings.
And I want to say I was pleased to read this morning in a
press release that Deputy Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers, in
an interview Wednesday, agreed that there is a need for a
cultural change in IRS.
I am pleased to read that, because I think in order to
bring about the kind of reform--the kind of change that is
essential--it's going to be important for all bodies of concern
to recognize the problem.
And we are particularly pleased to welcome today our first
panel which is made up of five current IRS employees and one
former employee.
These people have come before the committee to relate from
their own experiences how the agency works, a view from the
inside.
In fairness, we recognize that these individuals speak only
for themselves, not for the IRS, but what they bring to this
hearing is a cross section of several different segments of the
agency itself.
You will hear from collection officers, auditors, lawyers,
and even inspection personnel, the IRS' form of internal
affairs.
And another reason to listen well to the statements of
these witnesses is that they range from 8 years of service to
over 35 years of service with the majority of the witnesses
having served the IRS for over 20 years.
I am grateful for their cooperation and appearance today.
These witnesses have asked for their identity to be
protected, but have provided their credentials to a member of
both the majority and minority staff.
I want to say to each and every one of them how much I
appreciate their being here today.
I know it takes a great deal of courage to come here and
testify. I want them to know that they will have our continued
support for being here.
What they are doing is discharging their public
responsibility as a responsible civil servant.
And to each one of you, thank you for your contribution.
Now, because of the height of the screen, I would ask that
you remain seated while I administer the oath.
[Whereupon, the six witnesses were duly sworn.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Now, we will proceed with the testimony.
I do want to remind the witnesses, as well as my colleagues
that the witnesses are prohibited from disclosing taxpayer
information which is protected by Internal Revenue Code,
section 6103.
I just call that to your attention, to the members of the
committee because it is a matter of concern in their questions.
At this time, it is my pleasure to call on Witness No. 1.
STATEMENT OF WITNESS NO. 1
Witness No. 1. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you and this committee.
The Chairman. Would you let me just interrupt?
A number of witnesses have asked that we use a mechanism
which also distorts the voice. And that's the reason that you
will get the sound in certain instances.
Please proceed.
Witness No. 1. I spent the last 25 years either working for
the Internal Revenue Service Collection Division or
representing taxpayers before the IRS Collection Division.
I have collected taxes for the IRS from thousands of
taxpayers. And I have also represented hundreds of taxpayers
with tax problem before the Collection Division.
It is my sincere hope that my testimony today will serve to
improve the operation of the IRS for the benefit of the
taxpaying public.
The Internal Revenue Code does not abuse taxpayers. A
complicated tax code may result in some unfair taxation, but
rarely is the cause of abuse while multi-page tax forms also do
not in themselves cause abuse, frustration maybe, but not
abuse. Even an audit while certainly stressful should not
result in taxpayer abuse.
What then has been the outcry of American citizens about
the abuse from the IRS and the many media reports of the heavy
hand used by the IRS?
Abuse of the taxpaying public occurs when the IRS
improperly and sometimes illegally uses its vast power in the
process of implementing some type of enforcement of the tax
laws.
Enforcement is the levy of a paycheck or bank account, the
seizure of a car, a home, or a business.
It can also result in the forced liquidation of a
taxpayer's life savings, IRA, or retirement account.
There is only one small part of the IRS that implements all
of these types of enforcement. And that is the IRS Collection
Division.
The Collection Division is charged with the collection of
unpaid taxes and the securing of un-filed delinquent tax
returns.
The Collection Division serves wage and bank levies, files
tax liens, seizes cars, homes, and businesses to enforce the
collection of unpaid taxes.
The Collection Division takes literally hundreds of
enforcement actions every day. Yes, that's hundreds of actions
against taxpayers every day.
This results in some abuse of taxpayers on a daily basis.
It is the Collection Division of the IRS that is
responsible for the overwhelming majority of enforcements and
actions.
Enforced collection of unpaid taxes is a necessity. As a
result, the danger of taxpayer abuse is both inherent and
inevitable.
Many taxpayers will feel they have been abused simply
because they do not like the fact that they are being compelled
to pay their fair share.
We understand that that comes with the territory when
enforced collection of taxes is part of one's every day job.
So how does one fair out the true cases of taxpayer abuse?
The answer to that question is the important issue to be
addressed.
First of all, does the IRS correct abuses when they become
aware of them? Oftentimes, they do.
However, the more important question is, does the IRS cover
up abuses? The answer is, yes.
If the true number of incidence of taxpayer abuse were ever
known, the public would be appalled.
If the public also ever knew the number of abuses covered
up by the IRS, there could be a tax revolt.
Why do we not know of these covered up abuses? The answer
is simple. The IRS protects itself by management support of
management actions whether those actions are right or wrong.
This acceptance of abusive actions by management is the
root cause of taxpayer abuse.
The initial cause of taxpayer abuse is IRS employees who
actually implement enforcement actions, many of which are
approved by management in advance.
The enforcement may be necessary. However, it is the
improper or sometimes illegal enforcement that causes
unnecessary abuse.
Sadly, some employees repeatedly do not follow proper
collection policies and procedures and thereby repeatedly abuse
taxpayers.
There are several reasons why this occurs. One, many IRS
tax collectors, revenue officers, but more importantly,
managers are not properly trained in IRS policies and Internal
Revenue Manual procedures.
Many revenue officers, but more importantly managers often
respond that the Internal Revenue Manual policies and
procedures are guidelines only and do not the carry the force
of law.
Three, many revenue officers learn the general perception
from management that most tax debtors are trying to cheat the
government, are crooks or flakes and are generally not willing
to pay their fair share of taxes.
Many revenue officers capitalize on the taxpayer's inherent
fear of the IRS and the intimidation that they can inflict on
taxpayers without any consequence for their improper
enforcement.
Five, revenue officers often with management approval use
enforcement to punish taxpayers instead of trying to collect
the most money for the government.
There is an IRS policy statement on collecting principles,
P-5-2 No. 7 which is the most often ignored.
In part, it states ``We should help taxpayers who try to
comply with the law and take appropriate enforcement actions
when taxpayers resist complying.''
Good judgment is needed in selecting the appropriate
collecting tool.
The key word here is ``resist'' complying. If this one
policy statement were properly applied, it would eliminate most
all taxpayer abuse, but it is IRS management that must lead the
way.
The most important factor in all the foregoing information
is that occasional front-line employee errors in judgment,
violations of the Internal Revenue Manual, and lack of
understanding of policies statements are to be expected.
However, what is not acceptable is front-line management's
support of these mistakes.
What is unconscionable is upper management's support or
tolerance of front-line management abuse of taxpayers.
The bottom line is that the abuse of taxpayers by the IRS
is most often caused by the Collection Division. And the
problem with the Collection Division is mismanagement.
The following are some general scenarios of Internal
Revenue Manual violations and taxpayer abuse that I have
personally encountered.
One, on far too many occasions when a taxpayer fails or
forgets to supply one or two items of a long list requested by
the revenue officer, the officer's response is the heavy hammer
of a paycheck or bank levy.
Two, even when a taxpayer is represented by a power of
attorney, the representative is quite often treated more
aggressively than the taxpayer.
Revenue officers generally learn from management the
perception that most representatives intentionally try to delay
the resolution of a case.
This attitude is what causes the greatest animosity between
the tax representation community and the IRS.
Disregarding the policy statement that I read to you
earlier results in damaging the credibility of the IRS and the
integrity of the revenue officer.
Three, quite often, the revenue officer finds a specious
reason to serve levies on the very source of income or assets
that the taxpayer disclosed to the IRS.
Again, this only serves to undermine the credibility and
integrity of the IRS.
It is no wonder that the taxpaying public has an aversion
to providing any information to the IRS.
It is an aversion created by the IRS' repeated misuse of
information provided to them by the cooperative taxpayer.
Four, when a levy is served in error or prematurely, even
when the IRS admits that the levy was improperly served, the
routine IRS response is that when the taxpayer provides
additional information, the IRS will consider releasing the
levy.
When the information is provided, the IRS adds insult to
injury by not releasing the levy.
The IRS cannot seem to grasp the concept that when it makes
a mistake, it should reverse the error immediately, no matter
what the consequence to the IRS.
Five, revenue officers routinely violate the relationship
with the taxpayer representative by contacting the taxpayer
directly.
It is also a common practice of revenue officers and front-
line managers to try to intimidate a taxpayer representative
into thinking that the IRS has the right, false though it may
be, to interview the taxpayer personally.
Six, I have heard of revenue officers trying to discourage
taxpayers from hiring representatives and making disparaging
and slanderous statements about representatives.
Today, many taxpayer representatives know IRS collection
procedures better than the revenue officers. And this becomes a
threat to the revenue officer.
In many instances, I have heard and experienced more harsh
treatment of representatives simply because the representative
was former IRS. And this leads to violating the rights of the
taxpayer.
Seven, the Internal Revenue Manual states that reasonable,
necessary living expenses are always allowed.
However, on more than one occasion, I have seen the IRS
punish a taxpayer by not allowing reasonable, necessary living
expenses, even current tax payments.
Why? Because the revenue officer and the manager did not
think the taxpayer obeyed their commands appropriately and
simply felt that the taxpayer could somehow survive without
reasonable, necessary living expenses.
Eight, a revenue officer with the IRS District Counsel
concurrence can serve what are termed ``nominee liens'' and
levies against third parties whom the IRS believes are in
possession of assets belonging to the taxpayer.
The problem is that the IRS is not required to provide
documentation to the taxpayer or the third party supporting the
basis of their beliefs.
The IRS basically has the attitude, sue us to prove that we
are wrong.
I have seen more violations of IRS procedures and policies
than I can count.
The most appalling aspect of the foregoing examples is that
in most every instance, IRS management supported the erroneous
actions of the revenue officer.
The Problem Resolution Office or the taxpayer's advocate is
responsible for protecting the taxpayer from IRS abuse.
But having appealed many taxpayer abuses to the PRO, I
found them to be useless.
If the public thinks that the PRO is being objective in
assisting with abuse cases, the public is being hoodwinked.
What are the solutions to end this suffering of repeated
abuses? I have two basic answers.
First, require the IRS to follow its Internal Revenue
Manual as though it were law.
The IRS should be required to follow the manual to the
letter.
Taxpayers are required to follow complicated tax return
instructions. So why shouldn't the IRS be required to follow
their own procedures?
Second, make the IRS and management responsible for
violations of manual procedures. By that, I do not mean holding
front-line employees responsible for accidental or
unintentional mistakes.
However, when upper management condones the violations
which bring great detriment to taxpayers, then management
should be held personally responsible.
As only one taxpayer representative out of thousands across
the country, I have seen dozens of taxpayers severely damaged
and even made homeless by the IRS Collection Division.
The true bottom line solution to resolving taxpayer abuses
is IRS management.
Restitution by an administrative claim as opposed to court
action for erroneous or improper actions would be a giant step
in the right direction.
But who will decide when the action is improper? If left in
the hands of the IRS, you will have an IRS proud of the fact
that they paid out a minimal amount of restitution funds over
the course of the year.
The culture of the IRS must change. And it will not change
on its own.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I now turn to Witness No. 2. Please proceed.
[The prepared statement of Witness No. 1 appears in the
appendix.]
STATEMENT OF WITNESS NO. 2
Witness No. 2. Mr. Chairman and respective members of the
Finance Committee----
The Chairman. Would you pull the microphone a little
closer, please?
Witness No. 2. It's a pleasure to be able to address you
here today. Currently, I am a Criminal Investigator for the
Internal Revenue Service's Internal Security Division.
IRS' Internal Security Division has a multi-functional
purpose. In a broad sense, we're like a Federal office of
Inspector General or a local police department's internal
affairs unit.
Our main responsibilities conducting investigations into
allegations of IRS employee misconduct, outside attempts to
correct the administration of Internal Revenue laws, and
employee safety.
I am here to speak about some of the problems I have
observed in performing my work for the Internal Security
Division.
By the nature of our mission, it is imperative that we be
unencumbered in opening and investigating violations of the law
within the scope of our office.
However, the culture and climate of the Internal Revenue
Service often prevents Internal Security from fulfilling our
responsibilities.
In addition, the distrustful and secretive nature of the
IRS often hinders an investigation.
A lack of independence from district and regional forces
intent on not tarnishing IRS' image has reduced administrative
sanctions against employees to a point where they have no
effect on controlling employee conduct.
IRS does not want bad press on employee conduct at a time
when the agency's public image is at a low point.
This has affected who we investigate and what happens after
an investigation has been completed.
Allegations against Internal Revenue Service managers and
National Treasury Employee Union officials have not been
investigated.
The IRS is aware of the administration's favorable view of
the unions. The NTEU greatly benefits from this.
High-level internal security employees do not want to take
on a case involving union or union officials.
Allegations against IRS managers, including Criminal
Investigation Division managers are only worked when an
allegation is serious and internal management cannot find a way
out of assigning a case, as when it has made the newspaper or
other people are aware of it.
Some internal security managers believe that there is a
bond between IRS managers that should be maintained in the name
of working relations.
There have been violations concerning the taxpayer's
attorney/client privilege. IRS management often knows of these
violations for months before reporting them to Internal
Security. These types of cases can involve compromises of
privileged communications.
Investigation into serious allegations are shortened by
nature of a 180-day baseline.
Six months is insufficient time to conduct a complex
investigation, especially when new allegations are developed
during the investigation.
After 180 days, the investigator and the immediate manager
start to feel pressure on closing a case.
This is where the IRS' bean counter mentality hurts us. And
employee cases are considered an actionable case.
That means prove it or not, opening the case earns the
agent credit or a stat.
A case not involving an employee only gets a stat if there
is judicial action.
In other words, hypothetically, a case involving armed
militia or anti-government forces get less credit for the
Inspection Division than a case involving the misuse of a
government car by an IRS employee.
Management feels that since the stat is obtained just by
opening an employee case, there is no justification to have any
case older than 180 days.
Proven violations of criminal misconduct against an
employee have been whitewashed by Internal Revenue Service
managers and labor relations. Serious violations, such as
browsing, unauthorized access to taxpayer's records, and
unauthorized release of taxpayer's information have received
nothing more than counseling letters.
These letters are often removed from the employee's
personnel file after a year. This kind of action does not serve
as a deterrent for misconduct.
The IRS can and does investigate its own employees when it
is suspected that an employee has acted improperly or
illegally.
However, Internal Security management has improperly
notified and kept the IRS district management officials abreast
of these investigations.
Such investigations are supposed to be kept confidential.
However, more often than not, if these investigations target
employees who are friends of management, they will be informed
of the probe in time to quit the agency before adverse personal
action can be initiated against them.
Another example would be someone who is a rising star that
is favored by management. When they are notified, they can take
steps to minimize the consequence of their actions.
Once an employee resigns, it's rare that a U.S. attorney
will accept the case for prosecution.
At the same time there is outside interference on the
Internal Security's mission, there are internal pressures that
correct our ethical standards and place morale at low levels.
Internal Security managers exhibit arrogance while they
themselves violate laws and commit prohibitive personal
practices.
Investigators have been told by Internal Security managers
to record conversations of other IRS employees without the
Attorney General's approval.
In other words, we have been directed to make non-
consentual recordings of other employees without filling
Justice Department requirements.
Investigators are often not able to share taxpayer
information on a multi-agency investigation.
Yet, Internal Security managers have unofficially provided
taxpayer information to managers at other agencies.
IRS Internal Security managers are notorious for committing
prohibitive personnel practices. After an employee litigates,
settles out of court or obtains a favorable grievance or a
Merit System Protection Board ruling, the agency takes the
corrective action without consequence to the offending manager.
In other words, a manager violates an employee's rights.
The employee seeks and obtains redress from the agency. But the
manager is never sanctioned for violating the employee's rights
in the first place.
There is no consequence of the offending manager's action.
Internal Security managers are aware of how difficult it is
for an employee to litigate against the agency.
After all, the agency and their managers do not pay for
legal representation. If a manager does not like an employee
for personal reasons, there is nothing to stop the manager from
violating the employee's rights.
This is an ``us versus them'' mentality that is more
flagrant at this agency than anywhere else that I've seen.
The corporate culture at 1111 Constitution Avenue is not
conducive towards independent, well-worked criminal
investigations.
In general, IRS pushes employees to open and close a tax or
collection matter as quickly as they can.
Often getting the proper tax is secondary to reducing
overall case load as quickly as possible.
For Internal Security, this ``bean counter'' mentality
means numbers, numbers, numbers, cases opened, cases closed.
Let's count them up so we can report at the end of the year
what a good job we've done.
Quality, where is that found in the accountant's book?
Matters that were never investigated before because they
did not warrant investigation are now opened as cases just so
we have more numbers to report.
In a way, this has created an atmosphere that has given us
many of our employee misconduct cases.
However, criminal law does not afford us the opportunity to
work an investigation in the same manner.
As long as Internal Security is part of the IRS, there can
be no real oversight or independence. We are just part of the
greater problem.
Over my 20 years of service, I've become painfully aware of
the ability of IRS to retaliate against employees who dare to
speak out.
Many of the witnesses you will have before you in this
hearing could be retaliated against for their testimony before
this committee.
At times, I have been assigned an employee case and been
told that management does not like that employee.
I've been told I need to find something that they can use
to terminate their employment.
In the IRS, retaliation is swift and severe. I know of
three cases off the top of my head where employees have spoken
out.
During prior reorganizations, the IRS eliminated a prior
manager's job. He had to fight, litigate to some sort of a
safety net for him to continue to retirement.
Another manager that spoke out and asked questions
inappropriately was counseled to go to an employee assistance
program for counseling because he dared to rock the boat.
Another person complained to their Congressman. And it was
held the against the employee during promotion and advancement.
I hope you will respect the risk that these witnesses took
to appear before you and protect them from any act of revenge
by IRS management. We all have families.
I came here today not to harm this agency, but to help it
heal. You must decide the best method to accomplish the goal.
The IRS cannot heal itself, so others and I have taken the
chance that you are serious about changing and improving this
agency.
I thank you for the opportunity to participate in the
healing process.
The Chairman. Well, I want to thank you for your testimony
today. I recognize that you have served 20 years in the service
of the IRS.
I can assure you that I and this committee will do
everything in our power to protect those of you who have had
the courage and public sense of duty to come here and testify.
And I appreciate your testimony.
Witness No. 2. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Witness No. 2 appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. I will now call upon Witness No. 3.
STATEMENT OF WITNESS NO. 3
Witness No. 3. Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the
Finance Committee. I am presently a grade 12 Revenue Officer
which is also identified----
The Chairman. Would you move the microphone a little
closer, please?
Witness No. 3. Which is also identified as a Field
Collection Officer with the Internal Revenue Service.
I have worked as a Revenue Officer for over 35 years,
having begun my career with the IRS when John Kennedy was
President.
I am here this morning to cite numerous incidents that I
have observed in the course of my career as a Collection
Officer with the IRS.
I hope to use these examples to assist you and the
committee in making our agency a better place and ensure
greater fairness for the American people.
Over the last few months, you have heard a great deal about
browsing of taxpayer files. Allow me to focus on this problem
for a moment and describe to you specific situations that I
have personally observed in the IRS work place which I once
considered commonplace.
Tax data being accessed by IRS employees to check on
prospective boyfriends.
Tax data being accessed by IRS employees to check ex-
husbands for increasing income in order to receive increased
child support payments.
Tax data being accessed on people with whom IRS employees
were having some kind of personal disagreement.
Tax data being accessed on locally prominent or newsworthy
individuals, public figures, even team coaches.
Tax data being accessed out of simple curiosity about a
friend, a relative or an employee's neighbor.
Tax data being accessed on individuals who are perceived as
critical of the IRS, such as people labeled tax protestors or,
as in one case, a person who had simply written a letter to the
editor.
The following instances, which I consider to be
institutional misuse of taxpayer information, are cases in
which the IRS has tacitly sanctioned looking up data on
citizens who are not the subject of any investigation being
conducted.
Tax data being accessed on relatives and acquaintances of
the subject taxpayer, such as cases where the taxpayer is
suspected of using friends and relatives to hide income or
assets.
Tax data being accessed on potential witnesses in
government tax cases.
Tax data being accessed on jurors sitting on government tax
cases.
Senators, there is no excuse for this type of action.
Until recent years, the agency had an almost casual
attitude about privacy and misuse of taxpayer records.
It has tightened up now to the point that good employees,
who never think of browsing or gaining illicit tax accesses,
are fearful that they may be subjected to investigation for an
innocent error.
I have witnessed other serious abuses by the IRS. While
these are separate incidents, they are indicative of a
pervasive disregard of law and regulations designed to achieve
production goals for either management or the individual agent.
One particular incident that occurred in 1994 shows how at
least some managers figure they can get away with almost
anything.
A listening device was discovered to exist in our IRS
office. Its ostensible purpose was a public address system, but
the users--managers and secretaries, had a receiving capability
as well.
With the receiving capability in place, they could press a
button and overhear conversations taking place in the employee
break room.
While I have no personal information of the existence of
similar devices, I understand from others that some indeed
existed in conference rooms used by taxpayers and their
representatives.
A co-worker and I found the device in the break room and
learned how it worked.
Learning of our discovery, higher-level officials
immediately had the devices removed and attempted a reprisal by
initiating an investigation of those who brought the matter to
light.
Another instance involved what would be called fraud if it
were perpetuated by any other institution.
And I still cannot believe it was done in the face of my
objection. This was the case of a fake tax lien.
While I made the matter known to superiors, they did not
even seem to want to hear about it.
When a taxpayer gets a notice a tax due from the IRS, a
lien on the taxpayer's property arises under the Internal
Revenue Service Code.
To be effective against third parties and lenders, a notice
of lien must be filed in the local court house.
The public accepts that the IRS files only legitimate
notices, but this is the case a notice was filed by the IRS
when there was no assessment and no legitimate lien.
Mr. Chairman, there must be an assessment of tax due in
order to file a lien. That is the law.
And if that wasn't bad enough, the IRS asserted its
seemingly correct lien against a third party. And that third
party, a bank, had no way of knowing that the lien was not
legitimate.
The amount involved was not large, only a few thousand
dollars, but the collection employees were motivated to close
the case rather than take the correct and legal action and lift
the false lien.
In this case, the Service acted illegally by collecting
money from the taxpayer and quietly closing the case.
I believe this instance is indicative of a systematic
problem plaguing the agency.
It's original mission of collecting tax revenues has now
become incidental to the production of statistics.
A case that is written off as uncollectible, a Form 53, is
counted as a closed case just the same as if it were fully
collected.
When I started with the IRS in the early 1960's, warning
flags went up if uncollectible accounts amounted to more than
15 percent.
I have now seen months in which over 60 percent of case
closures were ``53'd'' closed as uncollectible.
Senators, I have voluntarily come before you today to
relate to you some of the deep concerns I have regarding the
current mind-set of the IRS.
I have been in a position to watch the gradual changes
taking place among IRS management and agency attitude.
These are not positive changes. And I'm very concerned
about the Service's future role.
Although my comments today may appear negative and anti-
agency, it is my sincerest hope that they will help to bring
about the opposite result.
I hope you will come to the aid of the IRS with the
positive and forthright oversight it so badly needs.
The IRS needs help. It needs careful attention it cannot
possibly provide itself.
The help must come from the outside through effective and
forthright oversight of an ailing system.
It is my deepest hope that this hearing will initiate these
badly needed steps.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Again, I would remind the members of the panel of the
committee that this witness has had over 35 years of experience
with the agency.
And I can assure him that what we seek to do is to bring
about reform that will be fair to the taxpayers and fair to the
IRS employees.
[The prepared statement of Witness No. 3 appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. It is now my pleasure to call on Witness No.
4.
STATEMENT OF WITNESS NO. 4
Witness No. 4. Mr. Chairman, Senators, thank you for
allowing me to appear before you today and share with you some
personal observations I have made during the more than 25 years
I have been employed by the Internal Revenue Service.
For the majority of these years, I have served as a Revenue
Officer in the IRS Collection Division.
Until very recently, I felt a great sense of pride in my
job. I actually looked forward to going to work.
Over this past year, however, I have seen dramatic changes
take place in this organization. And in my opinion, most were
not for the good of the Service or the public that we are
supposed to serve.
In the past, with few exceptions, I felt that management
truly cared for its employees.
I find this no longer to be the case. I have never seen
overall morale in the IRS as low as it is right now.
Many of my fellow colleagues have expressed to me recently
that they no longer feel motivated. And many are feeling the
physical and emotional effects of constant stress.
Management fails to acknowledge employee concerns as
evidenced by the fact that they refuse to hear grievances or
address work-place concerns.
Managers fail to realize that if the employees are under
stress or disillusioned with the Service, their attitude will
surely flow to the taxpayers, the people we are paid to serve.
I have recently seen many abuses by IRS managers, as well
as first-line employees. These abuses range from the deception
of taxpayers to gross misuse of travel funds.
I could write a book on the subject of IRS abuse of both
its employees and of the American taxpayers. Please allow me to
provide some brief examples.
But before doing so, allow me to point out that I have
never had a performance problem during my employment with the
IRS.
To the contrary, I have received numerous annual
performance awards. So I am not here today because I have an ax
to grind.
I truly hope that by appearing before you that I can
contribute positively to restore pride in our organization and
reestablish the confidence of taxpayers.
The area that causes me significant concern is the widely
varied treatment that taxpayers can and do receive.
The IRS approach for the taxpayer can vary dramatically,
depending upon the IRS group manager, whose group is assigned
the case, depending on the employee working the case, and/or
depending on the Collection Division policy in effect at the
time the case is received.
For example, you may have one business owner who is allowed
to make monthly payments on delinquent employment taxes, while
another business owner with the same set of circumstances is
put out of business or forced into bankruptcy.
One taxpayer may have their taxes written off as
uncollectible, while another taxpayer under the identical
conditions may be forced to pay their taxes in full or risk
losing a home or business.
Taxpayers deserve a consistent and fair policy when it
involves the survival of their businesses.
Another concern I have is based on the fact that the
collection initiatives change regularly.
It appears that management is more concerned about
maintaining high statistics than the quality of work being
performed or even whether the taxes are collected are simply
written off.
Whenever there is pressure to maintain high statistics and
the performance levels of the different departments within the
organization are a source of constant comparison, you can be
certain that someone is going to suffer the consequences of
such an explosive situation. And it's usually going to be the
taxpayer.
Recently, a revenue officer planned an elaborate sale to
dispose of assets seized from a taxpayer. Many IRS employees
were invited to help in the effort. The group manager was also
present.
Even though the revenue officer failed to achieve the
minimum bid, as required by law, before selling the assets, he
went ahead and sold the property at a significant loss to the
taxpayer.
Property which had a minimum bid of at least $40,000 was
sold for roughly $7,000.
Although this wrongdoing was found out and the revenue
officer now faces possible disciplinary action, the real victim
is the uncompensated taxpayer.
In terms of travel abuse, I know of situations where
managers arrange travel to outlying IRS offices simply to
accommodate their own personal travel.
They charge the government mileage and occasionally even a
night's lodging in their effort to get to their final vacation
destination.
A previous district director who had a condo at the beach
would frequently make brief appearances at the outlying IRS
offices while his family waited for him in the car.
When his visit was over, he and his family would simply
continue their drive to the beach.
All of this was done at the taxpayer's expense while
management was telling employees that they had to conserve on
official travel and that overnight lodging was not permitted.
While this may seem minor compared to many other things
that you will hear in this hearing, trust me when I say that
these activities by management have a devastating effect on
morale.
In another abuse of travel funds, a Collection Division
chief assigned a revenue officer in their office to travel out
of state in an effort to check up on the work habits of other
IRS employees.
Extensive travel was involved. And the secret investigation
of one of our agents caused significant confusion among
taxpayers and IRS employees alike.
When contacted by this IRS employee who was following up
behind the work of the real case agent, some taxpayers called
their local IRS offices.
Some local officials initially thought that an impostor was
at work.
In fact, a taxpayer with whom I had been working with was
contacted by this spy employee and contacted me wanting to know
what was going on.
Fortunately, in this case, nothing detrimental occurred to
effect my taxpayer's case.
But the manner in which this secret study was conducted was
underhanded and humiliating to the rest of the employees
involved.
In addition, if this information was determined to be of
such importance to this out-of-state Collection Division chief,
why not inquire about such information in a professional,
above-board manner, not deceptively behind employees' back.
The effort undoubtedly would have been far more effective,
less disruptive, and certainly far less costly to everyone
involved, taxpayers and IRS employees alike.
Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate being afforded this
opportunity to inform this committee of what I have observed
while working with the IRS, and the great disservice the
actions of some of my colleagues have brought upon unsuspecting
and undeserving taxpayers, not to mention each other.
When the American taxpayer is defrauded of their due
rights, we all stand to suffer.
It is not a pleasure for me to share such stories with you.
These stories are about my colleagues, those with whom I work.
But my intention to do so is simple. I, too, am an American
taxpayer. And I'm asking this committee to return the Service's
management and operational standards to the level that will
again earn my own trust, as well as all the trust of the
taxpaying American.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. I appreciate very much your testimony today.
Again, I would point out that you have served in the IRS
for 25 years. And we take very seriously what you have to say
today.
[The prepared statement of Witness No. 4 appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. Now, I will call upon Witness No. 5.
STATEMENT OF WITNESS NO. 5
Witness No. 5. Good morning. I am a long-term employee of
the Internal Revenue Service, employed as a Revenue Officer.
I am appearing before you today to bring to your attention
concerns shared by many of the employees in my district.
In the past 2 years, all of the standards of ethics by
which we have been led to believe were an integral part of our
job and responsibility in dealing fairly with both taxpayers
and employees have been replaced with practices that were
widely viewed as not only unethical, but often illegal.
To elaborate on this statement, let me refer you to IRS
policy statement P-1-20 which essentially states that employees
will not be evaluated on statistics.
This mandate was made in an effort to ensure that taxpayers
would be treated fairly by the Internal Revenue Service so as
to curtail the IRS from being overly zealous in their
collection activity.
However, our office has taken to disregarding this policy
and has unfairly targeted long-term, good employees in an
effort to motivate others into making more seizures.
We are told that if we are to justify our jobs, we must
prove that we are willing to take strong enforcement action.
I would like to point out to you that my evaluations over
the years have always been very high.
I am considered to be one of the most effective collection
officers in my district.
However, I find it disturbing to learn that even though I
collect more money with a substantially high number of my cases
paying in full that I am now evaluated on my number of seizures
rather than my overall effectiveness.
The message we are receiving from upper management is let's
take the action that will get us noticed. Don't worry about
whether it's the right thing to do or not.
Many other issues have come to my attention over the course
of time that have created a threatening environment for myself
and many other employees.
Examples of these issues are: managers are targeted for
termination on the basis of who their friends are.
Statistics are manipulated to make it appear that our
office is producing much higher statistics than what is
factual.
Selected employees are encouraged to file EEO complaints on
the basis of trumped up charges with the promise that their
claim will be settled so they can then be promoted unfairly
without having to compete for the job against more qualified
employees.
Revenue officers have been directed to release seized
assets because management personally feels indebted to the
taxpayer's representative, a former IRS employee and a friend
of management.
The list of code and ethics violations is too long and
cumbersome for me to further elaborate on at this time.
I will be happy to provide the committee with further
documentation and information under proper disclosure
guidelines.
However, I am willing to answer any questions you may have.
I am not revealing my identity here today for fear I would
run the risk of retaliation, not only for myself, but for my
colleagues with whom I work.
However, I am thankful that you permitted me this
opportunity to come before you to make my concerns for the
agency known to you.
If I did not believe in this agency, I would not have
dedicated many years of my life working for it.
However, motivation to execute one's responsibility should
not be based on statistics at the expense of quality, nor
should motivation be based on unfair competition among
colleagues for promotion, nor for any other reason I sadly
offered to you today.
I hope you can bring integrity back to the IRS and allow
the good and ethical employees to do their jobs well while
serving the American taxpayers with a fairness they deserve.
You have an opportunity to take an action which would
improve the integrity of the Service, relieve stress on
employees who are already in a position classified as one of
the most stressful in the country, provide for more fair and
equitable treatment of the taxpaying public, while encouraging
more efficient collection of outstanding taxes to support our
country.
I thank you for your efforts to address this issue.
The Chairman. Thank you for your testimony.
Again, we are much concerned and interested in ensuring the
employees of IRS of working in a fair and equitable
environment.
[The prepared statement of Witness No. 5 appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. Finally, it is my pleasure to call on Witness
No. 6.
STATEMENT OF WITNESS NO. 6
Witness No. 6. Mr. Chairman and honorable members of this
committee, I thank this committee for the light of day it is
attempting to shed at the IRS.
I am a Criminal Investigator in the Inspection Division of
the IRS which is responsible for investigating among other
things allegations of IRS employee misconduct and responding to
and investigating threats and assaults perpetrated against IRS
employees.
I have over 24 years of law enforcement experience. I am
appearing here today at great personal risk to my career with
the IRS.
But given the current climate in the IRS, I feel a need to
bring to light and express my concerns.
I have personally seen how vindictive IRS management can be
in retaliating against those who express conflicting opinions,
different to their own or do not conform and blindly follow and
agree with the corporate mentality and attitude.
I know only too well how IRS management has tried to kill
the messenger while ignoring the message.
I am not here today to hurt or bash this agency or the vast
majority of hard working, dedicated, career public servants who
staff IRS services and serve the public well.
But I have seen the efforts by IRS management to try and
heal itself. And they are just window dressing to appease you
in Congress, while behind the shield of taxpayer secrecy, they
shun public accountability and oversight. And so it's business
as usual.
The IRS and the public need and deserve no less than a
strong independent, fully staffed and fully funded inspection
division, able to carry out its investigative mission
independent of interference or manipulation, subtle or
otherwise, from within or without.
A track record of falsehood and misrepresentation, poor or
nonexisting communication, and a service-wide distrust of
management has taken its toll in the IRS and perpetuates from
the top down.
The current atmosphere of impunity or arrogance and
indifference, three generations of nationwide surveys of IRS
employees bears this out.
For example, during IRS all manager training conducted in
the late 1980's, one of the blocks of instructions dealing with
employees stated that it was acceptable and permissible to lie
or mislead as long as it accomplished the goals and missions of
the agency.
This was told to me by a former manager who attended this
training and could not believe the IRS condoned and instructed
its managers to do this.
He very vocally questioned the ethics and appearance of
such a course of action. And subsequently, his position with
the IRS, coincidentally or not, was later eliminated in one of
the IRS' reorganizations.
These reorganizations did no more than change job titles
and upgrade middle and first-line managers' salary levels.
It did nothing to improve conditions or staffing for the
field agents.
The current proposed office closures and RIFS being
proposed for field personnel with Inspection are in stark
contrast to the apparently super human, gerrymandering efforts
employed to retain displaced inspection managers' positions
whose positions were abolished in the 1992 and 1995
reorganization and restructuring.
Ad hoc and previously nonexisting positions were created,
as well as extended, long-term acting assignments on full per
diem as golden parachutes to reward these managers when viable
candidates existed to immediately fill any vacancies without
undue taxpayer expense.
No such efforts or special dispensation is now being
offered for field personnel who since February have been put on
notice that their positions are targeted for elimination and
their offices being shut down.
With the closure of these offices, the nearest investigator
could be hundreds of miles or states away.
Three members of this committee are having Inspection
offices in their areas closed or severely gutted, losing
valuable liaison with local law enforcement and other Federal
law enforcement agencies.
Criminal investigations cannot be conducted in the same
methodology and goals as audits. In criminal investigations,
many factors outside the agent's control dictate and affect--
I'm sorry. I've missed a page.
A track record of falsehood--in criminal investigations,
many factors outside the agent's control dictate and affect
duration and scope of the investigative process, such as the
availability of witnesses, documents, the United States
attorney's office, vacations, training, etcetera.
By ascribing artificial time constraint to criminal
investigations as is now the practice has a chilling effect on
creativity and depth of an investigation and sends out the
message to the investigator to open and close cases as soon as
possible.
The message received by the investigator is that quality is
sacrificed for quantity, numbers, and stats.
The attitude is ``big cases, big problems, little cases,
little problems.'' This atmospheres fosters mediocrity.
For example, in a long-term investigation, a manager told
the case agent to close out the current case and reopen it with
a new case number so it wouldn't hurt the group or the region
average and get it off the over-age case list.
Senior special agents in the Criminal Investigation
Division have told me that CID management encourages and
emphasizes opening and closing traditional tax cases what they
refer to as ``mom and pop'' cases which are easy stats and can
be opened and closed quickly in order to bolster CID's open
case day's average and numbers rather than investing time in
the large cases which require more time and resources to prove.
Big cases are often put off or overlooked in deference to
small, quick ones.
The agents complain that their experience and expertise is
being wasted in playing this statistics game.
And many become frustrated with this bean counter mentality
and leave the Service for more traditional, Federal law
enforcement jobs. The tail is wagging the dog.
Morale among inspection and CID investigators is at its
worse level I have ever experienced in my 24 years in law
enforcement.
Inspection is losing trained, veteran investigators who are
frustrated and disgusted and not waiting around for the RIF
hammer to fall again at the same time that managers' jobs are
being insulated and protected and are taking positions in other
law enforcement agencies.
Ironically, the Inspection Service will probably have to
hire and train at great expense new investigators to replace
those who have left or are riffed at a cost to taxpayers far
greater than retaining experience personnel and keeping field
offices open to provide service to IRS employees and the
public.
Another issue is the independence of Inspection from IRS
management. The Inspection Division's budget is directly
controlled by IRS.
By depleting or denying budget dollars, subtle limitations
are placed on who and what is investigated, as well as what
resources we get.
To give you an example, the last 2 months, August and
September, field investigators have been told there are no
travel funds to perform investigations that require overnight
travel.
Yet, not a week ago, all inspection managers met in a
resort in St. Simon's Island for one week at great taxpayer
expense.
Field agents believe that Inspection management is too
close and cozy with IRS management to effectively investigate
without subtle interference or pressure or the potential for
compromising an investigation.
Investigation into allegations of misconduct by IRS
management or a union official are not encouraged or pursued.
Management takes care of management.
By detaching the Inspection Division's criminal
investigative function, Internal Security, from Internal Audit
and realigning our function either under the Treasury Office of
Inspector General or the Office of the Under Secretary of the
Treasury for Enforcement or by remaining within IRS, but
reporting to an independent board and permanently fencing our
budget, this trend can be reversed.
An example of this manipulation was related to me about an
IRS commissioner who did not get the desired answer from
inspection last year and retaliated by threatening to cut the
funding for Inspection's forensic crime laboratory.
At a time when most other Federal law enforcement agencies
are expanding, why then IRS Inspection one of the only Federal
law enforcement agencies downsizing, closing field offices, and
proposing RIFS?
This is especially troubling to the field personnel when
case loads are increasing. Militia and tax protester activity
is at a violent, all-time high.
And new, anti-browsing legislation, out-sourcing of IRS
functions, and credit card tax payments promise to generate
additional work load nationwide.
A recent Chief Inspector's memo reports that although
fiscal year 98 budget funds 1,214 full-time positions,
Inspections is still planning to close field offices and do a
RIF to get down to 1,150 FTEs.
In fiscal year 99, this figure goes down to 1,035. This is
directly due to IRS rating the Inspection budget to bolster and
support the failed TSM Project and Year 2000 Project.
In a conversation with a member of Congress, it was his
opinion that Congress' mandate to the IRS was to streamline its
bloated management structure, not reducing service to the
public by reducing field positions and closing IRS field
offices.
The proposed Inspection restructuring targets only
experienced field personnel positions, while only one
management position in the entire Nation is slated for
elimination.
The field investigators ask, how can 105 field investigator
positions be eliminated without a corresponding reduction of
management positions?
This was simply accomplished by adjusting the span of
control in order to jealously horde and retain Inspection
management positions at the expense of field personnel and
offices and service to the public.
The issues which this committee and the public find most
distressing are the very focus of the Inspection Division:
unauthorized browsing and disclosure of taxpayer information
and egregious misconduct by IRS employees.
A reduction of field investigator personnel can only
negatively impact the IRS' ability to combat these problems.
An atmosphere of lack of consequences and non-
accountability contributes to escalating or instigating many of
the threats, assaults, resistance, and lack of cooperation
experienced by many IRS employees in their interaction with the
public.
I do not tolerate or condone resorting to the use of
threats or violence directed towards any government employee
who is doing the job we citizens empower them to do.
However, I have an understanding on how someone can be
driven to the edge with feelings of anger and frustration and
hopelessness when trying to deal with inflexible, indifferent,
impersonal bureaucracy.
As an IRS employee, I've experienced some of these
frustrations. I have observed a lack of ``meet and greet''
skills necessary for dealing with the public.
I have observed little or no accountability for misconduct,
for mistakes, and/or errors whether innocent or intentional.
And seldom, if ever, does the IRS or the responsible
employee apologize to the taxpayer for errors that are the
fault of the IRS, thus, again displaying an attitude to the
citizen of aloof indifference or plain arrogance.
Only recently, with all the media attention and scrutiny
have I heard an IRS employee apologize for a mistake.
Most of the complaints from taxpayers regarding abuse or
misconduct on the part of IRS employees do not arise to the
level of criminality or egregiousness at which my section would
normally get involved.
Such cases should be swiftly handled by the management of
the involved employee.
However, a desire to look good and meet dollar and time
ratio goals and a lack of resolve and initiative by management
create difficulty in disciplining abusive employees beyond much
more than a reprimand or a slap on the wrist.
Inspection is many times used as a tool by local IRS
management to get a troublesome employee, relieving that
employee's manager of their responsibility of having to deal
with this employee.
This another example of the bedfellows, cozy relationship
between Inspection management and local IRS management and
appearances of the lack of independence.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today. As employees, we are the IRS.
And unless you get views and input from the field, relying
entirely upon information supplied from 1111 Constitution, you
cannot possibly get a true picture of the problems or
atmosphere that exists and what needs to be changed.
I am grateful that you sought out the feelings, opinions,
and experience of the field personnel for this hearing.
As I stated when I began, it is not my desire to injure the
IRS in any way.
However, for the record, I am not a disgruntled or bitter
employee, but rather by informing you of some of the problems
that exist, you and this committee hopefully will provide the
IRS with the necessary tools, means, and much more importantly
the motivation to correct them.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you for being here today.
[The prepared statement of Witness 6 appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. I think we have a good cross section of the
agency and number of witnesses from different regions.
The one thing that is impressive is the number of years
that each of you have served with the government.
I would first like to ask each of you some general
questions. And then, I have a few individual questions that I
will propose.
I would say to the members of the committee, when you
direct a question to a particular witness, will you please make
it clear so that those behind the screen know who's being
questioned.
My first question is, how prevalent is the use of
retaliation by the IRS against its employees?
Witness No. 1.
Witness No. 1. Senator, I've been gone quite a long time.
And I don't know what they're doing on the inside at this
point.
The Chairman. Okay. No. 2.
Witness No. 2. I would say very.
The Chairman. Very?
Witness No. 2. Very prevalent.
The Chairman. Witness No. 3.
Witness No. 3. It is almost a knee-jerk reaction.
The Chairman. Witness No. 4.
Witness No. 4. It's very prevalent.
The Chairman. No. 5. Do you want to pass that other one
down so the three of you can use it?
Witness No. 5. The retaliation that occurs in our office is
almost on a daily basis, depending upon your individual
relationship with upper management.
The Chairman. Witness No. 6.
Witness No. 6. It is very prevalent. And it depends on
whether you're liked by management.
I would like to just read you a short paragraph from the
Treasury Inspector General's Semi-Annual Report that was just
issued recently.
``At the request of the former Under Secretary for
Enforcement, the Office of Inspector General, Office of
Oversight initiated a review of allegations involving the IRS
Mid-Atlantic Region, Office of Internal Security. The
allegations concern possible unethical, unprofessional
discriminatory practices by management officials. The
complainant also maintained that he had been fired in
retaliation for reporting the allegations. The review disclosed
there was merit to these allegations.''
That is very prevalent, sir.
The Chairman. My next question is, how widespread is the
use of goals, quotas, and statistics for the evaluation of IRS
employees?
And let me further ask the question, how does the use of
statistics adversely affect the taxpayer?
Witness No. 1.
Witness No. 1. It appears that statistics have become very
important based on the fact that we see more and more levies
and seizures made that should not have been made and the
numbers of releases of those levies and seizures that we are
pushed into asking the IRS for.
So there's got to be pressure coming from somewhere just to
achieve these statistics.
It hurts the taxpayers across the board, as I said, on a
daily basis. I literally see taxpayer abuse by levies and
seizures on a daily or weekly basis.
The Chairman. Witness No. 2.
Witness No. 2. We're driven by numbers. And it's picked up
over the last couple of years. Our evaluations are directly
tied in.
It adversely affects the public in general because our
evaluation equates to money awards, and pats on the backs.
The average employee tries to do his job well. The carrot
is stuck out there. Here is what you have to do to get the
carrot. Go, get it.
And it puts an extra dollar in their pocket or an extra
award and recognition. If you're doing good, your manager has a
hands-off approach in managing you.
So for the most part, you try to give them what they want.
The Chairman. No. 3.
Witness No. 3. Not long after I came to work, the Service
established a policy that said that you would not use
production statistics to evaluate employees.
And I think it was in 1972--62. That was routinely ignored.
When they passed the Taxpayer Bill of Rights I, I remember
how it was introduced at the meeting that we had. The branch
chief said it was not as bad as it could have been.
The written material put out by the National Office stated
that under the new Taxpayer Bill of Rights, this is the first
one, there would not even be a suggestion to first-line
managers or their employees about statistics and production
statistics, number of seizures and what have you.
And they are very careful to keep it out of the record. You
will not find them writing down in an evaluation that you did
so many seizures, that you collected so much money.
It's done on a one-to-one basis. And all levels of
management know who their best producers are.
Some of these best producers are good people.
Some of them are the people we are having trouble with.
They make too many seizures. They are what we call cowboys. And
you just have trouble with some of them.
As to the effect on taxpayers, it can be devastating. I
mean, you take away their homes, their cars, and their jobs.
But it also has an effect on the government. The revenue
that government collects because--while this is not exactly
taxpayer abuse, except in that it treats taxpayers in a
disparate manner, the pressure for statistics leads to lots of
accounts being written off as uncollectible. That means you
don't get any money.
But writing off the account as uncollectible gets the
revenue officer, the collection officer just as much credit as
if he had collected it.
The Chairman. Witness No. 4.
Witness No. 4. Numbers are extremely important. It really
doesn't matter how you close the case, whether it's a full pay
or whether you simply write it off. What matters is that you
close the case.
I know at group meetings, we are regularly given a sheet
which shows the statistics in all the different areas.
And they are broken down by groups throughout the different
states in our district.
And notes are written in the margin by the branch chief
where they say, ``very good,'' or ``needs improvement.''
But they are constantly comparing one group to the other
group and one employee to another employee.
This type of behavior leads to very reckless collection
practices. And so therefore, the taxpayers are adversely
affected.
The Chairman. No. 5.
Witness No. 5. Senator, in my office, seizures are looked
at as being all important for a revenue officer in order to
prove their value to the Service.
As a result, the taxpayer suffers from a heavy hand that is
often unnecessary. We have premature seizures.
We are instructed that even if we're aware that the
taxpayer will pay us in full within a short time and they have
an asset that has sufficient equity, we are to go out, seize
that asset, and demand payment at that time, following seizure,
not before, in order to ensure that we secure a statistic to
increase our report of number of seizures for our district.
The Chairman. Witness No. 6.
Witness No. 6. Again, statistics are what drive the
organization. The tail wags the dog, Senator.
We are very well made aware of what our statistics
individually, not as a group or as a region.
We are told how many products are produced per FTE. We are
also in our evaluation told how many cases you open, how many
cases you close, and how many arrests you've made.
And you cannot be fully successful unless you have made an
arrest.
As far as how does this impact the taxpayer, quantity is
being sacrificed for quality.
The Chairman. Let me ask you this question, can the
problems that you have addressed in your testimony be resolved
simply with a more modern or sophisticated computer system?
Witness No. 1.
Witness No. 1. I can't see how a computer system is going
to help.
The Chairman. Pull the microphone closer, please.
Witness No. 1. I don't know how a new computer system is
going to help teach IRS employees how to treat the taxpaying
public.
The Chairman. No. 2.
Witness No. 2. The only way that can help would be if it
was such a simple tax system where there would be no discretion
or subjectivity.
You would send the form in. It would be scanned in. The
computer would compute the tax. And you would pay it.
Once you interject a subjectivity and somebody reviewing,
that computer is only as good as how somebody is going to
interrupt the results.
The Chairman. No. 3.
Witness No. 3. With respect to browsing, a better computer
system or reprogramming of the current system could help out if
by the simple expedient of programming the equipment so that
people could not pull up accounts, except those that were
assigned to them.
The other problems are going to have to be taken care of by
more supervision, better supervision.
I did not say more supervisors. We need more supervision.
The Chairman. No. 4.
Witness No. 4. I believe that the problem starts with
management at the very top. I believe we need a complete
overhaul of managers. We need a new way of selecting our
managers.
Right now, if you don't follow the program, if you're not a
numbers person, it just really doesn't matter. They don't want
you as a manager.
So I think the problem starts with management.
The Chairman. No. 5.
Witness No. 5. The current computer system is very
antiquated and behind the times, resulting in burdensome--a
very burdensome process for the revenue officer to conduct
their functions and their responsibilities and carry out their
jobs.
How--whether or not a new computer system would help us to
deal more fairly with the taxpayers, no, that would not impact
the taxpayers in that way whatsoever, other than it would free
up a lot more time per officer or agent to individually help
taxpayers when they are faced with a tax problem that requires
a lot of time, to look into and correct.
As it stands, right now, we are so pressed to turn numbers
that when we deal with a complex issue, we tend to just move it
aside and tell ourselves we will get to it later and never have
the time.
The Chairman. No. 6.
Witness No. 6. The current computer system that's in place
is so antiquated as almost to obviate its use.
The only advantage to a new computer system would be to
give the employee that's dealing with the taxpayer more updated
information on the person he's dealing with. And that does
cause problems currently.
But as far as would that solve the problems, no, sir.
The Chairman. I would like to ask Witness No. 1, have you
ever witnessed situations where a revenue officer has played on
the taxpayer's fear to collect revenues that were not owed? Is
this common?
Witness No. 1. I don't see as it common, but I've seen it
done, yes.
The Chairman. With any regularity or just very rarely?
Witness No. 1. Not to collect taxes that are not owed.
The Chairman. Why do you believe that revenue officers
often feel most taxpayers are trying to cheat the government?
And how does that attitude by the revenue officers
translate to treatment of taxpayers?
No. 1.
Witness No. 1. It's taught in training when the revenue
officers are first trained. And then, it's fostered by
management throughout the system.
The result is that this attitude treats--forces revenue
officers to treat all taxpayers alike.
They are not looking at a taxpayer's individual financial
situation. It seems like every revenue officer I deal with
thinks that every taxpayer is hiding a small fortune. And it's
ridiculous.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see when a taxpayer is
in financial hardship.
The Chairman. Witness No. 2, in your statement, you spoke
about IRS management impeding internal investigations of
employees.
Have you ever personally experienced IRS superiors
interfering or attempting to stop an internal investigation
while you were investigating internal violations within the
IRS?
Witness No. 2. Yes, I have one of two ways. One way would
be when Internal Security management goes to the district and
asks the district, should we--here are the allegations. Here is
what we have. Do you want us to continue looking into this?
And the district management says, no, let's let it drop.
And we're told--I'm told to let it drop.
The other way is when my management would go to district
management to notify them of an ongoing case.
And before I know it, the employee being investigated knows
about the investigation.
And they take various steps. If it's an ongoing violation
they're doing, they stop if they have any smarts or they are
able to cover up what they've done at times.
So the answer is, yes. And it's not only against employees.
We've been--it's happened where we've have criminal allegations
against managers and union officials.
The Chairman. Witness No. 3, you talked about tax data
being assessed on jurors.
Are you personally aware of jurors or government witnesses
being compromised by IRS employees using threats of possible
audits?
Witness No. 3. No. I'm not personally aware of that. The
only thing I saw was the access. I don't know what it was used
for or if it was used at all, except to satisfy maybe the
curiosity about a juror or a witness.
The Chairman. Does that occur often or----
Witness No. 3. I've seen it several times.
The Chairman. Several times where a--would you spell it
out, what happened?
Witness No. 3. The criminal agents would come to our
Collection Division and ask the people to access accounts. They
really don't give reasons most of the time. They just give the
taxpayer's Social Security number and name.
And some employees will pull it up for them. These people
don't have direct access to the computers with one exception.
I knew of one who did. And probably, that person was more
vocal about what she was doing and who she was looking up. She
was a special agent herself.
The Chairman. Witness No. 4, are you aware of IRS revenue
officers using false identification when dealing with the
taxpayer?
Witness No. 4. No, sir, I'm not.
The Chairman. No. 5, are you?
Witness No. 5. When dealing with the taxpayer, no, sir.
The Chairman. Witness No. 5, you mentioned a list of code
and ethics violations that are too long to further elaborate at
this time. That was your testimony.
Witness No. 5. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Could you cite some examples of such without
identifying the specific taxpayers?
Witness No. 5. Yes, sir. I'm sure all of you are aware of
the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2. Under this bill of rights, the
taxpayer is required to receive notice of default on an
installment if he has entered into payment agreement with the
Internal Revenue Service and then fails to meet the terms of
his agreement.
Once the agreement defaults, we are required by law to send
him a notice of the default prior to taking enforcement action.
However, in our district, we were instructed by our
division chief that he was going to waive this mandate.
We were to ask taxpayers upfront at the signing of the
payment agreement to sign a waiver, waiving their right to this
notice in the event that their installment agreement defaulted.
As a result, we could then take immediate enforcement
action without notice to them.
This was often unfair to a taxpayer who subsequently failed
to get his payment correctly applied or had a subsequent
assessment that had been pending and was meant to be included
in the payment agreement.
It would create a default of the installment agreement. And
then, we would go out and enforce without justification.
The Chairman. Finally, I would like to ask you, Witness No.
6, we have heard from another witness that the IRS will target
what it determines to be a vulnerable taxpayer.
You've stated that the Criminal Investigation Division of
the IRS will pursue taxpayer cases that are pursued to be easy
hits in order to bolster its numbers.
Are the smaller cases generally considered easy because the
taxpayers are less able to defend themselves?
Witness No. 6. Senators, they have less resources at their
disposal as far as attorneys or accountants. And they are
intimidated by the IRS.
And for this reason, those cases are opened and closed
quicker. And they are able to bring days open average way down.
Agents told them that if a case is going to take a year or
more, they don't even want them to pursue them.
The Chairman. My final question is, do you feel--Witness
No. 6, do you feel that by granting greater independence to the
Inspection Division and that by having it report only to the
Commissioner, you could perform your job of investigating
questionable employee conduct to a fuller and fairer degree
than you can under the present arrangement?
Witness No. 6. Well, the present arrangement is supposedly
that we report only to the Commissioner.
But unfortunately, because of inbreeding and coziness with
local management, that is not the reality.
Possibly, by removing the function from under the
Commissioner and either move it to the Inspector General or the
Under Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement which are more
law enforcement oriented, we could possibly reverse that
coziness.
The Chairman. Senator Moynihan.
Senator Moynihan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
thank our witnesses individually and collectively. They have
been hugely informative.
I find myself a little puzzled about the performance of the
Internal Revenue Service over the last 35 years.
And I would direct my first question to Witness No. 3 and
then to anybody who might want to add to it.
You mentioned, sir, that you became a revenue officer over
35 years ago, having begun your career at the IRS when John F.
Kennedy was President.
And at that time, I was in the Labor Department. And we had
a--there was a big issue in the labor field which was
automation. Would automation put everybody out of work?
And we were beginning to see computers down here on
Pennsylvania Avenue. The IBM Company, IBM had a little street
level display of what you could do with these things.
Now, in 1962, there were 60,000 employees in the IRS. And
today, there are 102,000 which is an increase of 70 percent.
In that time, our population has only increased 43 percent.
And yet in 1962, I would say to my friends on the committee
and colleagues, it's pretty serious. I think this is a subject
we need to get an answer to.
In 1962, 97 percent of taxes were paid voluntarily by self-
assessed taxpayers, almost perfect compliance.
Today, it's 83 percent. That's not very--that's good, but
not very good. It sounds to me like the French might come up
with something like that.
And yet, we've----
Senator Conrad. Voluntary compliance in some countries is
about 40 percent.
Senator Moynihan. Okay. It says that you would know better.
Somewhere maybe between where the French are and where we
were. And we're heading back in the French direction.
And yet, the number of employees has increased. The
computers have come on-line.
Could you help? Do you have a sense of why this might have
happened, why compliance has dropped even as employees have
increased very considerably?
Witness No. 3. I do, yes. We know more about the public and
taxpayers now than we did in 1962. We have a lot more
information documents.
And even in 1962, they processed very few information
documents, if they got it, if any at all. That's the first
year, the '62 year that we went on the computer.
So we find ourselves now dealing with lots and lots of
lower income and low middle income people who may not be
complying and who may not have been complying in 1962, only we
didn't know about it.
Now, I don't know if that's the explanation or not, but we
are certainly dealing with lots more taxpayers.
Back then, we could go out--accounts were issued for
collection if the taxpayer owed $10. Now, in our district,
before an account comes out for full collection, generally,
they can pull them out.
But before they are issued, generally, our cut-off score is
I believe $40,000.
Senator Moynihan. You are saying, sir, that when you
started out, the Internal Revenue Service would go after a
taxpayer for $10, but today it has to be a much larger sum?
Witness No. 3. It must be much larger. Accounts do come out
for less than $40,000, but they have established what they call
the queue for a delinquent account.
And trying to match work load with staffing, then they hold
accounts in the queue.
And I don't think that's been good for either the Service
or the taxpayer because their thing is to allow these to sit
there.
You may have a taxpayer who would have owed $5,000 if you
could have gotten to him a quarter or two after he became
delinquent.
But they let those accounts sit there, stagnate, grow for a
long period of time. When you go to contact the taxpayer----
Senator Moynihan. The growth is interest rate?
Witness No. 3. It's more tax. They've incurred another
quarter, another quarter, another quarter.
Senator Moynihan. Okay.
Witness No. 3. The taxes are huge.
But we deal--the people that we deal with in collection are
generally people who are not capable of properly managing.
They are not crooks. They don't study the code. They have
no idea of our procedures. That's what enables the Service to
get away with abuses.
Their abuses sometimes are illegal. This is kind of off
your subject, but I heard this yesterday, the huge assessments
that are made against taxpayers by exam.
They will charge them income tax, such as the restaurant
owner you heard about on his gross income. They can do this
with low and middle income taxpayers because they cannot afford
professional help.
And they are--some of them are terrified of the Service.
I've seen them where they are afraid to open their mail.
And if they don't reply, then the tax goes up. It may never
be collected, but it will hang over their head encumbering
their property and their jobs for years. I've had lots of these
accounts.
Senator Moynihan. I would just like to see if we could
leave this unresolved, but it's a matter that Senator Kerrey
and Senator Grassley I know would be concerned with.
Why has the voluntary compliance rate declined so?
Now, we just heard that there was a time--and it would
appear from what you say is that taxpayers are being treated
more leniently today than they were a generation ago.
If $10 would bring you an IRS action, but today it has to
be 5,000 or whatever, then that suggests that we are not
collecting. Maybe, that's why we're at 83 percent. I don't know
the answer.
Mr. Chairman, there is a question. We have brought in the
computers. We have almost doubled the size of the work force.
And the compliance level declined.
Is that something to do with the culture of the IRS, as our
Witness No. 1 said?
Or does it have something to do with the culture of the
United States and citizenry?
I don't know the answer. I put the question. I think our
inquiry should persist in it. We will no doubt ask Mr. Dolan.
So I thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Moynihan.
Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley. I'm going to--I want you folks to reflect
on 6103. But before I ask a specific question, I would like to
set a little bit of background, but most importantly let you
know that without your being here, unlike a lot of other
agencies where there is an opportunity to get information, this
is about the only way we can get information from the IRS. So
you need to be complimented.
One of the most important functions of Congress, of course,
in bringing about reform is the oversight function that this
committee is performing because that is the means by which we
discover what is really going on.
We have two methods for getting our information. One is
through routine review of documents and reports, but that
method has been virtually closed off as far as IRS is concerned
because we heard yesterday that they don't keep records.
Second, whatever records they keep, Congress cannot
routinely see because of the 6103 restrictions that management
often misuses to hide embarrassing or revealing information.
I'm not sure how many people know this, but only two people
in Congress have access and can use 6103 authority. And that's
the chairman of this committee and the Chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee in the House.
And that simply is a unmanageable situation on a case-by-
case basis, the chairman can delegate authority to staff--some
staff at least as he did for these hearings.
But that's in really sharp contrast to how we handle even
the Nation's top military secrets or security information.
We have hundreds of staff and not to mention almost every
member of Congress who has access to national security
information.
So our oversight function of the IRS is really hampered by
our inability to get ready access to documents.
So that's make the second method of information collection
so much more necessary and important. And, of course, that is
the function you do by willingly coming forward.
And so obviously, we thank you for doing that.
But people like you who do come forward, I want the public
to know and I think it's been said very much by our chairman,
you do so at great risk.
And so we still need to get documents and records more
readily available from the IRS so that we can exercise more
vigilance.
That's why Senator Kerrey and I have produced a bill to
reform the IRS. And we included in that reviewing the 6103
restrictions and also secondly making the IRS to keep records
and archives.
I didn't hear any of you discuss problems that you have
experienced with abuse of 6103 authority or with records
disappearing.
Do any of you have any experiences in this area?
Witness No. 1. Yes, sir. We routinely request a
taxpayer's----
Senator Grassley. This is Witness No. 1.
Witness No. 1. We routinely request a taxpayer's file for
the taxpayer so the taxpayer can see what's going on.
And the IRS routinely blocks out large sections or large
numbers of pages of documents, claiming it is protected under
6103.
It's the taxpayer's file. What can they not see that's in
there? How can the IRS put something in there that can't be
revealed to the taxpayer?
And we're talking about a civil matter, not criminal.
Why can't the taxpayer see every word that the IRS writes
about them in their file?
And we see this happen routinely by the disclosure office.
Senator Grassley. Are any of the--Witness No. 6.
Witness No. 6. From an investigator's standpoint, 6103
prevents us from fully working the case with other agencies,
whether state, local or Federal.
And it really puts a chilling effect or bottleneck on the
investigation.
Several U.S. Attorneys have complained to me about the
problems dealing with IRS.
When they see an IRS investigator walking in the office to
discuss a proposed case, they walk the other way because of the
inherent problems with 6103.
From my standpoint, 6103 would prevent me--if someone
walked in our office and threatened to commit suicide, I've
been told I cannot call the local police. I have to call the
state police.
The state I'm from does not have a state police. It has a
highway patrol. I could not call the highway patrol and say
that someone threatened to commit suicide.
Senator Grassley. Does any of the other witnesses have
experiences with 6103 being abused?
Witness No. 3. I think that the Congress has furnished the
agency a shield. If things go wrong in a case, they just say we
can't talk about it.
And maybe, that's a good idea. If you let them talk about
that, perhaps you could talk about the case to anybody.
But it has acted as a shield for the government to cover up
its mistakes.
Senator Grassley. Okay. That's what the Restructuring
Commission heard so much in testimony about it being a shield.
Do any of the other three of you who have not commented
have any experience to back that up?
[No response.]
Senator Grassley. By that then, are you saying it's not
abused?
Witness 2, 4 or 5.
Witness No. 2. No. The sentiments that Witness 6 expressed,
I've had similar situations where I've worked a case with an
AUSA that said don't ever bring me a case again because I won't
work it.
IRS is just a maze. It's too complicated. It's ridiculous.
We have received different opinions from Inspection
Disclosure, District Counsel, the various other bodies and
divisions within the IRS.
It's like calling up and getting different advice. You have
an assistant calling and being given different legal advice.
And we've had witnesses that have been injured, assaulted
where because they weren't serious bodily injury, the U.S.
attorney won't prosecute.
And we've been precluded in the past from helping them deal
with the state authorities because they would have to divulge
to the state authorities that they were doing some sort of IRS
business.
And that would be disclosure because you're naming the
taxpayer.
Senator Grassley. I have a more general question. It's more
to find out if there is a composite point of view.
And that is that you have--you have listened to each
other's testimony. And I assume that maybe you didn't have any
contact before you came here.
But either way, as you sit there listening to the testimony
of your colleagues, do you all generally agree with the
testimony of your other colleagues?
Or do you any of you want to voice a point of disagreement
with something you've heard from another person on the panel?
We need to kind of know. I want to know.
Witness No. 1.
Witness No. 1. I heard what these folks have said for the
past 25 years. And there's nothing new. It's been going on.
Senator Grassley. That's----
Witness No. 1. And nothing has been done about it.
Senator Grassley. That's an even more sweeping statement
than I intended to hear.
Without speaking--if any of you voice disagreement with
that, I would like to have you voice it.
Otherwise, I would like to assume that all six of you
agree.
Witness No. 5.
Witness No. 5. The only statement that I disagree with is
when one of the Senators asked the question why it takes more
agents to handle a smaller population than in 1962?
And my response to that would be that the tax code is so
complex that it takes us longer to deal with the issues.
The other fact is that in 1962, the number of the
population was a result of the baby-boomer era in which most--
well, a large number of the population was not yet income
earning individuals.
As a result, those people are now in the work force making
money. And we now have to deal with them.
So I submit that in the past, although the population
percentwise may have been at a smaller ratio, now the wage-
earning population is truly at a greater ratio of wage earners
to agents and revenue officers.
Senator Grassley. Witness No. 3.
Witness No. 3. I agree. There is nothing new about any of
this. I've seen it ever since I've been here. And you would
think periodically it was going to be attended to, but it has
not been.
Also, I think to clarify something that was asked awhile
ago I think by Senator Roth, it was about using fictitious
names.
There are collection officers in particular who adopted
what we call pseudonyms under which they operate.
They have to register these names. You always know who they
are. And there is some good reasons for allowing people to use
pseudonyms.
In one case I know of, one revenue officer had a very odd
last name. The pronunciation of the name was easy if you
converted it into an English word and hear about the pseudonym.
In other cases, revenue officers have used pseudonyms
because they have experienced the tax protesters filing liens
against them and harassing them.
And if they're using a pseudonym, the taxpayers cannot go
to the telephone book and look them up.
But they are fictitious names, but they are registered. And
credentials are issued in the fictitious names.
Also, there was something about collection initiatives. One
of the latest is direct orders that came in our district.
And in group meetings with revenue officers where revenue
officers were directed to give taxpayers 30 days to pay up or
close them down.
If you ask Mike Dolan about that this afternoon, he will
say, as they always do, they weighed their policy statements
and their manual provisions and say we have a policy against
that.
And they do. P-5-133 I think is the number. And it says
that before you close a going business, you will try everything
before you close it down because when you close down a
business, you're not just affecting the man who owns it, who
ran up the tax, you're affecting the people who work for him
who are thrown out of work.
And in some areas, in the rural area where I work, when you
close down particularly a sizable business, these people are
just thrown on unemployment or welfare.
But revenue officers now are not given the time to collect
the tax. Sometimes, it takes months. Sometimes, it takes years.
That's why you all gave us a 10-year statute. But we're
told to go out there and collect in 30 days or shut them down.
It's going to be impossible to do that. It's going to be
impossible for the taxpayer to pay.
In my experience, the people we contact for unpaid taxes
are not flush with funds. If they had the money, they would
have already paid their taxes.
It's a situation where you're going to have work with the
taxpayer over a period of time, keeping him current so that
he's making his current deposits and let him pay up.
And generally, that is what I have done for most of the
time that I have worked, but the new collection initiative want
seizures apparently.
Also, with respect to collection initiatives, I think that
sometimes they deploy the resources unwisely.
For instance, they have decided that retired Federal
employees and Federal employees have a much higher obligation
to comply with tax laws than anybody else.
I think everybody is supposed to comply with the tax laws
equally. But they send out sometimes nominal accounts, people
retired making $8,000 a year. And the collection initiative
requires that you collect or close the account.
Some of these people are in much worse financial shape than
other taxpayers who get their accounts written off.
Also, they will not follow the clear intent of the law in
some cases. In our district, to save postage, they issue the
directive that the notices that went to the taxpayer which we
call final notices, this is the notice that Congress provided
for.
I don't remember the year. But it was so that we just
didn't appear on somebody's steps and take their car which I
have done.
And this says you will send them a certified notice. It
doesn't say just mail the notice. It says certified or
registered.
The Chairman. Would you bring your answer to a close
because time is running out?
Witness No. 3. Very well. And they began sending these
notices uncertified. After I mentioned the law to them, I think
they may have changed that.
But they didn't notify those people to whom they had sent
uncertified notices.
The Chairman. We next have Senator Kerrey.
Senator Kerrey. Let me first of all stipulate that it seems
to me that you six as well as the individual, Jennifer Long,
yesterday who testified are part of a group of outstanding
employees who are here because they want to see the IRS become
better, the integrity restored, and the operational procedures
more consistent, both with the IRS' own manual and with U.S.
values, that these are not anecdotes.
They are not--this is not seven employees who have an ax to
grind, who have employee-manager problem, nor were the
taxpayers who were here before us yesterday.
I would argue that one of the reasons that voluntary
compliance has dropped is the way the IRS has been managed over
the past 30 years.
It is true that we have made it more difficult at times
particularly by making our tax laws more complicated.
It is true that there are times when we have not provided a
sufficient amount of resources, but these issues that you have
raised are not resource issues. They are not complexity issues.
It's a question of, are we going to manage according to the
law, according to your own manual, and according to U.S.
values?
And the answer today as I hear it is, no. And I would like
to ask you individually. I've heard a couple of you in your
testimony say this.
But do you think the IRS and the current law as it's
structured with the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury and the
Treasury Secretary, do you think that the current law will
enable the IRS to fix itself?
I'll just ask--go down the line Witness 1, 2, 3, 4, all the
way through.
Witness No. 1. The IRS won't fix itself. It can't. In
helping taxpayers, it has set up a Problem Resolution
Organization, the Collection Appeals Program.
None of that is going to work until the taxpayer can put
his plight in front of an independent third party to make the
decision as to whether the IRS is right or wrong.
As long as you have IRS employees policing IRS employees,
the IRS will not improve.
Witness No. 2. The forces that exist to their benefit, they
maintain the status. It's called people resist change in
general.
You have a lot of employees, management set in their ways.
People who have been at the top so long, they don't understand
what it's like working out in the field, how the people
perceive you and how you have to deal with people daily.
It's a monster.
I assume that your question, lead it to a trough, it will
drink. But I don't know how that is going to happen.
Witness No. 3. No, sir, I do not believe that the Internal
Revenue Service will substantially change.
They put out directives all the time. And if you read the
directives, if you read the policy statements, if you read the
manual provision, and if they were followed, then you would not
see these problems.
But a whole lot of what is d1 day-to-day is done with a
wink and a nod. And nobody is called to task for the things
that they do wrong.
Witness No. 4. No, sir, I don't believe the IRS can correct
its own problems. I believe things have gotten too far out of
control.
As everyone has said today, it's really a numbers game now,
the only thing that management cares about.
And as long as you're interested only in statistics rather
than how you're actually treating the taxpayer, then things are
never going to change.
Witness No. 5. I believe that if it's left up to the
Service, you will get a lot of lip service, more training, and
then business as usual.
Witness No. 6. I feel that left to their own devices, there
is no motivation for any change. They are self perpetuating.
And unless given the impetus to change, they will not.
Senator Kerrey. Well, let me just say in response, I hope
that this committee is able to change the law relatively
quickly.
We have a choice here. We can either assume that these are
just anecdotes and not emblematic of more serious problems at
the IRS.
I appreciate the IRS and the returns it does a year, 90
million tax refunds. They've got 10 million contacts a year of
some kind for compliance.
They've got a lot of work. And it's very difficult work.
But in our hearings and contacts with employees over the
past year, we've just reached the conclusion that the current
law won't allow the IRS to improve itself.
And my hope is that we can reach--this committee can reach
some conclusion sooner rather than later.
The first witness indicated hundreds of new collections per
day are going to be issued. There are 10 million contacts a
year of audits or some other kind of compliance. That's nearly
800,000 a month.
I mean, every single day we wait, we're creating more of
the problems we heard about yesterday of taxpayers who have not
just legitimate complaints, but complaints that occur as a
consequence of the way the IRS is managed and the way the IRS
is organized.
And it's going to create further taxpayer dissatisfaction
and a further number of citizens concluding that government by
and for the people doesn't work.
My own conclusion on this, is that while the Department of
Treasury wants to improve, I regret that they continue--for
those who have made legislative proposals, they continue to
misrepresent what we've proposed.
It causes me to suspect that they are not really for
change. I mean, we've got a legislative proposal out.
The Treasury continues to say it puts private sector
individuals in charge of the IRS.
That's not true. It's not just inaccurate. It's not true.
They say our bill puts private-sector people in charge of
law enforcement. It's not true. We prohibit it. It goes on and
on and on.
I mean, Mr. Chairman, I think that this committee has got
to decide. Do we think these are anecdotes? Do we think these
are small problems? Or do we think they are big?
I've concluded that they are big, not just in terms of our
capacity to collect taxes, but in terms of our ability to be
able to say to the people that we have government by and for
the people.
We are going to enforce the law as the law is written. We
are going to carry out and implement the manual in a fair
fashion.
All of your courage in the statements you've made create I
think an overwhelming conclusion, as well as Ms. Long's
testimony yesterday.
I mean, these are not the rantings of mad individuals, of
angry individuals, of dissatisfied employees who didn't get a
pay raise or who weren't advanced.
These are people who want to make the IRS a better
organization.
And I will just say, Mr. Chairman, under current law, that
is not likely to happen.
So I'm hopeful that we can take action sooner than later.
The Chairman. Senator Murkowski
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Witness No. 1, you indicated that the Problem Resolution
Office, the so-called PRO is, I think you used the word,
utterly useless in protecting the taxpayers.
And you indicated that there is a conflict of interest--
because the PRO employees are evaluated for promotions from the
same Collection Division management they are supposed to police
when they are assigned to PRO.
So obviously, you have a conflict.
I'm wondering if any of the witnesses, other than you would
comment on that and if you care to comment because I totally
agree that the solution is simply to separate the two?
And then, you would get a functioning problem resolution
office as opposed to the inability to get it under, as you say,
an utterly useless system that doesn't protect the taxpayers.
Witness No. 1. Problem Resolution is effective resolving
cross-functional problems between audit and collection, CID and
collections.
But when it comes to protecting the taxpayers from abuse,
when we take the case to the Problem Resolution Office, the
first thing they do is pick up the phone and call the IRS
manager that approved the enforcement and ask him what to do.
They're not looking at it objectively.
And these people go to Problem Resolution. And then, they
go back to the Collection Division for promotion. So they go
back and forth.
Again, you've got IRS employees making decisions over other
IRS employees.
Senator Murkowski. They are coming from different areas of
responsibility.
Witness No. 1. Correct. If you took----
Senator Murkowski. Well, why don't you separate them?
Witness No. 1. Well, if you took the budget for the Problem
Resolution Office and the Collection Appeals Program and set up
a separate Administrative Law Judge who's trained in either
audit or collection to hear these complaints from taxpayers.
And this person doesn't have to be an employee of the IRS.
They can be an employee of the Treasury. And they have to meet
certain experience requirements.
And let them rule as the third party so they don't have to
go--depend on the IRS for anything.
Senator Murkowski. Does anybody else want to comment on
that particular area?
Witness No. 2. I just want to say I concur wholeheartedly
with Witness 1. And I hope it's not too strong a term, but
probably Problem Resolution is a farce.
It doesn't work. It rubber stamps decisions that have
already been made.
Senator Murkowski. Anybody else?
[No response.]
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that----
The Chairman. Can I just make one comment?
Senator Murkowski. Sure.
The Chairman. If a witness wants to testify, please give
your numbers so that people know who is talking.
Please proceed.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, as we move on corrective
action, I think the bottom line should be a simplification of
the Tax Code as our objective goal.
What you want to be very careful of though is you've got an
industry built up out there, an industry of attorneys, an
industry of accountants that depend on the complexities.
And when and if we get, Mr. Chairman, down to the point of
trying to simplify, you're going to find you're going to hear
from this group. They are not worried right now.
Senator Gramm. No, they are not worried at all.
Senator Murkowski. And, you know, as we look at ourselves,
I would venture to say that most of us don't do our own taxes
for a couple of reasons.
One of them is we want the protection of having the CPA
sign on the line because of the exposure we have. And the other
reason is it is too complex.
But yet, we're expected to relate and take action to cure
deficiencies in the IRS.
We have certainly not done our job as far as simplification
of the process is concerned.
I can't recall how many pages are in the book and how many
books are in the bookcase, but, you know, clearly this could be
a challenge.
And I think simplification, averaging out, would go a long
way to reducing the difficulties of the IRS to function as an
agency responsive to collecting revenue, as well as to the
individual rights of the taxpayer.
So I commend you for this process. We're on a long road,
but I think that we've got to start somewhere.
And I want to commend the witnesses for coming forth and
giving us a better idea of just what's going on behind the IRS
and, you know, what corrective action simply has to be taken.
The Chairman. Senator Gramm.
Senator Gramm. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank our
witnesses. And I want to thank Jennifer Long yesterday.
I think what you have done is very courageous. And I think
you're giving government employees the good name that most of
them deserve. And I want to thank you very much.
I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that I started these hearings
to some degree skeptical especially of people from the IRS who
were going to be here.
I read Jennifer Long's testimony. And I quite frankly
didn't know what to expect.
But I think in our business, part of what we do is judge
credibility of people in arguments.
And I want to begin by saying that, beginning yesterday
with Jennifer Long and today with our witnesses, I have
listened to everything that they have said and I have found
them extremely credible.
I think this problem is a very real problem. And I would
like to pursue in the time I have a couple of avenues.
Number one, our Witness No. 4 says, ``Over this past year,
however, I have seen dramatic changes take place in this
organization. And in my opinion, most were not for the good of
the Service or the public that we are supposed to serve.''
Witness No. 5 says, ``In the past 2 years, all the
standards of ethics by which we have been lead to believe were
an integral part of our job and responsibility in dealing
fairly with both taxpayers and employees have been replaced
with practices that were widely viewed as not only unethical,
but often illegal.''
And Witness No. 6 ad-libbed a lot. And I'm sorry I didn't
have my pencil in my hand when you said it. But he in essence
made the same point that the problem has gotten worse.
Now, I would like to ask each one of the witnesses to say
very briefly because I've only got a limited amount of time.
Do you believe the problems we're talking about here today
have gotten substantially worse in the last couple of years,
have gotten worse in the last couple of years or just no
different?
Witness No. 1. They've gotten much worse over the past
couple of years. And the reason is simple.
Senator Gramm. I don't want the reason.
Witness No. No. 2.
Witness No. 2. The complexity has gotten much worse in the
last few years.
Senator Gramm. Witness No. 3.
Witness No. 3. Yes, the problems are worse within the last
year or two.
Senator Gramm. Witness No. 4.
Witness No. 4. Absolutely, it's much worse.
Senator Gramm. Witness No. 5.
Witness No. 5. I concur that it's much worse.
Senator Gramm. Witness No. 6.
Witness No. 6. I agree with my colleagues, much worse.
Senator Gramm. Now, Witness No. 2, you say on page 2 of
your testimony, ``The IRS is aware of the administration's
favorable view of unions. National Treasury Employee Union
officials greatly benefit from this. High level Internal
Security officials do not want to take on a case involving the
union or union officials.''
I'd like to ask each one of you in this growing code of
misconduct, this growth of what you perceive and I think the
public would perceive is unethical or illegal activities, do
you see this is an example of where politics is playing a role
in it?
Have our other witnesses seen examples where they believe
political favoritism is being played in this process or is it a
general process?
Maybe, I should be more specific. Have you seen any
incident in your service where you believe politics is playing
a role in the policy of the IRS?
Witness 1.
Witness No. 1. Politics is always playing a role. It always
has, depending on who the division chief is and what they want.
If they want something than what the policy statements and
the manual says, they'll just issue an edict, like the other
witness said. It happens all the time.
Senator Gramm. Witness No. 2.
Witness No. 2. Beyond the reference to the union, it's the
local people make the rules. They interpret things.
And they find--you're asked a question. If you're not asked
that specific question, you didn't get the answer the person
wants to give.
They interpret things to their benefit. And they find a
loophole. And they exploit.
Senator Gramm. Now, Witness No. 2, you've been with the
agency how long?
Witness No. 2. Since 1993.
Senator Gramm. And you gave us your example about the
public employee labor union.
Witness No. 3, let me repose the question to you. Do you
see the presence of politics in many of these problems we're
talking about?
Do you see a political sensitivity or favoritism being
played by the IRS in anything you have personally witnessed?
Witness No. 3. Oh, yes. But politics in the generic sense
of politics within the agency, not a Democrat/Republican type
thing.
But it is these people have promoted each other all the way
to the top. And you're not going to get them to address any
problems with their high-level subordinates.
Senator Gramm. Witness No. 4.
Witness No. 4. I agree with Witness No. 3. Management
definitely sticks together.
Senator Gramm. Witness No. 4--no, 5.
Witness No. 5. Internal politics is definitely prevalent in
our district.
NTEU, in recent years, in the past 2 years, has become very
close with upper management, leaving the employees at their own
device to deal with the unethical issues as they come up.
Senator Gramm. Witness No. 6.
Witness No. 6. Sir, it's strictly internal politics.
Management clones other management like themselves. That's who
gets promoted.
Senator Gramm. Do each of you believe that there is--that
there clearly is favoritism present in the promotion process?
I think it was No. 5 who mentioned or maybe No. 4 that
people were encouraged to file discrimination suits as a
vehicle to get promoted.
Is it generally your belief that there is a lot of
political favoritism and promotion within the IRS?
Let me go down the line on that, starting with 1.
Witness No. 1. Yes. But like I say, the internal politics.
Senator Gramm. No. 2.
Witness No. 2. Almost exclusively using the promotion
process. There's too many managers that aren't capable and
experienced to do the job, but their inadequacies are covered
up for.
When their--when the employee files a grievance or a
complaint and the employee wins the process, there is never
retaliation to the manager because the other managers above
them realize the person is their friend and a colleague of
management.
It's that us versus them. If you want to be part of the
club, you've got to play ball.
Senator Gramm. Witness No. 3.
Witness No. 3. Of course, there is some politics in
promotion within lower graded employees. I'm talking about
people who are the field agents and work in the offices.
It seems to be an almost exclusive way if you're dealing
with managers. If you're not playing the game, you have no shot
at getting into management.
If you're outspoken, you don't have a prayer. They don't
want to hear the thing that are going wrong.
And I think they--it's a large part of our problem. They've
promoted people who really don't know what they're doing.
Senator Gramm. Witness No. 4.
Witness No. 4. If you are an independent thinker and you
won't go along with what they say, then you're not going to get
promoted.
On the other hand, I've seen them create positions where
one was not needed in order to promote a friend.
Senator Gramm. Witness No. 5.
Witness No. 5. We have seen instances wherein when a first-
level manager gets into trouble, upper management, depending
upon their comfort level or their friendship with the upper
level, upper-level management will step in and often move them
or promote them to bring them out of the trouble.
Managers and employees that have been direct or outspoken
about unethical practices, when faced with the same troublesome
issue, find themselves in a position where these issues are
used against them.
So there is no equity in treatment.
Senator Gramm. Witness No. 6.
Witness No. 6. In case you couldn't tell, Senator, I'm very
outspoken. And when putting in for a management position, I was
told that if I wanted to be in management, you have to go along
to get along.
This agency has created ad hoc, nonexisting positions to
take care of its management.
Senator Gramm. Let me go back to Witness No. 2. I don't
know how we could do this while preserving your anonymity, but
I would like to see this accusation about protecting the
National Treasury Employee Union from being subject to the same
kind of review as everybody else investigated.
Would you be willing to try find a way to see that we could
get enough information to some authority at the IRS to give
them an opportunity under our supervision to investigate these
assertions?
They seem to me to be very serious.
Witness No. 2. The authorities at IRS know of it.
Senator Gramm. Say that again.
Witness No. 2. The authorities that eventually I answer to
are aware of these accusations. It was a decision not to open
the cases because they didn't want to take on the union.
Senator Gramm. Well, it seems to me that this gets back to
the point that was made yesterday, Mr. Chairman.
And in the case yesterday, it was someone giving orders not
to audit people who were buddies of the supervisor.
In your case today, it is people because they are
politically sensitive to the position of the administration
giving orders not to audit individuals or unions.
It seems to me that if that's not criminal behavior, it
certainly borders on it.
And we need to investigate not just the accusation, but the
fact that people are actually playing politics in these
decisions.
And my view is that anybody who is doing that ought to be
fired at a minimum and probably should be prosecuted.
So what I'd like to try to do is when the hearing is over
is to try to get in contact with you to see what we can do
about it.
The Chairman. Your time is up. Let's see.
[Pause]
The Chairman. Senator Breaux.
Senator Breaux. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think really
what we have heard over the past 3 days has been absolutely
amazing, including what we've heard from this panel here this
morning.
The very essence of the survival of any democracy is that
the people have faith in the fair and impartial treatment that
they receive from their government.
And after hearing the stories for 3 days, I'm reminded of
the saying in Louisiana and I guess everywhere else about the
three greatest lies ever told.
I think after hearing everything today, I would add a
fourth. And that is, I'm from the IRS. And I'm here to help
you--because I think an awful lot of people in this country are
really intimidated and are afraid of an agency of our own
government and would like to know that someone is on their side
and not have to think that the only way they can get help is
through the Federal court system which goes on and on for years
and generations and decades.
I think that--I mean, I know as a member of the United
States Senate and a member of the Senate Finance Committee that
I feel a little intimidated myself when I've had constituents
come to me about a problem that they are having with the IRS.
I'm a little afraid to just find out who do I call because
I'm afraid someone will say--would tell me, don't call me. This
is an IRS problem.
So I'm even fearful and intimidated myself to try and
intervene in a case that is before the IRS when someone feels
that they are mistreated.
So if I'm intimidated as a member of the United States
Senate, I know that others have even a greater fear in that
regard of intimidation by people who work for all of us.
And I know that there are literally thousands and thousands
of outstanding Internal Revenue Service agents that work very
hard and do their job.
And in talking about the difference in the number of
employees, 41 percent increase in population, 71 percent
increase in employees at the Treasury Department.
I would imagine that the tax code is probably 1,000 percent
more complicated than it was when we had fewer employees. And
that has got to be part of the problem as well.
I'm really convinced that we need to have something on the
nature of an ombudsman type of operation that people will know
that there is a board or something that they can go to that
really is on their side.
An ombudsman types of operations are very common. I mean,
the Washington Post and New York Times and papers have an
ombudsman that's supposed to protect the rights of readers and
ensure that everybody is being treated fairly.
I think that the recommendations from the Kerrey Commission
I think are appropriate and proper. I think we ought to give
them a great deal of consideration.
We need a commissioner. I mean, we don't have a
commissioner.
I mean, the administration has sent over the name of
Charles Rossotti I guess to be the commissioner.
And we haven't had the nomination that long. I think it
came over at the end of July. And I think that we need to move
expeditiously on getting a strong and tough commissioner who is
aware of these complaints and these charges in order to take
action.
Whenever there is an agency of government that has to have
the support and confidence of the people if it's going to work,
it has to be the Treasury Department.
And I think that that confidence, like I've tried to say, I
think is dramatically lacking at this time.
We had a leader in our committee, David Pryor, who worked
very hard to get legislation passed.
And I would want to ask a question of the panel. What
effect do you all think that the adoption of the legislation
that Congress passed, the Omnibus Taxpayer Bill of Rights and
the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2 have had on the operations
overall of the IRS?
I ask that question because the Kerrey Commission's
findings in looking at the hearings that they had point out
that the commission found that the passage of the Omnibus
Taxpayer Bill of Rights and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II had
had an important effect on changing the culture of IRS.
The agency spends significant resources educating personnel
to treat taxpayers fairly.
And the commission found very few examples of IRS personnel
abusing power. And that was a finding of the commission.
To a large extent, it's contrary to what you have presented
to this committee today.
And so my question is, we've tried to help by the bills
we've passed. And I wish I could pass a bill that says thou
shall be nice to people and that everybody would in treating
taxpayers fairly and impartially.
And obviously, we need to do more than that. We thought we
had done that with the Omnibus Taxpayer Bill of Rights.
So the question I would like each of you to comment on is
what effect that legislation had on the conduct of the people
you work for?
No. 1.
Witness No. 1. It's had very little effect on the conduct
of the IRS. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights is very positive, both
I and II, but who's going to enforce this for the taxpayer?
If you're go to sue the IRS, it would take $30,000,
$40,000, $50,000.
And if you go to the IRS Problem Resolution or Collection
Program----
Senator Breaux. So there's not--number one, there is no
outside organization or ombudsman or whatever to enforce what
we passed?
Witness No. 1. Absolutely not. That's why you need an
independent third party to help rule on these things to let the
common taxpayer go and say I've been mistreated.
Senator Breaux. Witness No. 2, comment.
Witness No. 2. There is no way I could add.
Senator Breaux. Witness No. 3, has the bill changed the
culture of the Internal Revenue Service?
Witness No. 3. Well, somewhat it has, but the agency--I
told you how they introduced the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 1 was
it's not as bad as it could have been.
They didn't like to see it. And they looked for ways around
some of the provisions or they tried to ignore the provisions.
They certainly never enforced the provisions.
And on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, in my district, we've
not had any training, any significant training.
A couple of the changes have been brought to light in
meetings, but there has been no real training in the area.
Senator Breaux. Witness No. 4.
Witness No. 4. I really don't see improvement at all I
think if all the witnesses have stated within the past year
things have actually gotten worse.
And also, in my district, we have not had training. They
passed out a brochure for self-study.
But that just shows you the lack of emphasis that is placed
on this.
Senator Breaux. Witness No. 5.
Witness No. 5. I have nothing additional to add to what my
colleagues have stated.
Senator Breaux. Do you agree with them?
Witness No. 5. I do.
Senator Breaux. Witness No. 6.
Witness No. 6. The two Taxpayer Bill of Rights bills
affected public perception at least on the surface, the face
they show to the public, I think they cleaned up their act.
What hasn't changed is the corporate mentality and drive
for figures, performance, and statistics. That has not changed.
And so until you change that mentality, nothing is going to
change.
Senator Breaux. Well, I thank all of you very much for
being here. And you do it at the risk of your job security and
everything else.
And I thank each and every one of you because I really do
think you are making a very important contribution to the
American public in trying to let us know what is happening.
I know one witness talked about random looking at files. I
bet you, if we found out that they were looking at the files of
the members of the Finance Committee, we would probably pass a
new law this afternoon.
But we ought to take it as seriously as if we are
personally affected because in a sense we are.
And I commend the Chairman, the ranking member for
conducting this hearing in the manner in which I think it has
been conducted.
We have a real challenge here. And, you know, you've heard
the statements. And now, it's kind of upon us to try and find
out a way to help solve the problem. And I appreciate your
contribution.
The Chairman. Senator Bryan.
Senator Bryan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
say to each of the witnesses and those who have appeared before
us over the last couple of days that this has been very, very
helpful.
I think in hearing firsthand from you what you experience
day-to-day and the years of experience collectively that you
bring to bear places each of us on notice that we have an
obligation not only in terms of our oversight responsibilities,
but we really have an obligation to the American public who we
all represent to do whatever we possibly can to take corrective
action.
And so the focus of my questions are, first, and taking
each of the witnesses in order, what specific things can we do?
And I say that in the context that a lot of these problems
that you've encountered on a day-to-day basis, as members of
Congress, we're not able to address the day-to-day kinds of
problems that you're talking about to the extent that the
problems are structural.
And I know Witness No. 1 has specific reference of a
structural. And I want to give him a chance to comment on that.
But what specifically can we do?
And as you are frustrated and as the American people are
frustrated, I think we are frustrated as well.
Most of us are strong advocates and supporter of the
Taxpayer Bill of Rights. We thought we were doing the right
thing.
It was passed in a bipartisan spirit with the expectation
that we had done something to protect the American public and
to establish a more level playing field as the American citizen
interfaces with his or her tax collector.
Your testimony is in essence that it really hasn't had much
impact at all.
So with that frame of reference in the background, Witness
No. 1, I appreciate specifically your recommendation and
comment with respect to a separation of the problem resolution
system.
That's a specific thing that we can do legislative. And I
believe that is something that you would recommend that we do
based upon your previous comment.
Witness No. 1. That's correct. And, of course, as I said in
my statement, no, Senator, you can't mandate that the IRS
employees be polite, but the least they should do is follow
their own procedures.
If they do it the right way, you are going to eliminate 80
percent of the abuse. You won't need problem resolution. You
won't need the collection program.
Senator Bryan. I don't mean to be argumentative there. They
should do it the right way. And we can say give a sense to the
Congress and direction everybody act responsibility, act
ethically, follow the rules and procedures.
I think all of you know that those pronouncements, if the
Taxpayer Bill of Rights did not improve the culture or climate,
that kind of statement is going to be in the wind.
So I'm interested because you all have had a great deal of
experience, specifically what can we do structurally?
And the problem resolution thing, that is something
specific. You're talking about separate. Give that a level of
independence and adequacy of funding so it can't be subject to
the whim and facisitude of the supervisor who in effect wants
to reduce the effectiveness of that office.
Witness No. 1. Some states have a system where they have an
administrative law judge making decisions.
The state has to put forth their position. The taxpayer
puts forth their position. And an administrative law judge
makes the decision, basically interpreting any violations of
the code, the Bills of Right, and the Internal Revenue manual.
And then, you require the IRS to pay penalties when they
violate their procedures or the code.
Senator Bryan. Okay. Witness No. 2, anything specifically
from a structural point of view, something that we can enact in
law, other than these feel good pronouncements which I don't
think is going to solve the problem that you called to our
attention or frankly improve the relationship?
Witness No. 2. When the law is as complex as it is, the
procedures are going to be complex. To get employees trying as
best they can, being as knowledgeable as they can.
Just like you can't know or anyone can know the whole tax
code, you're not going to have an employee knowing all the
procedures. It's just too complicated of the system.
When a family of three or four making $30,000 or $40,000 a
year gets a letter from the IRS and they are a wage earner,
they can't come out, quit work, take off without pay, come
down, and deal with us.
Maybe, if you mandated that problems could be held--most of
us like working days I guess, but if problems could be handled
during the evening when taxpayers are home.
Senator Bryan. Okay.
Witness No. 2. At least the wage earner so they are not
going to have a financial wage loss in dealing with us.
Senator Bryan. You know, parenthetically, we do that at the
municipal court in dealing with traffic citations and
violations.
I mean, that's a very helpful--again, it's not going to
revolutionize the system, but it will make it more friendly to
the taxpayer.
Witness No. 3, specifically anything that you would call to
our attention that we can do structurally by way of enactment
or by the appropriation process?
Witness No. 3. I agree with No. 2 in that you need an
independent advocate, somebody outside the Service so someone
who is not beholding to people within the Internal Revenue
Service for his job, for his evaluation, for his budget.
And I also agree that it's going to have to be something
that is accessible to low and middle-income people who cannot
afford representation. Even $500 or $1,000 is a lot of money.
Senator Bryan. Sure it is.
Witness No. 3. To people who have a middle income and a
family to support. And these people have no idea really how to
do it themselves.
So this advocate is really going to have to be acting on
behalf of these taxpayers.
Senator Bryan. Does the concept that Senator Breaux just
talked about, the ombudsman, is that what essentially you have
in mind?
Witness No. 3. That, yes.
Senator Bryan. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Witness No. 4.
Witness No. 4. Initiatives change on a regular basis.
Senator Bryan. Yes.
Witness No. 4. And this makes it extremely difficult for
agents to perform their duties and do a good job.
So I think things need to be simplified. I think that would
help a lot.
Senator Bryan. Can you be a little bit more specific?
I don't think there is a single member on this committee
who would not agree with that proposition or a single American
citizen.
But simplification like beauty tends to be in the eye of
the beholder. And although I am a strong supporter of the
provisions that we enacted earlier this year, no one could
contend that our actions earlier this year, bipartisan though
they were in this committee under the capable leadership of the
chairman of the ranking member, they have certainly not been
simplifying the tax code.
They have frankly made your job more difficult. If you got
110 million calls last year, after what we did, I predict that
you will have 150 million calls this year.
So can you be more specific than just simplifying? I don't
disagree with you.
Witness No. 4. The way that we do business, I think we have
so many different ways of getting the information out to the
field.
We have E-mail. We have memorandums. We have the manual.
It's just it is no way you keep up with things.
And I think you could ask six employees within the same
office how to do something, and you would get a different
answer from all of them. That's how rapidly the procedures
change.
Senator Bryan. I thank you.
Witness No. 5.
Witness No. 5. Most of the abuse that occurs against
taxpayers occurs because of the initiative that upper
management has taken to enforce their particular position or
views as to how the tax laws are to be carried.
If you were to establish a separate entity by which
misconduct or ethics violations within management or at the
employee level could be reported and then investigated without
the influence of upper management, then I think that we would
see a tremendous improvement toward the treatment of taxpayers.
Senator Bryan. Now, I take it this is your Internal
Security position. Is that currently the function that
ostensibly performs that review?
Witness No. 5. Yes.
Senator Bryan. And that, as some of you have testified, is
fatally flawed in your judgment because it's not truly
independent. It's subject to the pressures of management, the
same people.
Witness No. 5. Correct.
Senator Bryan. So in other words, if we could build in some
kind of structure to provide a greater measure of independence
and separation, and you believe that would be helpful.
Witness No. 5. Yes, I do.
Senator Bryan. That's a very helpful comment. Thank you
very much.
Witness No. 6.
Witness No. 6. Senator Bryan, I would agree that separating
and making the Inspection Division more independent would be
very important.
Separating the criminal and the civil tax divisions would
also help public perception of the service. And----
Senator Bryan. Could I get you to amplify on that, Witness
No. 6?
I am familiar as one-time lawyer, but--that there is a
difference between the two divisions.
But when you are talking about separating the divisions,
can you be a little bit more specific as to what you would
propose?
Witness No. 6. What I would suggest is having--this country
has to have a tax collection agency, no matter what you call
it, whether you call it the IRS or the bureau of revenue.
Senator Bryan. Correct.
Witness No. 6. You have to have to have a tax collection
agency, but make it a civil agency not a criminal agency.
Canada is a civil agency. It is not a criminal agency. And
then, have a division within the Treasury where criminal tax
violations, gross criminal tax violations are then investigated
and pursued, not wearing that same hat as an IRS agent.
That is what intimidates the hell out of people.
Senator Bryan. It scares the hell out of me. [Laughter.]
Witness No. 6. I would also commend this committee for the
initiative its taken in its oversight efforts.
Senator Moynihan said that it hadn't been done in 20 years.
I think it needs to be done much more often.
Senator Bryan. Did I interrupt you when I asked you to
further explain the separation concept that you were advocating
between civil and criminal?
You were about ready to say something else. And rudely I
interrupted you, but I didn't want to miss the point.
Witness No. 6. The only thing I was going to suggest was
again the Inspection Division be moved and separated from that
inbreeding and cozy relationship that it shares with IRS
management.
Senator Bryan. No. We are talking about the Inspection
Division and the Internal Security. Is that one and the same?
Or are those two different functions?
Witness No. 6. Okay. The Inspection Division is the parent
organization which is made up of Internal Audit and Internal
Security.
Internal Security is the criminal investigative arm.
Internal Audit does the management control reviews.
Senator Bryan. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think our witnesses have been
very helpful. And I thank them.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Bryan.
Senator Rockefeller.
Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would very
much agree with something that Senator Murkowski said when he
was here.
And that is that part of the ways I think we can be helpful
is to simplify the tax code. I mean, I think that the piles and
piles of paper.
The budget bill we passed last year, I think we've added
800 new pages. In other words, Congress itself makes your job
more difficult.
I am also very aware of the fat that we are all Federal
employees. We are called Senators. You are called IRS
employees, but we are all public employees.
And therefore, we all have a responsibility to do
everything that we can to protect the rights of the taxpayers
and to make the job of government working better--work better.
And that's more easily said than done.
I've been through this recently in an unrelated, but in
some ways related manner with the Department of Defense on the
Persian Gulf War veterans and their so-called mystery illness
syndrome which I think is certainly an illness, but certainly
no mystery, but it's still referred to as that.
And trying to get the Department of Defense to admit what
they clearly had done wrong and withheld from the public was an
extraordinary process.
The culture of bureaucracy, it's just stunning. It's
terrifying.
And frankly, if we hadn't had in the veterans committees
hearings, such as Chairman Roth and ranking member, Senator
Moynihan, are having, I don't think we would be any farther
along in helping the 100,000 or so sick Persian Gulf veterans
who got sick through no fault of their own, but through frankly
actions, unwise actions on the part of the government.
If we hadn't had those hearings, nobody would be any better
off.
So I think these hearings are very, very important and what
you're saying, just the act of what you're saying which I
take--which I believe is important.
Now, but the other side of the coin is that as public
servants, we all are responsible. I mean, I'm accountable to
the people I represent which are particularly the people in
West Virginia, but in the larger sense the people in the
country. And so are you.
And we all have certain procedures to follow, you know,
ways in which we are meant to try to bring things forward into
the public light, such as the abuses.
And I'm struck because some of you have been with the IRS a
long time. Others have been employed more recently.
But I'm struck that you have not talked, I don't think,
about having made these complaints yourself to your
supervisors.
And let me explain just a bit. There's a hotline, for
example, that is anonymous that could be used. Now, it might
end up in nothing.
But have any of you ever used the hotline at the IRS?
Witness No. 4, well, you said it. You said, yes. Was there
any response to that?
Witness No. 4. Absolutely not. I've reported things on
several occasions. And it was just swept under the rug. So I
don't think it's working.
Senator Rockefeller. All right. Have you--have--all of you
I assume then have made complaints directly to your supervisors
or to senior management about abuses that you saw taking place
towards the taxpayer?
Witness No. 3. Everything I've said before you, I have said
to my superiors.
Senator Rockefeller. All right. And from that, let me draw
this conclusion, too. It will appear to the public as though
you are in a sense about to sacrifice your jobs or have your
heads cut off because you are surrounded by screens and, you
know, you're not known.
I would argue you're probably the safest people at the IRS,
the safest six people that exist because if we don't now, we
will all know who you are.
And I just wonder about all the IRS employees who are off
sick today and if there are people who are worried about
whether they are up here testifying.
I think you're very safe, you see. In other words, I don't
consider you're taking a risk. I consider you're doing
something which is patriotic. You want to do something for the
IRS.
But I don't consider you're putting yourself at risk. You
may. I don't.
There is something called the Whistleblower's Act. And the
Whistleblower's Act, well, even within the IRS itself, it says
there is a requirement that all IRS employees are to report
promptly and directly to the Inspection Service or the Treasury
Inspector General.
Have any of you reported to the Treasury Inspector General?
Witness No. 3. Yes. And I could tell you what it was. It
was our director, when they merged the three districts, was
going to lose his job.
This was common knowledge that they had on the books a new
district office for him with a nice suite of executive offices
for his staff.
When they announced that there was not going to be a
district there, he went right ahead and built or had GSA build
that district office which is now having to be--they've vacated
part of it.
GSA is still paying rent on the whole building. And they're
going to have to renovate it in order to rent it to other
tenants. And I don't think GSA has any other tenants.
Senator Rockefeller. Okay. I understand what you're saying.
The National Commission which we've been discussing here
conducted over 300 field interviews with IRS employees.
And they evidently came away with the impression, the
overall impression of competent, hard-working people who wanted
to deliver a high-quality product to the American taxpayer,
page 11.
They also concluded the agency has spent significant
resources educating personnel to treat taxpayers fairly.
And, as I understand it, the commission found very few
examples of IRS personnel abusing power. Now, this is Senator
Kerrey's Commission.
I'm trying to get a sense here of what our mutual
obligations are. I think we have to help you do your jobs
better.
I think, you know, the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989
came out of precisely situations like this that if people came
forward and stated your complaints because you've been rebuffed
by your supervisor or you've been, you know--which all of us
have.
I worked for the executive branch of government for 4
years. And I was rebuffed by my supervisor, but I wasn't
dealing with taxpayers like you are in the same manner.
Have any of you considered using the Whistleblower Act
which provides specific protections for whistleblowers?
Witness No. 2.
Witness No. 2. I would just like to advise you that the
Office of Special Counsel has about a year backlog in looking
at those complaints when somebody makes one.
And I have known other people who have called the IG
hotline numbers where they have caller ID and were able to call
the person back at his number for additional information.
So there is some weaknesses and loopholes in this umbrella
that people report things to.
Senator Rockefeller. I understand what you're saying. In
other words, if you use the hotline there may not be a change.
What I was referring to was the whistleblower procedure.
Witness No. 2. I said that has about a years backlog when a
person makes a complaint.
Senator Rockefeller. All right. But does that make it----
Witness No. 2. The office is either under staffed or----
Senator Rockefeller. But I think Witness No. 1 said that
this process of abuse of taxpayers has been going on for 25 or
35 years.
So in other words, a year is a long time. But 25 or 35
years is a lot longer. I would like to have seen some of these
reports of abuse come to light sooner through procedures like
internal IRS reporting or whistleblower protection.
I'm just trying frankly and honestly to search out how can
I as a Senator, how can IRS employees as employees, but Federal
public servants pay their salaries, paid by the taxpayers, how
is that we can bring forward these matters without having to
have, you know, something of this sort.
If it's not possible, then something of this sort we must
have.
But it seems to me that you all have an obligation to
press.
If you're angry enough to come here, you must have been
just as angry 55 other times or more over the last 5, 10, 25,
35 years.
How do you see your responsibility in terms of protecting
the taxpayer from abuse by the IRS?
Maybe, I will just ask Witness No. 3.
Witness No. 3. What was the question again?
Senator Rockefeller. The question was, how do you see your
responsibility in terms of protecting the taxpayer?
I mean, is it required that you have to wait for a hearing
like this with lots and lots or camera that are just
photographing the back of the empty----
Witness No. 3. Well----
Senator Rockefeller. How do you this?
Witness No. 3. Lots of times, you can just do it. I've
intervened with other collection officers when I thought that
they were mishandling a case or treating the taxpayer badly.
And then, lots of times, they will listen. And they'll
straighten it out.
Senator Rockefeller. And they----
Witness No. 3. Most of the people I work with are the
finest folks in the world. We have some SOBs, but most of the
folks are--would make friends, neighbors.
Senator Rockefeller. No. I understand. I understand.
Mr. Chairman, I would end simply by two things which I
would like to put into the record. One is the Internal Revenue
Service employees disciplinary action.
In other words, it just says how much disciplinary action
has been applied towards IRS employees as a whole.
And it lists eight different categories of punishment. And
in 1997, there were 172 out of 102,000 employees.
That's one thing I would like to answer--put into the
record. In other words, my point there, is the panel the, you
know--because there are other forms of penalty than punishment.
And I understand that. There is a sort of bureaucratic
psychology punishment. And I understand that.
But the other thing I would like to put in the record is a
letter from the Deputy Secretary of Treasury, Lawrence Summers,
in which he describes a variety of things that they are doing.
And it makes an interesting point. It says, ``Not a single
staff member or member of Congress expressed any concern about
the IRS' use of revenue measurement.'' That is the so-called
enforcement matters we are talking about here, ``or suggested
there should be less emphasis on revenue-related goals.''
That is a way I think of my saying that I bear
responsibility. We all bear responsibility for what's
happening.
And that I think in a mature and methodical way, we have to
get the management to understand we have to get somebody to run
the agency, get that person appointed, and--because we don't
want to see the Persian Gulf experience repeated.
And I don't think you do. I know I don't. And I think
working together intelligently, we can make a lot of
improvement.
And so I submit these two for the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information submitted by Senator Rockefeller appears
in the appendix.]
The Chairman. Senator Baucus.
Senator Baucus. In going through all this, my question--I
have several questions. The first is other than retribution or
reigning by the numbers, what other actions has management
taken to try to motivate personnel?
I'm talking about on a positive basis. That is praising
people who do a good job.
I mean, is there some way to motivate people other than by
the numbers or through a peer factor?
I am just curious the degree to which the agency has spent
a considerable amount of time in trying to figure out a
positive way to motivate people into better performance.
Witness No. 6. Senator, I wish I could say that there was
positive motivation. But the only factor that is used is fear.
Senator Baucus. Would most of you agree with that? Is there
anybody who disagrees with that?
Okay. There's--yes, No. 5.
Witness No. 5. Although fear has been used to motivate, the
fear is coming from upper management.
Our first-line managers in the district in which I work,
there are a couple of excellent managers who have a method of
dealing with employees fairly.
They look at their cases. They praise them when praise them
when praise is due. They criticize them when criticism is due.
These managers, however, are very outspoken when they see
taxpayer abuse. They have been very vocal to upper management.
Upper management has now targeted them and has made it
clear that because of their lack of support of upper
management's position in dealing with issues like this, they
will not be tolerated for future employment.
Senator Baucus. Is there general agreement that more of the
problem is so-called upper management than lower management?
Witness No. 5. Yes.
Senator Baucus. You all in general agreement.
Now, what do you mean? Could you describe for us, define
upper management? Who is upper management? What are we talking
about here?
Witness No. 5. Within my district, we would define the
upper management as anybody above the first-line manager.
Senator Baucus. Anybody above the first-line manager.
Could anybody else add a little more flesh and blood to
that?
Witness No. 2. Grade 15.
Senator Baucus. Grade 15.
Witness No. 6. And above.
Senator Baucus. And above.
And how many upper managers are we talking about? Roughly,
how many are there?
Witness No. 2. Half a dozen or so just within the region.
Senator Baucus. In the country, how many? You know,
somebody? You must have some idea, a rough guess, just rough?
[No response.]
Senator Baucus. You don't know.
Witness No. 6. Fifteen's and above, I'd say 50 to 100.
Senator Baucus. Roughly, 50 to 100 upper management. Okay.
Now, another point strikes me, very often when there is a
problem, Congress holds a hearing maybe like this.
We pass a law hopefully to correct the problems. And often,
not much happens for lots of reasons, primarily culture
inertia. That is that the bureaucracy is just too big and large
that not a lot happens.
I'm concerned, although these hearings are very good and
although we ought to pass some legislation that's going to
help, potentially correct some of this, and although I suppose
some senior management listening on this are going to try to
perform a little bit and issue some directives and so and so
forth, but maybe not a lot is going to happen that's positive
as a consequence of all this.
And after, you know--and that is after about two or 3
months, five to 6 months, it will be business as usual.
And it seems to me that in order to prevent business as
usual, one way is to have a very strong independent, very
independent sort of inspector general who lots of powers, who
can go in and get the information he or she needs, and who is
truly independent of the Service and similar to some of the IGs
and perhaps some of the departments.
I'd like maybe No. 6 to comment on the degree to which we
need a stronger, more powerful, more independent inspector
general.
Witness No. 6. You are preaching to the choir when it comes
to that suggestion. I think that a strong, fully funded,
independent inspector general could only help.
Senator Baucus. And how much would that help?
Say we've got--say we have just what you want, how much
would that help?
Witness No. 6. As long as it's not the same inbreeding that
we have now, as long as it's a different independent
organization.
Senator Baucus. Yes. Independent, you know, lots of powers,
you know, basically what you would like to set up yourself, how
well would that work?
How much of that would solve the problems we're now talking
about?
Witness No. 6. I can't say it's going to be a panacea and
solve all our problems, but it's better than the current
situation.
Senator Baucus. But you do think that's probably the
essential condition. That is we need to do something like that
so we're not always back here.
Witness No. 6. Yes, sir, I do. But I also think that as
long as the IRS knows that they're accountable and that other
people are watching and that there is strong oversight, many of
these abuses and lapses of ethics won't take place.
Senator Baucus. Does anybody have any other comment on that
subject?
[No response.]
Senator Baucus. You generally agree with No. 6?
Witness No. 5. I believe that if upper management knows
that they will be held accountable, that there will be
penalties to pay for their infractions, then things will
change.
As it stands right now, upper management knows that if
there is an inspection issue that comes up in which they've
been reported for wrongdoing that their manager will support
them and ask that inspection disregard the issue and overlook
it.
If you have an independent agency, then they are not going
to disregard the issue.
Senator Baucus. You, No. 6, used the word that I think is
also important here. And that is ``oversight.''
I believe that Congress generally fails at one of its
responsibilities. And that is oversight.
That we have lots of hearings, lots of new legislation,
passed lots of legislation out of committees and so forth, but
we do not do enough oversight.
And by oversight, I mean, calling up some of these Grade-15
folks and asking them about this and that, so on and so forth
with significant frequency.
Again, I would like your comment on the degree to which
that might help us prevent from us buying ourselves 6 months
from now from doing business as usual.
Witness No. 6. If upper management knew that they could not
hide behind the shield of taxpayer secrecy every time a member
of this body called them and that they would be personally held
accountable, I think that would go a long way to moving this
issue along.
Senator Baucus. No. 2.
Witness No. 2. No. 6 stole my words. Disclosure is a big
problem. You have to have access to the information to be able
to delve into complaints, number one.
And then, the people responsible for the abuse have to be
held accountable. They need to pay for their own attorney.
The government affords managers an attorney because the
agency has something to protect. And maybe, managers would
think twice about following the regulations.
Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman, I don't have anymore
questions.
I want to thank all of you very much for the service you're
performing here. It's you're true Americans.
We live in a democracy. You're doing what people in a
democracy should do. And I very much--and I think I can speak
for the entire committee and say how much we thank you for all
of your efforts.
And it's my hope, Mr. Chairman, too, that we can in
legislation that we hopefully will pass provide for a very
strong, independent IG or something similar because that will
help.
And it's also my hope that we can have some much more
frequent oversight hearings because I do believe oversight is a
good part of the solution here. Thank you.
The Chairman. Well, I would say to my distinguished friend
and colleague, of course, that's the reason I began these
oversight hearings now.
Senator Baucus. Right. And I compliment you for that.
The Chairman. I agree very strongly that there should be
continued monitoring of the organization to ensure that it is
operating as intended by the Congress and by the President.
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
The Chairman. I would also say that as one who is very much
involved creating the inspector generals, I think that is also
something that needs to be looked upon because there has to be
some independent check to ensure that the agency is functioning
as intended.
Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman, if I might ask one more
question if possible very briefly?
The Chairman. Sure.
Senator Baucus. And this might not be appropriate because
the sponsor is not here. And that is your judgment of the
degree to which the proposed commission to oversee----
Senator Kerrey. Yes.
Senator Baucus. Is a solution to this problem.
Witness No. 1. This is Witness 1. I am from the outside. I
represent taxpayers before the IRS. And I don't see how the
restructuring is going to protect taxpayers from abuse.
As another has said, there is always going to be IRS
collections. And as long as you've got people out there
enforcing collections, you're going to have abuse.
The restructuring I don't believe is going to help protect
taxpayers from abuse.
Senator Kerrey. Mr. Chairman, just in the interest of
wanting to respond, first of all, the bill that we've
introduced has governance and management as the first section.
The third section is protection and rights.
There is much more in the bill than just the restructuring.
And I have here a letter that the Deputy Treasury Secretary
Summers has written to Senator Rockefeller, saying that not a
single staff member has asked about use of revenue measurements
as goals, as has been mentioned by a number of these employees.
The letter says, ``Not a single staff member or member of
Congress expressed any concerns about the IRS' use of revenue
measurements or suggested there be less emphasis on the revenue
measurement goals.''
That simply isn't true. Our commission both staff and
members and in our final report called for a complete redesign
of this system.
He is saying essentially, we sent a report to Congress and
Congress didn't express any concern about the use of
measurement.
And I would just--I would say that that makes the case that
there is a bunker mentality over there trying to protect the
status quo rather than trying to engage in a useful debate
about how to improve the system.
The Chairman. Let me just intercede once again because time
is moving on. As I started to say, I think an independent
inspector general is one approach to the problem.
There is no question that there have to be some checks and
balances built into the system that do not exist currently.
I would say to my distinguished colleagues that I think it
is a mistake to think that any one or two changes are going to
make the kind of cultural change that I think is necessary.
It's going to be important to look at the organization.
I commend the Commission for what it did. And I think
that's something that we are going to have to wrestle with in
the very near future.
I think we have to do something about correcting the
computer problem.
The availability of information and data to this committee
is an important part of opening up the system.
But I have to say that by coming here today, I think what
you people have demonstrated beyond question that much of the
problem is management, that there has to be a change in the
outlook of the organization. It is not right for this agency to
look upon itself as a law enforcement agency--as too many
people currently do.
Yes, there are some areas in which that is the agency's
responsibility, and its duty. But its primary responsibility is
to serve the American people, the taxpayer, and I believe this
is something of which we must never lose sight.
I want to----
Senator Moynihan. Mr. Chairman, can I make just one
comment?
The Chairman. Oh, yes, of course.
Senator Moynihan. Just that it is my experience, it's
curious that you always learn something if you ask how they do
it in Canada?
And sometimes, you know, it's better and sometimes not, but
you learn something.
Revenue Canada is not a law enforcement agency at all. Law
enforcement is done by their equivalent department of justice
if they decide that there is some legal action needs to be
taken.
The Chairman. Perhaps, you and I should go to Canada and
look at the system.
Senator Moynihan. It would be called--as long as the
weather is bad, we can get away with it. [Laughter.]
The Chairman. But I want to thank each one of you for being
here today. I think you can see the interest, the questions
that you have made a very, very real contribution to good
government and that you have demonstrated that this is an
agency that needs change.
We all seek the same thing. And that is constructive
reform. I want to commend you.
I have to say I disagree with those who say that you have
no reason to fear. I will assure you----
Senator Moynihan. Well, if they do, they can always call
you, can't they?
The Chairman. They can always call you and the
distinguished ranking member, as well as members of the
committee because you have done two things.
You've made, as I said, a major contribution to good
government. And you also have demonstrated that by your
presence and by your testimony that the vast majority of
Federal employees are good, hard-working American citizens.
And I just want to thank you for your contribution.
We now have to clear the hearing room to allow the
witnesses to exist. I ask the witnesses to remain seated until
directed to exit by the Capitol police.
I would ask that the Capitol police clear the room at this
time.
I would ask that the cameras be turned away from the dias.
There would be no photographs or video recording of the
witnesses leaving the room or building.
And it's my intent to reconvene the committee at 1:00
o'clock.
[Pause.]
The Chairman. Again, I would ask that all the cameras be
turned away from the dias.
[Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the hearing was recessed and
reconvened at 1:15 p.m.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., A U.S. SENATOR
FROM DELAWARE, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
The Chairman. The committee will please be in order. Before
I welcome our next witness, I want to take a moment to express
our sincere appreciation for the witnesses who have testified
thus far.
These hearings would have been impossible without the
contributions of the men and women have come forward,
particularly those who work on the front lines of the IRS
itself.
These witnesses have painted a troubling picture of the one
government agency that touches all our lives.
And their testimony has put a tremendous responsibility on
the Senate Finance Committee, the committee responsible for the
IRS.
And as these hearings have progressed, I have been
overwhelmed by the number of calls, letters, and faxes we have
received.
Americans are looking to us, to this committee to ensure
that integrity and fairness are the foundation of the IRS.
We have identified many egregious problems these last 3
days, problems that have devastated the lives of honest
taxpayers, problems that raise serious concerns among IRS
employees themselves.
Now, this certainly is not the purpose of the Internal
Revenue Service.
But as Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers confirmed
today, there is a problem within the culture of the IRS.
We must get the agency back to its mission statement to,
and I quote, perform in a manner warranting the highest degree
of public confidence in the IRS' integrity, efficiency, and
fairness.
Targeting vulnerable taxpayers, treating with them with
hostility and arrogance, using unethical and even illegal
tactics to collect money that sometimes is not even owed, using
quotas to evaluate employees, and retaliating against men and
women who work within the IRS do not agree with this mission
statement.
It is behavior that not only is unacceptable, but
reprehensible. And the problems we've heard are
multidimensional.
The solutions will require a careful study, continued
oversight, and a combined bipartisan effort, an effort that
must include the Senate, the House, the Secretary of the
Treasury, the commissioner, taxpayers, and most importantly the
employees of the IRS.
Together, we must work for a solution. We will work for a
solution. And I won't be satisfied until Americans see a real
difference.
As long as I am chairman of this committee, public
confidence in our tax system and its administration will remain
the highest priority.
Now, after 3 days of often emotional hearings, none can
doubt that serious problems exist.
Those few who still may be in denial need only reread or
review what has taken place in this committee room. We have
listened to disturbing truth.
Now, let these hearings begin a process that leads to
necessary and lasting change, change that will protect the
taxpayer, change that will create a better environment for
employees within the agency, and change that will emphasize
service in the IRS.
I would now like to welcome the Acting Commissioner of the
Internal Revenue Service, Mr. Michael P. Dolan.
Mr. Dolan, thank you for testifying today to provide agency
insight into the troubling problems within the IRS.
Now, it is our practice in these oversight hearings to
swear in all witnesses.
Will you please rise?
[Whereupon, the witness was duly sworn.]
The Chairman. Thank you. And please be seated. Mr. Dolan,
please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL P. DOLAN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Dolan. Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman and Senator Gramm,
I appreciate the invitation to come on this the third day of
hearings.
It is the first opportunity I have had to appear before the
Senate Finance Committee in your oversight role.
And I think I would like to start out, if you will, where
you left off, Mr. Chairman.
I don't come here in denial. And I come here having taken
you seriously on the day that you announced these hearings and
on the day that you opened this week, in the sense that I
believe that the committee looks for an opportunity to help
solve the problems that have been identified both this week and
that collectively we know exist.
And so what I hope to do this afternoon is offer some
perspective on how it is I think that certainly we in the
service and maybe we collectively have the capability of
getting at some of the issues that have been identified this
week.
I also guess I have to tell you that as somebody who has
spent his career in public service and specifically in the IRS,
these have been a very painful 3 days, painful because it
distresses me greatly to see the mistakes we've made, to see
the impacts of those mistakes, and perhaps more distressed to
sit and watch this morning's testimony where men and women, my
colleagues, sat before the committee.
And even where I might not understand the facts as they do
or where they might have a perspective different from mine, I
couldn't help but be taken by the seriousness of their
comments, the genuineness of their willingness to come forward.
And so my accounting of the facts almost becomes immaterial
to the extent that they've got that concern.
And one of the things that concern me is in the questioning
that the members did this morning.
There seemed to be a reluctance on whether or not there
would be a process by which those people could come forward and
perhaps share more insight into things that they thought needed
addressing.
And, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to
work with you and the staff to find some way either through the
intervention of the Treasury Inspector General or some other
means by which we can invite those employees and any other
employees that have been in contact with the committee to come
forward with the things that we should hear and we must hear.
What I would like to do at the beginning though is
stipulate that in the course of the week, you heard from
taxpayers whose cases we handled very badly.
And for that, as I have said earlier and I say today, I am
extraordinarily sorry.
As I listened to the statements that both the members of
this committee made and witnesses during the week, it struck me
that there were three basic themes that were sounded in the
course of the week's hearings.
The first one is clearly, as I said, individual cases were
identified that were handled badly. It caused the affected
taxpayers to suffer in ways they should not have.
We were a part of disrupting their lives. And this is
wrong. There's no excuse for it. It's unacceptable.
The second theme that I think I heard this week has to do
about the IRS culture. And I think the discussion that we----
The Chairman. I'm sorry. The what?
Mr. Dolan. The IRS culture.
The Chairman. Oh, okay.
Mr. Dolan. And as I at least listened to the week's
witnesses and tried to glean from what you've heard, it strikes
me that those who have asked you to concentrate on the culture
prompted the question of whether something about the IRS
culture indeed causes us to deal with taxpayers in a callous
form, an overly aggressive form, or perhaps a form of even more
seriousness.
The third issue that strikes me that came out in the course
of the week was one where I would lump two kinds of concern I
heard.
One was on basic fairness. And that was manifest in the
form of several concerns about whether smaller taxpayers as
contrasted with larger taxpayers were focused on
disproportionately.
And the second part of that fairness issue I think had to
do, Mr. Chairman, with something I think you mentioned in your
opening, the business of quotas and goals.
And so you probably could stack the week's testimony
differently, but those are three themes that I believe at least
from my listening were ones that summarize some of the more
crucial points and are the ones that I would like to address as
directly as I can this afternoon.
Maybe, before I do that, I'll tell you something that I
think you probably both know. In preparation for these
hearings, it's been real clear to me that both Secretary Rubin
and Deputy Secretary Summers are vitally interested, not only
in the hearings, but the issues that underlie the committee's
attention.
They have had some considerable interest in the last
several years with improving our customer service capacity and
treated it actually as one of their central priorities.
Upon the close of this hearing, I will clearly share with
them both the assessments we've made of how cases got botched
and in addition will talk to them on a forward-going basis
about the things that need to be done.
With respect to the specific cases, you heard from four
taxpayers that were legitimately frustrated about the way the
IRS dealt with them.
These taxpayers didn't receive the treatment that they
deserved.
And while each of the cases was different, the end result
was indisputable. We were wrong in the way we handled many
aspects of the cases.
And I appreciate that at this stage in their ordeal, an
apology does little to correct the frustration they felt.
But I would hope that perhaps in apologizing for them, they
may take some solace in the fact that we will deal with their
cases and the outcome of their cases in a way that will
hopefully result in others being kept from that same
experience.
You said something though, Mr. Chairman, at the beginning.
And I think others have repeated it.
I think in all fairness to the work force of the IRS who
succeed in doing a very complex job well, these hearings have
to be placed ultimately in a larger context, the context of the
millions--the millions of successful taxpayer interactions that
IRS has each year.
And many of you urged that in your statements. And I know
appreciate it. And I know my colleagues appreciate it.
Notwithstanding that fact, I think there are a number of
actions we've got to take immediately to try to preclude the
kind of case incidents that you saw before this committee
earlier this week.
And in preparing to come before you, a series of us have
spent a lot of time with these cases, perhaps not as much time
as some of your staff, but a lot of time.
And in so doing, I think we've gotten a very graphic sense
for some of the frustration the taxpayers experienced in these
instances.
And one of the things I think is incumbent on me is to
demonstrate in some visible way what the impacts of this
frustration have been to the rest of our organization so that
the organization doesn't treat this as a set of 3 days of
hearings and four taxpayers, but as a device by which we find
out how to do things differently, find out how to not cause
these problems to recur.
As a consequence, I'm in the process of doing several
things related directly to what this hearing has brought to
bear.
In the first instance, what I'm doing is asking each of the
regional commissioners under whose jurisdiction those four
cases reside to take the transcript of this hearing, to take
the witness' testimony, to take the case file we assembled, and
to take that back to the individual office in which the case
originally arose.
And to the extent there was more than one office, as there
was in several occasions, to take it, break the case down,
understand from the first moment what happened in the case,
understand where the errors were made, and perhaps more
importantly identify the places at which somebody could have
fixed it. Because as I looked at these cases, as objectionable
in many instances as the original error was, perhaps more
troubling was the opportunity that people had along the way to
recognize something off the track or to recognize that there
was a capability to fix it.
The second thing that we are going to do in connection with
that is--and I make this kind of an invitation to you, Mr.
Chairman.
I know you have said on several occasions when you made
your announcement last year, you had a lot of people pick up
the phone, fax you, write you. Even in the course of these
hearings you talked about other cases.
I would like to make to you the offer that for any one of
those cases or any number of those cases that the committee
staff feels they want to turn over to us, I will put together a
special task force under one of the best project managers I can
find. And we will work those cases to conclusion.
And while they are in our custody and while we are working
to solve them, I will make a report back to the committee every
30 days on the status of them. And we won't quit until we're
done.
The third issue is that I'm asking this afternoon our 33
district directors and our 10 service center directors to take
the last several months of correspondence into their office,
not necessarily the correspondence that found its way to the
Problem Resolution Office or found its way to them, but take
and look at the correspondence that has come in the last
several months and look for the cases, look for evidence that
things are off track, look for the indicia that something, some
taxpayer, some practitioner, some Senator or Congressman for
that matter has registered something that may well not be
getting attention.
I think out of that, we will do two things. Hopefully, we
will identify some cases that we can put under control and
solve.
And secondly, I think it will create an even higher energy
level at the most senior levels of the organization to be
attentive day in and day out for the cases that in some early
stage are ones that we can take and do something about.
By these actions, I think we will not only take the lessons
such as they are from the four cases that you all examined
earlier in the week, but I also think that it will give us an
opportunity to dramatize back to the organization that we are
serious, not about getting four cases behind us, but serious
about doing some things that will help us prevent these kind of
cases from recurring and hopefully avoid some of the
frustration and stress that was evident in each of the
taxpayers that you brought before your committee.
The second area is this area of culture. And to me, that's
a far more complex issue. And you as well as I know some of the
issues.
The Chairman. I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you.
Mr. Dolan. The second issue was culture. I'm sorry.
The Chairman. Okay.
Mr. Dolan. I think that when you look at a culture, I think
again it's a matter of putting, as you said your first day,
things into perspective.
If you think of our system as a whole, the vast majority of
Americans meet their tax obligations.
In most cases--and there was some discussion I heard this
morning--and Senator Moynihan was positing the difference in
compliance rates.
But roughly speaking, we think there is an 83-85 percent
level of compliance which means an awful lot of people are
meeting regularly their tax obligation.
For those millions of people, their normal interaction with
the Internal Revenue Service is the act of filing, paying,
getting a refund millions of times a year.
And for those people, what the Internal Revenue Service has
been trying to do, particularly in the last several years, is
make it easier.
Those are folks for whom the burden of staying compliant,
for whom the burden of operating effectively within the tax
system, ought to be a priority.
And we have tried increasingly to make it a priority at the
Internal Revenue Service to make it easier to file.
And you see such instances as the kinds of progress we've
been able to make. And one of the Senators mentioned the other
day, in our electronic filing, the capability of allowing next
year up to 26 million Americans to satisfy their tax filing
obligation with a 10-minute, push button telephone interaction.
We've looked for ways to put the forms, the publications,
the information that you used to have to go to a bank or a post
office or one of our offices to get, available on the net now;
117 million times during the filing season last year, people
came there and got what they needed.
We've looked to beef up our ability to handle things over
the telephone. Last year, we got in excess of 100 million live
assistor and automated telephone calls.
I believe we will get many more this year with the
introduction of a major piece of tax legislation.
That's going to create a tremendous interest in how those
benefits extend to me, how those obligations extend to me.
My point is not necessarily to over dramatize that, but to
suggest that in terms of this culture that people have
commented upon, I believe if you look at it in the context of
the last couple of years, there is evidence that the IRS has
tried very hard to make a priority of serving the taxpayer that
is compliant, of serving the taxpayer that is wrestling day in
and day out to meet their obligations.
Now, on the other side of that are taxpayers who do not
file. I've heard again, from almost every one of the members of
this body--Senator Gramm, the other day, you said quite
eloquently that you don't stand for the proposition of people
who ought to pay and do not pay.
And I don't think anybody on this committee does or in the
Congress does.
In those cases, I think we clearly are compelled to use the
enforcement tools that you have given us almost out of fairness
to the people who do comply.
Now, the question that has been before this committee is,
are those tools used as you want them to be used?
Are they used with the sensitivity and with the care and
with the precision the Congress authorizes to use them?
I think there have been some very valid questions raised in
the course of the many people you've heard from about whether
in each and every case they are.
I think that's a very serious issue. And it's an issue that
either in the context of this oversight, certainly in the
context of the IRS' overall responsibility, we need to pay
absolute care that those kinds of tools are used with, not only
the utmost of precision, but with respect for the individual
taxpayers.
One of the things that may have bothered me the most, both
in this morning's discussion and some others, has been the
notion that wrongdoing exists and the wrongdoing doesn't get
surfaced, doesn't get dealt with or some climate exists where
it's not desired to be dealt with.
That's not my experience. And I don't think it's the
culture of the Internal Revenue Service.
Our rules of conduct are fairly explicit, are very
explicit. And the rule of conduct, and I quote, says, ``Any
employee who has information indicating that another employee
engaged in any criminal conduct or violated any of the Rules of
the Standards of Conduct shall properly convey such information
to the Inspector General or to the IRS Inspection Service.''
One of the things I heard this morning were some questions
about did those values work as they should? Were people as
comfortable as they should be?
And I think that's a fair question and one that I certainly
will walk away from this morning's discussion wanting to know
more about, wanting to look more about.
But I say to you also, it does work to some extent. In the
last 3 years, 475 employees have been disciplined as a result
principally of the kind of referrals that come through those
devices, the 475 employees in the area of some form of taxpayer
mistreatment.
Now, I can't tell you that that's the universe. I can't
tell you that every one of those was handled exactly like I
might handle it in retrospect.
But I think the culture in place suggests it's an
obligation to make those violations known. And the culture
suggests that once known, the Inspection Service does take them
and investigate them.
And the culture is that once those investigations come back
to management, action is taken when those kinds of
transgressions occur.
I don't put this before you as a perfect chapter in a
perfect book, but I put it before you as evidence of a part of
the culture that I do believe leads us in the direction that
both you and we would have us go.
Beyond the code of conduct, I think there are a variety of
other things, some of which this body has actually caused to be
which helps with this culture.
I heard some conversation this morning that frankly doesn't
square with the way I have seen the taxpayer advocate in the
organization.
I think there were some fair questions this morning, for
example, about how collection personnel are used on detail or
used as adjuncts to the advocate's office.
We've looked at that almost every year since I can remember
to make sure that we do have the right kind of balance there.
But I think if you would do a poll and I suspect many of
you have this information from your home staffs, I believe the
advocate's office in the eyes of many frustrated taxpayers and
in the eyes of many practitioners has been the kind of window
of access, the kind of window of problem resolution that I
believe stands for the kinds of things that this committee
wants more of.
And I believe it is not evidence of a culture that's
callous, but evidence of a culture that recognizes that's an
obligation we have.
Again, I don't put before you a perfect picture of
something without need for improvement, but I think it's an
element that suggests that we invite those kinds of instances
for resolution.
Beyond that, there are a variety of things that again this
committee helped put into place. Last year's TBOR 2 brought
with it a complete process.
That complete process for the first time has us
categorizing the various and sorted complaints that we receive
along lines that, not only will help us deal with perhaps
somebody who misbehaved or conducted themselves
inappropriately, but more importantly will allow us to group
the reasons and will allow us to identify over periods of time,
over quarters, over months that this kind of thing has happened
too often.
This part of the process, this officer perhaps, this
transaction, this use of one of these enforcement tools is
showing up far more frequently than it should.
And so again, I make the point that I believe there are a
number of processes that either have been put in place with the
help of the Congress or that have gone in place as part of
dealing with the culture issue in a way that I believe is
positive.
Now, despite the existence of these systems, I've heard
many concerns during the 3 days that, as I said at the outset,
disturb me.
The outcomes that are demonstrated in some cases don't
represent the kind of professional standard or performance that
I'm telling you our culture is all about.
So clearly, there are problems. Clearly, there is evidence
that this is not a chapter that needs to be read through
quickly.
It's a chapter that needs to be kept open. It needs to be
improved.
And regardless of how small that minority of employees
might be that are associated with some of those cases, it's no
less offensive, the misuse of judgment, the poor handling of a
case. Whether it's in a few cases or several cases it's
objectionable. And it's not right.
These kinds of instances I think, as again, Mr. Chairman,
you said pretty eloquently, erode the confidence of the whole
system.
If IRS personnel are not viewed as doing their job as
absolutely professionally as possible, this erodes the
confidence in the entire system.
Again, I think we have to look for ways to engage the
organization in the lessons learned out of this hearing, and
there are two or three things that I'm doing in this arena
again as a direct outgrowth of the kind of dialogue we've had
both in preparation for this hearing and in the hearing.
In the first instance, what I'm doing is taking a page out
of a couple of our district directors' books that seem to work
pretty well.
And what I'm doing is asking every one of the 33 district
directors to devote 1 day of the month exclusively to the
business of that director being out with key staff in his or
her district and advertise it as the day bring your problem
cases to the district director.
And so you can be an individual taxpayer. You can be a
practitioner. You can be anybody who believes you have one of
these cases that's been out there in your judgment flopping
around too long.
This is something that we've seen work in a couple of
districts. And I believe if we ask each of our district
directors to do it, it will give one more point of access to
people who have felt frustrated by their ability to get those
cases solved.
Secondly, what we are going to do in the next month to 45
days is bring to town every one of our heads of office.
We're going to bring to town everybody who runs our
collection, our examination, our customer service activities.
Again, we are going to put in their hands transcripts as
well as videos from this hearing.
We're going to break down the cases that was examined in
preparation for this hearing.
We're going to go over the testimony that was given by our
employees, by our former employees, by practitioners.
And we are going to engage that group and their ideas, both
about perception and about reality and again try to solve this,
not as something that somebody comes to a hearing table and
makes promises about, but as something that an organization
gets engaged around.
Thirdly, what I want to do is reinforce with every employee
in the organization. I will do that early next week. I will
write to every employee in the organization, reminding them of
their obligations regarding the Problem Resolution Program.
We have a very specific set of instructions that are out.
Some of what I heard in the last couple of days suggests to me
at a minimum that folks need to be reminded that when you're in
an interaction with a taxpayer and see you it going off the
track, the Problem Resolution Program is a place to get that
case referred. So we will do that early next week.
And two last things, something we have done earlier this
year in both our appeals activity and in our general audit
program.
We have begun to send out customer satisfaction surveys
essentially at the end of the transaction, at the point that
somebody's appeal was complete or at the point that an
examination was complete.
And the examination is a good example because typically
what we have done in the past in the examination is pull a
sample of audits.
And we would pull a sample for purposes of internal quality
review. And we would examine the results of that case against
the auditing standards. And we would essentially grade our
effort.
Well, in the past, that exercise did not include any input
from the taxpayer. This past year, we began to do that in the
general examination program.
In the next 6 months, we will extend that same approach to
the collection program. You heard an awful lot about collection
cases in these 3 days.
It strikes me that that will be a very valuable device for
us to ask at the end of my case being closed in collection,
whether it's closed by full payment, whether it's closed by an
installment agreement, whether it's closed by being written
off.
I think we will get valuable feedback from people about
their interaction with the Internal Revenue Service.
And the last thing I think we need to do, Mr. Chairman, in
addition to getting the leadership on board and engaged, as is
particularly evident after this morning's panel, we need to
have a device that makes it easy for people to get the
perspective from the front line into the equation.
And so I have asked the National Treasury Employees Union
and their leader, Bob Tobias, to partner with us in putting
together a nationwide assembly of front-line people where we
will take the results of this hearing and many of the things
you've heard in this hearing to that group.
And we will ask that group, what about the goal setting
process? What about your interaction with management?
What about all these things that have come out in these 3
days? What about those things that are dysfunctional?
What about those things that you recommend should be
changed? What about those things where you need help in doing a
better job for the taxpayer you serve?
And so at the end of the day, I believe that we are able to
piece both elements of that together, the folks with the
responsibility to run large parts of the organization, as well
as the people who day in and day out are on the front line
encountering the difficulties of their job, encountering
hopefully many instances of effective use of these tools that
will get them in the business of helping deal with the problems
that have been identified this week, as well.
I'm going into the third area, Mr. Chairman. And you could
have called this probably different things.
I set it up as a kind of a fairness and measures issue
because the two things I heard the loudest were in the first
instance the issue on fairness.
And typically, although people used various kinds of
colorful language, the way I heard that come back was that
somehow or the other it is a strategy of the Internal Revenue
Service to devote more of its enforcement resource on the
lower-income taxpayer rather than the higher-income taxpayer.
My personal perspective on that is that the data just
doesn't bear that out. And I guess what I would like to do over
the interim is have some dialogue with the staff about
particularly this usually comes back as a commentary on the
audit process.
And I believe I could be--notwithstanding what I understood
yesterday from Ms. Long to be different testimony.
And I have taken, by the way, what Ms. Long said to you
yesterday and referred that to the Inspector General because I
believe there are some elements in what she said that need to
be run down.
But notwithstanding what she said yesterday, I think I
could satisfy your concerns that that's not happening as some
have suspicioned it might be.
The second part of this is the business of quotas and
goals. It's a little more problematic to me because while I
might sit here and want to tell you that we are clearly
following the law as written, you heard from a lot of people in
the course of the 3 days that even if that is the case, there
is an extreme concern about the way goals and measures and
statistics have found their way into the lives of every front-
line employee and presumably their managers.
And so without question, I think there's work that has to
be done there. I think without question, there have been
allegations made that the law has been violated.
As you've been having your hearings and had people come
before you, I've had people call me up. I've had people fax me.
I've had people tell me that they believe there are violations
in that arena.
And so I don't sit before you to discount that at all. I
think it has to be examined much more carefully than perhaps
we've examined it in the past.
In this arena, I do think that again it's important to
remember as I sit before you today that we want to be very
careful about the way measures find their way into the
organization.
But I will also sit before you some time in the future and
you will want to hold me accountable under GPRA for the outcome
measures that I submitted in my 1998 budget.
And those outcome measures in the 1998 budget will be very
specific. You will have appropriated or helped to appropriate
funds for very specific purposes, many of them with very
specific revenue assumptions behind them.
And so I think the challenge for us as an organization is
how to make that GPRA process work in the way that Congress
intended it, how to set outcome measures, how to deploy those
outcome measures in the organization, and yet at the same time
not do it in a way that people will report the sense of
artificial pressures, the sense of taking judgment, taking
actions that their judgments would dictate otherwise.
In this particular arena, again it's important that we do
some things after what we heard in the last couple of days.
And notwithstanding my obligation and our obligations as an
organization to perform as we said we would perform in 1998
under GPRA, what we are going to do is take some actions that I
think will insulate some of what people said they felt.
In the first instance, what we're going to do is we have a
process in the Internal Revenue Service that people alluded to.
I'm not sure anybody ever came right out and talked about
it in great detail in the hearing. But we have a field office
performance index.
That performance index is the way that we have typically
taken our performance measures. And at the end of a process of
weighting and evaluating comparatively, we have ranked offices.
And if some office knew an index of all of the measures
that we're accountable to Congress for, they might be one or
they might be five or they might be 10 or they might be last.
And it's clear to me from both what you've heard and what
I've heard that that's producing a dysfunctional outcome.
I have terminated that and will not use that relative
ranking because it's producing the wrong outcome.
Secondly, we have had a practice of taking our GPRA goals
and distributing them down into the organization, so that a
district office or a center would get its piece of the GPRA
goal.
Again, what I think I heard in the last couple of days is
there is some parts of that deployment that are problematic.
And so what I have done is suspend the part of those goal
deployments that have to do with allocating any specific dollar
requirement.
So while I will be on the hook to the Congress to perform
as I've said I would perform with respect to revenue, I will
not deploy those revenue-specific goals down to the districts
or centers again as a way of taking what is even the perception
of the wrong kind of pressure on folks.
Lastly, maybe one other thing. And it came up by reference
of one of your witnesses.
One of the things that has happened from time to time in
our examination activities, people have thought that when we
added penalty revenues to the tax assessment revenues, perhaps
we were sending a wrong signal.
Perhaps, we were saying to people that penalties are
designed to be revenue raisers.
And that's not why you wrote them. And that's not how we
should implement them.
And so another one of the things that I will do immediately
is stop including any penalty revenues in the ways that we
report the assessment activity for examination.
We will be accountable to impose the penalties correctly.
We will be accountable to collect them and pay them over.
But we are going to take them out of our measures because
again, I think what we've heard is there is the potential that
that sent the wrong message.
And lastly, you heard a number of times and even when you
didn't hear it, I've heard it loud and clear that people
question whether this prohibition on goals and quotas is really
working as it's intended.
Now, again, one of the things that I can tell you is that
quarterly, we do, as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights suggests we
should do, ask every head of office to certify that it's
working as it should.
We ask them to surface any examples of it not working as it
should.
Up until the last 3 days I would have had confidence that
that was producing the end result that I thought it was
producing.
What I've heard in the last 3 days makes me question that.
And so what I'm going to do is ask the GAO to come in and work
to see whether this self-certification process that we've had
in place since the inception of this provision in 1988 in the
Bill of Rights, whether that certification process is working.
And if not, to propose an alternative way of ensuring that
we enforce that provision in the way that the Congress intended
and taxpayers deserve.
I've probably gone longer than you expected me to go. And I
apologize for that.
But I think in accordance with 3 days, there have been a
lot of things out there that warranted my providing you some
response. I've not tried to be exhaustive by any means.
I look forward in the future to some further opportunity to
work some of these deeper.
But before I close, I will tell you that again as a 26-year
civil servant who sat through three days of this and, as I said
at the outset, it has been pretty painful, I'm disappointed
that we handled the cases--many of the cases the way we did.
I think it's important to recognize collectively and
individually that we've erred. And it's important to know where
we need to improve.
I haven't spent much time, except for a couple of brief
glimpses, talking about the millions of things that work right
week in and week out.
Not unlike any other business or any other enterprise, the
thing that gets the activity, that gets the attention is
typically not the millions of transactions or the millions of
interactions that are going right.
But I would certainly not represent well the 100,000
employees of the Internal Revenue Service or the tax
administration process in general if I didn't again ask you to
work with us in this larger context.
Clearly, there are problems. Clearly we are before you, not
to be defensive, not to suggest they didn't occur, but to do it
in a context that hopefully respects that many, many things
about today's system work well and also particularly the many
men and women who do such a complex job well.
I think we're an organization that without question is in
the midst of a tremendous amount of change.
Much attention has been paid to modernizing our computer
systems. We're in the business of modernizing the entire
process.
Clearly, the computer systems are now at a point where with
the architecture and the blueprint that have been released in
the last 6 months, I think we're on the verge of bringing to
bear some of the technology that will help in many of these
areas.
Maybe as importantly, we are about 30 days away from what I
think is a very exciting set of efforts where we have joined
the Treasury Department and the Vice President and NPR to look
at the entire customer service focus in the Internal Revenue
Service.
In the middle of October, a group of about 50 or 60 front-
line people will come back to us with what I think are some
promise of even better ways of serving the American taxpayer.
I guess I close with saying we've not only heard you this
week, we've heard the taxpayers, the employees, the many people
who have come before you.
I would also like to tell you in hearing that that we
understand our obligation to improve. We understand our
obligation to act constructively on the information that you've
helped bring before us.
And I would welcome the ongoing opportunity to work both
with the members and the staff of this committee in an
oversight role or in any other role you choose to see that we
make the progress that the American taxpayer deserves.
Thank you. I have some colleagues with me.
To the extent that your questions go in areas that I get
out of my depth, I would like to have the ability to bring them
to the table. But I'm now prepared to respond to your interests
as best I can.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dolan appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Dolan. Let me start
out by saying that I think in order to remedy what I think is a
very, very troublesome situation it is critically important to
recognize that the problem exists. I am pleased, in part, that
you agree there is a problem. But I have to say, in all candor,
I am concerned that you do not understand the depth of the
problem.
You talk about culture. In the case of culture, you use the
language ``serving the public.'' I think it is important for
you to understand that the perception on the part of the public
that the numerous witnesses that appeared before our committee,
whether they were the experts, the authors, the individuals who
have been studying the IRS, the taxpayer cases we presented
yesterday, or whether it is past or present employees, they all
expressed a very deep-rooted concern that in the IRS the
culture is not based on service, it is not even citizen
friendly, but you--the IRS--are viewed as an enforcement
agency.
I think in many ways that is the very root of the problem.
Service has to be the basic characteristic of this
organization. As you mentioned, most of the Federal employees
are good employees, and with that I agree. I would also say
that the majority of American citizens are law-abiding
taxpayers.
But what we are so concerned about is that there are too
many instances, far too many cases that demonstrate otherwise.
I think we are going to have to look at your organization, and
how it is structured.
I think we are going to have to look at the question of
power, and whether all the power that has been delegated to you
is necessary. But most importantly, I think, is this question
that the organization has to be turned around to recognize that
the basic purpose in dealing with the American people is to be
consumer friendly. I cannot stress that too much.
Mr. Dolan. Mr. Chairman, if I might. I appreciate your
candor, and I know you want me to be equally candid in return.
The Chairman. Please proceed.
Mr. Dolan. I understand what you have said, and I think an
awful lot of my colleagues understand. One of the dilemmas I
have is that frequently people go down a road of discussion of
culture and we all operate, perhaps, at different levels. Some
of us are anthropologists and we are very sophisticated, and
others of us are operating at a different level. One of the
things we frequently do is set this up as if they are poles. On
the one pole is service, and on the other pole is enforcement.
I do not believe that is the case. I believe it is a spectrum.
I believe that what you do is invest in the front-end kinds
of service, the taxpayer friendly aspects that you talked
about, with an objective in mind. The objective is having a
system where people are able to be, encouraged to be, as
compliant as possible.
At some point in time though, if I am here and I am
compliant, I think that person expects the Internal Revenue
Service to deal with somebody who is not pulling their load. So
I hope over time that we do not have to talk about this as if
it is a right brain or left brain, but as if it fits together
in some kind of a spectrum where we have to be sure we balance
right.
The Chairman. The point I am making is that the principal
purpose of the IRS is taxpayer service. You are absolutely
right, there is unfortunately a minority of individuals who do
cheat, and do not want to pay their fair share of taxes. No
question, but that we have to go after them on an enforcement
basis. We all agree on that.
But what I am concerned about, is the organization appears
to characterize itself too much as being a law enforcement
agency rather than taxpayer friendly.
Mr. Dolan. I accept that feedback, and I appreciate you
giving it to me. One other thing that I think you know, but
just maybe as an antidote to this, and I think some of the
other members may know, is last year we made a very conscious
decision that I think put us in the direction that you have in
mind.
We took a fairly significant percentage of our people that
would normally have been working in our service center
compliance operations and we moved them over to try to move up
our phone access, because the budget we had for telephones was
only going to put us to a point. We knew that was not
satisfactory.
We knew taxpayers needed to get in during the filing
season, so we took people that would otherwise have had
compliance activities and moved them over for the very purpose
that you have in mind. So you will not get an argument from me,
Senator, about that being a very key part of why we are in
business.
The Chairman. I have a series of questions I would like to
propound to you and I want you to have adequate time to answer
them, but I would ask that you be as concise as possible.
As you know, we had a number of your employees appear
before us yesterday and today. Will you give me your personal
assurance that no one involved in this hearing will ever suffer
any form of retaliation by IRS?
Mr. Dolan. Unequivocally I will give you that assurance.
The Chairman. Unequivocally.
Mr. Dolan. Unequivocally.
The Chairman. We have talked about the use of goals and
quotas. Is that a basis of evaluating employees' performance?
Mr. Dolan. Well, as you heard me say, Mr. Chairman, the
law, the policy, the practice, I believe, is that goals and
quotas are not used. But what you heard is the same thing I
have been hearing the last couple or 3 days, is that might be
all well and good, but there are other measures at work in the
organization that are either being used as surrogates for or
are having the same effect. That is why I took the series of
actions I did to take that set of potential other measures,
albeit not goals or quotas, and if they are producing the same
net pressure we ought to do something about them. That is why I
have suspended the measures and changed the ones I have
mentioned to you.
The Chairman. Mr. Dolan, it concerns me, to be candid, and
that is the purpose of this discussion.
Mr. Dolan. Absolutely. Absolutely.
The Chairman. It concerns me that you learned about this
only over the course of the last 3 days.
Mr. Dolan. I did not say that, sir. I said that with what I
heard the last two or 3 days, I am not comfortable with the
devices I talked about earlier, the quarterly certification,
the reemphasis of the policy statement and managerial training,
employee training. You had people come before you that at least
make me want to go be sure that what I have been relying on as
verification is accurate.
The Chairman. Let me ask this question. Are you aware of
the use of goals, quotas, and statistics to evaluate employee
performance?
Mr. Dolan. I have had several allegations made to me, which
I have referred to Inspection. I am aware of the ones that have
been made to you this week. I am also seeing in the quarterly
certifications that come forward to me, there have in several
of those certifications been one, two, three instances where
somebody identified in a performance review or a branch review
something that they thought violated the policy and they
corrected it and reported it. So, I am aware of those
instances.
The Chairman. I would like to have them put up the San
Francisco division examiner chart over there. Can you give him
a copy of the sheet, too? Mr. Dolan, I will give you a minute
to look at it.
Mr. Dolan. Thank you.
[Pause.]
The Chairman. Let me ask you this. Would you comment on the
San Francisco district mid-year report on goals for revenue
agents?
Mr. Dolan. I have about three or four pages of management
information that are routinely gathered and maintained in the
organization. About a third to a half of them represent the
output measures that GPRA requires me to not only put in my
budget, but to execute my budget against. What you have in some
part here is the deployment of some of those GPRA measures,
first to the western region, then subdivided within the western
region to the San Francisco district.
So what you have here is that. This does not represent a
goal for a front-line revenue agent to go do X or a front-line
revenue officer to go do Y. This is the thing I told you that I
have suspended because some people in the course of your
hearing or other venues have said, well, this may not be a
goal, it may not be a statistic, it may not be a quota, but it
is too easy for somebody to infer one.
The Chairman. Just let me point out that this document has
on it a category RA, that is revenue agent, of course.
Mr. Dolan. Correct. Correct.
The Chairman. The goal. The next column says, ``Goal:
$1,000.'' Below that you have two others. Finally, ``TA.'' The
goal is $1,012.
Now, RA stands for revenue agent.
Mr. Dolan. That is correct.
The Chairman. Let me just point out. Now, I heard you, Mr.
Dolan.
Mr. Dolan. All right.
The Chairman. I would just like for you to note that, for
both RA and TA, ``A general improvement is needed. A large
improvement can be made by bringing down hours per return.'' I
do not care how you dress that up, that is setting a goal.
If you give that to the employees, they are going to
understand that they are obligated, if they want to do a good
job, they have got to meet those goals. There is no way, in my
judgment, that you can explain away this kind of chart. It is a
failure to recognize what the purpose of this chart is.
Mr. Dolan. I do not seek to explain it away and I am not
trying to dress it up. What I would do is invite also your
attention to things like cycle time, required filing checks.
What this represents for the San Francisco district, and I
do not know at my fingertips how many agents there are there,
but the agents in the Examination Division of the San Francisco
district have a wide sort of work.
I mean, it makes no sense to say to somebody on each and
every case in the San Francisco district, $1,000 or some other
number. What this does is invite the San Francisco district to
look at the work that is in inventory, look at how the hours
are being applied, look at how the issues are being examined.
The Chairman. Well, I would just point out that that is not
the way your employees interpret it. I think that is the
problem.
Mr. Dolan. I agree with you. That is why I said what I did.
I can sit here and explain this to you all day, but you have
had people say to you, that is nuts. I am inferring a goal from
that. That is why I suspended it. I do not want that result.
The Chairman. And all I say, if you are an employee, if you
are an RA and you see this chart, I do not know how you could
interpret it any other way but being a goal for the success of
your performance. But let us move on.
Does the use of such goals violate the Taxpayer Bill of
Rights?
Mr. Dolan. Mr. Chairman, again, the way that I have tried
to explain this----
The Chairman. I am not asking you to explain.
Mr. Dolan. All right.
The Chairman. I said, does the use of goals----
Mr. Dolan. In terms of the use of this goal at the division
level to set a division allocation, I do not view this as a
violation of either the law or the policy statement. The law is
quite specific about using this as a goal or quota for a front-
line enforcement person or their manager.
The Chairman. Let me ask you this question. Do you see any
problems in using goals?
Mr. Dolan. Absolutely. Absolutely.
The Chairman. What are those?
Mr. Dolan. The problems are that I can sit here and tell
you, as I just have, that this was not designed----
The Chairman. I would like you to answer my question.
Mr. Dolan. All right. I am sorry. I think I am trying to
agree with you.
The Chairman. Why is the use of goals not in the interest
of the taxpayer?
Mr. Dolan. Because it produces absolutely the wrong
results. If somebody is chasing a goal instead of looking at
the individual fact pattern, choosing a course of action based
on that fact pattern, it is absolutely wrong. It is not the way
they should operate.
The Chairman. Let me turn to my next question, as time is
moving on. Monsignor Ballweg testified yesterday that IRS
correspondence did not include any name to which to respond.
My question to you is, how does this promote
accountability? Is it not essential that an employee be held
accountable for his actions and deeds? If the taxpayer does not
know who it is, who does he hold accountable?
Mr. Dolan. You are right on two scores, Mr. Chairman. One
is the accountability, and the other is the plain, common
customer interaction. Our notices need a lot of work. Last year
we took 25 or 30 of them and redid them from top to bottom
because they do not communicate well, they are not customer
friendly, and they fail on the accountability side as well.
We are in a process today of trying to go top to bottom
with our notices and correspondence and do more of what the
Monsignor and you suggest. You are right, they should be
different than they are today.
The Chairman. My question is, this is not a very
complicated request. Are you requiring the employees to sign
their statements when they are sent to the taxpayer so the
taxpayer not only knows who to contact to resolve his problem,
but who to hold accountable?
Mr. Dolan. Senator, we do not sign all of the
correspondence. We do have a requirement that the letters be
signed. We do have a requirement in law that deficiency
assessments be signed. There is a series of notices that are
not signed. Some of those notices today also do not have a name
on them, only a telephone number.
The Chairman. If we are going to hold employees
accountable, should their name not be on it?
Mr. Dolan. I think that is a fair question. I guess I would
like to be able to come back to you and maybe talk about the
entire universe and maybe draw some distinctions between one
kind of a notice and another.
The Chairman. Now, let me ask this, Mr. Commissioner. Are
you aware that the data of the Bureau of Labor Statistics are
used by IRS employees to create phantom income or inflate a
taxpayer's income? Is it appropriate, in your judgment, to use
national average statistics to indicate the income of a
specific taxpayer?
Mr. Dolan. I think it is hard to make an absolute answer to
that question, and here is the reason. You heard in one of your
panels the same thing that has been debated fairly
significantly over the last couple of years.
There is at one and the same time a need to create a
consistency and an even-handedness with the way the law applies
across the land. There is, on the other hand, a need to have
the flexibility to take into account individual taxpayer
circumstances.
We have used these Bureau of Labor standards as a way of
finding some metric that would create for a particular
geographical area a standard that would represent a fair way of
looking at everybody in that geographical area.
I have had people raise questions about whether, if you
push that too far, you get the wrong result. I think it is
possible you do, but that is how they are used and that would
be what I think would be a legitimate usage.
The Chairman. But, again, is it fair to a taxpayer to state
his income or his expenses as what are shown to be the national
average; are you not supposed to have their actual income,
their actual expenses?
Mr. Dolan. Typically it comes to bear, and if you ask me
one more question I will get out of my depth here, so I am
going to take my last shot at my depth. But I think in terms of
two instances where this would come to play, one would be
potentially an instance where we have sought a return, gotten
no answer to a series of four or five inquiries, have
information that the person either had a W-2, 1099, or
something else, so we have to set out to create what we call a
substitute for return. So it could enter there.
The other place it could enter is if someone were to come
to us and say, I cannot pay this whole thing. I either cannot
full pay it and I want an installment agreement, or I cannot
pay it and I want to compromise my liability.
In both those instances we have to have some way of
projecting, what are the living expenses, how are we to deal in
some fair way with what the expenses are associated with that
taxpayer so we do not compromise one way in one part of the
country and another way in another part of the country.
The Chairman. Just let me say that I think the Bureau of
Labor Statistics would be shocked if they knew for what purpose
their figures are being used. My concern is that it is much
broader than what you are indicating now. I think that is a
matter that ought to be looked at carefully and corrected.
Mr. Dolan. I would be interested in pursuing, Mr. Chairman,
further discussion of this so that I am sure that I am picking
up on the concerns you have.
The Chairman. Are you aware of instances where IRS
employees have been instructed by their superiors to frame
taxpayer or other IRS employees?
Mr. Dolan. Absolutely not.
The Chairman. You have no acquaintance with any?
Mr. Dolan. No. Zero. None.
The Chairman. Mr. Dolan, if it came to your attention that
an employee of the IRS engaged in illegal wire tapping or had
fabricated a case against a taxpayer or had framed another
employee to gain a promotion, what disciplinary action would
you take?
Mr. Dolan. Well, the first thing I would do is make sure it
got investigated so I had the facts. If those facts were the
facts, they would be fired.
The Chairman. Of course. Of course. You would fire them.
Mr. Dolan. Absolutely.
The Chairman. Are you aware of any such cases?
Mr. Dolan. I am not personally aware. I did not examine our
disciplinary logs to see whether there was such a case, but I
am not, as I sit here before you, personally familiar with such
a case.
The Chairman. Are you aware of instances where IRS
inspection employees have been instructed to use unauthorized
wire taps or engage in other illegal activity?
Mr. Dolan. I am not.
The Chairman. Did you listen to the testimony of the last 3
days?
Mr. Dolan. Yes. Well, let me qualify it. I said in my
opening comments that a number of things that were said in the
first 3 days are things that we have made referrals regarding
your investigation to the IG to have them pursued because they
were issues coming to our attention for the first time.
The Chairman. Are you aware of instances where IRS
employees have browsed confidential taxpayer information of
jurors or witnesses?
Mr. Dolan. No, I am not.
The Chairman. You are not aware?
Mr. Dolan. I am clearly aware of the browsing challenge,
and many of you know that I have been in the middle of that for
the last couple of years, but I am not familiar with the juror/
witness issue.
Again, I heard it said in this room and we will pursue that
as best we can. That is why I asked you at the beginning, too,
if we could find some way for the people that appeared before
you this morning to get that information into some hands you
and they trust so that we can pursue it.
The Chairman. Just let me say, I would like to have you
pursue it within the organization.
Mr. Dolan. I would be happy to.
The Chairman. I think it is extremely important. If true,
it is a most serious charge.
Mr. Dolan. I could not agree with you more. I believe that
was an allegation made this morning. If that person is either
comfortable making his or her identity known to me, or if you
will have the staff somehow get the information to me, I am
more than happy to pursue it.
The Chairman. Are you aware that the General Accounting
Office found that there is inadequate information to show the
extent of the proper or improper use of liens, levies, or
seizures authority or collection enforcement authority?
Mr. Dolan. I believe I am familiar with what is a draft
report out at the moment that was done at your request in this
area. Yes, I am familiar with that.
The Chairman. The study was of course only within this
area, but as a practical matter, what concerns me about this,
what it really means, is that no one, but no one, not you, not
I, or anyone else, are really able to evaluate or judge how
serious a problem it is because the records are not adequate
for that purpose.
Mr. Dolan. I think, clearly, the records are not adequate
for all of the purposes that you and I would both like them to
be. I think that is different though, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The purpose of the study, the GAO
specifically found that the records are not adequate to
determine the extent of the improper use of liens, levies, or
seizures authority. So I think that is an important finding and
something that ought to be looked at by you.
Mr. Dolan. I think, Mr. Chairman, not to argue a point, but
there are some aspects of that report where the GAO found that
it would be very difficult to go back, and very costly to go
back, and in some other places they found that it would be
impossible to make the kind of association that you asked them
to make. So you have got both kinds of instances at work there.
The Chairman. Are you aware of instances where IRS
Inspection employees have been used to intimidate or harass
other employees?
Mr. Dolan. I am not personally aware of that, no. As a
matter of fact, I think my view of the Inspection Service is
quite a lot different from what I heard this morning described,
and that is part of what concerned me. I have known the
Inspection Service to do a very good job of taking many serious
allegations and, in the case where they are substantiated,
helping us prosecute them. In many other instances they help
exonerate the employee's conduct. So I have come over my career
to respect the Inspection Service.
The Chairman. Now, I would point out that the employees
this morning were under oath.
Mr. Dolan. I understand that. I do not belittle that for a
moment.
The Chairman. Are you saying they were not being honest in
their answers?
Mr. Dolan. Not at all. I am repeating what I said at the
outset. Where my understanding of the facts might differ from
theirs, I am going to treat their statements this morning and
their concerns seriously and pursue them.
The Chairman. Are you aware of IRS employees engaging in
whipsaw efforts, that is, attempting to collect tax from
someone they know does not owe the tax?
Mr. Dolan. I do not know about employees who are trying to
collect tax that is not owed. The term ``whipsaw'' gets applied
to a couple of different transactions, and to the extent you
would like to pursue that further, I would like to have either
Tom Smith or John Dalrymple help me on that. So I am happy to
do that now.
The Chairman. My time is running out, so we will not do
that at this time.
Mr. Dolan, the taxpayers that testified yesterday need to
move on with their lives and close the chapter that is relating
to the IRS. I am sure you will agree with me, they need to be
treated equitably. Can you make a definitive statement that you
will send a letter to the four taxpayers equitably resolving
their disputes with the IRS?
Mr. Dolan. Mr. Chairman, I am going to be unequivocal about
three, and I am going to tell you that in the fourth case, and
I think you may be familiar with this, in the fourth case, I
have only limited disclosure authority.
I feel certain that in two cases we are already there and I
would have no trouble at all writing a letter. In the third
case, we have offered to send to the taxpayer's residence one
of our problem resolution officers, because the taxpayer
believes there may still be an amount that was not correctly
credited somewhere over a period of years. So I will certainly
commit to working that through to conclusion.
At this point I am not sure what I will be committing to
you about equitable. I mean, if equitable means getting it to
the right substantive result, I will certainly commit to that.
The Chairman. Let me ask you this specifically. Is the IRS
in a position to send the Hicks' a letter indicating that they
do not owe tax liability relating to Mrs. Hicks' 1983 joint tax
return?
Mr. Dolan. Such a letter is on its way, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gramm. That is fast. That is good service. You have
about 100 million more to write. [Laughter.]
The Chairman. I would have to point out to my friend, the
ordeal lasted 17 years.
Senator Gramm. I understand. I understand.
The Chairman. In the Jacobs' case, how much money does the
IRS owe the Jacobs'? Has the entire amount been refunded, with
interest? If not, why? Does the IRS intend to make a prompt
refund?
Mr. Dolan. If you do not mind, this would be the point,
there are a couple of gentlemen who worked these cases pretty
closely. I would like to not misspeak on that, if I could
invite them to the table.
The Chairman. Anybody that is going to answer will have to
be sworn in.
Mr. Dolan. All right. Mr. Chairman, can I make sure I
understood your question? I think when I told you the letter
was on its way, I think we believe we resolved the Jacobs' case
in every facet. But I want to make sure I am not
misunderstanding your question.
Senator Grassley. He was asking about the Hicks' in the
case of the letter.
Mr. Dolan. I am sorry.
Senator Grassley. I am right, am I not? You asked about the
Hicks' being sent a letter.
The Chairman. Yes, I did. However, regarding the Jacobs, I
was asking how much money.
Mr. Dolan. I am sorry. All right.
The Jacobs' case is the case in which I mentioned that we
believe it is solved. The Jacobs' have suggested they believe
that they possibly are due a refund. That is the one where we
have asked a problem resolution person to go to their home and
walk through any records. We have a mountain of records we got
as a result of looking at those.
So I would say the Jacobs' may still have a question, and
that is what we will seek to resolve. I am told that the
Jacobs' have not decided whether they want us to come out or
not. [Laughter.]
The Chairman. You do not know the answer?
Mr. Dolan. I will not know the answer until we have a
chance to talk with the Jacobs'.
The Chairman. Mr. Dolan, let me point out one of these
things. In talking about these cases, they are not merely
statistics.
Mr. Dolan. Absolutely.
The Chairman. They involve people.
Mr. Dolan. Absolutely.
The Chairman. And to me it was shocking to sit here and
listen to these cases. In the case of the Hicks' it went on
something like 17 years, roughly the same for the Jacobs'. The
emotional stress, what it does to an individual life is
unbelievable. There is no rationale or excuse for that kind of
treatment.
Mr. Dolan. You are absolutely right.
The Chairman. So it is important that we put these to a
close.
Mr. Dolan. You are absolutely right.
The Chairman. I would like to turn to the Savage case. I
would like to direct your attention to a letter relating to
this case which was discussed yesterday. The letter was written
to the district counsel handling Mr. Savage's case on November
1, 1993 by the chief of the Civil Trial Section, Eastern Region
of the Justice Department. The thrust of this letter is that
the levy against Mr. Savage's business was wrong.
Let me read you what the Justice Department, through Mr.
Snyder, wrote. Specifically he writes, ``After reviewing the
complaint, the motion for summary judgment, your defense
letter, and all the information forwarded by the revenue
officer, we believe that the levy in question was wrongful,
even assuming the facts in their most favorable light at the
time of the levy, the IRS had assessed and only,'' the point
there they had not made a proper assessment.
``No assessment existed against TSA or the alleged joint
venture partnership. We do not believe that the IRS can levy on
the partnership property for the unpaid Federal employment tax
liability of one of the partners.''
Further on it says, ``In fact, we read your defense letter
to essentially concede that the levy was wrongful.'' Yet the
matter was pursued notwithstanding the fact that the U.S.
Department of Justice's Tax Division wrote that it was
wrongful.
What possible rationale is there for having proceeded in
that case?
Mr. Dolan. Mr. Chairman, I have to answer your question in
two ways. The first, I believe you, or at least the staff, is
conscious that this is a transaction that has more taxpayers
involved than Mr. Savage.
It is a transaction that, when we first began to examine
this, we asked for releases for all the parties. We have only a
release for Mr. Savage. I am happy to do an executive session
and a more thorough discussion of this, but I am not able to do
it in this setting with the limits on my disclosure ability.
Second, regarding the issue of this letter, when this
letter came up in Mr. Savage's testimony, I have asked the
Justice Department to write me with their perspective on the
context of the letter and what they believe this letter should
mean to me in the context of that case.
The Chairman. I find that very difficult to understand.
After the fact at this late date, you are writing the Justice
Department to give further explanation. I think this is very
clear.
Mr. Dolan. On this letter. On this letter, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The letter, without question, says that the
action was wrongful. You do not need another letter to
interpret that.
Mr. Dolan. Mr. Chairman, what I----
The Chairman. Let me just say, that is what concerns me. It
is no wonder a taxpayer is feeling badgered, that he is not
being dealt with fairly. In effect, you can almost call it
extortion. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Dolan. No, I do not agree with that.
The Chairman. You think it is----
Mr. Dolan. Mr. Chairman, let me just restate the case. We
have spent months trying to work these cases and put everything
we could on the table. This is a case that has at least two
other parties. I do not have the ability to talk about either
of those two other parties, so I cannot explain what
transaction might have had this amount to something other than
what it looks like on its face.
The Chairman. For example, you say you need a release, when
the one party does not exist. The problem is, the agency tried
to claim there was a partnership that did not, in fact, exist.
Senator Conrad. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire about the
rules of the committee here? I mean, are other members of the
committee going to get a chance to ask questions?
The Chairman. I have got one more question and that would
be all.
Mr. Dolan. Mr. Chairman, we have tried to be forthcoming on
this case. The staff and our staff have talked about the case.
I would be happy to go into executive session in any setting
that you choose and work this in a more responsive way. I just
cannot do it in this setting.
The Chairman. I have to say, I find this case and the
treatment totally incomprehensible. It is no wonder.
[Applause]
The Chairman. I would ask the audience, you are guests of
the committee. Applause is not appropriate.
My time is running out, so I will turn at this time to
Senator Gramm.
Senator Gramm. Mr. Chairman, thank you. How much time do I
have, 10 minutes?
The Chairman. Ten minutes.
Senator Gramm. Well, Mr. Dolan, let me first say that I for
one am appreciative of the attitude that you have brought
before this committee. I think had you come here today in a
defensive posture, that we would have had tremendous
confrontation which would not have served the IRS or the
committee well. I think your basic approach is the right
approach, and I would like to begin by thanking you for that.
Let me also say that I try to be fair in dealing with
government agencies in assuming that people often have ulterior
motives, that there are always people who have axes to grind.
When I read the testimony of your former and mostly your
present agents, in reading the testimony it was hard to judge.
But I would have to say that, in listening to their testimony,
I found their testimony extremely compelling.
Here is the problem, as I see it. Next year, the tax burden
on the average American worker is going to be the highest it
has ever been in the history of America. Next year we are going
to use the power of government to take 31 cents out of every
dollar earned by every American, on average. That will be the
highest tax burden that we have ever tried to impose on the
American people.
Now, it seems to me that this system is going to break down
if people become convinced that it is not fair, that part of
the ability to collect taxes is based on people believing that
they are being treated fairly.
Now, I hear people talking about a consumer friendly IRS.
Forgive me, I do not think either I or my constituents could
ever view the IRS as customer friendly. I mean, basically your
duty is to get money for the government to spend.
So I think much of the idea that somehow we are going to
make people love the tax collector. St. Paul was not successful
before he went on that road to Damascus.
I guess we are hoping to take the whole agency down that
road, toward the bright light, and the conversion. But the
point is, we cannot guarantee everyone that they are not going
to have bad experiences with the IRS, and if they are cheating
I do not want them to have good experiences.
I do not want to do anything that will reduce your ability
to collect money from people who are cheating, because part of
fairness is being assured that cheats are going to be
prosecuted and that they are going to pay like everybody else.
But what is most damaging, it seems to me, in the testimony
we have heard, is the very real picture, compelling picture
that the system is not fair and that, in fact, in the last few
years the level of unfairness has grown, and grown rapidly.
We had six of your current agents here today, and I asked
each and every one of them, in the last two or 3 years is it
your perception that the problems you are talking about,
problems of people being pursued for money they did not owe,
problems of political favoritism or personal favoritism, very
severe charges, it seems to me.
Very serious charges, that we are not going after members
of a union because they are politically favored, or that
personal friends of a supervisor are not being audited because
they are exerting influence. I think people ought to go to jail
for doing things like that.
But the perception of each one of those six individuals was
that these problems were getting worse, that actually these
problems were growing. It seems to me that what is called for
here is a dramatic change in the way the IRS operates.
It seems to me that we have got to do this not just for
fairness, not just for accountable government, but I think it
is going to become increasingly hard to collect the revenues
that the country claims it needs if people do not believe it is
fair.
Now, I have heard, and I will get to my questions, a lot
about this culture of the IRS. It seems to me there are two
ways you can look at this. One, is you have got a culture
problem and people basically have taken on sort of a calloused
facade and they are running over people and you need to get
them together and convince them not to do it anymore. I do not
buy that. I think the systems make people behave as they do. I
think the problem with the IRS is a very simple problem: power
corrupts.
I think what we have got to do is to find some way of
having a separation of power, either within the agency or
breaking the agency apart. I think we have got to have some
checks and balances. I think maybe we need to bring more senior
people into the service who did not come up through the ranks.
I think you need a blending of the two.
But I do not think we are going to solve this problem by
just viewing it as sociology. I think the problem is, there is
something very wrong with the system and I think that,
especially in the last couple of years, it has clearly gotten
off track.
What I would like to ask you is, as a person who is acting
director, who obviously is a man of considerable ability and is
a person whose career is probably going to be judged on the
outcome of the changes that we make in the next couple of
years, whether that is fair or unfair, I think that is the
case.
What kind of changes, based on what you have seen in the
last few days and what you know from 26 years of experience, if
you were sitting where I was sitting and you really wanted to
fix this problem and, sitting where I am, you know what you
know from 26 years and having at least superficially looked
into these questions that have been raised, what kind of
changes would you want to see made?
Mr. Dolan. That is the $64,000 question. That is a great
question. Let me try to tick off some of them and tell you that
I will probably wake up tonight and wish I had given you four
better pieces of it.
But first let me start by agreeing with you. I think when
something is right or wrong it is typically not just somebody
out there operating on their own. They are products of systems,
they are a product of the way operations are designed, the way
they are managed. So good, bad, or indifferent, the front-line
person is a product of the system we ask them to operate in.
We have got a number of challenges. Maybe the one I did not
answer to the Chairman's satisfaction is that there is some
tension. There has been historical tension.
The tension exists not only within the IRS, but the IRS's
relationship with the Congress. We can sit as you suggested,
and talk about customer this or more of this, and some ability
to better, over the long haul, reconcile, what is the
expectation of the Congress with respect to the revenue
raising, with respect to the capability of providing first-
class customer service. There are some core choices and
reconciliation of views that maybe in the past we have not done
as smoothly as we might.
So if I were going to reinvent the world, I would find some
mechanic to get the tax administrators, the administration, the
Congress' reconciled views of what do we want out of this
system. Is it a system that we mostly value because it puts
$1.5 trillion in the bank every year, is it a system that we
mostly value because it is one of the principal faces to our
citizenry, is it both those things, how do we want to balance
it.
Senator Gramm. Well, let me tell you, you may get a lot of
people who are going to give you a flowery answer, but we would
not have an IRS if we did not need the $1.5 trillion a year.
Mr. Dolan. Right. Right.
Senator Gramm. So we are sure not doing this to be consumer
friendly.
Mr. Dolan. And I am making too much of this one point.
Senator Gramm. Let me also say, there are three problems as
I see it, and two of them are not your creation. No. one, to
get people to pay taxes, they need to be convinced that we are
taking a reasonable amount of their income. They are not.
Number two, they need to be convinced that we are not wasting
their money, and they are not. They are right on both those
counts. The one you have the ability to control is that at
least maybe we are taking too much and maybe we are squandering
it, but the burden is falling fairly on everybody.
We are clearly failing on the other two, in my opinion. It
is the third one here that I think has been called into very
real question. Not only do the American people believe the
system is unfair, according to the polls, but in listening to
these people who are on the inside it is obvious the people are
right. The question is, how can you fix that problem?
Another thing I thought about, let me try to direct the
question a little better. In the criminal justice system, for
example, you have got police officers who go out and
investigate and then you have a DA who takes their work
product, then that DA prosecutes. Then you have got a judge and
jury, so there are checks on each other. I do not see that same
system. Now, I do not know the IRS. I mean, I do not want to
know it a lot better, personally. [Laughter.]
Senator Gramm. But is there some way within the IRS we
might replicate this system of checks and balances? Is this
part of the problem? As many of our witnesses have said, are
you the judge, the jury and executioner all put together?
Mr. Dolan. I hope not. I say that not to be facetious,
because I do believe that when you probably spend more time
than either of us has today to spend on it, look over time at
the way the processes have been designed.
For example, the appeals process. The appeals process and
the tax system, I think, by a lot of measures, is one of the
most effective dispute resolution mechanisms that keeps the
lion's share of controversy that comes out of tax audits.
It is one of the most controversial things that a person
can be involved in. That appeals process resolves a remarkable
percentage of those disputes, short of ever having to be in the
more litigious, long, drawn out ones.
So I think my suggestion would be, Senator, there are
elements of today's system that I think provide extraordinarily
effective checks and balances. On the other hand, I think in
terms of some of the examinations that have been done recently,
just exactly where do we bring this more customer-sensitive
capacity, what kind of capacity do we bring to the table when
we deal with somebody's account?
Do we have the same facility to give you a straight answer,
a timely answer, closure to your transaction that you would
experience if you dealt with your bank, your credit card
companies?
Those are not customer friendly, frilly things at the
margin, those are core capacities. If we did them better than
we do today, I think you would take a tremendous amount of the
frustration out of some of the interactions that occur today.
So I am not so sure it is a matter of finding a brand-new
structure. I think it is a matter of taking some parts of these
capacities and going from 1 to 10 on the scale that we are
today.
I think your suggestion about bringing in insight from the
outside, bringing people in. We are in a complicated world, a
complicated business, and you cannot grow it all from the
ground up, you need expertise from the outside.
Senator Gramm. Well, Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up. I
just want to say that I am totally convinced that we need to
pass legislation that is aimed at changing the structure of
this system in such a way as to deal with the problems we have
heard today and to at least give an assurance that, while we
may or may not fix the unfairness, that at least we care and
that we want to fix it.
I think it is going to require not just another little
Taxpayer Bill of Rights. It had a great title, but it had
limited impact.
I think we need a substantial amount of work from this
committee and from this Congress to change the system to bring
in checks and balances, to bring into IRS management outsiders
who have been out in the world dealing with the IRS, while
preserving, obviously, the experience of people who have been
there 26 years.
But I think we need to change the system. Not do pep
rallies or hire psychologists. So, obviously, that affects you.
The Chairman. Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, to
pick up on the last comments from Senator Gramm, it would seem
to me a good place for this committee to take a next step would
be to hold a confirmation hearing for the nominee to be the
permanent INS commissioner.
As I read over some of the background of Mr. Charles
Rossotti, who has been nominated, it sounds as if he has the
kind of characteristics that we are looking for. He founded and
led his own company for 27 successful years, the American
Management System, a multi-million dollar computer system and
consulting firm. As someone said, he does not come out of the
kind of background that has typified previous IRS
commissioners, for better or worse.
I would suggest and urge, Mr. Chairman, that we hold a
confirmation hearing in order to solicit the ideas of this
fresh person and, if he meets our test, to get him on the job
as quickly as possible, because he has sure got a lot of work
to do.
Second, Mr. Chairman, I would like to use as the basis for
some of my questions a specific case which came to the
attention of our office. I might state, we have received the
appropriate release of confidentiality statements, which I can
make available to whoever would like to see them, in order to
talk about this case.
In fact, the taxpayer has actually urged us to talk about
her case. This is a case of a lady named Betty Bryant who lives
in Opa Locha, FL. We get approximately 50 IRS issues raised in
our office every week. This is one of those 50.
In fact, Ms. Bryant, who is a single mother with one child,
she is a 25-year State of Florida employee. She operated a
group home for developmentally disabled adults. In the summer
of 1995, she entered into a series of contacts with the IRS
relative to whether she owed the IRS money or was due a refund.
After approximately 6 months of this, in frustration, on
January 29, 1996 she contacted the Governor of Florida,
Governor Chiles, who in turn referred her to our office. So we
have been dealing with this case since early 1996.
Just to briefly recount some of the highlights of this, we
referred the case, after having received the appropriate
Privacy Act forms, to the problem resolution office in March of
1996. It took the better part of 2\1/2\ months to get a
response from the problem resolution office.
The office first closed the case because Ms. Bryant was
unable to provide all of the information necessary. Part of the
reason she was not able to do it is because some of her records
had been destroyed in Hurricane Andrew, which had occurred in
August of 1992. The case was then reopened, transferred from
one office to the other. In the course of this, her wages were
garnished at $100 every bi-week.
Finally, in April of 1997 it was determined that she was,
in fact, due a refund. A refund was sent to the wrong address.
She requested an explanation of the refund. That request
resulted in a notice that, in fact, the refund was
inappropriate and she did, in fact, owe taxes.
Finally, in July of 1997, 2 years after the case started,
it was resolved. Not only was it found that she was deserving
of the first refund, she got a second refund. That, in summary,
is her case.
Now, what are some of the broader ideas or principles that
come out of this case? One of them is that it seems as if this
is an agency which has entities that sound as if their purpose
is to help the taxpayer provide services, but where the
taxpayers are extremely discontent with the service they
receive.
Complaints such as this, that phone calls are not answered,
mail is not responded to, it takes 2 years to get a relatively
simple answer and a resolution of the case. This is not an
aberrant case, this is one of hundreds of thousands of cases.
My first question, looking to the organization of the IRS,
is how has the organization gotten so far away from its clients
that it took a Congressional hearing to understand the severity
of this case? If Burger King or McDonald's was so far away from
their clients that they did not understand that they were
putting out a bad hamburger, they would be out of business.
How does the IRS institutionally try to avoid this failure
to understand and be sensitive to its clients and the quality
of service it is delivering?
Mr. Dolan. Senator, let me take a crack at your basic
question. Then if the Chairman would permit, I would like to
have Lee Monk sworn in. Lee is our taxpayer advocate. I think
you framed, by the facts of the case, a question of, why did it
take such a long time and why did somebody not pick up on this
earlier.
I do not have an easy answer. It should have been picked up
earlier. It should have been picked up upon the first set of
correspondence. If it was not then, it sure should have been
resolved perhaps more quickly when it got into problem
resolution. I think Lee has a more full understanding of the
actual case, Senator, if we could get him sworn in and he could
react to it.
Senator Graham. Yes. We will send you all the details in
this actual case. But one of the principles that I think this
case stands for is an agency that has lost touch with the
people that it is intended to serve. I am really asking a
diagnostic question: why did that happen?
Mr. Dolan. Senator, I do not want for a second to suggest
your conclusion is wrong with respect to this case, that we
lost touch of the taxpayer in this instance. I think on a daily
basis some 330,000, 340,000 cases went through the Problem
Resolution Program last year, and I think in large part they
went through to the satisfaction of the taxpayer.
We have a variety of ways where we attempt to elicit
problem cases, concern cases and I do not think we are as
effective as we should be. That is why I ticked off those
things. I may have done it before you came in the room. I
ticked off a series of things that I want to see us do beyond
where we are today, because putting these kinds of gaps between
the taxpayer's problem and the ability to solve them is not
good for the taxpayer and not good for the faith in the system
that so many of the other Senators have talked about.
Senator Graham. What about the question of, how did it
happen institutionally that this agency, at least has created
the appearance in this case, and I would suggest hundreds of
thousands of others like it, that there is a disconnect between
it and the people that it is intended to serve, the ``S'' in
the Internal Revenue Service?
Mr. Dolan. I think the only way to institutionally answer
that is that you have to posit that we have placed inadequate
resource and management attention on the processes that ensure
that when we generate notices to taxpayers, someone is
satisfied that you have the capacity to take the response call,
to take the letter back. In some cases, our match of capacity
in taking inbound calls or taking reply correspondence has not
matched the volumes of outbound notices. We are trying today to
fix that.
You move on up the chain and you get into some of the
things I was talking about in my opening statement. When a case
in the early stages reflects itself as off track, do enough
people feel that they own the responsibility to take that case
and get it into problem resolution? I think we have failed in
some respects, having a greater sense that no matter who you
are in the organization, you have an obligation to get it over
in problem resolution.
I think clearly in your case you raise the question of,
once in problem resolution, does it work as effectively as it
should. So I think those would be the three aspects of the
system and each of which leaves something to be desired about
our past performance that would have to be improved.
Senator Graham. Before these hearings this week, was the
leadership of the agency aware that there were these problems?
Mr. Dolan. Absolutely. We have a significant amount of
effort, Senator, in each of those areas. I mentioned again,
perhaps before you entered the room, a joint effort that has
been ongoing for the last 3 or 4 months with the Treasury
Department and NPR that is going to produce in middle October
an entire suite of proposals. Several of them are going to be
involved in just this area of how the notice process works, how
we staff it, and how we respond to people who are replying back
to our notices, which was the case in this taxpayer's instance.
Senator Graham. This is a collections case. But the
collection cases ought to be the rare ones, as you state.
Eighty to 85 percent of the cases should be handled without the
necessity of IRS intervention.
Mr. Dolan. Correct.
Senator Graham. So for those vast numbers of cases that do
not get to collection, the basic things, answering the
telephone promptly and with credible information, being able to
provide the forms and those forms being understandable to the
taxpayer citizen, explaining the instructions.
At the beginning of this case this lady wanted to sit down
with somebody and just say, here are all my records, tell me
what I need to do. It took her the better part of 24 months to
get to that point. People basically want to do the right thing,
but in this complicated tax system and the complications of
life, they need help to do what they and the American
government wants them to do.
Mr. Dolan. Senator, I agree with you. One of the things you
highlight is a very significant challenge for us, which is
making the notices and the information we send to people clear
on their face, because some of what we send today certainly
fails that test.
Would you prefer that Mr. Monks deal separately on that?
Senator Graham. I think maybe we could deal separately on
the specifics of this case.
Mr. Dolan. All right.
Senator Graham. I was trying to use it to illustrate a
broader issue.
Mr. Dolan. I appreciate that.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Dolan, I did not hear your statement. How
many people or how many cases are involved in the problem
resolution process?
Mr. Dolan. Last year there were just over 300,000 in the
problem resolution program.
The Chairman. Senator Breaux.
Senator Breaux. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Dolan, for being with us. I would imagine
there is probably no person in the entire city of Washington
that would have hoped that this committee would have already
confirmed the commissioner of the IRS than you.
Mr. Dolan. I was inclined to give an amen to Senator
Graham's comment a moment ago.
Senator Breaux. Well, I appreciate your being here as
acting commissioner, and for your testimony. We have heard a
lot of bad things for the last 3 days, but I think the best
thing we have heard in the 3 days is your statement that the
IRS is in the middle of a tremendous amount of change.
I think that that, in itself, is very encouraging,
recognizing that change is necessary, particularly after
hearing the problems of the last 2 and 3 days. Hopefully, you
and whoever will be the commissioner will learn from these
hearings, as I think all of us are learning, about the things
that need to be done.
Let me ask just a couple of questions. How many tax filers
are there in our country each year, approximately?
Mr. Dolan. We have, I think, just over 200 million returns,
of which about 119 million of them are individual tax returns.
Senator Breaux. And of the 200 million plus tax filers, how
many are audited each year, approximately?
Mr. Dolan. It runs right around 2 percent, I think,
Senator. I can put my hands on the number.
Senator Breaux. So about approximately 2 percent of the 200
million are audited. Is that a ball park figure? I am not
looking for the actual number. I mean, it is about 2 percent of
the 200 million?
Mr. Dolan. 1.6 percent, I am told, Senator.
Senator Breaux. So of the 98 percent that, I take it, are
not audited, they would presumably have no additional dealings
with the Internal Revenue Service after they have filed their
tax return.
Mr. Dolan. That vast majority, you are right, Senator. You
file your tax return, either get one of the 85 to 90 million
refunds that will be issued, or your check clears and pays the
balance that is outstanding.
Senator Breaux. How many employees does the IRS have?
Mr. Dolan. It is 102,000.
Senator Breaux. We heard from six today. How typical of the
102,000 do you think the six we heard from are?
Mr. Dolan. That is a tough one for me, Senator, because I
want to tell you that I think you heard some differences this
morning than what you might hear if you sampled more broadly. I
want to say that, though in a way not for a moment to discount
what those men and women have said, because there are clearly
some things that need to be said, need to be heard, and need to
be followed up on.
We do have a couple of processes. We are just in the
process of doing the third cycle of something we call survey
feedback action. This is a process we have used internally now
for about 6 years. On a regular cycle, we survey our employees
about a whole series of things and typically look at cycle-to-
cycle changes.
Senator Breaux. What type of surveys do you conduct among
your employees; do you ask them to respond in writing if they
have complaints?
Mr. Dolan. Well, we do have a specific request. This survey
is essentially one that asks you to place gradations on a
series of maybe 40, 50 questions. The questions are compared to
the prior cycle and the prior cycle to look at where----
Senator Breaux. What is the purpose of that questionnaire?
Mr. Dolan. It is for the purpose of finding out about the
expectations of the job, about quality customer service
impediments, about interactions with management. It is a
general workplace survey that is both supposed to identify
issues that are impediments and pluses to getting the job done,
as well as environmental issues about the organization.
Senator Breaux. Do the people that respond to those
questionnaires do so without any fear of having action taken
against them by the IRS?
Mr. Dolan. They are done anonymously, Senator.
Senator Breaux. So they are not identified and pretty much
have a free shot at saying what they want.
Mr. Dolan. That is correct. That is correct. That
information is then played back. We distribute back to a group
the profile so that the manager in that group has a way of
saying anonymously, here is how the people in my organization
feel about the elements of their job, this is the place to
work.
Senator Breaux. How long has that process been in place?
Mr. Dolan. We have just administered the third cycle of it.
I think it probably covers about a 6-year period; 5 to 6 years.
This is the third time we have administered it.
Senator Breaux. The Chairman read a letter from the U.S.
Attorney, Department of Justice tax attorney, that basically
said that a particular case did not have any merit, and
suggested that the IRS not proceed on that case.
Does the IRS ever get letters from the Department of
Justice that suggest you should proceed on a case when the IRS
feels you should not and therefore you do not take action, or
does the Justice Department call the shots in all cases?
Mr. Dolan. Well, typically we are making a recommendation
to the Department of Justice, who has the final call on whether
the case goes forward on behalf of the United States.
Senator Breaux. The question, I guess, before it gets to
Justice for prosecution or proceedings, does justice ever
suggest that they do not think, or do think that a case should
be pursued, that IRS determines that it should not be and,
thus, is not proceeded against? Does it work both ways?
Mr. Dolan. I am not coming up with an example right away,
but I think it would work both ways, Senator. I probably could,
if I thought long enough, could come up with an example where
it could work both ways.
Senator Breaux. The commission that Senator Kerrey chaired
stated that the Omnibus Taxpayer Bill of Rights and Taxpayer
Bill of Rights II had an important effect on changing the
culture of the IRS. We had one of the witnesses say, their
reaction was something to the effect of, well, they thought it
could have been a lot worse, not as bad as it could have been,
a branch manager said. The impression was that it did not mean
a lot of anything to the IRS, what we passed in Congress. Can
you comment on that?
Mr. Dolan. That is clearly not the perspective that most of
the people that I know have either towards the Taxpayer Bill of
Rights or other enactments allowed by the Congress. When I
listened to that gentleman this morning, I do think in the
early days of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, if I compared the
Taxpayer Bill of Rights I and Taxpayer Bill of Rights II, in
terms of Taxpayer Bill of Rights I, I think there was a lot of
tension between the Congress and the IRS about what might be
the underlying objectives and what should be the right result.
Taxpayer Bill of Rights II struck me as an entirely
opposite transaction where the Congress and administration
chose to work hand-in-glove to effect that. But I am one that
thinks that Bill of Rights I and II have had a decided impact
on the way the men and women of the Internal Revenue Service do
their business.
Senator Breaux. Has there been occasion for specific
explanation of what that Bill of Rights legislation requires
IRS to do that had been for the benefit of IRS employees so
they would understand what they were required to do under that?
Mr. Dolan. Yes. Yes, there has, Senator, both in written
form and in instructional form.
Senator Breaux. Is it more than just posting it on the
water cooler or where people can pass by and read it if they
would like?
Mr. Dolan. Yes. Yes, Senator, it is more than that.
Senator Breaux. It has been suggested, and I would guess I
might have been one of them, that with regard to the Problem
Resolution office it was reported out that most of the people
in that office are career people passing through different
departments, they know they are going to be back in the
Collection section as soon as they finish the problem
resolution part of their career, and that it is not really
going to work because they are going to be doing something else
and their promotions are based on how much they do for the IRS
and not how much they do for the taxpayer.
So it has been suggested that what we establish is some
type of ombudsman type of department agency, office, or
something that would be on behalf of the taxpayer, that they
would know there is someplace they can go, other than to court,
where they could have somebody who is really on their side
working for them and trying to represent their opinion to the
IRS instead of having to go to the IRS to represent their
position to the IRS.
So I would like to ask, what are your thoughts about that
suggestion?
Mr. Dolan. Senator, I have heard a lot of really good
discussion on both sides of that. The argument for independence
has all the attributes that you describe.
I have two concerns about that, however. One, at the end of
the day, I certainly want a district director or service center
director to be accountable for what is going on in their
operation, so I think it is important that when mistakes get
made in the district or center, the ownership, the person who
is accountable for getting them fixed, is the person who runs
that entity. You run some risk if you put your problem-solving
process totally outside the line that it becomes somebody
else's.
Senator Breaux. I am not so much advocating that the
penalty be done by someone from the outside.
Mr. Dolan. All right.
Senator Breaux. I am more concerned about, in determining
whether they were treated rightly or wrongly, that it is not
the people who have done the right or wrong that makes the
decision of whether it was right or wrong.
Mr. Dolan. All right. I am sorry. Let me suggest what we
have just done within the last year in terms of offering
administrative appeals to the Appeals Division, which does sit
outside. It is a totally different organization from the
district or center management.
Today the liens, levies and seizures, which were all areas
of considerable controversy in the collection cases, were
things that we put into that administrative appeal process last
year and I think they bring some of the separation or
independence that you have in mind.
Senator Breaux. I have one final question. How much does
the IRS hate, when you get a letter from a member of the United
States Senate or a member of Congress on behalf of a taxpayer?
I mean, do they just go ballistic and say, we will show that
taxpayer, we will show that member of Congress for trying to
interfere with what we do as our job? Be honest about it.
Mr. Dolan. Well, what I would like to do, is turn that back
around to you and have you tell me that your home staffs think
that they have pretty good relationships with the districts and
the State. When the case worker calls the IRS Problem
Resolution and says, I have got this problem, that frequently
you feel like you are getting pretty good service.
At least anecdotally, what I am generally told, and I have
a lot of members of Congress say, I do not care too much for
you, Dolan, here at the national office, but do not mess with
the problem resolution officer, because that is my bread and
butter back in the district or back in the State.
So not only do we not have that reaction, I think we
believe that those are pretty important portals through which
we learn about taxpayer cases and try to get them solved.
Senator Breaux. Does the taxpayer's case get a notation
made on it that a member of Congress has made an inquiry?
Mr. Dolan. As a problem resolution case, it does not. We do
have a correspondence tracking process in almost every office
that would identify an inbound Congressional and be sure that
the response gets back. We have got a set of response dates for
congressionals, and we control it for that purpose.
Senator Breaux. Well, again, I thank you for being here.
Number one, we have got to get the commissioner approved, and
number two, the best thing you said was that the IRS is
undergoing a tremendous amount of change and I congratulate you
for that.
Mr. Dolan. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Bryan.
Senator Bryan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dolan, it is clear to me that the agency has a lot of
problems. I agree with the observation generally of Senator
Graham, but I think they are structural in nature. We are not
going to be able to legislate a code of personal conduct unless
we change the fundamental structure of the agency itself.
It strikes me that one of the redeeming qualities, the
great genius of the American constitution is it recognizes the
inherent propensity for the abuse of power, so therefore it
diffuses power across three branches of government, with a
series of checks and balances. That system has served us well,
it seems to me, over the past two centuries.
What I think our challenge will be, is without in any way
diminishing your ability to collect the revenue from those
taxpayer who owe money under our Tax Code to the Federal
Government, is to provide a series of checks and balances so
the excesses which have been testified to by those who appeared
before us today as employees of the IRS and those taxpayer who
shared with us with some degree of specificity the problems
that they faced on the day before, to build on that series of
checks and balances.
We are never going to make a trip to the IRS like a trip to
Disneyland. That will never be one of the most pleasant
encounters an individual will have in his or her life, no
matter what changes we made. Inherently, your job is to collect
money from us. That is something that does not put you on the
high road, so to speak. That is something that everybody
resists because we would all like to pay less money. That is
the nature of the system.
Some of the employees offered some suggestions here and I
just want to get your visceral reaction to them and say, as my
colleague Senator Breaux did, I hope you will work with us as
we try to look at this restructuring of the agency. You have
got 26 years of experience. That is helpful.
The new commissioner, whom I hope will get a hearing early
on and will be approved and confirmed by this Congress, comes
from a different background, and hopefully he will be able to
provide a different perspective.
But a comment that seemed to run through several of the
witnesses' observations this morning, it is for your internal
security operation. That clearly has to have not only an
appearance, but a reality of separation so that it can act
without fear of reprisal or the perceived fear of reprisal. We
need to take a look at that. Again, I hope that you will work
with us, as a number of us are going to try to put some of
these things together.
A suggestion which I think may have some merit, and
obviously I want to welcome your and other response, is perhaps
we need to separate the Criminal Division from the Civil
Division and provide its functions in a different agency so the
IRS is not both a civilian enforcer as well as a criminal
enforcer of the Revenue Code. Do you have any initial reaction
to that?
You heard the testimony that, indeed, it is the fear of
potential criminal prosecution that gives the heavy hammer that
comes down, in some cases, far too heavily and imposes the
sense of fear that, my gosh, my case is going to be turned over
for criminal prosecution unless I agree with everything the IRS
wants me to do on this particular matter that may be in
dispute.
Mr. Dolan. Senator, both of the examples you used, as
raised this morning in the witnesses' testimony, I think would
benefit from further examination. We have looked at that in the
past and there are a set of issues that would also argue for
the continued strong relationship between the civil and
criminal. So I do not know that it is a slam dunk. I think it
is one where thoughtful engagement on both of those would be
productive.
Senator Bryan. Well, I appreciate your response. I do not
know that that is the answer either, but I thought the comments
made by the witnesses were thoughtful and I found them
constructive when I asked specifically what to do.
I mean, the concept of some kind of an administrative law
judge, some fair, even-handed person who is not part of the
IRS, not a former IRS agent who has been promoted from the
system, but some sense that the taxpayer, before getting
involved in the expensive process of litigating, or going to
tax court, or paying money under protest and then suing to
recover that money, some kind of an administrative process
where the taxpayer can go and have some of these issues
resolved expeditiously and at minimal cost. Is that a concept
worthy of pursuing?
Mr. Dolan. I do not care what walk of life we are in,
Senator. That is a great concept.
Senator Bryan. Yes.
Mr. Dolan. What I would be inclined to do, though, is also
advance again the comment of a couple of minutes ago. Our
appeals function has had some unique success in that and I
think before I created a brand-new box I would want to see if
there are other ways of looking at expanding its jurisdiction,
because it creates the kind of checks and balances you talked
about.
Senator Bryan. Right. And I am sure that you have had
successes. But I think what we are hearing and what we hear
from our constituents, there are clearly examples of great
success that you have had. Our office, as well as every member,
has had to contact them on behalf of a constituent and the
issue is resolved quickly and satisfactorily to the
constituent, you do not hear much about those because those are
good news cases, but there is a perception out there, and a
perception in our line of work as well as your line of work
becomes reality.
Mr. Dolan. I agree.
Senator Bryan. That it is broken, that somehow we need to
change the structure so that, indeed, the perception as well as
the reality is that people can get a fair break if they have an
honest difference of opinion with the revenue agent about
whether or not additional revenue is owed based upon an
interpretation of the Code or an honest dispute between the
revenue agent and the taxpayer.
Well, finally, Senator Breaux's comment, some kind of an
ombudsman, somebody who can, in effect, speak on behalf of the
average person who comes in there with a case that may not be
monumental in terms of the magnitude of cases that you deal
with at the top level, but for a modestly situated taxpayer, a
few hundred dollars in his or her life can make a tremendous
difference. Is that a concept that we can talk with you about?
Mr. Dolan. Senator, I would like to talk further about it.
Obviously in the two Taxpayer Bill of Rights we have sought to
create in the taxpayer advocate this kind of capacity. I think
there is now legislation moving in both Houses that will deal
with another set of additional employee rights, and it may well
be in the context of that that some of these ideas would
profitably be considered.
Senator Bryan. Yes. In other words, somebody that is on
their side. Again, I think the appearance is terribly
important. It just cannot be somebody that is assigned
previously from the Criminal Division or the Revenue Collection
Office has assigned to represent.
It has got to be somebody who clearly is recognized by the
taxpayer, that this is somebody that really does not have any
ties, that this person does not eventually wind back into the
system and, depending upon how he or she performs, he can have
your job somebody, Mr. Dolan, for example. I mean, this has got
to be a separate position.
Mr. Dolan. I think you are dead on, Senator. I think
perception is every bit as big as reality in these cases, and I
think you are right.
Senator Bryan. Good. Now, these are not monumental. These
are not earth-shaking. We will not see these on the front page
of the papers tomorrow. But, I mean, the suggestion that the
offices be open in the evening, that is not a radical notion.
I happen to represent a State in which our two principal
cities operate 24 hours a day, but our municipal courts all
over America operate in the evening, recognizing that most
people work 8:00 to 5:00, 9:00 to 6:00. I mean, that does not
require an act of Congress, does it?
Mr. Dolan. No.
Senator Bryan. If you found that meritorious, even on a
trial basis to see if we could not try to make the office hours
more responsive to the working schedules of average people.
Mr. Dolan. Senator, that is also right on the money. Two
weeks ago, we had all of our Customer Service Division Chiefs
in looking at doing exactly that with our phone site.
Potentially on some basis we have 24-hour access, and in some
others, at least 16 hours. I think moving down that road and
making ourselves available at points that work for the taxpayer
is exactly the right way to go.
Senator Bryan. And to do so on a trial basis, and recognize
that every one of these pearls of wisdom that I am sharing with
you may, in fact, sound better than they actually work out in
practice, but to try it on a prototype basis. Municipal court
systems that have a night court, that has been immensely
helpful. Those are very, very convenient for the public.
Finally, one thing that, if true, you should change
immediately. That is, if your hotline has called ID so the
individual who calls in can be traced immediately as a result
of the call, that is something I would suggest, Mr. Dolan. We
do not need an act of Congress for that.
I would hope if that, in fact, is true, that you would
issue an order, retroactive to this morning at 0800, whenever
your people come in, that that has got to be dropped. That is
just pretty outrageous.
Mr. Dolan. Senator, let me say, as I heard that this
morning I believe that was a concern raised about the Inspector
General's hotline. I intend to be sure that she is aware of
that.
For the very reasons you mentioned, even in tax cases, our
call sites do not use caller ID for that very reason. We do not
want the average taxpayer worrying that we are going to pick up
telephone numbers that way and call back. I will clearly take
that issue to the Inspector General and be sure that she has
been apprised.
Senator Bryan. But the assurance that you are giving is
that, at least within the area of your jurisdiction, people can
call and there is not a caller ID.
Mr. Dolan. I will satisfy myself before the day is out that
that is the case in the Inspection Service as well. I believe
it to be the case that there is no caller ID there.
In terms of the case this morning, I think I am going to
learn for sure whether there is right now. Doug tells me there
definitely is not in our Inspection Service. I will take the
concern to the Inspector General about the 800 number and see
whether she needs to react or not.
Senator Bryan. Yes. I appreciate that.
One last point that I wanted to make. You, in responding to
Senator Roth and Senator Breaux on the Savage case, that is the
case where you got the letter from the Department of Justice,
and you were reluctant to testify about it because you only had
one release. Now, most folks out there do not know what the
devil you are talking about, so let me give you an opportunity
to tell them. You are talking about a privacy release.
Mr. Dolan. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Bryan. Senator Graham had a privacy release and
emphasized that point. But you are not able to testify about
the implications for the other two taxpayers that may have some
relevance to the decision that you made or did not make in the
Savage case, because you do not have a privacy release from
them and, therefore, it would be against the law for you to
discuss that in a public setting.
Mr. Dolan. Thank you for cleaning up my act. I should have
been more clear. That is exactly the case.
Senator Bryan. But if you had those privacy releases you
would be more forthcoming with our able Chairman and the
committee?
Mr. Dolan. Correct. And without it I would be capable of
talking about it, but only in executive session.
Senator Bryan. I appreciate that.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
The Chairman. I would just point out to my distinguished
friend from Nevada, that one of the parties does not, in fact,
exist.
Senator Bryan. So we only had one more tax release that we
need.
The Chairman. I have been corrected. Neither party exists.
Senator D'Amato?
Senator D'Amato. Mr. Chairman, let me pursue that, if I
might. Now, Mr. Dolan, if we are talking about a fictitious
party, are we talking about needing a privacy release for one
additional person or two? If, indeed, you have asserted to the
Chairman that there are two other individuals, I think it is
important that we know. Now, how many individuals are there?
Mr. Dolan. Senator, there are not two other individuals.
There is at least one other actual----
Senator D'Amato. Well, it is not at least. That would be a
misstatement, would it not?
Mr. Dolan. I am sorry. Thank you. It is getting late in the
day and I am not doing this very well. There is one other
taxpayer and I am told by counsel that if we had had the
release of that other taxpayer we would have been able to
continue the conversation.
Senator D'Amato. All right.
The Chairman. I would point out that the other party is no
longer in business.
Mr. Dolan. Senator, as I would understand it, that would
still require me to have a release.
Senator D'Amato. Let me tell you where I have some problem.
I am going to go beyond that, but I do have a problem with the
manner in which that was answered.
Earlier today, and I was not here and I apologize, because
we had a transportation bill, the ISTEA bill reauthorization
for the next 6 years, and I chaired that hearing so I was not
able to be here, Mr. Chairman.
But I want you to know that the American people are vitally
interested. I have received scores of e-mail letters. Let me
share with you just two. I will only read parts of them.
One from Dave Finger Lakes. ``Dear Senators D'Amato and
Moynihan: The types of mismanagement and abuse being chronicled
before your committee show a pervasive attitude towards
disregard of the constitution and due process.'' It goes and
says, ``Accountability has been talked of this morning, now it
is time to put that, with the necessary consequences, into
practice.''
I would suggest that anyone who paid just a little bit of
time and took the time to hear the witnesses yesterday would
have to come to that conclusion, and not just with respect to
the Savage case. It almost appears to me that, once again, we
are not participating in the kind of manner this is.
Let us get down to the bottom of this, what happened, who
was responsible, and how are we going to correct not only those
cases that took place in the past, but set about a mind-set and
an attitude that we are not going to operate in that manner.
Every one of those cases was more shocking than the other. More
shocking than the other.
A simple, humble optometrist. Now, let me say, you said to
the Chairman today, am I not right, when he asked you to
comment on the particular cases, that you had directed the
district directors of each of these areas to report to you so
that you could look into the file to ascertain what had taken
place; is that right?
Mr. Dolan. I said something a little bit different,
Senator.
Senator D'Amato. Well, tell me what you said.
Mr. Dolan. Sure. What I said is, in the context of the last
5 or 6 months, we have worked with the committee staff. We have
assembled here in each of the four cases, at least, a fairly
significant file and worked that with the staff.
Senator D'Amato. Right.
Mr. Dolan. Understand here what went on.
Senator D'Amato. Yes.
Mr. Dolan. What I said I wanted the directors to do is take
those files. In addition, I want them to do as you suggested. I
want them to see the tape and I want them to read the testimony
of the taxpayers so that as they go back in their organizations
and look at the ways they might have done it differently, it is
used constructively.
Senator D'Amato. All right. Here is the problem I have. As
you said, these cases were not brought forth newly to you for
the first time, but, indeed your staffs and the committee staff
here had developed them and knew about them even before the
members of the committee had an opportunity to hear their
stories. I do not know which one was more chilling, to be quite
candid with you.
The story of the Jacobs', the optometrist, I found it just
absolutely unconscionable. It seems to me that you must have
had, in the 17-year history of torturing those people--and that
is exactly what took place--somebody had to have seen that
there was another file and have known what was taking place in
the course of that.
Now, one of the problems is accountability. If you send out
forms and you say, here is a lien, or you owe so much and no
one signs, and I can understand why you might not want a
particular person's name, because then they might become a
person who is harassed. But there should be some code, some
number, 126-A, so that in the organization when a person calls
and says I got a letter, I mean, do you not believe that that
is necessary?
Mr. Dolan. Senator, I agreed with an earlier question, and
I think we do need to do more of that, yes.
Senator D'Amato. You see, now, look. I feel totally
inadequate as it relates to suggesting the kinds of things that
can or should be done. But it seems to me, in fairness to the
committee and to the American public, that these are the kinds
of things that you should be prepared today to have discussed
with us.
Let me tell you what we have learned, not only from these
four cases, but I have to tell you, it does not take a rocket
scientist, in listening to those four cases, to say, this is
obviously one of the problems, accountability.
We do not want to put our tax people in the position where
they can be harassed, so I understand why you might not put a
person's name, address, and home telephone number on it.
But certainly there should be the ability for whoever is
making a legitimate inquiry to know they are speaking to more
than just a piece of paper that says you now have a tax
liability of $2,752 and you better send the money in, so they
can call and there is somebody that they can speak to.
Then after they have, they know that this is number 126-A,
or whoever that person is, so they can follow it. That is one
of the things that Monsignor Ballweg talked about. The Jacobs;
they never knew who they were talking to. Mrs. Hicks, in terms
of her situation.
So it seems to me that even in your response, and I do not
mean to personalize this, when you say, well, we are sending
these files back to the district office and telling them to
look at this, that they can do better, I mean, that is
incredible.
I mean, have you not analyzed each and every one? Of course
you have. You have analyzed these cases, have you not? I mean,
your counsel was able to tell you, there is one party more,
there are two people who have not signed. So you have looked at
them, right?
Mr. Dolan. Correct.
Senator D'Amato. You know them down to the ``T.''
Mr. Dolan. I do not know them to the ``T,'' but I have
looked at them pretty thoroughly.
Senator D'Amato. Well, your people have, have they not?
Mr. Dolan. Correct.
Senator D'Amato. You are darn right. When you showed up
this morning you knew you were going to be on the hot seat, so
to speak, right?
Mr. Dolan. Every indication.
Senator D'Amato. Right. So tell me, what happened with the
Monsignor? I mean, how did that happen? You have a chart there
someplace that tells you what took place.
Mr. Dolan. Senator, I do not have a chart, but I did say
earlier that I have a couple of people with me who have been
deeper in the case, and if you would like to talk with them, I
would be happy for you to do that now.
Senator D'Amato. Well, you see, if you came along and said
to us, this is what took place there and this is what we are
going to do to see to it that it does not take place again.
This poor lady Jacobs, who did not know there was another
number that existed when she opened up her new business account
and did not know that the first one was with her until death do
them part.
How could it take 17 years; can somebody tell me how that
took 17 years and how, year after year, she got hit with
penalties, and how they told her, if you do not pay $11,000 and
some odd hundred dollars we are going to basically put you out
of business? I mean, do you want to have somebody talk about
that?
Mr. Dolan. I would like to, if you would like.
Senator D'Amato. I would like to know how that happens, Mr.
Chairman, would you not?
The Chairman. Absolutely.
Senator D'Amato. I do not know if you would. You have been
here a long time, putting in lots of hours. I just think you
are being tremendously accommodating. But, I mean, how did that
happen? I know you are going to testify to the best of your
ability.
The Chairman. Anybody that testifies has to be sworn in.
Senator D'Amato. All right, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dolan. Mr. Chairman, this is Ronny Rhodes, our
Assistant Commissioner for Collection.
The Chairman. Would you state your name and position?
Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Chairman, my name is Ron Rhodes. I am the
Assistant Commissioner for Collection.
[Whereupon, Mr. Rhodes was duly sworn.]
Senator D'Amato. Ron, did you have an opportunity to take a
look at this Jacobs case?
Mr. Rhodes. Yes, sir, I have.
Senator D'Amato. You studied it?
Mr. Rhodes. Yes, sir, I have.
Senator D'Amato. And did she testify truthfully and
accurately?
Mr. Rhodes. Yes, sir.
Senator D'Amato. She did. So when she got this bill for
$11,000 and told people, look, we paid every single time, why
are you sending me this, what happened, how did that fall
through the cracks?
Mr. Rhodes. Senator, there are about five things when you
look at this case, and there are nine pages of chronological
history that I looked at.
Senator D'Amato. Seventeen years.
Mr. Rhodes. That is correct. It is a very complicated case
and a lot has happened to this lady. This whole issue of this
particular case revolves around, in my mind, five failures, if
you will, on the part of the organization.
First of all, obviously the length of time that it took us
to resolve the case. That absolutely has to be looked at, and
we did look at it. What complicated this particular case is the
fact that the service actually ended up issuing multiple
employer identification numbers. That was brought about by not
having the right kind of checks in place at that time.
There are a couple of things that we believe have been in
place for a number of years that will prevent those kinds of
things from happening today. When a person goes into business,
we would like them to keep that same number, even if they stop
business and then start up again.
In this particular case, we issued an additional
identification number. We should not have. Today, we cross-
reference the Social Security number of the individual when
they make application for an identification number so that we
end up assigning the original number. That is something that we
have in place.
Senator D'Amato. Let me go to this, and I see the little
red light is on and I will come back to it. Have we figured out
how much of a refund the Jacobs' are entitled to at this point
in time?
Mr. Rhodes. In terms of the Jacobs', based on the
information that we have at this point, I believe we resolved
the discrepancies in relationship to how much we believe that
they owe and how much money we owe them.
What we are in the process of doing right now is attempting
to offer to the Jacobs' an opportunity to get with us if they
believe that there are other monies owed and due them. We are
more than happy to sit down and work with them, take a look at
what information they have, trace it back, take whatever time
that it takes to deal with any other questions that they might
have.
Senator D'Amato. Well, Mr. Chairman, you have been most
indulgent. You have been here a long time, and you have got a
General Accounting Office witness that is going to come up
here. I think this makes the point, though.
Here these people have been going through 17 years, and the
fact is, they still have not, at least to their satisfaction,
and I have to come down on their side, had justice. After they
had gone through, all kinds of incredible problems, paying
monies that they never had to pay to stay in business, worrying
day and night, you could not help but feel the sincerity of
Mrs. Jacobs and the torture that she and her husband had to go
through, and no one there to really look at this and get this
situation cleared up.
Even at the present time, the question is, were refunds
made to the proper taxpayers? We really do not know and I do
not believe you are in a position to indicate that you know
that. How much was refunded?
I would just commend to you that we undertake that, even
with this individual at this late time. But I think all of
their stories illustrate very serious shortcomings. Very
serious.
Certainly people have a right to know, who did they last
speak to, what number was it, where was it. You just cannot
send them out a piece of paper and nobody is held accountable
for it. I think that is pretty basic. Pretty basic. It should
not take this hearing.
So, Mr. Chairman, I commend you. I think we are just
scratching the surface. This is an enormous problem, I know it
is complex. I think the American people, in terms of some of
the letters that I have gotten, say accountability has been
talked about, but it is time to put it into practice. That is
our obligation and also that of the service, because we just
cannot legislate it, as Senator Bryan has indicated. It has got
to be part of the culture as well. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator D'Amato.
Senator Kerrey?
Senator Kerrey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dolan, first of all, good to see you again. I
appreciate very much and was not surprised, nor disappointed,
with your presentation here today, which reflects well on the
102,000 people that work for you at the IRS.
You were very cooperative, as were many others at the IRS
during our commission's examination of this very important
agency. I am very grateful for your service and the way you
conduct yourself in front of these hearings like this.
Mr. Dolan. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Kerrey. I would like to ask you a few questions
about the legislation that came from that commission, and I
will not, just so you know and you do not have to sit there and
squirm, talk about this board at all, which is the hot button
issue and the one that has caused a lot of heartburn.
Mr. Dolan. Thank you.
Senator Kerrey. Unfortunately, it is the only thing that
has been given much attention by some. But there is a full
range of recommendations that came from that. The first section
deals not only with governance, but also with senior management
changes. The second section deals with electronic filing. The
third section deals with taxpayer protection and rights. And
the fourth section deals with congressional accountability,
with three sets: oversight, budget, and the third being tax
complexity.
First of all, have you had a chance to review this bill at
all?
Mr. Dolan. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kerrey. All right. So it would be fair to engage in
a little bit of dialogue.
Mr. Dolan. I might not be able to go section by section,
but I have clearly got the----
Senator Kerrey. And I will not ask for the administration's
views on this at all.
Mr. Dolan. Sure. Sure.
Senator Kerrey. I would like to get into some of the stuff
that is relatively uncontroversial.
Mr. Dolan. Sure.
Senator Kerrey. In the first section, the issue, again,
that is drawing all the heat, which is the oversight board. To
be clear on this, my goal here is not to pull the tooth out of
the Department of Treasury so that they lose authority. I am
not trying to get them to relinquish authority.
I still see IRS as an executive branch agency similar to
what we have now with the Social Security Administration. There
is no corporate CEO language in here, although that has been
run around the block a few times.
We are trying to get to a point where the commissioner is
sufficiently independent to give us both the good news and the
bad news and to get a long enough period of time on the job
that some longevity can occur and a person can begin to apply
the kind of expertise that is needed to run this agency. But,
again, I will leave that alone.
In the area of management, Mr. Dolan, let us say that you
are before us right now, as Acting Commissioner. You know what
authorities you would have the first day on the job and what
authorities you do not have. Would you describe for the
committee who you can hire and fire, as a commissioner?
Mr. Dolan. Well, I think if I were the commissioner today,
ultimately I have the ability to hire and fire the people who
immediately report to me.
Senator Kerrey. Define ultimately.
Mr. Dolan. Well, it would work this way. If it were a
senior executive service person who reports to me, I would hire
them through the senior executive service application process,
for the most part. This would envision an announcement, would
go both within government and outside government and come in
through the rules of the senior executive service.
They would be set within the rules of the senior executive
service. I would have a reasonably narrow salary band within
which to attract somebody into the senior executive service. So
that is how I would hire them.
Senator Kerrey. The flexibility provisions that we have in
this piece of legislation, former Commissioner Richardson
looked at it very carefully, and most, I think, if not all of
the previous commissioners looked at it as well and have talked
about the lack of flexibility as a problem.
What we are talking about here, as I see it, is you have
got 102,000 employees. Maybe at any one point in time, let us
say 4,000 or 5,000 are willing to abuse power, willing to do
things wrong. Pick a number. It is a small number.
Your problem is, it has got to have zero tolerance. Your
problem is, you have to manage for zero error. You cannot
afford to have a single violation of personnel policy, because
one violation creates tremendous problems for everybody else.
I suspect taxpayers watching this thing are going to get
turned off entirely, presuming that this is going on throughout
the entire agency. So the flexibility provisions of this bill
were written in there so that you are better able to manage.
Mr. Dolan. Senator, there is a ton of benefit in that
flexibility section. I mean that I think it is hard to beat.
Senator Kerrey. Pay, hiring. I mean, there are a lot of
Federal laws that make it difficult for you. I am not talking
about coming in and lopping off heads, I am just talking about,
the taxpayers need to understand that the commissioner is
restricted. They cannot manage as well as a consequence of
legal restrictions that are in place.
Mr. Dolan. Something you know very well from your time on
the commission is that some of the places where we are most
challenged to bring talent to the table is where you have to go
out and compete in the marketplace in a way that today's
structures and today's flexibility, salary, benefit, and
everything else put you out there with one hand behind your
back, frequently.
Senator Kerrey. So your answer is yes. I am not going to
ask you to endorse the language in here, but there is no
question the answer is yes.
Mr. Dolan. The elements of that section have got almost all
up sides, and maybe there is something in the language that
somebody would want to worry about, but what it strives to give
to the commissioner, it seemed to me, is fundamentally right-
headed.
Senator Kerrey. I mean, in the last couple of weeks we have
had a very nasty incident in Nebraska with a hamburger
processing plant that produced about 20 illnesses, and they do
not even know if it is 20, it might be 4 or 5. But 20 people
got sick as a result of eating beef that they believe was
contaminated in this plant.
Well, I know from my experience in the restaurant industry,
which is what I did before here, is that all I need is to make
one customer sick. If one customer gets sick, my business is
shut off. So there is zero tolerance.
I think the taxpayers need to understand that one of the
urgent changes that is needed, and I think it is urgent, I
think there is an urgency attached to this, is we have got to
give whoever the commissioner is a sufficient amount of
management authority that can actually run the agency. I think
you do a good job of managing inside of the current law, but
the law makes it difficult for you to do everything that you
need to do. Is that fair?
Mr. Dolan. I think it is a fair statement.
Senator Kerrey. Can you comment on a couple of other
things. I mean, have you had, first of all, a chance to examine
the third section of my bill dealing with taxpayer protections?
Electronic filing is fairly uncontroversial, I presume you
would say. Although, again, some people understand the error
rate in electronic filing is less than 1 percent and paper
filing is 25 percent.
You are talking about real dollars and a real issue here
and we need to support you in that effort. It is relatively
uncontroversial, but it is a very important part of managing
this thing, especially in the new economic paradigm of
electronic commercial transactions.
Mr. Dolan. We are signing on to that 1,000 percent. The
thing we have squabbled some about were the potential impacts
on filing dates.
Senator Kerrey. I understand.
Mr. Dolan. I think there is some work to be done there
potentially, but the thrust of that and what it invites by way
of the objective to get electronic with the filing and the
payment, is entirely, again, right-headed, I think.
Senator Kerrey. I appreciate that.
Under the taxpayer protection and rights section, which is
the third section, and that is much of what we have heard
today, and it is a tough balance. It is a very tough balance
between giving the taxpayer a sufficient amount of rights and
authority so that they cannot be unfairly abused. While
maintaining your ability to collect taxes owed.
The taxpayers also need to understand that there has been
no claim of corruption inside of the IRS, that is to say,
somebody taking a bribe. Fifty years ago, that was quite
common.
One of the things we have done with the law is we have
reduced the amount of discretion that a revenue agent has to
bring common sense to bear upon a judgment and, as a
consequence, the law looks very rigid out there on the other
end of the line. To a taxpayer, it gets very, very rigid
because there is not much discretion.
That lack of discretion came as a consequence of wanting to
make sure that we have zero tolerance for bribes, which we
have. As I said, it is one of the few tax collection agencies
in the world that can lay claim to that rather high standard
and that rather high quality.
One of the suggestions that was made that we did not
actually include in your bill, and I liked your comment on it,
was to provide for an exemption from anti-injunctions acts so
that a person could go into a district court and get a
temporary injunction against the IRS, and it would have to be
temporary, against the IRS attaching a lien, and all that sort
of thing. We heard a number of people earlier talking about it,
and in our deliberation we also heard that.
Can you comment on that authority?
Mr. Dolan. I think my worries would run a little bit along
the lines you just described. It is this delicate balance of
creating access and relief and remedies, while at the same time
not inviting, by definition the way you style those remedies,
another level of litigation, in effect.
So what I think I would want to be circumspect about is
something that rose to injunctive relief and invited more
process into the courts, as contrasted with looking either at
the appeals process or looking at some of the other devices
that might----
Senator Kerrey. You have to shorten up the time in which
the documents have to be produced and the thing has to be
settled.
I wanted to talk a little bit about the problem resolution
officer and the advocate. That has also been an issue raised.
What about the idea, and we did not include it in the
legislation but we did, by the way, as you know, remove the
Problem Resolution office and create even more independence
than it currently has.
What about the idea of creating some kind of national
problem resolution team that could, in the 100, 200, or 300
cases where the possibility of an override is needed, that this
team could come out there and make some kind of a quick
evaluation and resolve these things a bit faster?
Mr. Dolan. You know, I do not know we have ever worked the
idea of a team, Senator. But certainly the notion of the
advocate getting increased ability to intervene, step in,
override, stop, look at, I mean, really would be the kind of
independent intervention that I think both Taxpayer Bills of
Rights envision. That is something that we generally are pretty
supportive of.
Senator Kerrey. Well, I appreciate that. My time is up. The
case I am trying to make, and I am trying to make with you and
the committee as well, is though I am in 100 percent agreement
with the Chairman when he earlier this morning said that no
single piece of legislation is going to solve all this, and I
could not agree with you more, but I do think there are some
things that we know--there is broad agreement, by the way,
between the executive branch and the legislative branch--will
work and would improve the operations of the IRS.
I am hopeful that these 3 days of hearings, which have
shown the American people we have got problems as well as shown
the American people we have got dedicated employees trying to
do the job right, my hope is that we can change the law so that
we can say that these three hearing actually produced something
in the short term, even though it does not solve every problem,
but did something towards solving those problems that we know
we can get at. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Kerrey.
Senator Moynihan?
Senator Moynihan. Mr. Chairman, just one thing which we
touched on this morning, Senator Kerrey touched on this
morning, Mr. Dolan.
Mr. Dolan. Senator.
Senator Moynihan. Which is that we go back at least to 1962
when we had a 97 percent voluntary compliance rate, and some
40,000 members of the IRS 35 years ago, and we are down to an
83 percent voluntary compliance rate, with 72,000 employees.
Could I ask you, not off the top of your head but if
someone would think about that and give us a feeling for what
may have happened? It speaks to a difficulty which can be
complex, probably more than one thing, but I think we would
like to know more about it as we proceed to the legislation
that Senator Kerrey is talking about.
Mr. Dolan. Senator, I appreciate your kindness. I heard you
frame the question this morning and I thought I was going to
get an open book test here this afternoon. I would gladly take
you up on your offer of maybe giving you something more
thoughtful than what I would come up with off the top of my
head this afternoon.
Senator Moynihan. Sure. We appreciate it very much. It is
the kind of thing I know you care about, and maybe you can
figure out for us.
Mr. Dolan. Thank you.
Senator Moynihan. There will not be a simple answer, I am
sure.
Mr. Dolan. Thank you.
Senator Moynihan. Thank you, sir.
[The information appears in the appendix at page 280.]
The Chairman. Mr. Dolan, you are almost at the end of your
ordeal.
Mr. Dolan. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. But let me ask one final question on the
Savage case. You started your testimony today by apologizing
for the four cases we heard about yesterday. My question is,
are you prepared to make restitution to Mr. Savage for taxes
wrongfully collected from him now? I do not think that this
question in any way violates Section 6103.
Mr. Dolan. No, I do not think it does either. But I think
there would be a need, Senator, for me to understand better the
theory by which Mr. Savage believes the restitution is due.
I do not for one second take back anything I said about the
way these cases were handled, and I understand and saw very
graphically in his testimony how he felt about this. So the
concern I have is that the settlement or the dollars involved,
the dollars that flowed to the government in this case, were
dollars associated with the liabilities about which I am not
able to speak here.
I think the conclusion was that those dollars appropriately
flowed there as a result of the court settlement. As a
consequence, I am hard pressed, if restitution is meant to
reverse that, I think my answer at this point would have to be
that I am not prepared to do that.
The Chairman. Just let me make it very clear that I think
it is outrageous what happened to him. Totally unfair,
inequitable. You had a letter--not you, personally, but the
local IRS people--from the Justice Department saying that the
lien was wrongful. That may have been the basis of the
settlement.
Mr. Dolan. Senator, if you would permit me, when I get a
response from the Justice Department to the letter I mentioned
earlier, I would clearly want to share that with you and with
the staff.
The Chairman. Well, I just think the facts are such that it
is outrageous treatment of a very responsible taxpaying
individual. I hope you will get back to me promptly.
Mr. Dolan. I will, sir.
The Chairman. I do want to thank you for being here today.
I think these hearings are important, not only for the American
taxpayer, but I think for the welfare and future of the agency
and its employees.
I appreciate, as I said, that you have at least agreed, in
part, that there are some serious problems that have to be
addressed and I cannot tell you how important I think it is
that we seek to work together, the Secretary of the Treasury,
yourself, the House and the Senate, the administration, in
taking what steps are necessary to make this a service-oriented
agency in fact, and not just in name.
Mr. Dolan. Senator, I take your invitation very seriously,
and I know Secretary Rubin does as well.
The Chairman. So, in closing, as far as you are concerned,
I do want you to know that these oversight hearings will
periodically continue, because we think it is important that
the Congress make certain that the agency is operated in a
manner of the best interest to the taxpayer and the American
government.
So thank you very much for coming here today.
Mr. Dolan. Thank you.
Senator Moynihan. Thank you, Mr. Dolan.
Mr. Dolan. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Our final witness, and we will have to be
relatively brief because I have other appointments, but I am
particularly pleased to welcome Ms. Lynda D. Willis, who is the
Director of Tax Policy and Administration Issues for the
General Accounting Office here in Washington.
Ms. Willis, will you please come forward. I want to
apologize to you. You have been shifted around from time to
time in these hearings. It is not a lack of any interest or
importance we attach to your work, because the study you
accomplished was most important.
Would you raise your right hand?
[Whereupon, Ms. Willis was duly sworn.]
The Chairman. Please be seated and proceed.
STATEMENT OF LYNDA D. WILLIS, DIRECTOR OF TAX POLICY AND
ADMINISTRATION ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Willis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate being
invited here today to talk about the work that we have done for
this committee related to IRS's use of liens, levies and
seizures.
I will make my statement brief. We will continue working
with your staff through the upcoming months as we pursue this
issue with IRS.
Briefly, let me summarize the points that my testimony
makes, and then I will be ready to answer any questions that
you may have. You asked us to look at the extent of use, and
potentially inappropriate use, of IRS's collection enforcement
authorities. Basically, we found that, while IRS has some
limited data about its use and misuse of collection
authorities, that data is not complete.
Because that data is not complete and because of certain
recordkeeping inadequacies within the IRS, we are unable to go
in and determine either the extent of IRS' misuse of its
collection authorities or the characteristics of the taxpayers,
as you requested, who have been subjected to inappropriate use
of these authorities.
We looked at data from a variety of sources, including that
from the taxpayer advocate, the Office of the Inspector
General, et cetera, and found that IRS does not require that
information on the resolution of the complaints be recorded, as
well as some other specifics, such as whether it was an
inappropriate use of an enforcement authority that generated
the complaint.
Finally, I would just like to say that because of these
inadequacies it is impossible for us, IRS, or the Congress to
have the data that would permit us to readily resolve
reasonable questions about IRS's use of collection enforcement
authorities, the causes of any misuse or the characteristics of
taxpayers involved.
We discussed this with IRS and at that time they told us
that they believed that they had adequate checks and balances
in place to identify misuse of collection authorities and that
they did not need to put additional systems or data gathering
efforts in place to further pursue these cases.
We disagree with that. We testified a number of years ago,
I think in 1988, as well as in reports issued in 1994, and a
report to you in 1996, that we thought IRS needed to improve
its recordkeeping systems on potential agency employee
misconduct so that they would have the ability to track these
allegations and to determine root causes of the problems and
devise ways to deal with them effectively.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Willis appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Willis.
Are you telling me, in effect, that not only Congress, but
the agency itself, really does not have the records to enable
us to determine whether or not the collection tactics are
proper or improper?
Ms. Willis. It would be very difficult to go systematically
and determine whether IRS across the board is using these
enforcement authorities appropriately.
The Chairman. Now, you mentioned that locating closed
collection files sent to the Federal Records Center is
impractical.
Ms. Willis. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. With the state of records as you have
described, is it possible for anyone to determine how
widespread the problems regarding liens, levies, and seizures
really are?
Ms. Willis. Not without a great deal of work. It would take
an extended period of time and a lot of resources to be able to
identify and find enough case files that you could make that
determination, and even then you would be dependent upon the
information being in the case files, and that is not always the
case.
The Chairman. Senator Moynihan?
Senator Moynihan. Yes. Being conscious of your pressing
time now, I just want to make one comment and ask one question.
We have a voluntary system of tax payment and a still high
level of compliance at 83 percent. It is declining, but it is
high.
Most of the taxes owed that are not paid voluntarily, some
resolution takes place and they are collected, 93 percent, I
gather. But then to get the remaining 7 percent----
Ms. Willis. I think it is actually about 87 percent that is
owed is actually collected.
Senator Moynihan. Oh, I see. Then to get up to a little
higher number, there are 750,000 liens, 3.1 million levies, and
10,000 seizures. That is an annual rate?
Ms. Willis. That was the number for 1996. Now, not all of
those liens and levies resulted in additional money flowing
into the Treasury. Not all of those enforcement actions are
productive.
Senator Moynihan. But that is about 4 million families
getting caught up in essentially punitive action by the Federal
Government, is it not?
Ms. Willis. It is a high number. You cannot directly
translate the number of enforcement actions taken to taxpayers.
You might have more than one levy on one taxpayer.
Senator Moynihan. On one taxpayer.
Ms. Willis. More than one lien on one taxpayer.
Senator Moynihan. But one could attempt to get a number of
that sort, could you not? Yes, the GAO could attempt to do
anything.
Ms. Willis. We could attempt to look at that number through
the IRS systems, but that would require a lot of programming
because IRS' recordkeeping systems are not set up to produce
that information.
Senator Moynihan. All right. But we could ask you to do it
on the back of an envelope someday and get a feel for it.
Ms. Willis. I could talk to IRS about it and see what we
could do.
Senator Moynihan. Yes. Yes.
Now, what did you say, we have 87 percent of taxes owed
that are now collected?
Ms. Willis. Right. The numbers that I have seen, indicate
that about 83 percent are paid without enforcement action.
Senator Moynihan. They open the mail, and there it is.
Ms. Willis. And another 4 percent comes in as a result of
IRS enforcement actions.
Senator Moynihan. Really, I do not want to sound absurd
here, but we have 70,000 IRS employees to collect 4 percent of
the taxes. In a sense, the 83 percent gets mailed in and the
enforcement procedure, or whatever, produces a rather small
result. But perhaps, absent of that, it would be a different
situation.
Ms. Willis. Senator, that is one of the reasons why we
think it is very important that IRS know which of its
enforcement actions are effective in which cases. We have
testified any number of times that IRS does not have this
information, that we do not know which enforcement actions are
most productive, under which circumstances.
Senator Moynihan. Good questions.
Ms. Willis. Right. And until we know more about both the
systemic causes of the problems, and we heard some interesting
testimony over the last 3 days about causes, such as erroneous
assessments, as well as mishandling after that. But until we
know more about where the problem is originating and what works
to fix the problem, it is difficult to target resources most
effectively.
Senator Moynihan. Right. So the first thing to do is to ask
the question.
Ms. Willis. The first thing to do is to ask the question.
Senator Moynihan. Yes. Yes.
Would you have some feeling for those numbers I recited
this morning, that in 1962 we had a 97 percent compliance rate,
and we are now down to 83 percent voluntary compliance.
Ms. Willis. Senator, I have never heard the 97 percent
compliance rate figure before, so I do not know what that is
based on. I am familiar with where the 83 percent comes from,
but not the 97 percent.
Senator Moynihan. I am just informed by Mr. Giardano that
that is IRS data.
Ms. Willis. I would be more than happy to look at that and
provide an answer for the record.
Senator Moynihan. Excuse me just a second. The person who
knows all about this is sitting behind me.
[Pause.]
Senator Moynihan. Oh, I see. There is a publication here
called ``The Income Tax of 1862-1962: A History of the Internal
Revenue Service.'' It is obviously an official history. So it
says, at this point we have a 97 percent compliance rate.
Ms. Willis. I am not familiar with the number. I would be
happy to look into it and see what the difference is.
Senator Moynihan. Our copy comes from the Legislative
Research Service.
That speaks of a decline. It could speak to the question of
complexity, it could speak to the question of trust in
government, it could speak to the question of the quality of
grammar school education, do people learn to add or learn to
use adding machines, which is different. I do not know. But it
is a question we should address.
I think that one of the indicators of social and political
vitality is that the citizens assume that their taxes are owed
and pay them. When they stop doing that, you have trouble. You
often have revolutions. We had one in the first instance. You
would agree on that, I am sure.
Ms. Willis. Senator Moynihan, having a high compliance rate
is very important and having people pay their taxes when they
are due is key, obviously, to the economic well-being of this
country.
Senator Moynihan. Oh, I would go much further than that.
No, no. I would say the social fabric and vitality of a country
is, do you know what your duties as a citizen are, accept them,
and comply. That speaks to the morale of a society.
Ms. Willis. The compliance rate varies over time and it
also varies amongst different groups of taxpayers. As the
economy changes, that may be part of the reason why the
compliance rate changes.
Senator Moynihan. Yes.
Ms. Willis. When you look at wage earners who file tax
returns, they have a very high compliance rate, over 95
percent.
Senator Moynihan. Yes.
Ms. Willis. That is primarily because of withholding and
information reporting. When you look at income that is subject
only to information reporting you still have a high compliance
rate. But when you move away from income that is subject only
to either withholding or information reporting, the compliance
rate drops.
So if we have shifts in our economy where we have less of
the tax base subject to withholding or information reporting,
that is one possible reason.
Senator Moynihan. Right. And a good subject, something the
IRS should be interested in in the first instance.
Ms. Willis. Something they are very interested in.
Senator Moynihan. Yes. I was surprised. In my early life on
this committee I would cite that 97 percent rate and say, what
a good republic we have here, only to look up and find, well,
something has gone astray.
It may be the complexity of the Tax Code. The numbers of
the employees has increased 70 percent since 1962. The
population has increased by about 43 percent, so it is
disproportionate, not just following the number of taxpayer.
Well, we are embarked on this.
One last question if I can, Senator Grassley. The year
2000. This is a subject that just preoccupies me and to which
more attention is beginning to be paid. The present computers,
which were just going on-line in 1962, will not work unless
they are reprogrammed, and we are hours away. I do not have to
tell you about. I think Joel Woolenson is working on it there
at the GAO.
But one of the problems with saying the year 2000 is you
get the impression that, by the year 2000, you better have done
something. No. By January 1, 1998 it may be your drop-dead
date, because after that there is just not enough time to catch
up.
What is your feeling about the IRS?
Ms. Willis. Senator, the group that I head is doing the IRS
work related to the year 2000 problem for GAO, and we are
within a couple of weeks of being ready to brief the various
committees on what we are finding. It is a very, very large
problem for IRS.
I believe IRS is the largest civilian agency year 2000
conversion, at least in this country, and possibly in the
world, and they are dealing with very old computers. They have
established a project office which is aware of the severity of
the problem, but obviously they face major challenges in
successfully converting their systems, in part because some of
the systems are going to have to be replaced. They are so old,
they cannot be made compliant. They are going to have to go
through and replace hardware as well as operating systems.
IRS has a large team of people working on this. They are
aware of the problem, but they have a very long way to go and
time is running out. Like I said, in a couple of weeks we will
be in a better position to come back and give you a better
assessment.
Senator Moynihan. All right. I hope you will, because this
could bring the whole system crashing down.
Ms. Willis. It could be catastrophic.
Senator Moynihan. Yes, it could be catastrophic. Now, the
General Accounting Office does not use words like that often,
but we have a catastrophe facing us. It is not going to happen
for 3 years. Grown-ups do not say, oh, well, let us go out to
dinner. Maybe we could get some sense of what you think is
needed. They are going to need billions of dollars, are they
not?
Ms. Willis. The last numbers I saw were about $800 and some
million, but not all of the mission-critical systems have been
identified yet.
Senator Moynihan. So it is a billion dollars.
Ms. Willis. It rounds to a billion.
Senator Moynihan. Yes. Yes. If we do not do this, we will
have the whole system crash, what has just been described by
Ms. Willis as a catastrophe. It is one of those nice problems,
because it does not have to happen.You can do everything you
need to do, you just do it on time. But there comes a moment
where it is too late to have gotten it done on time and the
catastrophe comes no matter what you do then.
Senator Grassley. We are almost there.
Senator Moynihan. I would think we are getting close to
there. Gardania, the economist in New York, says there is a 35
percent chance of a global recession just for the whole world
not being up to speed on these things. But our job is to see to
the U.S. Government. Well, not just the U.S. Government, but
certainly the Internal Revenue Service. The Defense Department
must have a tremendous problem. But there you are.
In about 2, 3 weeks you will let us know?
Ms. Willis. Yes.
Senator Moynihan. I certainly appreciate that.
Ms. Willis. We will be able to give you a status report.
Senator Moynihan. We will get some of your thoughts on, why
the compliance rate at the time.
Ms. Willis. Yes.
Senator Moynihan. I have to admit that, for such a young
person, 1962 seems a long way in the past, but they do start
then and we were obviously in a very different order of public
attitudes towards the Revenue Service.
Ms. Willis. Senator, I think the other question is whether
that number is calculated the same way that we calculate it
today.
Senator Moynihan. Of course.
Ms. Willis. And we will look at that as well.
Senator Moynihan. All of those good, orderly questions.
Ms. Willis. We will look at that and see if we cannot give
you a comparison and some suggestions.
Senator Moynihan. Yes. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Grassley. Before I ask one question, and I only
have one, there are a couple of administrative matters to take
care of for Senator Roth, the Chairman of the committee.
Ms. Willis, your statement will be included in the record,
your entire printed statement.
Ms. Willis. Thank you.
Senator Grassley. Then also I would request from the
committee that the various exhibits discussed during our
hearing, and that would be for the 3 days, be included in the
record.
First of all, before I ask one question, I should
compliment the General Accounting Office, you, and others who
helped us on the Restructuring Commission through your
testimony and a lot of hard work there, and I think you
contributed a great deal towards the Kerrey-Grassley bill and
the report of the recommendations of that commission so that we
will be able to follow up on this hearing with some real
changes at the IRS to make it more user-friendly and more
responsible and have better management.
Ms. Willis. Thank you.
Senator Grassley. But the question is this, and it comes
from your testimony. You mentioned that even if collection
records contained relevant information, there are still
obstacles to retrieving those records for a systematic review.
Explain what those obstacles are.
Ms. Willis. Well, basically part of the problem is finding
the case files, and once you find them, making sure that the
information is in there and that you are able to build an
entire case file for a particular enforcement action.
I recall over the past couple of days one of the issues has
involved erroneous assessments. A collection case file will not
contain information on the origin of the assessment. That would
be in a different location, in a different office where the
assessment was made. It is very difficult to tie those case
files together and also make sure that you have the complete
record.
Senator Grassley. So the problem is basically the inability
to find all of the information available in the file.
Ms. Willis. To pull it all together in any kind of timely
fashion, yes.
Senator Grassley. I call on Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. I will be very brief. Let me thank you,
Senator Grassley, and thank you, Senator Moynihan.
Ms. Willis, I am going to have one question that has
probably got a couple of parts to it. But on page 2 of your
testimony you say, ``The IRS system, both manually and
automated, have not been designed to capture and report
comprehensive information on the use and possible misuse of
collection authorities.'' So it was not designed. So we assume
it was designed intentionally as opposed to having been
designed unintentionally. But it was not designed to do that.
Then on page 11 you say, ``IRS cannot readily produce data
on the overall use or misuse of collection enforcement
authorities or on the characteristics of affected taxpayers,''
which reinforces that you have a system that was not designed
to do what we are concerned about.
On page 13 you say, ``If a taxpayer complains about
enforced collection actions, the complaint is to be handled
initially by the office responsible for the action. These
offices do not routinely keep automated or even summary records
on the complaints or on the appropriateness of lien, levy, or
seizure actions taken,'' which again suggests there is some
intentional effort here in the way the system is set up.
So my question is, in effect are you not saying that the
system that the IRS has put in balance is really designed to
ensure that there is no way--no way--for the IRS personnel to
be held accountable for any erroneous actions?
Ms. Willis. Senator, I do not believe they were designed
with that intent. The systems were designed as financial
accounting systems, so they are transaction-based. They are
designed to determine whether the taxpayer owes money, whether
the money has been paid.
They are not designed to collect information on how the
money came in or whether there was an effective lien, levy and
seizure. The basic accounting system of the IRS is like that.
That is one of the reasons why it is difficult to determine
how many taxpayers are involved, it is because their systems
are transaction based, not taxpayer-based. So you may have 10,
12, 15 modules for an individual taxpayer on an account which
are separate and individual transactions.
In terms of these systems within the offices on collecting
information on misconduct, those systems were never designed to
collect that type of information, they were designed to collect
information in a more aggregate sense in terms of complaints,
et cetera.
Senator Murkowski. Perhaps you are being more charitable
than I am, but it would seem to me that they are clearly not
designed for accountability; is that a fair statement?
Ms. Willis. They are not designed for that, no.
Senator Murkowski. And one would wonder why there should
not be some consideration given for accountability because, as
I understand it from your testimony, there is no way to
determine how many times the IRS has made a mistake perhaps in
sending out a collection notice, no way to determine how many
complaints may have been received.
You wonder if this was the way managers at IRS set up the
system or set it up so that no one can trace questionable
behavior because there is no accountability designed in it.
Ms. Willis, if an agency wanted to cover up and hide its
inappropriate behavior, would the IRS system not be one that
would be appropriate to use as a model?
Ms. Willis. I think as the statement says, with the IRS
systems it would be very difficult to go in and identify cases
systematically where there has been inappropriate behavior.
I do not know if it would be the best system for avoiding
that, but it certainly is not a system that facilitates
identifying that type of behavior which, as I stated earlier,
is why we have recommended on several occasions that IRS
develop this capability, because only when people are held
accountable and know they are going to be held accountable and
know that complaints against them are going to be tracked do
you send the message that this is important.
Senator Murkowski. Yes. Well, it appears to be designed so
that there is no paper trail of any consequence, records. If
there is no accountability, why, you have the inconsistencies
arising that we unfortunately see here today. You can imagine
how a business, Mr. Chairman, would operate under that kind of
a similar practice.
I used to be in the banking business. When I became
president of one organization I noticed that all of the notes
that the loaning officers were making, they would initial
because we wanted to know who made that loan, because all loans
are good when you make them. But then I noticed that they were
in pencil. So we changed that policy and put them in ink. You
would be amazed. They got a little more careful.
I want to thank you, Ms. Willis.
Ms. Willis. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator. I think it has been
revealing and rewarding. Hopefully the Finance Committee, under
the chairmanship of Chairman Roth and the rest of us, are up to
the challenges ahead.
Thank you.
Ms. Willis. We look forward to working with you and
continue to support the efforts of this committee as you
continue your oversight, especially in this area.
Senator Moynihan. Well, we thank you, Ms. Willis.
Senator Roth having had to go another matter, I will just
presume on the occasion to declare the hearing closed.
Again, great thanks to you. We look forward to, early on,
that 2000 report.
Ms. Willis. Yes. Yes, sir.
[Whereupon, at 4:23 p.m., the hearing was concluded.]
A P P E N D I X
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Monsignor Lawrence F. Ballweg
Good morning Chairman Roth and Members of the Senate Finance
Committee. I am Monsignor Lawrence F. Ballweg. I have been a priest in
the Catholic Church for over 57 years. I was retired in 1990 at the
mandatory retirement age of 75. My mother, Elizabeth Ballweg, died in
August 1988 and, in her will, established a Trust--the benefits of
which go to charity. In the will I was named the Trustee and since her
death I have faithfully and conscientiously performed my duties as
Trustee. I have submitted an annual report of the Trust's activities to
the IRS each year without any problems. During the year 1995, I made
more numerous transactions than in previous years. In order to record
all the income of the Trust, I listed the various items on separate
sheets entitled Statement 1, Statement 2, etc., and then placed the
totals in the appropriate spaces on the IRS Form 1041. I did this more
for the convenience of the IRS than for my own convenience. Since I did
not pay a professional to prepare the Trust's return, I spent hundreds
of hours collecting the necessary papers and balancing the figures. I
asked for an extension of time for 1995 so that I could be more
confident that the report was as accurate as possible. Two months later
the return that cost me so much time and effort was returned requesting
that I put all my figures on the appropriate forms that were enclosed.
My second report was done hurriedly and returned on July 7 to make sure
that it reached the IRS office in the few days that were allowed. In my
hurry to return this report on time, it may not have been done as
perfectly as the first although all the figures were the same.
I spend six months in Florida and six months in New York. The day
after I arrived in Florida (November 4, 1996) I received a letter from
the IRS Atlanta office stating that I owed more than $18,000 in taxes
and penalties. Since I had left a copy of my final report in New York,
I asked that a copy be sent to me. I was informed that I first had to
request an application for a copy of my report and then return the
application with a check for $14.00. When the application arrived I
filled it out and enclosed the check. About 6-8 weeks later, I received
a form that indicated that I could not receive the copy since my name,
Lawrence F. Ballweg, was different from the name of the Trust which was
Lawrence F. Ballweg Trustee U/W Elizabeth D. Ballweg, and reflected on
line 1 of Form 1041, Elizabeth D. Ballweg, my mother who had died 8
years before. I wrote a long letter, dated January 6, 1997, explaining
that I had submitted annual reports since 1988 and that my name was the
signature on each report At the same time I submitted another request
for a copy of my file. My request was ignored. Instead I received a
``Final Notice,'' dated January 20, 1997, in which I was told that the
IRS intended to take steps to take my bank account, auto or other
property if they had not already done so. I have read several stories
about how threats of that kind have caused extreme physical and mental
suffering to taxpayers in the past. I now began to understand what
those stories meant.
I must confess that I spent sleepless nights thinking of the
possible consequences and not knowing where to turn since by this time
I was certain that I would get no help from the IRS.
Mr. Chairman, it was at this time that I heard of your
investigation into the conduct of the IRS. I immediately wrote to you
and received prompt action. CNN presented my case on television and the
next day I received a call from an IRS Taxpayer Advocate, received a
copy of my file and was advised how to make the necessary adjustments.
On March 24, 1997, I received notice from the IRS' Atlanta Office that
I did NOT owe any tax.
For eight months I lived in constant worry, if not fear, that the
Trust that my dear mother had established to help the poor would be
penalized because of what I can only call the unprofessional,
calloused, and indifferent behavior of IRS employees who are devious
enough never to sign their names to any notices that they send out. The
taxpayer is dealing with people who can do inestimable harm but cannot
even be identified. I can only thank you, Senator Roth and the Senate
Finance Committee, for trying to correct such abuses and I pray that,
as a result, conscientious citizens will be spared the humiliation,
embarrassment, fear and anxiety that I have experienced.
__________
Prepared Statement of David Burnham
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for requesting
my testimony. I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before
this distinguished body
The record clearly demonstrates that the lack of effective
oversight of the Internal Revenue Service--by Congress, the courts,
reporters, tax practitioners, and other concerned individuals--has done
grievous harm to the American people for many years. While it has
become a cliche, it nevertheless remains a basic truth: the price of
liberty is eternal vigilance.
Because we have routinely failed to hold the IRS accountable for
its actions, the agency has too often operated in abusive, sloppy,
unresponsive, improperly political and occasionally corrupt ways that
are a threat to our society.
The IRS's continuing problems are costly to the nation in two ways.
First, a badly managed agency does not collect as much as might be
expected of the relatively small, but still significant, portion of the
federal taxes owed by noncomplying taxpayers. The second cost is harder
to measure, but probably more important. A badly managed agency is
unfair: substantial numbers of individual citizens are erratically
subject to wrongful actions. Such treatment contributes to the growth
of a corrosive public cynicism that undermines public confidence in
government in a fundamentally dangerous way.
My belief that strong oversight can have positive impact on
government is not theoretical. It is based on direct experience. As a
reporter who has investigated large powerful bureaucracies like the New
York City Police Department, the National Security Agency, the FBI and
the IRS for the last 30 years, I have seen clear and certain examples
where public exposure of serious government problems has led to genuine
improvements in government operations. We need the New York Police
Department, we need the FBI, we need the IRS. But when such powerful
organizations are allowed to operate without continuous constructive
review, history tells us that almost certainly they will go wrong,
sometimes in very serious ways.
The IRS, of course, is the subject of the committee's hearings.
More than ten years ago, I began an investigation of that agency that
led to the 1989 publication of A Law Unto Itself: The IRS and the Abuse
of Power. This book was a unique and highly praised examination of the
agency's historic and continuing failure to well serve the American
people. To my astonishment, shortly after its publication, Fred
Goldberg, the IRS commissioner at the time, told a national television
audience that my critique of the agency had got it right.
Perhaps one reason the commissioner did not condemn my book is that
it did not heap blame on the Bush Administration alone. My research, in
fact, found that the IRS has suffered mishaps and misadventures under
almost every president, Republican and Democrat, going back at least to
Herbert Hoover. I found authoritative government documents clearing
showing numerous multiple abuses:
Herbert Hoover, irritated by political criticism of his
budget-cutting policies by an organization of weapons
manufacturers, ordered a secret FBI investigation of the group
that was partly based on supposedly confidential tax
information.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt regularly used the IRS as a
political hit squad. He ordered the agency to mobilize its
enforcement powers against former Treasury Secretary Mellon,
Senator Huey Long, the singer Paul Robeson, Republican
Representative and neighbor Hamilton Fish, Father Charles
Coughlin and many others.
During President Truman's watch, a massive and long-
festering IRS corruption scandal erupted during which hundreds
of agency officials and agents were implicated, including one
secretary of treasury, one commissioner and one assistant
attorney general. A good number were convicted and sent to
prison for taking bribes or forced to resign from government
service.
With the full knowledge of President Kennedy and his
brother, the IRS Commissioner of that administration
established a program to go after ``extremist organizations.''
Although the memos describing the program said the extremists
of concern were on both the right and the left, it appears that
all of those who lost their tax exempt status in connection
with this program were fundamentalist conservatives who had
been criticizing the president.
President Nixon, among other abuses, established within the
IRS the SSS--the Special Service Staff--to use tax records to
track ``dissident groups and individuals.'' One of the
impeachment counts approved by the House Judiciary Committee
involved the president's misuse of the IRS.
During the Reagan years, the IRS forgot the lesson of the
Truman era, and cut back on agency efforts to discover and
punish corruption. The result was what appears to have been a
mini-surge in willingness of IRS officials and agents to use
their governmental powers for private gain in cities like
Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles.
Although it may not at first be obvious to you, my point here is
not that the IRS is inevitably a corrupt and badly-run organization. On
the contrary, growing out of the exposure of the problems of both the
Truman and Nixon Administrations came periods of serious public concern
and genuine reform.
This truth--that large and powerful organizations desperately need
outside review by informed critics--is one that Congress has often
ignored. As the chairman and members of the Senate Finance Committee
know, the historical record proves that oversight of the IRS has rarely
been a major concern of this committee. It must be acknowledged--and it
should be celebrated--that the breadth and depth of this hearing on the
basic performance of the IRS is unusual, although perhaps not
unprecedented. I contend that the record of the House Ways and Means
Committee and the Joint Tax Committee and the General Accounting Office
is not much better. For Congress, re-writing tax laws and imposing new
sanctions to enhance the collection of tax dollars have almost always
overwhelmed concerns about the fairness and effectiveness of the IRS.
In America, however, oversight is not a Congressional monopoly.
Thanks to the First Amendment of the Constitution, news organizations
are free to investigate and publicize the failures of government. But
when it comes to the IRS, the media has rivaled Congress in its failure
to audit America's largest and in some ways most powerful enforcement
agency. More than twenty years ago, two very good reporters from the
Philadelphia Inquirer undertook a ground breaking and prizewinning
investigation of the IRS. Very recently, the New York Times has
assigned David Cay Johnston to focus on the agency and its enforcement
activities. Other than that--and the flurry of IRS reporting after
Watergate--coverage of this agency that touches the lives of almost
every American has for many years been largely ignored by both print
and television reporters.
In some ways, the lack of effective oversight is not all that
surprising. The IRS is a very large and very complicated agency that is
not easy to understand. And there are many people--especially within
the beltway--who truly do not understand that the nitty-gritty of how
the government rubs up against individual citizens is more significant
in many ways than the grandest and most publicized federal
``initiative.'' A couple of years ago, the senior lobbyist for a major
national organization in Washington made the astonishing statement to
me that he was only interested in government ``policy,'' not government
``enforcement.''
This curiously obtuse attitude was a central reason why Susan Long,
a professor at Syracuse University, and I decided in 1989 to form the
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). Our basic idea was
that if Congressional committees, reporters, public interest groups,
scholars and businesses were able to obtain comprehensive information
about the day-to-day activities of federal enforcement agencies, they
would undertake serious oversight studies. Since that time--with the
support of Syracuse University, the Knight Foundation, the Rockefeller
Family Fund and The New York Times Company Foundation and other
organizations--TRAC has obtained internal administrative data tapes
from the Justice Department and a number of federal enforcement
agencies and provided it to the public in new and innovative ways.
In the spring of 1996, and again in 1997, for example, TRAC created
a special site on the World Wide Web that gave viewers all over the
nation many thousands of pages of maps, charts, graphs and tables about
the civil and criminal enforcement activities of the IRS. The address
is http://trac.syr.edu/tracirs. For the first time ever, TRAC's site
gives taxpayers, reporters, public interest groups, and scholars easy
access to comprehensive and authoritative information about how, where
and when the IRS is enforcing the law. With this information, it now is
possible to examine and question the basic policies of the agency.
DATA FACTS: From 1980 to 1995, IRS criminal enforcement
underwent a dramatic shift in emphasis. In 1980, more than
three quarters of all IRS prosecutions were aimed at
individuals accused of traditional tax crimes like failure to
file or the filing of a fraudulent return. By 1995, less than
half of IRS prosecutions involved traditional tax violations,
with crimes like money laundering, drugs and currency
violations taking their place. From 1988 to 1995, civil audit
rates for individual nonbusiness taxpayers with incomes over
$100,000 declined by a factor of four.
POLICY QUESTIONS: The sharp decline in IRS activities against
wealthier individuals and traditional forms of tax violations
is a striking change in national tax enforcement policy that
has gone on under the Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations.
Why were these changes instituted? Was this important shift the
product of conscious decisions by top policy makers or an
accident? Is there any evidence that the change has resulted in
the collection of more revenue? Or less?
DATA FACTS: Government data show wide variations in the civil
and criminal enforcement patterns of the IRS, some of which
appear to make very little sense. The taxpayers in Manhattan,
Brooklyn and Las Vegas, for example, all have something in
common with taxpayers in northern Florida and the comparatively
rural areas around the North Carolina cities of Greensboro and
Ashville. In 1995, on a per capita basis, they all ranked among
the ten most active districts when it came to the prosecution
of IRS criminal cases. On the civil side, taxpayers in the
IRS's San Francisco district, Mississippi, Idaho and New York
City stood the highest chance of being audited. One curious
fact about the taxpayers in these very different districts
concerned their income. New York had the highest adjusted gross
income and Mississippi had the lowest.
POLICY QUESTIONS: Does the IRS have an effective national
program to make sure that areas with the most problem taxpayers
have most enforcement resources? Or is the effort in fact a
random one involving the relative energy levels of different
district managers? Has the combined impact of various forms of
IRS enforcement actions--notices, audits, criminal
indictments--ever been studied? Given the high cost of moving
IRS staff, has the agency developed a plan to continually use
the natural forces of attrition to shift auditors and examiners
to areas where they are most needed?
DATA FACTS: In March 1996, TRAC mounted its first web site on
the patterns and trends of IRS criminal enforcement. The
information was based on data obtained from the Justice
Department under the Freedom of Information Act. Although both
the IRS and the Justice Department were given access to the
site before it became publicly available, neither raised any
questions. When news organizations began to publish articles
based on the data, however, spokespersons for both agencies
questioned the validity of the government's own information.
The curious tactic of impeaching your own material prompted us
to separately ask the agencies to meet with us to resolve
whatever problems they had with our data analysis. Both
refused. At this point, we undertook a new study in which we
compared--where it was possible--the enforcement information
from the Justice Department, the courts and the IRS. This study
found that the portrait of criminal tax enforcement painted by
the Department and court data were highly consistent.
Surprisingly, however, the department and court data patterns
were very different than reported by the IRS. In 1995, for
example, the IRS claims it sent twice as many persons to prison
as was recorded by the department and the courts. This
discrepancy--and several others--led us to conclude that
important information provided the public in the IRS's annual
report about its criminal enforcement effort was
``substantially misleading and inaccurate.''
POLICY QUESTIONS: Why is the IRS, of all agencies, unable to
properly balance the books on what is in fact a low-volume part
of its activities? Given the failure of the IRS to account for
its criminal enforcement activities--even with parallel
information available from the Justice Department and the
courts--what faith can be placed in its accounting of civil
audits? If the IRS enforcement information is in fact seriously
flawed, how can Congress judge its basic competence? Has the
General Accounting Office ever conducted a detailed audit of
IRS enforcement counts published each year in the agency's
annual report?
The hard numbers are there. The good questions are there. All that
has been lacking are skeptical Congressional Committees, reporters,
scholars and tax practitioners willing to invest the time and energy to
understand the numbers and to ask questions.
__________
Prepared Statement of Shelley L. Davis
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Senate Finance Committee, I am
pleased to be able to share a few of my thoughts and experiences with
you today as you explore specific issues of IRS abuse of those the tax
agency likes to call its ``customers''--American taxpayers. For 16
years I worked as an historian for the federal government. Nine of
those years were with the Department of Defense and the final seven
were spent as the first and unfortunately, the last, official historian
for the Internal Revenue Service. At the end of 1995, I resigned from
my federal career in protest over the unwillingness of the IRS, or the
Treasury Department Inspector General, to investigate my complaint of
illegal document destruction by the IRS. I learned that the same
federal investigator to whom I originally reported my concerns
regarding this, had turned around and opened an investigation of me on
unfounded and false charges of ``wrongful release of confidential
information.'' Later, I learned that this is a common tactic used
against IRS employees who dare to speak up against management. I knew
then that I had no alternative but to resign and try to raise awareness
of the intransigence, arrogance, and abusive patterns of behavior that
I found all too common inside the headquarters of the IRS. I decided to
write a book which was published earlier this year entitled,
``Unbridled Power.''
My testimony today will touch briefly on three areas:
1. The cultural climate of the IRS;
2. List keeping at the IRS;
3. The IRS definition of ``tax protester.''
My introduction to the culture of the IRS came during my earliest
days with the tax agency, in the fall of 1988. Although I had been
hired as the first historian for the IRS, I found little interest or
support for my efforts. I found even less history. By history I mean
both an awareness of the heritage of the IRS as well as the raw
material (the documentation) from which narrative history is distilled.
Neither the documents nor the heritage were to be found. Initially, I
found this curious. Later, I found it alarming.
At the IRS National Headquarters, there seemed little connection
between the work of employees and actual tax collection--what I
presumed to be the mission of the IRS. Rather than possessing any basic
curiosity about the past, the IRS employees I encountered exhibited a
wariness, a suspicion--assuming that anyone looking for records must
have some definite agenda. An agenda presumed to be negative.
This reluctance to think about the past translated into routine
day-to-day operations, meaning that all documents were tossed,
shredded, whatever, when a program was completed--or shut down, as in
the case of many IRS computer projects. No records. No paper trail. No
history.
As time went on, I realized that this not only made my job as
historian virtually impossible, but that it guaranteed that the IRS
could never be held accountable for its actions.
With a sense of historical development, I came up with my own
interpretation of this phenomenon. One could easily pass off the
reluctance of the IRS to acknowledge its past as a reaction to a
constant barrage of criticism. But the IRS is certainly not the only
federal agency subjected to criticism from the press, Congress, or the
public.
Instead of reflecting on positive actions in response to criticism,
the IRS proclaims that any criticism of the agency is ``IRS bashing''
and ``will only lead to more tax protesters.''
Rather than respond with solid information, historical examples,
and analysis, the IRS jumps around skittishly, telling Congress that
this reorganization, or that new position, or another new task force
will remedy the current problem. The IRS has learned that its most
effective response to inquiring questions from Congress, from the
press, or from the American people is to hide behind the privacy laws.
These are the laws meant to protect taxpayers. But by endlessly citing
restrictions on its authority to comment on taxpayer cases, the IRS
deflects criticism for any and all actions. In essence, the response of
the IRS to question about anything and everything is, ``Trust us. We're
doing the right thing. We just can't tell you what that is because
we're protecting American taxpayers.''
A corollary to this defensive shield is the penchant of the IRS to
destroy its paper trail. There were virtually no records of IRS actions
throughout the twentieth century in any of the repositories where one
would normally find federal records: the IRS itself, the National
Archives (including the permanent archives in Washington, D.C., the 10
records centers around the country, or the Presidential libraries.)
In my early years with the IRS, a good question to ask was, ``Where
are the records?'' What I learned was shocking. The records had been
destroyed. Gone. Shredded. Tossed. They no longer exist due to a lack
of attention to, or concern for, the law which requires all federal
agencies to preserve records of what they do. It is as though the IRS
assumed that laws which apply to the FBI, to the CIA, to every other
part of the federal establishment can be ignored.
No other agency of our government could get away with this. I
questioned the reason why it had taken so long for anyone to realize
that the records were not just missing, but destroyed.
I believe the answer is based on fear. As taxpayers, why would we
ever question the one agency that can truly bite back? Our fear of
suffering a personal attack from the IRS generally keeps most of us in
check. Our fear of being audited has allowed the IRS to theoretically
eliminate any potential smoking guns by trashing its own records. This
ensures that it can never be held accountable for its actions. How can
you prove any wrongdoing when the evidence is already destroyed?
The IRS has learned that the privacy protections are its best
weapon in its war against its ``customers.'' There is an ``us against
them'' mentality which is far too common among IRS employees. 1
witnessed and experienced this attitude firsthand for over seven years
working at the IRS headquarters. When I questioned the lack of record
keeping by the IRS, it was made clear to me that I was a ``lone
ranger,'' a ``loose cannon,'' and ``not a team player.'' Is it any
wonder they investigated me?
I'll conclude this section with a stark example from my personal
experience. After my protest resignation at the end of 1995, admittedly
I was not on the ``most favored'' list of IRS. But when I went to the
IRS National Office on Monday, April 15, 1996, to meet a friend who had
invited me for lunch to celebrate my birthday, I did not expect to be
threatened with arrest. But that is what happened.
While waiting for my friend to meet me at the entrance of the
building, I was pulled aside by an IRS internal security agent who told
me to leave immediately because I was officially ``banned'' from the
building.
I thought this was odd as I was standing in the front entrance, a
public space. When I asked for an explanation, I was told that I was
``banned'' because I ``did not turn in my official identification badge
when I resigned four months earlier.''
This was untrue.
When the agent detaining me prepared to call for Federal Protective
Service agents to carry out her threat to arrest me, I knew I had to
make a quick decision: let them carry through with this absurd threat,
or turn and leave. I left. To this day, I wish I had stayed and made
them carry through with their threat.
The IRS brought false charges against me, used government resources
to pursue a false investigation of me, and continued to harass me even
after I had resigned. With the IRS, as I am sure you will hear from
others today, retaliation is prompt, swift and catastrophic.
My years with the IRS were spent exclusively in the National
Office, the headquarters of the tax agency. Throughout my tenure at the
IRS, I often heard stories that different types of codes were used to
identify taxpayers and returns.
I have specific knowledge of one type of list maintained inside the
IRS. It is a product of a secretive, cloistered unit of the IRS which
existed from 1969 through 1973, known by the name ``Special Services
Staff,'' or SSS.
The SSS list had approximately 11,000 individuals and organizations
designated as possible audit targets by the IRS. Who were these people
and organizations? Some were names you will recognize: Shirley
MacLaine? Joan Baez, John Lindsay, the Black Panthers, and the Student
Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).
But most of those who made it onto the list were not household
names but were individuals the SSS determined were of questionable
character as determined by the SSS.
Ten employees of the SSS dutifully clipped newspaper articles each
day. The FBI willingly sent over its own files on political dissidents
and protesters, an subscriptions were taken to radical publications
which were perused for names and other leads. All in all, the SSS
targeted individuals with no known tax problems for audit simply
because of their political activities.
The commissioner who abolished the SSS, Donald Alexander, actually
testified before Congress in 1975 that he believed the SSS records
should be taken ``out on the mall and burned.''
Yet, despite the fact that the SSS files remain intact at the IRS
(at least through my resignation at the end of 1995), the IRS
steadfastly refuses to release the files to researchers or even to the
National Archives for safekeeping. Why? Because they contain ``taxpayer
information.'' Who is protecting whom, one has to wonder?
What has all this got to do with the present? Today I believe there
exist thousands of names of American taxpayers whose Master Files are
coded as TC-148, which brands them as ``Illegal Tax Protesters.''
Whether this is a list, or compilation of files which bear that
designation, is semantics. Just how many Americans bear this
designation?
At the very least, we need to know if we are on that list. We
reserve that right. The IRS says we can't know and don't have a right
to know while simultaneously claiming Congress wants it this way.
The only thing being protected in this scenario is the IRS.
Just what is a tax protester? Your definition, like mine, is
probably different from the IRS definition. I learned that while inside
the IRS.
A tax protester, in my definition, is not someone who may oppose
our system of taxation, but pays his taxes nonetheless. A tax protester
is not someone who says that our tax system is broken and must be
dismantled, but still files a Form 1040. A tax protester is not someone
who merely criticizes the IRS. A tax protester is not someone who
challenges an IRS assessment.
But in the mind of the IRS, all of the above ideas fit the
unofficial IRS profile of a tax protester. In the cloistered
environment of the IRS, criticism of the IRS, or the income tax, equals
tax protester. Anyone who has the misfortune of bearing that title is
most likely going to witness first hand just what ``taxpayer abuse''
really means.
Don't get me wrong. I am not in any way condoning the actions of
those who, by one manner or another, attempt to cheat or not live up to
their financial responsibilities as a U.S. citizen. But I do recognize
the use of the label of ``Illegal Tax Protestor'' as another powerful
weapon of the most powerful agency in America.
It is time for Congress to compel the IRS to be more forthcoming
about its audit procedures, even though the IRS would like us to
believe that our system of taxation will collapse if the American
people know how their tax collector goes about his or her business.
The IRS gains too much benefit from the privacy laws to come clean
on its own. The culture of the IRS, built over decades of learning to
hide behind the privacy laws, will not change on its own. Without
intervention from Congress, it will not happen.
Last year, a top career IRS executive testified before Congress
that, ``There is the general view that the more mysterious tax
enforcement is, the more likely taxpayers will voluntarily comply.''
Mystery breeds distrust and contempt. It also breeds fear, which
compels many taxpayers to comply with the tax laws because they are
afraid of the consequences, but it does not breed voluntary compliance
or trust.
The arrogance of the IRS is outrageous and harmful. We lose more
than gain by allowing the IRS to operate in this manner. Congress must
demand accountability from the IRS. Congress must shine the spotlight
on the IRS and never switch the power off.
Thank you.
__________
Prepared Statement of Michael P. Dolan
Chairman Roth and Distinguished Members of the Committee:
With me today are Lee Monks, the Taxpayer Advocate, and Ron
Rhodes, the Assistant Commissioner for Collection. We appreciate the
opportunity to appear today and discuss important aspects of the way
the Internal Revenue Service performs the mission which the Congress
has assigned it. Given its jurisdiction and role in the establishment
the nation's tax policy, it is crucial that this Committee be provided
as complete a picture as possible of the way today's tax administration
processes work.
The IRS has worked hard during the past months to be responsive to
the requests of the Committee's investigative staff. Early in their
deliberations the investigators identified several cases for which the
IRS has provided extensive case information, as well as access to the
pertinent field and national office IRS employees. In the past few
weeks, four of those cases were identified as probable subjects for
this hearing. As we have reviewed those four cases, we identified
mistakes in the way that two of the four cases were handled, and in a
third case, we didn't provide the kind of assistance we should have in
helping the taxpayer rectify an error they made when they filed their
return. I am sorry we made those mistakes. The taxpayers involved
certainly deserved better treatment than they received. In one instance
we have had a chance to formally apologize and in the other two we have
either solved the original problems or offered to help resolve a
remaining taxpayer concern. Beyond wishing that we had not made the
original mistake, I am also concerned that it took too long to identify
and correct the errors. I intend to share these concerns and others
identified in our preparation for this hearing when I meet with our key
senior executives next month.
As unacceptable as any mistake is, I hope this Committee will
consider them in the context of IRS's performance of its overall
responsibilities. During the days that have immediately preceded these
hearings, a variety of allegations have found their way into the media.
Unfortunately it is far too easy for an allegation of wrong doing or
even an actual error to be mis-characterized in a way that impugns an
entire organization and all its employees. As a career IRS employee, I
know my IRS colleagues not only understand, but take very seriously the
significant responsibilities with which we have been vested. Most chose
careers in public service because they believed they could make an
important contribution to the success of their country.
This Committee is in a unique position to understand the
complexity and sensitivity of the mission that has been assigned to the
IRS. Each year the Service receives nearly 200 million tax returns,
collects and accounts for well in excess of a trillion dollars,
generates nearly 90 million refunds and receives millions of calls,
letters and visits from taxpayers in need of help. In addition, a
normal year will find the IRS involved in approximately 10 million
``compliance contacts'' ranging from tax audits to collection of
delinquent accounts and reconciliation of discrepancies between
information supplied by third parties (i.e., employers, banks, mortgage
companies, etc.) and the information reported on tax returns. Each of
these millions of transactions is sensitive, whether it is the
processing of a routine refund return or a compliance contact. The
impact of these interactions on taxpayers is clearly influenced by the
way in which the IRS performs its responsibilities. There are also a
variety of issues outside the IRS control which influence the
difficulty or ease with which these interactions occur. The economy,
for example, often bears directly on the ease with which some taxpayers
are able to pay the tax they owe. Likewise the introduction of
significant tax law changes frequently challenges some taxpayers'
abilities to correctly meet their tax obligations. Few organizations,
public or private, perform their responsibilities in as sensitive an
environment as that confronted daily by the employees of the Internal
Revenue Service.
One of the true strengths of the United States ``self assessment''
system is that the vast majority of U.S. taxpayers file their returns
on time and pay the tax they owe. These taxpayers account for the 83-85
percent compliance rate that exists today. For the most part, the
contacts between these taxpayers and the IRS involve receiving the
forms, assistance and education required to maintain their compliance.
Because these taxpayers represent the backbone of our system, IRS has
increasingly sought to offer them simpler ways of filing, paying and
obtaining assistance. Likewise in the case of taxpayers who may owe tax
but strive to resolve their non-compliance, the Service has
significantly expanded its ability to solve problems over the
telephone, improved the tone and clarity of correspondence it sends and
increased the alternatives available to resolve tax delinquencies. In
addition to these improvements, there is currently underway a major
effort to further improve the customer service effectiveness of the
IRS. A group of front-line employees and managers from the IRS,
Treasury and the Vice President's National Performance Review staff
have spent the last three months reviewing virtually every aspect of
customer service and will next month present a comprehensive set of
improvement options.
In contrast to the majority of compliant taxpayers, however, are
those people who do not meet their tax obligations. Out of fairness to
those taxpayers who do, the IRS seeks to collect overdue taxes from
those who have not voluntarily filed and paid.
We do not treat all who have not complied the same. The type of
IRS contact and the enforcement actions we use depends upon the
willingness and ability of taxpayers to correct their noncompliance.
nonpayment of taxes owed
While a minority overall, a significant number of taxpayers do not
pay the full amount of taxes owed. At the end of FY 1996, the
cumulative unpaid taxes owed which we record as accounts receivable
exceeded $216 billion. Payment delinquency can occur for a variety of
reasons. A taxpayer may file a return on time but not pay the full
liability. A taxpayer may make a math error on the return that
increases the tax liability. In addition, examinations and matching of
information returns to tax returns frequently identify a liability
which is not fully paid.
The first contact with a taxpayer who owes back taxes is a notice
or a ``tax bill'' which is sent to all taxpayers who owe. Currently,
individual taxpayers who owe can receive up to 4 notices issued over a
16 week period before the IRS attempts to contact the taxpayer by
telephone or in person. Business taxpayers who owe can receive up to 2
notices issued over 6 weeks. Recently, these notices were re-written in
clearer language so that taxpayers would be able to easily understand
what they have and have not paid. With any notice of a balance due,
taxpayers also automatically receive a publication entitled ``Your
Rights As a Taxpayer'' (Publication 1). A publication entitled
``Understanding the Collection Process'' is sent with the final notice
(Publication 594). (These publications are included as an appendix to
my testimony.)
nonfiling of tax returns
Another group of taxpayers fail to file tax returns for which they
are liable. Some do not file because they are not aware that they need
to file. Others fail to file because of a traumatic event in their
life, such as a divorce or loss of a job. Still others do not file
because they cannot pay the entire amount they owe. We estimate that
over $13 billion is owed annually by taxpayers who do not voluntarily
and timely file required tax returns; this is known as the nonfiling
gap.
The IRS identifies potential individual nonfilers primarily from
information documents showing payments made by third parties, such as
Forms W-2 and 1099. Potential business nonfilers are identified based
on information the business provided when it applied for an employer
identification number and its prior return filing history. When
information documents reflect that an individual taxpayer had income
sufficient to require a return but did not file a return or when our
information indicates a business has not filed a required return, we
send a notice requesting that the taxpayer either file the required
return or explain why they are not required to file. Those we believe
should have filed but did not receive either 2 notices over an 8 week
period or 1 notice depending on the amount of tax likely due.
those who will correct noncompliance
Many taxpayers respond when they receive one or more notices from
the IRS regarding their nonpayment of taxes owed or their nonfiling of
required tax returns. For example, in FY 1996, taxpayers paid $14.7
billion after receiving a notice; $11.7 billion was similarly paid in
FY 1995. In FY 1995 and in FY 1996, over 1.1 million delinquent returns
were filed each year by taxpayers receiving a nonfiler notice.
Other taxpayers will call us after receiving a notice because they
do not have the money to pay the tax due. If the taxpayer cannot fully
pay, telephone assistors will work with the taxpayer to help resolve
the problem. Taxpayers may be asked to provide financial information so
that the correct course of action can be determined. Our telephone tax
assistors have the authority to recommend adjustments to the tax bill,
to allow the taxpayer additional time to secure funds from a bank or
third party, to temporarily suspend collection action, or to establish
a payment agreement; known as an installment agreement.
Installment agreements offer the IRS a unique opportunity to keep
taxpayers in the tax system who would otherwise not be able to meet
their full tax obligations while assisting taxpayers in correcting the
cause of the delinquency. In FY 1992, 1.52 million taxpayers entered
into installment agreements. As a result of IRS efforts to expand the
use of installment agreements, the number entering into installment
agreements increased to 2.67 million taxpayers in FY 1996.
When the tax debt cannot be resolved through an installment
agreement, an Offer in Compromise may sometimes be an appropriate way
to satisfy the debt. By law, taxpayers can submit an application for an
Offer in Compromise when there is ``doubt as to liability for the
amount owed'' or ``doubt as to ability to pay the full amount owed.''
In FY 1992, we modified the Offer in Compromise policy and streamlined
procedures to make it easier for a taxpayer to submit an offer and have
it accepted. Reflective of this change is the comparison between FY
1991 when the IRS accepted 1,995 offers from taxpayers to compromise
their tax debt, and FY 1996, when this increased to over 27,600
accepted offers. Our rate of accepting offers submitted has also
steadily increased from 25 percent in FY 1991 to 48 percent in FY 1996.
An offer is a reasonable alternative to declaring a case currently not
collectible or to proposing a lengthy installment agreement. Our
ultimate goal is to collect what is collectible as early and
inexpensively as possible--reaching agreements that are in the best
interest of both taxpayers and the government. Accepting reasonable
offers not only resolves past delinquencies; it gives taxpayers a
``fresh start'' from which to manage their future filing and payment
requirements. As a condition for accepting an offer, taxpayers who have
an offer accepted agree to comply with all filing and payment
requirements for five years--thus, enhancing voluntary compliance.
some taxpayers make no arrangement to comply
There are, unfortunately, some taxpayers who choose not to take
advantage of these arrangements, and who continue to refuse to pay
their taxes. In their unwillingness to pay their fair share of taxes,
these taxpayers impose extra--and unfair--loss on those who do comply
with the law.
When a taxpayer does not respond to our notices by filing a
delinquent return, paying the full amount owed, establishing a payment
agreement or filing an offer in compromise, the IRS attempts to make
further contact with the taxpayer either through telephone or face-to-
face contact. Upon contact with the taxpayer, we will try to work with
the taxpayer to resolve the nonfiling and/or the delinquent tax debt.
In addition to the various ways in which arrangements can be made
to pay delinquent tax, collection personnel can determine, at any step
in the process, that the tax debt is not currently collectible because
such collection would result in a significant hardship. A significant
hardship may occur if the taxpayer cannot maintain necessities, such as
food, clothing, shelter, and medical treatment. At the end of FY 1996,
collection personnel determined that taxpayers could not currently pay
$29.2 billion of the $216 billion in accounts receivable due to
hardship.
If we cannot contact the taxpayer, or the taxpayer is unwilling to
make arrangements to pay or unwilling to file a delinquent return, we
utilize enforcement tools that the Congress has authorized. In the case
of nonpayment, we may place a lien or levy on the taxpayer's assets. We
may levy against wages, funds on deposit at a bank, rental income,
dividends, demand notes or securities. Before the IRS takes levy
action, however, we must send the taxpayer a final notice of intent to
levy at least 30 days in advance of the levy. We may give this notice
in person, leave it at the taxpayer's dwelling or usual place of
business, or send it by certified or registered mail. We must release a
levy if: the amount owed is paid in full; documentation is provided to
us to determine that releasing the levy will help collect the tax; the
taxpayer enters into an approved, current installment agreement and the
IRS and the taxpayer have agreed to release the levy; or the levy is
creating an economic hardship.
In appropriate situations and usually after other collection
actions have been exhausted, the seizure and sale of property may be
used to collect delinquent tax debt. Among other rights, a taxpayer has
the right to an administrative review of our seizure action. Before
selling the property, public notice usually appears in a newspaper in
the county where the sale will be held. The original notice of sale is
personally delivered to the taxpayer or sent by certified mail. We must
wait at least 10 days after giving notice before conducting the sale.
Before the sale, the property can be released if the taxpayer: pays the
amount of the government's interest in the property; enters into an
escrow arrangement; provides an acceptable bond; or makes an acceptable
agreement for payment of the tax. Taxpayers can ``buy back'' personal
property at any time before the sale by paying the tax due, including
penalties and interest, and paying the expenses of seizure. Taxpayers
can also request that we sell the seized property within 60 days.
Seizure of a personal residence requires the approval of the District
Director and taxpayers have 180 days to redeem their personal residence
after the sale. In FY 1996, $164.7 million was collected from
approximately 10,000 seizures. Notably, in only about 2500 of these
seizures, were the taxpayers' assets required to be sold. Over the past
5 years, the number of seizures has remained fairly constant--about
10,000 seizures per year. Seizures were used in less than 0.2 percent
of the 6.6 million delinquent cases closed in FY 1996.
In those cases in which no return has been filed despite the
issuance of several requests to the taxpayer, our enforcement efforts
may include ``substitute for return'' assessments. In a ``substitute
for return'' assessment, we determine the taxpayer's liability based on
available third party information and write to the taxpayer proposing
assessment of this amount unless they respond by filing a correct
return; by explaining they are not required to file a return; by
explaining that some of the income reported by their parties is not
their income; or by appealing our proposed assessment. A taxpayer can
appeal the proposed assessment within the IRS through our Appeals
Office. Most differences can be settled through the appeals system
without expensive and time-consuming court trials. If the matter cannot
be settled to the taxpayer's satisfaction in Appeals, the taxpayer can
take the case to court. If the taxpayer fails to respond to our letter,
we pursue assessment using deficiency procedures.
collection appeals process
At any step of the collection process, taxpayers who believe that
they have been treated unfairly have administrative remedies available
to them. Taxpayers can request an administrative review of the
employee's actions with the employee's manager.
On April 1, 1996, the IRS put into place additional administrative
appeal rights by establishing new procedures that give taxpayers the
right to appeal liens, levies, and seizures proposed by the IRS. Also,
the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2 required the IRS to provide an
independent administrative review of terminations of installment
agreements for taxpayers who request such a review. This new appeal
right was made effective January 1, 1997. Taxpayers subject to a lien,
levy, seizure or termination of an installment agreement receive
Publication 1660, ``Collection Appeal Rights for Liens, Levies, and
Seizures,'' which explains their right to make such an appeal and the
procedures for requesting an appeal. Publication 1660 and Form 9423
(Collection Appeal Request) are included as appendix to my testimony.
The IRS has trained its collection personnel in this new appeals
procedure. Since April 1996, approximately 1,800 taxpayers have
utilized this administrative appeals process. Our Appeals function has
fully sustained the collection action in 75 percent of these cases and
fully reversed the collection action in 13 percent of these cases.
taxpayer advocate plays key problem resolution role
The Service has had a Taxpayer Advocate (formerly called the
Taxpayer Ombudsman) since 1979. As the current advocate for taxpayers
within the Service, Mr. Monks' responsibility is to ensure that
taxpayers are provided the assistance necessary to resolve their issues
or, at least, are provided the information they are seeking on their
inquiry. Taxpayers who are experiencing problems that they cannot clear
up through normal channels, or that may be experiencing significant
hardship as a result of IRS action, or that want to register a
complaint about treatment by IRS can contact the local taxpayer
advocate in the district in which they reside or at the service center
with which they may be corresponding. Taxpayers may also communicate
directly with Mr. Monks here in Washington, D.C. In helping resolve
difficult individual cases, the Taxpayer Advocate's office compiles and
tracks data on the types of problems taxpayers experience with the IRS
and then works with appropriate IRS officials to correct any system
deficiencies contributing to those problems.
The Advocates' office is also frequently involved in cases in
which complying with the law may constitute a hardship for an
individual taxpayer. In those instances, taxpayers can apply for
hardship relief by filing an application (Form 911) for a Taxpayer
Assistance Order. In addition, employees can refer a taxpayer's case to
the advocate's office for hardship consideration. Approximately 35
percent of all Taxpayer Assistance Orders are initiated by employees. A
local taxpayer advocate will review the application and, if
appropriate, takes steps to relieve a hardship or to stop a collection
action until a review determines that the action is appropriate. In
addition, our problem resolution program provides an avenue for
taxpayers who have been unable to resolve their problem with IRS; when
a significant matter or event is not being considered; or if their
rights have been violated.
As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, in February 1997, after reading
the announcement that this Committee was establishing an investigative
team to review IRS' treatment of taxpayers and that a number of
taxpayers had come to the Committee with a variety of problems that
they had experienced with the IRS, Mr. Monks wrote you offering the
assistance of his office in handling any of the taxpayer issues
identified by the Committee. The Committee did refer one case to the
Taxpayer Advocate and I was pleased that the advocate's office was able
to resolve this taxpayer's matter expeditiously.
specific taxpayer cases
In May and June 1997, the Chairman requested that IRS provide to
designated Committee staff the tax returns and other relating to
disagreements between the IRS and taxpayers associated with the cases
that I mentioned earlier in my testimony.
Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, which prohibits
disclosure of taxpayer information, prevents my discussing the specific
facts of each of these cases in a public hearing without a taxpayer's
written consent. It is anticipated, however, that the Committee staff
will obtain authorizations which will permit me to respond to questions
that Committee members may have about the specific cases which we have
reviewed. Before I respond to any specific case, however, I do want to
stress that we strive to maintain consistent and fair treatment of all
taxpayers. At the same time, given the very specific nature of many of
the cases our employees encounter, we consciously vest employees with
sufficient discretion to treat each taxpayer's situation on its own
merit. There is obviously some tension between wanting absolute
guarantees of consistency and empowering front-line employees to use
their professional judgment. I would like to be able to tell you today
that all 100,000 IRS employees--myself included--always exercise our
judgment correctly in every one of the millions of taxpayers' cases we
work. We do make mistakes just like employees in other government
agencies or in any other large business that deals with the public. As
I said earlier, three of the cases submitted to the Committee staff
include mistakes which we made. I am both disturbed and sorry for how
our failure to correct these mistakes timely has disrupted these
taxpayers' lives. While I want to apologize for the frustration,
inconvenience, and hardship caused by our actions, I also want to
commit to doing everything possible to see that other taxpayers do not
experience what these taxpayers experienced. The Service does take
these situations seriously and we do want instances like these brought
to our attention.
conclusion
Day in and day out, our employees confront a very challenging job.
In the vast majority of cases, I believe they exercise their
responsibilities with extreme care and concern for the rights of
taxpayers. Through their efforts, we ensure that the millions of
Americans who willingly meet their tax obligations are required to pay
only their fair share. Their efforts also help ensure that the tax
revenues contemplated by our tax laws are collected and made available
to enable our nation to meet its crucial spending and deficit
management objectives. On behalf of my colleagues at the IRS, I commit
to you a redoubled effort at ensuring that we exercise our
responsibilities with the utmost professionalism and respect for the
public we serve.
Mr Chairman, that concludes my remarks. We would be happy to answer
any questions.
Attachments.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.267
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.268
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.269
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.270
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.271
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.272
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.273
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.274
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.275
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.276
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.277
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.278
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.279
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.280
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.281
Responses to Questions Submitted by Senator Nickles
Re: Shelley Davis--
Question: Mr. Dolan, this committee heard sworn testimony yesterday
from Shelley Davis, former historian for the IRS, that the agency
routinely destroys documents relating to critical management decisions.
She further testified that when she tried to stop this practice, she
was attacked from within the agency and left with no option but to
resign. How do you respond to these claims?
Answer: The IRS has not routinely destroyed documents relating to
critical management decisions. Admittedly, there have been records
management problems, however, in December 1995, the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA) made 58 recommendations to improve
our records management practices and in May 1997, NARA agreed that we
had successfully implemented 47 of the recommendations. As of September
1997, we reported to NARA that we took actions to implement the
remaining 11; however, NARA has not yet concurred. Also, in response to
the Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Chairman
of the Subcommittee on Oversight who requested that the General
Accounting Office evaluate how IRS carries out its records management
responsibilities, the GAO stated in an October 1997 report, that
``Nara's 1995 review of the IRS records management program found that
IRS had managed its overall records program according to NARA
requirements.''
As a result of the NARA evaluation, IRS has been working very
closely with NARA to strengthen our records management
responsibilities. In this regard, we have taken aggressive actions to
ensure all records documenting changes in policy, organizational
structure, and programs are identified, scheduled with NARA, and
transferred to NARA according to each approved disposition authority.
Some of the most proactive actions involve the preservation of
approximately 790 cubic feet of records. The details of each action are
set forth below:
1. One valuable collection of historical records was
maintained by the former Historian (300 cubic feet).
Unfortunately, during her tenure, no actions were taken to
catalog, inventory, or schedule these records for eventual
transfer to NARA. After her resignation, it took 9 months to
complete a massive inventory because the records were left in
such disarray. Since the completion of the inventory, a Request
for Disposition Authority was submitted to NARA and the
appraisal process, which was initiated by NARA recently, will
take several months to complete.
2. Program, policy, and reading files of former Commissioners
(1950-1992) have been retired to the Washington National
Records Center (240 cubic feet) and will be transferred to NARA
according to their approved disposition authority.
3. Records created and maintained by former Chief Information
Officers and the Information Systems organization (1983-1990)
documenting Tax Systems Modernization (TSM) and other
management decisions are being prepared for retirement to the
Washington National Records Center (50 cubic feet). Additional
records created by Information Systems (1970-1990) in the
former Historian's collection are pending appraisal by NARA.
(The volume of 53 cubic feet is included in Item No. 1.)
4. Reading Files and Subject Files of the former
Modernization Executive/Associate Commissioner (Modernization)
(1991-1996) have been appraised by NARA and are being prepared
for retirement (40 cubic feet).
5. The records of the former Special Services Staff (1968-
1973) are pending appraisal by NARA (140 cubic feet).
6. Strategic Planning Documentation (1947-1960) has been
transferred to NARA (one cubic foot) and an additional cubic
foot (1960-1980) is being prepared for retirement.
7. We have also offered for immediate transfer to NARA early
directives which document the policies and procedures of the
Service from 1861-1953 (19 cubic feet). These records are
awaiting NARA's approval for transfer.
I have no knowledge nor evidence of Ms. Davis' claim that she was
``attacked'' from within the agency and it is my belief that her
decision to resign was one made of her own volition.
Re: Oklahoma City office & seizures--
Question: Mr. Dolan, according to information received by my
office, the average number of seizures per revenue officer per year in
the Oklahoma City office is 3.9, when the national average is 0.5. Can
you explain this statistical anomaly? Does your office ever review
these numbers and investigate their cause?
Answer: The National Office does not maintain statistics on the
average number of seizures per revenue officer. The total number of
seizures nationwide and by district office are maintained by fiscal
year. My office does review the seizure program, including the number
of seizures by district office, to identify trends. Many variables
impact the program's statistics, such as the demographics of the
district, the economy, and taxpayer compliance. Other variables include
state laws that impact property ownership and equity in assets, support
from other agencies such as the United States Attorneys, and state
governments' support. I believe the numbers quoted were developed
locally by the Arkansas-Oklahoma District. Since we are not aware of
the methodology used for the computation, we have been unable to arrive
at the quoted numbers using data that is available to us. Thus, I am
unable to explain the statistical anomaly. The number of seizures are
not, in and of themselves, indicators of success or failure. They need
to be considered in the context of individual case decisions and
district trends.
__________
Prepared Statement of Robert L. Goldstein, CPA and
James A. Woehlke, CPA, LL.M. (Tax)
Introduction
The New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants
(hereinafter ``Society'' or ``NYSSCPA'') is the nation's largest and
oldest state CPA professional associations, serving over 32,000
members. (We are celebrating our centennial this year.) Our members
practice locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally as
primary tax advisers to millions of individual and business taxpayers.
It is our belief that the Congress, the Internal Revenue Service
(``IRS'') and we have a common constituency: The American Taxpayer. It
is from this unique vantagepoint that we appear here today.
We are supportive of the basic mission of the IRS and are not among
those calling for its abolition or the substantial weakening of its
role. Though we have occasionally criticized and disagreed with the
IRS, the Service plays a vital role in our self-assessment tax system.
Through local liaison groups, we have been able to discuss our
disagreements with the Service, point out systemic problems, which come
to our attention, and resolve certain issues before they become major
points of contention. For example, we recently were able to alert the
Brookhaven Service Center to a problem concerning the IRS computer
module for Federal Unemployment Insurance for household employees.
Through this cooperation, the IRS was able to quickly correct the
module and we were able to alert our members to the problem and the
suggested manner in which to deal with it.
We do, however, believe that the Congress' and the public's
confidence in the Service's ability to carry out its mission has
deteriorated. One has only to follow the newspaper and magazine
articles and news broadcasts over the past several years, to read about
billions spent on computer systems that do not meet their
specifications or about ``economic reality audits'' (now called
financial status audits) designed to ``persecute'' the American
taxpayer. Even allowing for the excessive amount of hyperbole, the
criticism has been intense. The IRS, more than almost any other
government agency, must maintain Congressional and public trust. It
must be viewed as fair, effective, and impartial. The Service cannot
audit taxpayers and be unable itself to be audited. The IRS should only
engender fear in those who flout the tax laws and thereby place an
undue burden on their fellow citizens.
As tax practitioners, we are in a unique position to testify both
about the many IRS employees who perform their tasks admirably and
those instances where the Service demonstrates an inability to carry
out its mission.
Taxpayer Representation and Tax Law Complexity
Taxpayers primarily choose to use a tax professional to prepare
their tax returns and represent them before the IRS (in the eventuality
that such representation is required) because of the complexity of the
tax law. From 1986 to 1997, there have been eight yours with
significant changes to the tax laws (1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990,
1993, 1996 and 1997). The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 alone contains:
36 retroactive changes
114 changes effective August 5, 1997
69 changes effective January 1, 1998 and 5 changes effective
thereafter
285 new sections and 824 Internal Revenue Code amendments
This new law even makes estimated tax requirements for individuals
more complicated by changing the safe harbor provision for individuals
with adjusted gross income of more than $150,000 from 110% of last
year's liability to:
100% of last year's liability for years beginning in 1998;
105% of last year's liability for years beginning in 1999,
2000, and 2001; and
112% of last year's liability for years beginning in 2002.
While the complexity of the tax law is not at the root of
controversies between the IRS and the practitioner community and
taxpayers, it does serve to exacerbate the Service's challenges in
administering the tax system and the taxpayers'' responsibilities in
meeting their tax obligations.
It should he noted that there is a very large backlog of Treasury
Regulations. The IRS needs to issue regulations and other guidance so
that taxpayers and representatives know the Service's position on
issues to make compliance both more likely and consistent.
Such complexity probably leads to inadvertent noncompliance and the
creation of an adversarial atmosphere between the taxpayer and the
Service. Over the past decade, the CPA and legal professions have
submitted numerous, meaningful simplification proposals to the
Congress. The AICPA developed a ``complexity index'' for use by policy
makers in designing tax laws. Proposed tax law changes should not be
enacted without Congress first securing from the IRS a draft of the tax
form changes, which would be required. This procedure could help avoid
complexity for both IRS administration and taxpayer compliance. The
professional staffs of the Congress should consult with practitioner
organizations, on a regular basis, in connection with writing of new
tax legislation so that the compliance effect of dealing with such new
legislation will be clearer to members of the staff. We suggest that
such issues and procedures be revisited.
Responsibilities of Taxpayer Representatives and of IRS Personnel
Treasury Department Circular 230, Regulations Governing the
Practice of Attorneys, Certified Public Accountants, Enrolled Assents,
Enrolled Actuaries, and Appraisers before the Service, sets out ethical
and procedural matters governing tax practitioners. Of most immediate
interest to practitioners is Subpart B, which outlines, (1) information
to be furnished to the IRS (Section 10.20(a)), (2) knowledge of
client's omissions (Section 10.21), (3) diligence as to accuracy
(Section 10.22), and (4) the prompt disposition of pending matters
(Section 10.23). The professional organizations that govern those
practitioners listed in the title of Circular 230 each have their own
additional ethical rules (for example, the AICPA has its Code of
Professional Conduct and Statements on Responsibilities in Tax
Practice).
The National Commission on the Restructuring of the IRS (``National
Commission'') stated that the workforce of the IRS should be of the
highest quality and that the U.S. taxpayer deserves the highest-
quality, courteous service from the Internal Revenue Service. Former
Commissioner Richardson identified the IRS Mission for the National
Commission as follows:
To collect the proper amount of tax revenue at the least cost;
serve the public by continually improving the quality of our
products and services; and perform in a manner warranting the
highest degree of public confidence in our integrity,
efficiency and fairness.
While there appears no conflict between what practitioners and
Service personnel should expect from one another, problems arise when
the Service misconceives its own mission and role. Two recent examples
are the testimony before the National Commission by the Deputy Chief,
Taxpayer Service who said, the IRS is in the ``law enforcement business
. . . combating financial crime'' and the Deputy Assistant Secretary
(Departmental Finance and Management) who testified that as ``[a] law
enforcement agency at heart, the IRS has been protected from improper
influence on how it does its job. While such insulation is appropriate,
the down side is that it can foster an inwardly focused culture . . .
.'' It is clear from these examples that the IRS believes its primary
role is law enforcement rather than the ``taxpayer service.'' We
recognize that there is an important element of law enforcement in the
role of the Service, but to view that as its primary function creates a
level of insularity and heavy-handedness, which often makes it
difficult to achieve its core customer service objectives. The success
of the Problems Resolution Program others an example of how different
attitudes by IRS personnel and taxpayers (and their representatives)
emerge when the customer-service model is used. Our profession
commended the work of Former Commissioners Gibbs, Goldberg, and
Peterson to alter the IRS's culture by viewing the taxpayer as a
``customer'' and not a ``tax cheat.''
An example of this enforcement mentality exists in the increasing
use of by-pass actions wherein the IRS examiner contacts the taxpayer
in spite of the fact that a representative has been appointed pursuant
to a power of attorney on file. We do recognize that, in certain
circumstances, there are legitimate reasons for the use of by-pass
letters, telephone calls or visits to taxpayers, such as undue delay in
the process by the practitioner or failure of the practitioner to
supply requested information in a reasonable amount of time. However,
the bypass action is drastic, considering what should be a cooperative
atmosphere between IRS examiners and representatives, and should be
structured to apply when there are demonstrable circumstances of
neglect.
Training Issues
We understand that in the past, entry-level personnel were
subjected to an examination and that this policy has been abandoned.
While we understand that the IRS budget is stretched thin, we reject
the thinking a reduced budget should lower the standards for hiring.
Without an adequate number of properly skilled and highly trained
employees, the success of the IRS's customer service mission will be
impossible.
An example of inappropriate training is the Financial Status
(formerly Economic Reality) auditing program. Agents in this program
were trained to use highly intrusive auditing techniques. Agents were
indoctrinated using role-playing and game-training techniques that
impugned the honesty of the average taxpayer.
The tax law is taught to the professional practitioners by
educators, including practicing CPAs and attorneys and other
professional instructors. The IRS should reach out to universities,
foundations, and processional organizations to assist in the
development and teaching of continuing education programs.
In those instances where the IRS has reached out to the
practitioner community in its educational efforts, such as practitioner
forums and workshops planned with collaboration between the IRS and
practitioner groups, there has been tremendous benefit to all parties
concerned. These programs unfailingly promote dialogue and increased
understanding by each group of the other's positions and problems.
These joint efforts go a long way toward dispelling the perception, and
in some instances the reality, of insular paranoia attributed to the
Service.
The Problems Resolution Program has been a resounding success,
winning plaudits from professional groups all over the country. It
should he used as a model for training other IRS personnel. The very
success of this program points to failures in the normal process. The
IRS, then, is succeeding the second time around. With improved training
and a customer service orientation, might it be possible to get it
right the first time and avoid this duplication of effort?
The examination and collection issues that we are going to discuss
below may appear to be merely mechanical issues; however, they are
symptomatic of the problems that exist within the service. For example,
some of the issues indicate lack of devotion of proper resources or
establishment of the proper attitudes to bring to a speedy and
efficient conclusion. Addressing these issues will reduce the amount of
redundant time required by both Service personnel and practitioners in
dispatching taxpayer concerns.
Examination Issues
Too much time is still required to complete audits. For example:
An ``S'' corporation audit took in excess of 24 months.
resulting in a minimal adjustment.
An ``S'' corporation audit has taken in excess of 18 months
from the initial audit notice to the issuance of the 30-day
letter.
An individual audit covering a period of two tax years has
endured over 20 months and has just been taken into the
Problems Resolution Program.
An examination was put on hold pending the decision in a
test curse involving prior years. The IRS waited thirteen years
after the test case was decided before it contacted the
taxpayer to conclude the examination.
IRS personnel participating in FlexiPlace, the program wherein
certain IRS personnel work at home for part of the workweek, cannot be
reached by telephone while they are working at home. Often their office
phones go unanswered. A modern voice mail system should be installed
and personnel working at home should be required to monitor the voice
mail several times a day. If such employees are out of the office for a
significant time, provision should be made for them to receive their
mail. (In this way, documents forwarded by a practitioner will not sit
on a desk.)
Netting of multi-year deficiencies and overpayments, for purposes
of interest calculation, is almost never done on the initial
processing. This then requires complicated corrections after the fact.
Collection Issues
IRS personnel often refuse to deal with a problem (tangential or
related period) which is not officially on their desk, despite the fact
that the adjustments to such year are a direct product of the case
settlement involving a year which is on that IRS agent's desk.
The automated collection system (ACS) is particularly frustrating.
When dealing with ACS, the practitioner rarely gets the same person on
the telephone more than once. Each time that the practitioner needs to
speak to the IRS to either impart requested information or to request
the status of the matter, the practitioner must wait for the agent to
read what the previous agent has entered into the computer and often
the same ground must be covered again. If the ACS person responding is
from a different area than the one with whom the practitioner
previously dealt, communications may be even more difficult. This
procedure is hardly an efficient use of either IRS personnel or
practitioner time.
Suggestion Box
Address, with all due speed, the issues raised by the National
Commission. The National Commission's extensive hearings and
deliberations resulted, in the main, in a well-reasoned report
identifying a number of serious issues at the IRS. You should not
permit the fine effort of the Commission, its witnesses, and staff go
for naught.
Interim extensions (July 15, for partnerships and trusts and August
15, for individuals) should be eliminated and the initial extensions
should be for 6 months. There is already only one six-month extension
for corporations. This change would have no cash flow effect to the
government, as any tax due for trusts or individuals is paid with the
initial extension. Second extensions create no pressure for early
filing, as the practitioner can sign them and they are routinely
granted. These second extensions must be signed and mailed by the
practitioner, received by the IRS, posted to the system, stamped
approved, and mailed back to the taxpayer or the representative. This
entire process is a complete waste of time and cost for both the IRS
and the practitioner. The elimination of these extensions would also be
consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Powers of Attorney are a perennial source of irritation in
relations between the Service and the practitioner community. We
recognize the absolute right of every taxpayer to privacy and
confidentiality, as well as the great care the Service must give to
these issues. These issues are problems nonetheless. Consideration
should be given to a ``check the box'' power of attorney or ``tax
information authorization,'' whereby the taxpayer can check a box on
the tax return at the time of filing giving the IRS permission to
discuss the contents of the tax return with the preparer who has signed
the tax return. In the event that the taxpayer changes accountants and
such communications are required, a standard power of attorney can he
filed superseding the one on the tax return.
We thank the committee for allowing the NYSSCPA to present the
views and suggestions of our members. We are prepared to assist you in
any way that you deem relevant to reform the IRS into a true taxpayer
service agency.
__________
Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles E. Grassley
[september 23, 1997]
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the
invitation to share my views with you. I do so as a senior member of
this committee, as a senior member and active participant of the
National Commission on Restructuring the IRS, as a chief sponsor of
Taxpayer Bill of Rights I and II, as a Senator representing millions of
taxpaying constituents, and as a taxpaying citizen myself.
In a sense, I represent both sides of the equation. As a member of
the United States Senate, I am part of the functioning of government.
And part of that functioning is the raising of revenues to finance the
goods and services provided for the public. Yet, I also pay taxes, and
I represent millions in my state who also pay or should pay their fair
share.
The issue is one of balance, in my view. The Federal Government
needs to collect its revenue, which taxpayers are obliged to pay. But
taxpayers have certain rights that should not be abused. All of us
should support a proper balance between these two needs. Yet, over the
years, it appears such a proper balance has been lacking.
It is for this reason that some of us seem to be advocates for the
taxpayers, without being mindful of the importance of the revenue-
collection functions of the IRS. Any serious, objective observer should
acknowledge the necessity of balance. But when evidence mounts of IRS
abuses and mismanagement, it's time to look beneath the surface and
search for systemic, cultural problems. We did that and we found them.
Both on the Commission, and, I believe, on this Committee as we will
see later this week. A ``we vs. they'' mentality seems to exist. And
that is not a healthy situation.
Having said that, this is not an indictment of the dedicated,
front-line IRS employees in the field. Typically, they do an
outstanding yet thankless job in the service of the public. It is not
they who should be the targets of scorn. Rather, it is a management
culture mindless of the fact that they are servants of the people. If
allowed to persist, such a mindset often leads to arrogance,
unresponsiveness, disregard for one's rights, and the very kinds of
things we have been hearing from constituents for decades.
When we in the Congress attempt to investigate, we're often
derailed. A cloak of secrecy goes up. It's more veiled than even the
most elaborate secrecy arrangements at Langley. In the language of the
federal government, it's called ``6103.'' That's the Section of the Tax
Code that prevents disclosure of taxpayer-related information. Designed
to protect taxpayers' privacy, it does much more. It also protects the
privacy of those who abuse taxpayers' rights, who mislead Congress, and
who might use collection quotas in tax enforcement despite their
illegality.
In my experience, Mr. Chairman, such abuses occur when independent
oversight is lacking. Oversight has a rather antiseptic quality about
it. That is the concept behind the Commission's recommendation for an
independent oversight board over the IRS. This board would set
appropriate performance standards, would measure performance, and then
reward or discipline managers according to their performance.
An important part of oversight is more general openness. The
Commission found that the IRS is a very closed and insular
organization. As a result, we have put forward a first step to make the
IRS more open to Congress and to the press. If we are to be successful
in changing the culture of the IRS, a key ingredient is greater
openness.
I think my colleague and Chairman of the Commission, Senator Bob
Kerrey, was absolutely right when he noted at one of our hearings a
point about the media. He said the media and press are one of the key
ways in which Congress finds out what is going on at government
agencies.
And so the Commission, to encourage more openness, as well as more
accountability, proscribed the following three remedies in the IRS
Restructuring and Reform Act (S. 1096):
(1) The IRS must be more timely and responsive in Freedom of
Information (FOIA) requests;
(2) The IRS must not abuse its authority under Section 6103. The
Commission found that the IRS did abuse this authority in hiding from
the press the fact that the agency had provided false information to
Congress. We would call on a panel of experts to recommend changes to
prevent such abuses;
(3) The IRS must maintain and preserve records. It has not. Many
requests by the Commission for documents and data were met with a
statement that such data no longer existed, or the documents could not
be found.
Addressing these three areas of openness may not be headline
grabbing. But in my experience, together with other measures, these
will help bring more accountability to the IRS. The IRS should be held
to the same high standards that the agency itself applies to the
American taxpayer.
I am also pleased that the Commission did not call for the easy
solution--more money. The IRS, until two years ago, had seen continual
increases in its budget for 40 years. Indeed, the Commission uncovered
that hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted.
Clearly, the problem at the IRS is management, not money.
One Treasury official admitted privately that the IRS wouldn't be
serious about reform if Congress kept throning more money at them. This
has been my experience as well in overseeing federal agencies over the
years.
S. 1096 is designed to address many of the management failures we
detected. I urge the Committee and my colleagues to look favorably upon
it. Meanwhile, the Commission did not conduct serious oversight
investigations to root out cultural pathologies within the IRS. That is
where the Commission's job ended, and the job of this Committee begins,
with this week's hearings.
Understandably, these are controversial hearings. The IRS is not
used to being overseen Untoward motives are assigned to the oversight
efforts. Like partisanship. But that's a tired argument. I intend to be
an active participant in these hearings. In the 1980s, I was hardly
partisan when I clashed with a Republican Administration over defense
issues. The same with the Chairman of this Committee. And I've been
overseeing IRS abuses as far back as the Reagan and Bush
Administrations as well.
In addition, when I launched my efforts to oversee the IRS, I was
joined by my close friend David Pryor, a Democrat and a close friend of
the President's. We chose to make our critiques responsible instead of
partisan. I believe the record reflects that.
The charge of partisanship has no credibility with respect to this
oversight effort. It will be a fair airing of questionable practices by
an agency abusing its trust.
I have learned over the years that oversight of the IRS is a step-
by-step process, and a long-term commitment. We learned of the agency's
quota system back in the 1980s and we outlawed it. Suddenly, we find
there might be an unofficial, back-door quota system still in place. It
seems like you put out a brush fire here, and it pops up somewhere
else. The moral of the story is, there's a need for constant vigilance
over the IRS. History teaches us so.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by commending you for your leadership
in holding these much needed hearings. I would also like to say
publicly how much I appreciated working on the Commission with my
colleague, Senator Kerrey. His guidance and leadership produced a
solid, credible effort, and I am pleased to have served with him.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to express my
views. I look forward to any questions you may have.
__________
Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles E. Grassley
[september 24, 1997]
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this second day of hearings to reform
the IRS. My goal in these hearings, like yours, is to trigger
meaningful legislative reform. Congress must foster a new culture of
IRS respect for taxpayers. It is up to Congress to reshape the culture
of the IRS. We need to go from a culture of intimidation, and to a
culture of customer service. Congress must again make the IRS a place
where talented people will want to work and serve. Congress must also
make the IRS a place where honest taxpayers will want to go to solve
their problems.
Let me solve one problem right now. Some people have been saying,
in the press and elsewhere, that these hearings ``bash'' the IRS. They
have said that we undermine taxpayer confidence in the system . . .
They are wrong.
It isn't our speaking about IRS abuse that undermines public
confidence in the system, it's the IRS abuse that undermines public
confidence in the system. Indeed, as elected officials, we have a duty
to look for abuse, speak about it when we see it, and then end it.
The process started in the National Commission to Restructure the
IRS, on which I served with Senator Kerrey. Based on the bi-partisan
Commission report, we have introduced reform legislation. Now, this
committee has picked up the baton, as has our sister committee in the
House. There will be more hearings. I anticipate that we will
ultimately report out legislation. This legislation will eventually
become law and change the way things are done at the IRS. No one
inside-the-beltway can avoid real IRS reform. The people want it.
I have a message for anyone who opposes reform. If you are not part
of the solution, then you are part of the problem. You can either join
us, or get out of the way. Either way, the taxpayers will have their
reform.
__________
Prepared Statement of Hon. Orrin G. Hatch
I commend the Chairman for holding this series of hearings. The
question of the practices and procedures of the Internal Revenue
Service is a serious one that will require a comprehensive review
before we can adequately evaluate proposals for change.
The most common complaint that I hear from my constituents in Utah
is about the policies and procedures of the IRS. Whenever I meet with
Utah families, whether it be in town meetings or other forums, I hear
about both real and perceived abuses suffered at the hands of the IRS.
I am sure my colleagues on this Committee hear the same thing. You
don't have to go very far to hear these horror stories--it seems that
everyone has either experienced this rough treatment by the IRS or
knows someone who has.
The problem is not unique to Utah. Taxpayers throughout the country
are complaining of a checklist mentality, regional inconsistencies in
interpretation and enforcement, and Service personnel who coerce,
mislead, or misinform the taxpayers.
The behavior of the IRS is not a new problem. The IRS has been
accused of, and is sometimes guilty of, operating in an abusive,
unresponsive, improperly political and occasionally corrupt way for
decades.
The so-called ``voluntary'' tax system we operate in this country
does not seem to be so voluntary. Indeed, it seems to be based on fear.
It has been said that there is hardly an American citizen above the
poverty level whose tax conscience is so clear that he isn't scared of
being audited. The fear of suffering a personal attack by the IRS is
the thing that seems to be keeping most of the taxpayers in this
country in line.
This is a particularly serious problem. The IRS plays a vital role
in our tax system. As such an important part of a tax system based on
self-assessment, the IRS must maintain both Congressional and public
trust. One needs only to read the newspaper or listen to taxpayer
accounts, to see that this is not the case. The IRS must work harder to
be perceived as fair, effective and impartial.
While some of my colleagues have argued that the only way to do
this is to dismantle the IRS, I do not agree. The IRS should not be
abolished. It is a necessary tool in the collection of taxes. The
American taxpayer is not going to fork over a chunk of his hard earned
money without some sort of focused collection and enforcement system in
place. For example, just look at how many of the drivers on our
highways comply with the posted speed limits.
Like the drivers on the roads, not all American taxpayers should be
treated in a gentler, kinder fashion. Those willfully ignoring the
rules should be handled with an iron fist. Most Americans, however, are
trying to comply with the complicated tax laws and are acting in good
faith. These taxpayers should be treated with respect and have a level
playing field.
Because of its role in collecting taxes, there will always be
complaints about the IRS. It will always be an unpopular place. The IRS
is a very large and complicated agency that few understand. Its
workload is staggering. Like the taxpayers, most IRS tax collectors are
decent, yet overworked people with an unpopular job who are trying to
do the best they can.
However, there is an aura of unaccountability that must be changed.
The process is broken and must be fixed if we are to maintain public
faith in the government. There must be little or no room for the type
of abuses I am hearing about from my constituents on a regular basis. I
am extremely concerned about the lack of good judgment that is being
exhibited in these cases.
The problem of fixing the system is further compounded by the fact
that there is not sufficient data to evaluate the extent or depth of
the improper actions taken by the IRS. We will hear testimony today
stating that this information is just not collected at all, destroyed,
or simply unable to be retrieved. This is not the way to run a public
agency. How can Congress adequately evaluate the validity of the
complaints we see if the data is not available? Both Congress and the
Administration need these tools to evaluate the behavior of the IRS. We
must be able to determine if these complaints are isolated instances,
the acts of a few rogue agents, or the result of some systemic problem
at the Agency itself. Without this data, we are left to assume that the
improper actions are somewhat proportionate to the complaints we are
receiving.
I am looking forward to hearing from the witnesses we will hear
this week. Their testimony will expand the information we have at hand
to aid us in our evaluation of the Internal Revenue Service, its role
and place in the federal government structure, and how to reform the
Agency to ensure fair and efficient tax collection in the future.
__________
Prepared Statement of Katherine Lund Hicks
Chairman Roth, and Members of the Senate Finance Committee, thank
you for allowing me this opportunity to appear here this morning to
relate to you my experience with the Internal Revenue Service.
Like many women who have gone through a divorce, I was the one
stuck with the tax bill for our last joint return for tax year 1983.
The IRS assessed that return for additional taxes of $7,000, but sent
all the notices to my former spouse. Unfortunately, it took him over a
year to notify me of the assessment. I immediately contacted the IRS.
The IRS had ceased to be willing to examine my records and was
demanding that I pay them $16,000 instantly. At the time, my former
spouse was earning in excess of $40,000 a year as a glazier and had no
dependents. My income was approximately $15,000 a year as a newly hired
bank employee with a dependent 14 year old daughter. For the two years
following my divorce, I was financially destitute. I had just managed
to get an apartment--a real home for the two of us.
I mention this to remind you good people that when an IRS
collection procedure gets out of control, the victim of that collection
still has to deal with all the other traumas of their life. An honest
collection by the IRS, with no snafus, of an amount actually owed is
incredibly stressful in itself. Therefore, it is critical that the IRS
not be allowed, whether by design or accident, to pursue taxpayers for
erroneous debts. At present, there are no effective protections against
this.
In my case, I had to file a Tax Court Petition to force the IRS to
examine my records, which I did in 1988. This is not unusual if the IRS
does not get a response to early requests for records, and I did not
feel resentful or persecuted. However, it did cause problems and added
to my stress. I had to use my rent money to pay the accountant and
lawyer, and so I lost my apartment. My daughter and I were reduced to
sharing a rented room. I consoled myself with the thought that we had
survived worse and we would get another apartment later.
It is important to note here that my ex-husband was not a party to
this petition in tax court. We settled out of court and the IRS agreed
to a reduced tax from $7,000 to $2,709, a reduced total demand from
about $16,000 to approximately $3,500. I went to the meeting in July
1988 to sign the agreement and, check book in hand, prepared to pay the
amount in full at that time.
The IRS refused my payment until they had sent me a bill because
they would not have anywhere to credit the money without the bill and
they claimed they needed time to calculate the exact interest due. I
wanted the payment properly credited. I wanted this to go well and to
be permanently resolved. I thought, in a few weeks, I'll have a bill.
But, the IRS said that the bill would take six months to prepare and
arrive no later than January 1989. Six months! I recall asking if I was
going to be charged interest for the six month waiting period and the
IRS attorney, through my accountant, said no. The interest would be
calculated through the date of the agreement and as long as I paid it
right away in January, there would be no additional interest. He said
it would be about $3,500 total. I never understood why they could not
just whip out their calculator and tell me what I owed right then and
get this whole thing over with.
The bill never came and in February 1989, I started calling the
IRS asking where it was. I called the Fresno office and they suggested
I also call Laguna Niguel. Both offices had no record of any taxes owed
by me. I found this hard to believe. I wanted to be absolutely certain
they were correct. I wanted to remarry and I did not want to bring this
tax bill into the marriage. I called both offices again in March and
again before July. I was told the same thing, that I owed nothing for
1983. I asked for a receipt or something to show this was paid because
I was simple minded enough to believe this was as a reasonable request.
The IRS employees all said that they ``don't do that.'' I had to take
the word of the IRS that I owed nothing. In this, I had no choice. At
the time, I was not aware that my account had been set up on a separate
bookkeeping system to which the IRS employees with whom I spoke did not
have ready access.
It works like this: when you file a tax return, it is recorded in a
Master-File. This is what the IRS clerks pull up on their computer when
you call and ask if you owe money. However, at some point in 1989, the
IRS ``split'' the Master-File of our joint 1983 return and transferred
separate assessments into two Non-Master Files, in each of our
individual names and respective social security numbers. This was due
to the fact that I had gone to tax court and my ex-husband had not.
Therefore, the IRS set up separate files.
These Non-Master Files do not show up on the computer when the IRS
clerks check a taxpayer's social security number for a balance owed.
According to the attorney who explained this to me in 1997, the Master-
File continues to exist, but may show as a zero balance, until the IRS
recombines those accounts. It will then reflect the correct amount owed
according to the agreement. Until that happens, every time the IRS
clerk pulled up my or my joint signer's social security number, they
will see a zero balance and conclude that no taxes are owed. To add to
the confusion, there is no notation in the Master-File that it has been
``split.'' Therefore, there is no way for the IRS clerk to know that
you might have an outstanding collection in a Non-Master File. As a
result, I was repeatedly told by IRS clerks that I owed nothing. So far
as I know, to this very day, these accounts have not been recombined
and the Master File continues to exist with a zero balance while the
Non-Master Files shows a balance owed. Yet, the IRS has been aware of
this error at least since I notified them of it earlier this year--if
not even earlier. I have made repeated requests of the IRS to recombine
these accounts ever since I learned of the problem. As far as I know,
it has not been done.
It is incredible to me that Non-Master Files are allowed to co-
exist with Master-Files at all! It creates two accounts under the same
name with the same social security number, that can reflect conflicting
balances due for the same tax year for the same person. Such a practice
substantially increases the potential for error and confusion inside
the IRS while simultaneously making it impossible for a taxpayer to get
reliable information from the IRS. The taxpayer either gets conflicting
information, or in my case, consistent but incorrect information. Every
day the taxpayer is unable to get accurate information from the IRS
about a balance owed, is another day's interest added to the debt. Even
while the taxpayer is wandering around in this IRS maze of multiple
accounts the clock never stops running. This is incredibly frustrating
and unfair to any taxpayer. Unable to overcome this obstacle to
compliance through no fault of the taxpayer, he or she is charged
penalties as well for that failure! Much of my misery was caused
because the IRS could not answer accurately the simple question, ``How
much money do I owe?'' As far as I know, that condition has not
changed.
To add to the confusion, my former spouse telephoned my fiance to
complain that he had paid the tax and now the IRS was after him for it
again. He refused to share his records with me, but, his story and the
IRS story both matched. Still, I had no independent records to prove
either one. I requested his payment records from the IRS in 1988,
records to which I believed I was entitled. I made a second request for
those records in 1997. The IRS has refused me these records or even a
statement as to their content. Why, if my joint signer has never paid
anything on this tax, is the IRS hiding that information from me? How
can I know, for certain, what my liability is without the records of my
joint signer? Perhaps he has paid nothing, but if that is so, then
their refusal to share that information with me makes no sense.
Mr. Chairman, I did everything humanly possible to obtain correct
information. I made every attempt to get this tax paid and every
conceivable request for some kind of record to evidence what the IRS
was telling me. I know of nothing else I could have done.
So, after being wrongfully informed that there was nothing owed, I
remarried in July 1989. I carried on business with the IRS without
incident and my new husband and I filed a joint return in 1990 and
received a refund. We were now convinced, of course, that if I owed any
money to the IRS, the IRS would never have issued a refund, so now we
were confident that the IRS information was correct. It was not.
In September 1990, without any notice and without our knowledge,
the IRS filed a tax lien against me.
On December 19, 1990, the first lien holder on our home sued us as
a result of that Federal Tax Lien in the sum of $6,161.41. The lender
threatened to call our loan if we did not immediately get the IRS lien
released. We would have lost our home. A home, by the way, that my new
husband bought for himself 6 years before he met me. So, the real
damage was being done to him, an entirely innocent spouse.
All of this, after I had been so careful to pester the IRS
repeatedly for as a bill and been repeatedly told that no money was
owed!
Worse than that, the lien did not reflect the terms of our earlier
settlement agreement! The tax lien reflected an assessment nearly twice
that of the IRS agreement and the IRS refused to discuss that fact with
me. Meanwhile, while the assessment was ``ripening'' it had gone up to
over $8,000!
I tried to reopen my tax case and was told that the Federal Tax
Court did not enforce out of court settlements made with the IRS! How
convenient this is! Only the taxpayer is held to the agreement, not the
IRS! I was adamant that this was just morally wrong! I was very upset!
I fought this collection for two reasons: (1) because, based on
information provided by the IRS itself, I sincerely believed I owed
nothing and (2) because I believed the IRS, even if they intended to
collect twice, was obligated to calculate my collection in accordance
with our agreement.
My new husband contacted the Revenue Officer who had filed the
lien. The Revenue Officer informed my husband, and later me, that he
had my former spouse's file ``. . . right here on my desk . . . '' and
he knew that my former spouse ``. . . had paid the taxes . . .'' but
that it was not ``. . . relevant . . .'' because these were separate
collections. He insisted that if we wanted my former husband's payments
to offset my liability, we would have to produce those records,
otherwise we would have to pay it again. The duplicate payment would
balance the IRS books and he would help us file for a refund of the
overage.
Imagine my new husband's frustration at the prospect of
effectively paying $8,000 dollars that we believed had already been
paid.
At this point, which was early 1991, I requested a Problems
Resolution Officer who, after some inquiry into my account, came to the
conclusion that I, indeed, did not owe anything for the 1983 taxes and
that, once she got a written confirmation of this from the Fresno
office she could get everything ``abated to zero.'' Meanwhile, she
said, the IRS agent should stop collection activity--which he did not.
However, I thought, ``Great! This is all going to get straightened out
soon!'' I was wrong. A few days later she called me and informed me
that the IRS Fresno Office had changed its mind about providing her
with the necessary documents and, without those, there was nothing she
could do.
I made one final attempt at reasoning with the collection agent.
He merely repeated that he knew the tax had been paid, and he knew I
didn't owe the money, but it didn't matter. The only way to get rid of
the tax lien was to pay the $8,000 whether we owed it or not.
The collection agent then offered to assist us with regard to the
refund application. He knew we were being sued by the bank because the
IRS was a co-defendant. So, he just refused to do anything and let the
bank force us to pay what we did not owe. With the bank about to call
the loan, we had no choice but to pay the IRS demand in full.
Mr. Chairman, although I am giving you a rather general
description of these events for the sake of overall continuity, it is
important for me to tell you that both my husband's and my own physical
and emotional well being suffered tremendously under the constant
strain of these repeated attempts to get the IRS to honor their
agreement and collect only what I owed. It was physically exhausting.
We almost never slept. Every conversation had to be memorialized in a
letter. There were the visits to the attorneys and the accountants,
their bills and their depressing advice, ``pay it, it's cheaper than
fighting'' and the very real prospect of loosing our home to the bank
if they called the loan. You don't eat, you don't sleep, you're afraid
to talk too much to each other for fear you'll take it out on your
spouse. If you do talk, it's about the IRS. We were newlyweds! I cannot
describe the guilt, knowing that I had brought my new husband into
this.
My parents became so concerned for my health that they cashed in a
retirement CD and loaned us the money to pay the IRS. Since they were
living on a fixed income, this was a big deal for them to do. I know
they made sacrifices to do this. It was as a selfless act of love.
On February 21, 1991, we handed a cashier's check for the entire
amount they demanded, $8,194.73. Please keep in mind the original
underlying tax was $2,709 and that the original amount due was supposed
to be no greater than $3,500. The balance was interest that accrued
from July 1988 to February 1991, a period of 18 months. In that time
frame, the ``bill'' that I could not get anyone to give me to pay
nearly tripled from the original amount! I was forced to pay $4,500 for
their mistakes!
In exchange for this payment, we were given a Certificate of
Release of Federal Tax Lien. My cashier's check reflected my name, my
social security number, the tax year to which it was being applied--
1983, as well as my tax court docket number. In other words, the IRS
had everything it needed to properly credit the payment. I could not
have made it any clearer where to apply the proceeds of the check.
In February, 1992, a letter arrived from the IRS office in
Maryland signed by a woman with the authoritative title of ``Chief,
Accounting Branch.'' The letter said the IRS had received a payment
and, if we had made this payment, please send the IRS a copy of the
check with an explanation, which we did. We also asked her in that
letter not to refund the money or any portion of it unless she first
made sure neither of us owed any money anywhere for any year.
In March 1992, we received an unsigned IRS form letter indicating
that the payment had been applied to our 1990 joint return. I actually
telephoned the IRS and asked about this and was told simply that, if
the Accounting Branch determined that there were no taxes owed for any
year, the only way to refund the money was to credit it to the most
recent tax year.
In other words, they could not credit the payment to my 1983 tax
year unless there was a balance due. Therefore, we logically concluded
that the Accounting Branch did what we asked, checked out our taxes,
found nothing owed and was merely refunding us the overpayment in
accordance with their own bookkeeping system. We had absolutely no
reason to think that the refund was in any way erroneous.
In November of 1996, nearly 5 years later, out of the blue without
so much as one prior notice, we received a certified letter from the
IRS containing a Notice of Intent to Levy. The particulars of the tax
being levied were identical to the particulars of the tax lien that had
been released in 1992. For reasons unknown to us, they changed their
mind and wanted more money again. Why? I telephoned the agent who sent
the letter and was told it was a different assessment because, even
though everything else was identical--the tax year, the amount, the
assessment date--there was an ``N'' after my social security number on
this assessment and therefore, I had to pay it again. The ``N,'' I
later learned, is a tag for ``Non-Master'' File. Remember those? The
separate collections that nobody seems to know about? Well, this was
one of them. Whether the IRS failed to close it at the time we paid it
in 1991, or whether they reopened it because they wanted to get the
refund back they gave us in 1992 doesn't really matter much to me.
Whichever one occurred, the fact remains, the IRS had made yet another
error. Once again, they demanded that I balance their books and pay for
their mistakes. How many times was this going to happen, I wondered? A
tax attorney informed me that my release of lien was meaningless
adding, ``. . . the IRS refiles these all the time. I cannot tell you
how many people come in here clutching these things (release of lien)
for dear life thinking that they offer some kind of protection . . .
.'' He stated the Taxpayers Bill of Rights did not allow the IRS to
collect interest from the taxpayers based on its own errors, and even
suggested that I write to my Congressman but cautioned me not to expect
a significant outcome because, ``. . . they (Congress) can't really do
anything . . . ,'' Congress is less than effective when dealing with
the IRS on behalf of taxpayers.
I gave Problems Resolution another try. This time, they were less
an advocate for me than an arm of the IRS collection office. It was, in
fact, the Problems Resolution Officer who told me ``. . . you know, you
kept a refund to which you knew you were not entitled . . . .'' Her
tone of voice was not friendly. Keeping a refund that you know you are
not entitled to is a crime. She demanded I pay back the refund. So much
for the Problems Resolution Office.
After a brief hospitalization for surgery resulting from a freeway
pile up that totaled our car, my husband resumed work in January 1997,
only to discover that while he was recovering from surgery the IRS had
levied against his salary. My husband would be allowed to keep $18 a
week to support me and the children for approximately two months.
Anyone entering a grocery store today knows that is tantamount to
condemning us to a soup kitchen for our meals. Two months of being
unable to meet our financial obligations would have sent us into
bankruptcy and foreclosure. Again, the innocent spouse was going to be
punished for my old tax problem.
To protect his ability to provide for his children and myself, my
husband set up a separate residence in San Clemente and filed for
divorce on February 3, 1997. In California, the day you file for
divorce your salary is your sole and separate property. The IRS ignored
that fact and left the levy in place. In an unusual determination, the
county refused to comply with the second levy and my husband's income
was safe. However, his retirement fund was not. That was community
property and we fully expected the IRS to swoop in the next day and
take the whole thing. So, on the 5th of February 1997, I filed
bankruptcy to stop the IRS long enough for us to figure out what to do
about this.
My bankruptcy notice was hand delivered the same day. The
following day the IRS notified me that my schedule C's for 1993, 1994
and 1995 were ``questionable,'' and asked me to reconsider them. We
took this as a thinly veiled threat to punitively audit our returns.
The IRS refiled the lien for which I had a release. We discovered
this in March of 1997. I am informed that this is common practice. The
liens threatened my husband's residence which was his separate property
but the IRS ignores this in community property states. I have been
informed that the liens would survive the bankruptcy, as all liens do.
So even though this was his sole and separate property, it was
possible.
My now widowed mother could not bear watching us go through this
and took out a loan against her retirement so we could pay the IRS and
get this over with. However, my husband and I knew that paying the
demand would never resolve this. We tried that in 1991. They would
screw this payment up too and in a few years be back for more ``with
interest.'' We needed closure, some way to end this forever.
Since the real problem occurred back in 1989, and the IRS never
correctly set up my account for $3,500, and because every penny over
that amount was a result of that error, we determined that under the
Taxpayer's Bill of Rights provision that the IRS could not make us pay
interest for their mistakes. We should not owe more than $3,500. If we
could get the IRS to correct their errors we should be able to pay
$3,500 and be done with it. So, that's what we did. We made a directed
voluntary payment of $3,500. We put the rest of the money in a CD in
case the IRS swooped in to destroy us unannounced. We waited.
Our lives are now forever altered. Joint tenancy, joint bank
accounts, joint tax returns are no longer a part of our life. We will
pay additional taxes every year as a result. Our confidence in the
integrity of the IRS has been completely shattered. This year we got a
refund on our 1996 taxes and sits in a CD as does the $3,500 that the
IRS recently returned to us without any explanation. We don't dare cash
refund checks anymore. My credit is completely destroyed, and my
husband's credit is seriously damaged. We will suffer the effects of
this IRS collection for the rest of our lives.
I originally wrote to you, Mr. Chairman, because the IRS should not
be above the law. Couples should not have to divorce because of the
IRS. Once you became involved, the IRS released all the liens and sent
us back the $3,500. Senator Roth, your effort saved us from being
forced to live apart, and preserved our ability to provide for our
children. For this, we will be forever grateful. However, the conduct
of the IRS remains the same, and for thousands of other taxpayers,
there is no help. Ours is a hollow victory if the IRS is allowed to
continue this type of conduct.
People tell us how terrified they would be to do what we have
done. They are convinced that the IRS will target us for punitive
audits. One person put it this way, when she learned we had written to
Congress, ``. . . that's like painting a bull's eye on your chest and
giving the IRS a loaded gun . . . .'' She believes the IRS will never
forget this and someday get back at us in retaliation. Mr. Chairman,
she could very well be right. The IRS is judge, jury and executioner--
answerable to none. We do not believe that our experience is isolated.
For over 10 years the IRS has conducted itself as a legalized extortion
operation willing to commit abusive acts to collect money, even that
which they know is not owed.
An agency of the United States Government, allowed such sweeping
authority as that granted to the IRS, should be held to the highest
standards of honesty and integrity. The IRS is not. Those of us subject
to that authority should be guaranteed an accessible and effective
remedy for its abuse. We are not.
It is a disgrace to our nation that an arm of our democratic
government is allowed to behave as if it were an extension of a police
state. I hope that Congress can act to end this national shame.
Thank you for allowing me this time.
__________
Prepared Statement of Hon. Steny Hoyer
Mr. Chairman, Senator Moynihan, and Members of the Committee,
pleased to be able to testify today on the practices and procedures of
the Internal Revenue Service. As Chairman, and now as Ranking Member of
the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and
General Government, have spent a great deal of time on the issues of
tax compliance, IRS management, and customer service.
It is a subject where the Members of this Committee have shown
great leadership. I would like to commend Senator Kerrey, Senator
Grassley, and the other members of the Commission on Restructuring the
IRS for their leadership on this issue.
IRS employees are called upon to do an extremely difficult job. The
102,000 men and women of the IRS who are responsible for collecting 97
percent of the nation's revenues have one of the most difficult jobs in
government.
They collect the funds that pay to defend our freedom, educate our
children, and take care of our old. At the same time that Congress has
constrained their funding, it has also broadened their mission.
It is often said that it took an accountant to catch Al Capone. In
recent years, because the profits of illicit activities such as drug
smuggling and money laundering are often the best trail to those who
perform them, the IRS has been given responsibility for assisting in
criminal investigations.
Each year, the IRS participates in some 5,000 criminal
investigations.
If anything, the trend is asking the IRS to broaden its mission
further.
Recently, for example, Congress instructed the IRS to help in the
important work of recovering child support payments from deadbeat
parents who have refused to pay chisel support.
Against this backdrop, the Commission wisely recommended that
``Congress provide the IRS certainty in its operational budget in the
near future'' and call for ``greater stability'' with funding levels.
As the Commission has pointed out, Congress' failure to pursue
consistent policies regarding funding, its frequent changes of the tax
code, and its efforts to micro-manage the IRS have all undermined the
ability of the agency to manage efficiently in the long or short term.
In recent years, attacks on the agency's budget, while partially
restored in Conference, have hurt morale and distracted management from
the task at hand.
the challenges faced by the irs
The vast majority of taxpayers pay their full taxes on time.
Nevertheless, the IRS only collects about 83 percent of taxes owed
through voluntary compliance. There is currently a balance due equal to
$216 billion. When some do not pay their fair share, this increases the
deficit and raises the burden for everyone else. From the point of view
of fairness alone, it is necessary for the IRS to carry out
enforcement.
Last year, of 119 million individual returns filed, 2.1 million or
1.6 percent of the total were selected for examination.
Of the 89.4 million corporate returns filed, only 2.38 percent were
selected for examination. In general, the vast majority of taxpayers
are not subjected to any examination or collection measures at all.
Nevertheless, in any large organization with significant powers
there will be instances each year where individuals behave improperly.
Such abuses cannot be tolerated.
Two years ago, Congress revisited the problem of IRS abuse with the
passage of the Omnibus Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2. In its report, ``A
Vision for a New IRS,'' the IRS Commission on Restructuring found that
this law has ``had an important effect on changing the culture of the
IRS.'' The Commission went on to find ``very few examples of IRS
personnel abusing power.''
Yet even one instance of abuse is one too many.
The IRS, the IRS employee's union, and the Department of the
Treasury have stated that they are committed to a policy of zero-
tolerance for taxpayer abuse. IRS management is following up on cases
aggressively to determine what went wrong and to take appropriate
action.
But I believe that even appropriate action after-the-fact cannot
erase the pain that some taxpayers have experienced.
I am therefore encouraged that the IRS is following up with a
Service-wide program to stop this kind of abuse before it happens.
This program includes centralizing and improving training on the
provisions of both the first and the second Taxpayer Bill of Rights;
creating taxpayer surveys that rate employees' treatment of taxpayers;
eliminating unnecessary notices and clarifying those that remain so
that taxpayers clearly understand their responsibilities; and
implementing the modernization blueprint which will prevent the kinds
of systems glitches that made these and other cases far more painful
than they ever needed to be.
Treasury and IRS have reaffirmed their commitment to the original
Taxpayer Bill of Rights which made it illegal to use records of tax
enforcement results to evaluate employees or their supervisors.
A joint Treasury, IRS, National Performance Review task force is
conducting a 90-day study of customer service.
And evaluations of both revenue officers and agents include
measures of performance against a customer relations standard.
These changes underway are clearly steps in the right direction.
governance
Ultimately, however, I believe that a solution to the problem of
taxpayer abuse cannot be separated from the larger task of building the
IRS of the future.
The Treasury Department, the IRS, the employees' union, and the IRS
Commission on Restructuring have identified a common set of concerns.
To build the IRS of the 21st Century, they have identified the need for
a renewed focus on Oversight, Leadership, Flexibility, Improved
Budgeting and Tax Simplification.
The Internal Revenue Service has been rightly criticized in recent
years for its failure to manage its operations well. Particular focus
has been directed at the attempt to modernize its information systems,
an area severely criticized by the General Accounting Office until
quite recently.
The Treasury has also taken a new role in exercising oversight of
the IRS. For the first time in the fifteen years that I have been
reviewing IRS budgets, the Secretary of the Treasury and his Deputy are
giving personal attention to IRS management issues.
This new focus is clearly making a difference.
I am encouraged that Secretary Rubin has identified a candidate to
head the IRS who has a non-traditional background in management and
information technology--Charles Rosotti. New leadership at the IRS that
focuses on modernization will help create the systems and practices
needed to stop abuse of taxpayers before it happens.
The enhanced oversight that the Treasury has begun to exert through
the IRS Management Board and will exert through the new IRS Advisory
Board will provide continuity, accountability and access to outside
input from the public and private sectors.
By preserving the ability of the Secretary of the Treasury, who is
accountable to the President, to choose the Commissioner, Treasury's
plan preserves accountability to the American people.
This program is embodied in legislation that I introduced together
with Senator Moynihan, Congressman Rangel, Congressman Coyne,
Congressman Waxman, and others at the Administration's request.
This legislation incorporates many of the findings of the IRS
Commission on Restructuring and will give the IRS the new leadership
and flexibility it needs to prepare for the future. Our legislation
shares many provisions with legislation proposed by Senator Kerrey,
Congressman Portman, and others.
And, based on conversations yesterday, we will soon be adding
taxpayer rights provisions to our legislation. One example of that is
equitable tolling, or in layman's terms, relaxing the expiration of the
right to claim refunds after three years.
Let me note, however, that I am frankly concerned about one
proposal embodied in their legislation. That provision would remove the
IRS from Treasury oversight and make it accountable in part to private
sector executives with loyalties to organizations other than the IRS.
This proposal would raise difficult constitutional and conflict of
interest concerns that might well provoke litigation. I am concerned
that this proposal would place at risk the 97 percent of our federal
revenues that are collected through taxes, at a time when we have just
completed a historic agreement to balance the budget and put an end to
federal deficits.
conclusion
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the abuses that have come to light are
intolerable and steps must be taken to end them.
At the same time, however, these abuses should not keep us from
recalling the valuable service provided by the 102,000 dedicated men
and women of the IRS who perform one of the most difficult jobs in
government. It is important to point a spotlight on areas of abuse in
tax collection activities.
Our constituents rightly expect us to protect them from abusive and
illegal actions. This objective is particularly important when such
actions are done in the name of law enforcement. At the same time, we
must do so in the way that does not undermine those who are performing
crucial law enforcement missions.
As I stated, I believe that the measures underway at the IRS are an
important step in the right direction.
Ultimately, these problems cannot be separated from the broader
challenge of continuing to reform the Service in which the Treasury
Department, the IRS, the IRS employees' union, and the Congress are now
engaged. I therefore thank the Committee for its leadership in this
arena and for the opportunity to testify this morning.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
__________
Prepared Statement of Nancy Jacobs
Chairman Roth, and Senators of the Finance Committee, thank you for
this opportunity to appear before you this morning to present my
personal experience with the Internal Revenue Service.
I am Mrs. Nancy Jacobs. My husband, Dr. Fredric Jacobs, is a
practicing optometrist from Bakersfield, California and we have
operated an office for approximately 30 years.
When my husband first opened his practice in March 1965, in
Stockton, California he was assigned an Employer Identification Number,
or EIN, for reporting purposes to the IRS.
Between 1977 and 1979, my husband closed his practice, but in
November 1979, he re-opened in a new office in Riverside, California.
We applied for a new EIN number since he was re-starting the practice
at a new site and knew we needed an EIN for tax reporting purposes.
What neither of us knew at the time was that an EIN is like a social
security number, it never needs to be changed or renewed. The original
EIN had been assigned to us forever. However, when we requested a new
EIN from the IRS, it complied with the request and the IRS provided us
with a second number. But what we didn't know at the time was that the
EIN the IRS provided to us in 1979 actually belonged to someone else,
someone we would not be aware of until 1992.
By March of 1981, we were unexpectedly assigned yet a third EIN
from the IRS, via a pre-printed label on a quarterly 941 tax return.
However, we continued to use the number we were assigned in 1979 on all
of our quarterly tax payments.
In June 1981, out of the blue--without warning, the IRS placed a
lien against us for $11,000 for unpaid payroll tax deposits. We
couldn't find anyone with the IRS who would do us the courtesy of
checking the lien against the EIN we had been using.
After attempting to deal with the IRS, my husband and I were so
intimidated by the tactics used by the IRS that we agreed to pay the
IRS $250 a week until the balance was paid. For anyone who has not had
to deal with the IRS under such circumstances, you probably cannot
understand why we would agree to pay $11,000 that we knew we did not
owe. Only after you have experienced what my husband and I endured
would you consider paying an IRS bill that you don't owe.
Even after the $11,000 was paid we continued to receive subsequent
liens from the IRS. My husband and I were forced to comply with these
IRS demands under the penalty of experiencing further enforcement
actions with the possibility of the IRS closing down my husband's
practicer We were forced into debt, our credit was damaged and the
mental stress was overwhelming. During all this time we could not
convince anyone at the IRS that we did not owe these taxes. In fact
during one of our visits to the San Diego IRS Office we were flatly
told by one IRS employee that she was too busy to help us anymore and
refused any additional assistance in straightening out our account. We
were then informed by her supervisor that this matter would be cleared
up. It was a kind offer but that was all it was. Our nightmare
continued. By 1987, we had received additional liens totaling roughly
$15,000.
In 1982, we did seek the assistance of a Congressional
representative. He contacted the IRS on our behalf requesting that the
IRS stop all collection efforts, and for them to contact us in an
effort to straighten out the problem. We did hear from the IRS in 1982.
We met with someone from the Laguna Nigel office who told us that we
had received four refund checks. We assured him that we had only
received one for approximately $3,600. He promised that he would get
copies of the other checks, but unfortunately he never did.
The only other consistent occurrence over the course of the years
was the occasional appearance of the original EIN number on notices we
received from the IRS, while all the others reflected my second EIN
number. My husband and I began to wonder exactly where the taxes were
going that we had been faithfully paying. No one with the California
IRS offices that we contacted could explain it either, but they were
adamant that whatever the reason, we owed those taxes!
By 1987, we again contacted a Congressional representative seeking
intervention on our behalf. This time we did hear from the IRS but
that, too, lead to another dead end.
In 1992, a patient of my husband's, a tax attorney, agreed to
review our case and was the one who discovered the confusing EINs going
back to 1979. Someone with a name quite similar to my husband's but
with an entirely different social security number shared the EIN. Back
in 1979, had the IRS employee properly informed us that we didn't need
a ``new'' EIN, or at least checked the status of the number, this 17
year nightmare would have been avoided.
Mr. Chairman, since 1992, when we first discovered the mistake IRS
had made, my husband and I have been trying to get our money back from
the IRS--money that was wrongly taken from us by the IRS--but to no
avail. We have never received the money from the IRS as we had been
promised. We estimate the IRS still owes us over $10,000, if not more,
plus interest, stemming from their wrongful liens, penalties and
interest.
Only in 1994, in an encounter with the IRS' Bakersfield Office did
we meet the first truly helpful IRS employee who was willing to work
with us and investigate the cause of our problem. We were informed that
our problem was indeed due to a clear case of an erroneous Employment
Identification Number. Unfortunately, this employee became ill and our
case file was apparently ``lost.''
After yet another Congressional inquiry on our behalf in 1996, we
learned that our ``lost'' case file was really not ``lost'' at all but
had been referred to an IRS employee at the IRS' Fresno Service Center.
Unfortunately, she was not responsive to our case and almost another
year languished without satisfaction. Out of sheer frustration, my
husband and I went to our local newspaper, and told our story.
Roughly 2 hours after the story appeared, that same IRS employee
was on the telephone informing us that, ``. . . We discovered that you
were right . . .'' and proceeded to discuss how our money would be
resumed to us.
We then received a fax from her stating that all liens had been
lifted and the IRS was at fault for the incorrect EIN. However, when
this IRS employee extended her ``. . . sincere apologies . . . ,'' in
writing, she did not mention a refund of the money the IRS unfairly
took from us. She did state, however, ``. . . The Liens previously
filed under Employer Identification Number XXXX were not correct and
should not have been on Dr. & Mrs. Jacobs' account. The liens were not
for their liabilities. Within the next 6 to 8 weeks, Dr. & Mrs. Jacobs
will be in full compliance on all taxes both individual and business. .
. .''
Mr. Chairman, both my husband and I are certainly pleased and
greatly relieved that this 17 year confrontation with the IRS is almost
over. But we cannot agree with the IRS that it is completely over. We
would appreciate receiving our refund with the same enthusiasm and
speed with which the IRS collected it. However, the real reason I am
here this morning is to bring to light what my husband and I feel is an
attitude that permeates the IRS. It is one of manipulation and control
of the taxpayer. Both my husband and I were met with indifference when
dealing with the IRS Offices. IRS employees were not interested in
listening to us, much less investigating our assertions. They assumed
we were guilty--that we owed the money! The IRS is beyond the law.
Congressional inquiries on our behalf met with only limp responses. Mr.
Chairman, an agency with this type of power over American citizens
requires someone to rid it of such abusive conduct. My husband and I
commend you for your effort here today to accomplish that goal.
__________
Prepared Statement of Hon. J. Robert Kerrey
Mr. Chairman, Americans do not have confidence in the IRS, and for
good reason.
The National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue
Service, which I co-chaired, was given unprecedented access to the
inner workings of the IRS and its employees. After 12 days of public
hearings, hundreds of hours of testimony from taxpayers and tax
experts, and over 300 private interviews with front-line employees, the
Commission found an agency that could not answer its phones, had no
clear management strategy, and lacked technological sophistication.
In short, we found an agency that was not serving the best
interests of the American taxpayer.
This agency--which ranks below the CIA in popularity with the
American people--is responsible for collecting 95% of the nation's
revenue. However, it is given little if any oversight from the Treasury
Department and has murky lines of leadership and accountability. And
although law enforcement measures are used to bring in only 3% of what
is collected, the IRS's culture and atmosphere are such that all
taxpayers are treated as if they were guilty of something, no matter
the reason for contact.
Our commission found, for the most part, that IRS employees were
hardworking public servants. But with baffling management and oversight
procedures and flawed computer systems, these employees are operating
under stifling working conditions and are paralyzed by a monstrous tax
code that has grown from a quarter inch thick when the IRS was created,
to over a foot tall today.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to point out that the growth of size
and complexity is the product of both Republicans and Democrats and
both Congress and Administrations past and present. We have written and
passed the laws that create the code.
For example, the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which was created
to prevent affluent taxpayers from using tax shelters and deductions to
avoid paying income tax, may raise the tax burden on middle-class
single parents and families earning $50,000 to $75,000 under the new
tax bill. No doubt, all involved had the best of intentions--to allow
family and education tax credits to hardworking middle American
taxpayers. Unfortunately, neither Congress or the Administration
bothered to explore the effects this credit would have on the tax code
and taxpayers. Thus, the result is a mess for the American Taxpayer and
the IRS.
Complexity is made worse by inconsistent management and oversight.
The Commission did not find a distinct pattern of corruption with IRS
employees or operations. We did find a culture and atmosphere which is
ripe for the kind of harassment and inappropriate audits and seizures
this Committee will hear about.
We found that performance measures do not encourage employees to
treat taxpayers fairly and respectfully. Furthermore, the computer
system makes it nearly impossible for front line employees to assist
taxpayers with their problems. If a taxpayer receives an erroneous
notice from IRS and calls them for help and clarification, the IRS
employee must access up to nine databases to get the taxpayer the
needed information. An interaction with IRS is often like a wrestling
match with a faceless, nameless computer, rather than an interaction
with a helpful representative, aiming to serve the taxpayer.
Senator Grassley and I are proposing legislation--S. 1096, the IRS
Restructuring and Reform Act of 1997--that will comprehensively
restructure and reform the IRS from customer service to oversight and
management.
Our goals are simple. We believe a citizen in Omaha, Nebraska, or
Lincoln, Hastings, Kearney, Scottsbluff or any other city in America
should get a helpful voice, not a busy signal, when they call the IRS
for help. We believe it should be easy to file a tax return. And we
believe the culture at the IRS should reflect a believe that the IRS
works for the people, not the other way around.
The abuses we will hear about this week are symptoms of a larger
problem: The IRS is insulated from the citizens it is supposed to
serve. For that reason, we propose making the IRS independent from
Treasury to become more accountable to the people. We propose the
forming of a citizen oversight board that would work with the Treasury
Secretary and the Administration to ease the administrative and
oversight burden placed on a Treasury Department already responsible
for 11 other major operations, including the Secret Service and
customs, not to mention our nation's economic policy.
Critics of the oversight board have been misleading the public
about the make-up of the board and have given false impressions of the
content of the legislation.
The oversight board is not designed to run the IRS, that is the job
of the Commissioner. Rather, it would assure public accountability and
assist the Treasury Secretary on oversight, management and budgeting
issues. The IRS and Treasury have operated for too long in the shadows,
unaccountable to the people. This public oversight board would ensure
that knowledgeable citizens continually monitor the agency.
A major--and false--criticism of the board is that it would turn
the IRS over to a board of corporate CEO's. That is simply untrue.
Our legislation clearly states: ``the Composition of the
[oversight] board shall be nine members of whom seven shall be
individuals who are not full-time Federal officers or employees who are
appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate and who shall be considered special government employees. One
shall be the Secretary of the Treasury, one shall be a representative
of an organization that represents a substantial number of IRS
employees who is appointed by the President.''
Our legislation, as you can see, does not specify or mention
``CEOs.'' The President would make the appointments and the Senate must
confirm--plain and simple. I suggest that perhaps Treasury's concerns
that our recommended board would be filled with corporate self-
interested CEOs is more of a statement of whom Treasury thinks our
President will appoint, than on our legislation.
This would be an oversight board made up taxpaying citizens, who
aside from representation in Congress, have been denied a say in the
tax collecting process for far too long.
Treasury, on the other hand, recommends the appointment of an
advisory board that would consist of 20 government officials and
another board that would have no influence or power. And while our
legislation attempts to give citizens a say in IRS oversight, the
Administration feels that more government input--not citizen input--is
the way to reform the IRS.
It is important to note that our legislation, based on
recommendations supported by a bipartisan majority of the Commissioners
on the IRS Commission, has the support of a broad base of groups from
the National Taxpayers Union to the IRS employees union--the National
Treasury Employee Union (NTEU). They support it for the simple reason
that more of the same will not take the IRS where it needs to go--into
the 21st Century.
Roughly 85% of Americans pay their taxes without IRS intervention,
Mr. Chairman. Yet the IRS treats most taxpayers who come in contact
with it as if 85% of Americans DO NOT pay their taxes unless the IRS
intervenes.
Americans don't have to like paying taxes, but it is not too much
that the simplest of questions--what we owe, why we owe it, and how we
should pay--get answered. Unfortunately for the past 50 years, nobody's
been able to give those simple answers. Our legislation goes a long way
toward doing just that, and I hope that after these hearings this
Committee will begin proceedings on S. 1096, the IRS Restructuring and
Reform Act of 1997.
We can criticize the IRS all we want, Mr. Chairman, but Congress
played a role in the agency's demise. So if we don't like what is going
on at the IRS, we need to change the laws governing the IRS. These
hearings are a good first step towards making IRS more accountable.
But, we need structures in place which ensure IRS is accountable in the
years to come.
Our tax collector does not have to be our friend, but it should not
be our enemy either. More Americans pay taxes than vote, and perhaps
that is why so few Americans have faith that our system of government
works for them.
I believe reforming the IRS--improving phone service, payment
options, filing procedures, management and oversight--will not only
enhance compliance and customer service, but go a long way toward
restoring faith that we truly are a government ``of, by and for the
people.''
__________
Prepared Statement of Joseph F. Lane
Chairman Roth, Ranking Member Moynihan, Committee Members, my name
is Joseph F. Lane and I am an Enrolled Agent engaged in private
practice in Menlo Park, California. I am appearing today on behalf of
the National Association of Enrolled Agents.
Enrolled Agents are tax professionals licensed by the Department
of the Treasury to represent taxpayers before the Internal Revenue
Service. The Enrolled Agent designation was created by Congress and
signed into law by President Chester Arthur in 1884 to ensure ethical
and professional representation of claims brought to the Treasury
Department. Members of NAEA ascribe to a Code of Ethics and Rules of
Professional Conduct and adhere to annual Continuing Professional
Education standards which not only equal but exceed IRS requirements.
Today, Enrolled Agents represent taxpayers at all administrative levels
of the IRS.
We understand the focus of the Committee's hearings over the next
three days will be the practices and procedures of the IRS. The members
of NAEA work with the employees of the Internal Revenue Service's
Examination and Collection Divisions on a daily basis. Since we
represent individuals and small business owners before the IRS,
Enrolled Agents are uniquely positioned to provide substantive input to
the Service on the effect its policies have on the average taxpayer and
to provide feedback to Congress on the practical feasibility and
administrability of the tax code sections it enacts into law. We offer
in our statement today, some observations about what is working well
within the Service as well as areas we feel need to be improved. We
also offer some suggestions about possible structural realignments for
the Committee to address with the new nominee for Commissioner of IRS
in the upcoming confirmation hearing.
We are pleased that the legislative recommendations of the National
Commission on Restructuring the IRS are pending before the House and
Senate tax writing committees at present. Representatives of NAEA
testified at five public hearings conducted by the National Commission
on Restructuring the IRS and we submitted written testimony for the
record for a sixth hearing. In addition, our National staff attended
numerous informal meetings with Commission staffers and Commissioners.
We praised the work done by the Commission in focusing on constructive
ways of improving our tax administration system and making the IRS more
responsive to taxpayer input. We support the Commission's
recommendations which have been incorporated into the pending
legislation. We believe the true bipartisan nature of the Commission's
deliberations and the earnest give and take of the democratic process
have produced a set of recommendations which are carefully woven
together and interdependent upon each other to bring about the change
all agree is necessary in the way our tax administration system works.
We urge the Senate to pass S. 1096, the Grassley-Kerrey bill, so the
restructuring of our tax agency can proceed as soon as possible.
what is going right with irs?
We believe the Service should be commended for the way it has
embraced the recommendations for improvement which were contained in
the National Commission's report. We understand that not every
recommendation was welcomed with enthusiasm but we have been impressed
with the open and nondefensive stance the Service has exhibited in
deciding to implement as many recommendations of the Commission as are
administratively permissible.
We applaud the recent selection of Bob Barr as the new Assistant
Commissioner for Electronic Tax Administration. The willingness to
recruit knowledgeable outside expertise to fill critical positions is a
mark of an agency willing to change. We hope to see more efforts to
bring the best minds and best systems to bear in resolving the problems
confronting the Service.
We welcome the recently published Request for Proposals for ways
to expand the electronic filing program. We believe as a result of the
National Commission's efforts the IRS will now consider to a far
greater degree and with much more responsiveness the feedback it
receives from the tax practitioner community regarding the great
potential of widespread electronic filing. We are concerned about the
delay inherent in any RFP process and believe the Service could
implement several recommendations already before it which would impact
next year's filing season immediately.
We can also applaud some of the initiatives the IRS field
components are undertaking to increase their responsiveness to local
practitioner and taxpayer input. In the past month, our Members have
attended many sessions around the country with local IRS officials and
reported back to us that they have seen some new willingness to open up
the decision-making process where possible to factor in outside
stakeholder input. We have seen this concept work very well for the
past several years in the Central California District with its Win-Win
teams composed of Service employees and tax practitioners. We are
starting to see it work in the Pacific Northwest District with the
Small Business Laboratory and in the Gulf States District's renewed
practitioner outreach efforts.
We can also report to you that the Service's National Office is
making a concerted effort to communicate better with NAEA and all
national tax professional organizations. Better communication creates a
more positive atmosphere for constructive resolution of disputes and
differences of opinion.
employee morale issues of concern to naea
We would like to discuss the current state of employee morale in
the IRS. We have noted over the past several years an increasingly
deteriorating esprit d'corps among Service employees.
In our testimony before the House Ways and Means Oversight
Subcommittee and the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS, we
urged that Congress request that GAO study this issue. The reason we
are concerned about this problem is that our voluntary compliance
system depends on both sides of the table being staffed by competent,
motivated individuals who share a responsibility to ensure that the
laws are administered consistently and fairly. This means that
individual taxpayers are entitled to the best representation possible
before the Service when their individual tax returns are being audited
or their individual taxes collected. It also means that all taxpayers,
as a group, are entitled to the best possible people representing the
public interest to ensure correct returns are filed and the correct
amount of taxes are assessed and paid.
The perception of all taxpayers about the fairness and
impartiality of the tax administration system is dependent on
confidence that their interests are adequately represented by the
officers and agents of the Service. We believe the current state of
employee morale is so low that it jeopardizes this perception of
adequate representation of the public interest.
Our Members continually provide us with information about
dispirited employees and how their attitudes have detrimental effects
on taxpayers. Government agents who feel put upon and victimized by
continual criticism and harping in the media and political arenas
easily develop a callousness when dealing with taxpayer cases assigned
to them. This is a human reaction and is very understandable but it is
as serious a threat to our voluntary system as anything else
confronting it today.
By the very nature of its function, the IRS is not a popular place
to work and will always encounter problems in recruiting the best
talent available. It is further hampered in its effort to bring in new
talent when the esprit d'corps falls to the level where employees
cannot recommend employment with the Service. This leaves the Service
with the unenviable task of revising job criteria to fill jobs with the
people available rather than recruiting choice personnel. Often those
who are selected have limited promotion potential within the
organization.
We believe Congress should study the whole issue of employee
morale and task the GAO to address what incentives could be pursued to
bolster the IRS recruitment of competent, well educated, promotable
individuals for government service. One suggestion might be to explore
the possibility of paid internships for tax and accounting students to
work within the Service for several years prior to commencing private
practice. This would provide excellent on the job training and
development experience of future practitioners; insure a steady supply
of well educated government employees; regularly give the Service an
infusion of new viewpoints with the end product being increased
taxpayer confidence and satisfaction.
collection issues
There are several Collection program policy areas we feel need to
be reviewed by the Committee.
The Use of Standard Expense Allowances in Determining Collection
Actions
We have reviewed the legislative proposal drafted by the American
Bar Association's Tax Section and concur with the concept that the
Service should be barred from using statistically generated average
expenses in favor of considering the unique facts and circumstances of
each taxpayer's case in making collection case resolution decisions.
We understand the Service's position that using the Bureau of
Labor Statistics data provides a level playing field among all
taxpayers. The Service maintains that the standards were developed to
answer taxpayer and practitioner complaints about inconsistent
treatment of taxpayers. We agree that if the result of the use of
standards was consistent treatment it would be an acceptable result,
but we are increasingly concerned about the lack of good judgment being
exhibited in cases reported to us by our Members. Service employees,
especially Revenue Officers, are compensated based on the complexity of
their cases. When the National Office dictates that standard allowances
be used, then more often than not the standard amount becomes the final
answer despite the fact that the Internal Revenue Manual permits some
deviation from the standards in exceptional cases with supervisory
approval. This ``checklist mentality'' approach leads to as many
inequities as the prior system of evaluating each taxpayer on their
actual expenses and has caused some new concerns to crop up, notably in
the areas of bankruptcy and offers in compromise.
There has been a dramatic increase in the number of personal
bankruptcies since January, 1996. The increase last year was in excess
of 25% despite a very strong economy in almost every part of the
country. In our opinion, many of these increased bankruptcies were the
direct result of the IRS imposition of National and Local standard
expense allowances for use in reaching Collection case determination
decisions in October 1995. In many instances, these limits on what a
taxpayer may claim as a necessary and reasonable monthly expense has
benefitted the Service to the detriment of other unsecured creditors
and, in some cases, secured creditors who enjoyed lien priority to the
IRS liens. This is especially true with respect to real estate holdings
of taxpayers.
We do not believe this effect was ever intended by Congress when
enacting the Federal Tax Lien statutes. These standards have a
pervasive effect as they impact any case resolution decision relating
to the ability of the taxpayer to secure an offer in compromise, an
installment agreement or a determination that the tax is currently not
collectible.
In many geographical areas, the standard expense allowances for
housing, utilities, property taxes, homeowners or renters insurance,
association fees and property maintenance and repairs are absurdly low.
As a consequence, many practitioners have been forced to recommend that
their clients seek the protection of the bankruptcy court as there
simply is no way to resolve the matter administratively within the IRS.
When we raised this issue with IRS National Office Collection
officials last summer, we were advised that their new policy had no
impact they could discern on bankruptcies. We believe there is ample
indication that there is a direct cause and effect and urge the
Committee to ask that GAO examine the problem.
Inconsistent Enforcement Policies Across the Nation
The Service explained that the purpose for imposing the use of the
reasonable and necessary expense allowances was to eliminate
inconsistencies in application of enforcement criteria. We have long
complained about these regional inconsistencies and we agreed with the
Service that some effort at uniformity was needed at the national
level.
We now find, however, that new inconsistencies keep cropping up in
the way the local districts are choosing to interpret the
``standards,'' as if the term standard was open to debate. For example,
some districts now hold out a policy that they will not permit an
installment agreement to pay off back payroll tax obligations, even if
the debtor business is now current and complying. This causes
unnecessary business failures and bankruptcies, not to mention grievous
equity losses to the small business owners involved.
The Service made a point of restricting the allowable expense
criteria to individual taxpayers, rightfully deciding that business
entities had too diverse a group of necessary expenses to ever arrive
at a fair allowance number. Despite this wise National Office policy,
it has not prevented local districts from proceeding to limit expenses
on business taxpayers who are self-employed.
We have had complaints that Revenue Officers have not allowed
legitimate business travel expenses where the taxpayer failed to secure
a sale on the trip in question. This is a prime example of why
decisions of field Revenue Officers need to be subjected to a real
appellate review process.
We have also heard of Revenue Officers allowing only the amount
authorized by the local housing and utility standard to taxpayers who
ran substantial businesses out of their homes and should have been
permitted a higher amount of expense allowance to reflect the true cost
of the business activity.
We have also had complaints about Revenue Officers not allowing
business expenses for automobile and truck costs incurred in the course
of the taxpayer's business--but rather limiting the taxpayer to the
local transportation standard expense allowance developed for
individuals.
All of these examples indicate we have a ``standard'' that is not
a standard in the eyes of many local Revenue Officers.
Collection Statute Extension Authority Questioned
The Internal Revenue Code permits the Service to request
taxpayers' agreement to extend the statutory period for collection of
their tax debts. The current statutory period for collection is ten
years from the date of the assessment. This ten year statute was
increased from six years in October, 1990. In our opinion, current IRS
procedures for seeking statute extension approvals from taxpayers need
a total overhaul. It should be an exceptional case where the Service is
not able to collect the assessment within the ten years permitted by
statute.
One would be reasonable to assume that requests for taxpayers to
extend statutes were rare. In fact, the Collection Division Automated
Collection Service (ACS) has begun requiring taxpayers who request
installment agreements and cannot fully pay their tax obligation within
ten years to sign extensions on the collection statute now even though
there may be as much as 9.5 years left on the statute. For example, a
taxpayer filed a 1996 return on April 15, 1997 owing $10,000.00. The
IRS review of the taxpayer's financial condition revealed an ability to
pay installments of $55.00 per month. The taxpayer was asked to sign an
extension until the year 2012! In a contrasting situation, a taxpayer
with no ability to pay monthly would have their case reported as
``currently not collectible'' and suspended without being asked for the
statute extension. We question if the current statute permitting
extensions is still needed in light of the 10 years permitted to
collect. After all, the Service always has the right to reduce its lien
to a civil judgment if it feels additional time is warranted to effect
collection.
Congress should examine the whole issue of permitting the
extension of Collection statutes and at the very least should consider
establishing some dollar criteria threshold before a statute extension
request could be made of a taxpayer. In the interim, we suggest that
the Service be required to provide every taxpayer asked to sign a
statute extension with a publication specifically addressing the
implications of signing or refusing to sign such requests.
Additionally, we think Service requests for extension ought to be in
writing and that the taxpayer should be provided with a 5 business day
``cooling off'' period to seek professional advice concerning the
request for extension. Finally, in the event Service personnel coerce,
mislead, or misinform taxpayers about the consequences of statute
extensions then taxpayers should have the right to revoke the extension
and the original statute date should be reinstated even if that means
the Service becomes effectively barred from further Collection efforts.
These changes would go a long way towards making taxpayers feel the
Service is adhering to both the spirit and the letter of the law.
Collection Appeals Process Isn't an Appeals Process
The Service introduced an ``appeals'' process for Collection cases
last winter and made much to do about how it afforded taxpayers the
opportunity to seek an appellate review of such matters as the filing
of the notice of federal tax lien, withdrawal or denial of a request
for an installment agreement, and seizures of taxpayer assets.
The scope of this program is so circumscribed by the procedural
limitations imposed that it really does not constitute a true appellate
process. The appeals function is limited to reviewing whether or note
the decision by the Collection officer adhered to the procedural
requirements of the Internal Revenue Manual only. It does not permit
any appellate review of the judgment or conduct of the Collection
officer.
The one beneficial aspect of this process from our viewpoint is
that it requires the involvement of the Collection group manager prior
to the case going up to Appeals. This is a welcome sign that the
National Office wants group managers to become more involved in the
taxpayer case management and negotiation process, something which has
been sorely neglected in the past decade.
We believe the lack of taxpayer and practitioner use of this
``appeals'' process is ample evidence that this program is not
perceived as a fair and independent appellate procedure and believe the
Committee ought to examine its intent and practice.
examination issues
Use of Enforcement Statistics for Evaluative Purposes Jeopardizes
Taxpayer Rights
We are very concerned about some provisions of the most recent
Examination Program Letter issued by the Service for the current year.
The program letter spells out for the field organization the goals and
objectives established by the National Office for examination divisions
nationwide. In the latest version at Appendix F, there is a discussion
of new performance measures to be used in evaluating local district
directors by using the amount of additional tax, penalty and interest
proposed by their examination division, regardless of the validity of
the assessments.
We must point out the danger of this approach. Whenever an
enforcement agency resorts to using production statistics for
evaluative purposes, be they audit yields or traffic tickets, the first
casualty is citizen rights. This is especially critical given our
perception of the current state of employee morale in the Service.
The Committee should inquire about the impact this emphasis has
caused thus far this year and, we believe, should recommend to Congress
that the Service be barred from using this data in the way suggested.
Inappropriate Use of Financial Status Auditing Techniques
We are still hearing complaints from our Members and taxpayers
about the insistence of local Examination Division personnel using
``economic reality'' auditing procedures when there is no information
provided to the taxpayer or representative as to why the Service
believes there is evidence to indicate unreported income. We are aware
that the National Office issued instructions to the field organization
in May, 1996 to use the financial status audit procedures only when
appropriate but feel that this is being observed on a sporadic basis by
the districts across the nation. We urge the Committee to delve into
this problem during these hearings.
One way of informing taxpayers and their representatives of the
potential for this type of audit would be to require that the Service
provide every taxpayer with a printout of all of the Information
Returns Program (1099s, W92s, CTRs, etc.) data it has for the tax year
in question along with the original examination notice sent to the
taxpayer. This would permit taxpayers and their representatives to be
prepared for any inconsistencies between the return and the reported
information in the possession of the Service and eliminate the audit
``gotcha'' game.
Market Segment Specialization Program Audits
We believe the Service should be recognized for the efforts it has
made in the development of the Market Segment Specialization Program.
In our opinion, it is one of the best approaches to identifying the
root causes of taxpayer noncompliance introduced into tax
administration in the past twenty-five years.
The best example of the effectiveness of the MSSP approach is the
important compliance program the Central California District has
underway in the Central Valley of California. This program, which
focuses on a major source of noncompliance with tax, labor and
immigration laws by farm labor contractors, has yielded dramatic
results in a relatively short time. The best thing about this program
is that it has aided the legitimate businesses in the Central Valley
who for years have been at a competitive disadvantage when faced with
competitors who, by not paying taxes and offering benefits, were able
to underbid them. This is exactly the type of program the Service
should be focusing on to restore its reputation as a premier government
agency and to reestablish their credibility with the legitimate
business community. They should be applauded for this effort. We urge
the Committee to hold a field hearing in the Fresno, California area to
permit a first hand look at this success story.
The traditional assumptions the Service made about its impact on
taxpayer compliance behavior patterns have always been questionable in
the minds of many tax professionals and academics. For the first time,
through the use of the MSSP examination process, patterns of compliance
and noncompliance can be tracked by industry and enforcement efforts
targeted in appropriate directions.
We think this is good news for taxpayers who are complying and
paying their fair share as well as presenting the Service in the
favorable light of channeling its enforcement dollars into those areas
most in need of its attention.
Examination Quality Review
One of the consequences of the morale problem we discussed earlier
in our statement is evident in the assessment of the outcome quality of
entry level examinations. When the Service has to fill jobs with the
bodies available rather than the best candidates the quality of the
work product declines.
We are consistently being told by our Members and by taxpayers via
our Web site and America OnLine Tax Channel that they cannot resolve
basic issues with the entry level examination staff; that group
managers will not meet with them or, if they do, they always back the
position taken by the subordinate; that the only way to resolve
anything in favor of the taxpayer is to by-pass the examination staff
and proceed to appeals on every case.
These are disturbing complaints because there will never be enough
staffing available for every case to proceed to appeals. We would like
to see the Service make a renewed effort to involve Examination group
managers in an informal conference process prior to a case going
unagreed. We feel it would be in the best interests of the Service to
resolve these cases at the lowest possible level and we know it would
save taxpayers millions of dollars annually in representation fees. We
have been delighted to learn that the Pacific Northwest District is
proposing a pilot test of a district conference staff to help resolve
exam cases more expeditiously. This is now a concept which has come
full circle as district conference is where many exams were resolved in
the 1960s and 1970s before it was abolished. We will be watching this
pilot closely and will keep the Committee informed of the results from
the practitioners' perspective.
taxpayer rights issues
Protecting a Taxpayer's Right to Confidentiality
We would like to see the Committee recommend legislation
protecting a taxpayer's right to confidentiality for any tax counsel
and advice. It should be a basic right of taxpayers not to have their
own advisors used as witnesses against them. We believe that the IRS
has overly broad summons authority which permits it to inquire into a
taxpayer's thought processes and the tax advice they received. This
violates the taxpayer's reasonable expectation of privacy and
confidentiality and goes beyond IRS needs for factual information to
determine proper tax liability. Under current law, taxpayers can
protect nonfactual information such as analyses, advice and opinions
only if they have the financial resources necessary to obtain legal
counsel. This practice results in unequal treatment of taxpayers based
on their financial status or choice of tax professional.
We propose that the Committee consider the following proposal to
provide all taxpayers fair and equal treatment:
1. For all taxpayers, permit the IRS access to all factual
information upon which a return is based;
2. if the IRS has a reasonable suspicion based on evidence
that the taxpayer failed to fully report income, the Service
would have authority to summon other factual information
relevant to the taxpayer's income; and
3. if a taxpayer became the subject of a criminal
investigation, the IRS could employ the same broad summons
authority available today.
This proposal removes the conditions and ambiguities regarding
whether a taxpayer may keep tax advice confidential by linking that
protection to the taxpayer, rather than the identity of the tax
advisor. Taxpayers remain fully obligated to report every dollar of
income and prove every deduction, exemption, expense, and credit
claimed on the return. However, the IRS would not have access to
nonfactual information, such as opinions, analyses, thoughts, theories,
and mental impressions of the taxpayer and his or her advisor, without
the taxpayer's consent.
Register All Commercial Tax Return Preparers
We would like to see the recommendations of the IRS Commissioner's
Advisory Group (CAG) regarding the registration of all commercial tax
return preparers enacted into law. We believe that a fundamental
taxpayer right is to be able to rely on the expertise of the
individuals who assist in helping citizens meet their tax obligations.
We have, for too long, had an uneven playing field where those tax
professionals who have made the most significant commitment to their
profession--Enrolled Agents, attorneys and Certified Public
Accountants--are the most regulated. Only those professions require
continuing professional education. Only those professions have
developed standards of professional practice and published standards of
professional ethics. The tax laws of this country are too complex to
permit commercial tax return preparers to offer services to taxpayers
without requiring that they maintain a minimum level of technical
proficiency and stand by their product in the event of error. Taxpayers
deserve no less. We regulate barbers more than we regulate commercial
tax preparers in this country and you can recover from a bad haircut in
three weeks!
Provide Full Credit for Social Security and Self-Employment Taxes Paid
In
Current procedures followed by the IRS and the Social Security
Administration (SSA) with respect to properly crediting the Social
Security (FICA) and self-employment (SE) taxes paid by delinquent
taxpayers need to be corrected by statute. If a taxpayer fails to file
a tax return for more than three years, even if there is a refund due
and all taxes are paid in timely, the taxpayer is not credited by the
SSA for the FICA and SE taxes paid in, yet the IRS insists on
collecting these same taxes. If the government is paid the taxes, it
should credit the taxpayer's account.
The Total Amount of Penalties Should Never Exceed 100% of the Tax
As a general principle of fair and reasonable tax administration,
we believe Congress should declare that the total amount of penalties
asserted against taxpayers should never exceed the tax amount for the
same period.
Tax Penalties Should Not be Used for Revenue Raising
We believe the current penalty statutes should be subject to a top
down Congressional review. There are too many penalties for too many
infractions and no one could reasonably expect taxpayers to comprehend
their applicability. We think the current Code's proliferation of
penalties has accomplished nothing but to create taxpayer perceptions
of a system run amok and acts like a ``hidden tax rate.'' This feeling
is reinforced by the fact the tax committees have taken to scoring
penalties for revenue raising.
The Number of Years to Claim Refunds Should be Lengthened
We have seen some recent tax law cases where ample reasonable cause
existed to permit longer periods for taxpayers to claim refunds and the
Courts found themselves bound by statute to deny the claims. We believe
this is wrong and Congress should extend the right to refund claims for
a period longer than three years.
organizational structure of the irs
As we stated in our opening remarks, we strongly endorse the
recommendations of the National Commission. We originally proposed
during testimony before the Commission last April that the Commission
consider the division of the IRS into two separate agencies. While we
recognized that was a radical suggestion, we made it to point out
significant problems with the organizational culture of the Service. We
think it would be beneficial for the incoming Commissioner to study the
possibility of accomplishing the organizational schema we proposed
within the existing agency. This could be accomplished by establishing
two Deputy Commissioner positions--one filled by the Presidentially-
appointed Taxpayer Advocate and the other, also Presidentially
appointed, to serve as Deputy Commissioner, Tax Enforcement. We could
envision these two appointees serving the following roles:
Deputy Commissioner, Taxpayer Advocacy
The new Taxpayer Advocacy organization would be headed by the
Taxpayer Advocate, nominated by the President and confirmed by the
Senate. This would bring the degree of independence to the Advocate's
role sought by Congress and the public. The field component would be
headed by local Taxpayer Advocates under the local District Directors.
This organization would be responsible for:
--Taxpayer Advocacy function (taxpayer intervention, systemic
monitoring and legislative advocacy);
--Taxpayer Communications (TDA and TDI notices, correspondence
examinations, information returns programs such as document
matching, underreporter program, etc.);
--Taxpayer Service function (telephone assistance, taxpayer
education, small business education clinics, local walk-in
services);
--Tax Forms (design, printing and distribution);
--Electronic Tax Administration (electronic filing initiatives,
electronic tax payment programs, web site maintenance,
electronic commerce applications, electronic communications
applications);
--Data Processing and Information Technology functions;
--Appeals function, for resolution of disputed collection and
examination cases;
--Technical function for issuance of Revenue Procedures, Rulings,
Technical Advice memorandums and private letter rulings--in
short anything that has to do with interpretation of the
Internal Revenue Code; and
--Internal Audit and Internal Security Functions.
Legal services to the Taxpayer Advocacy organization would also be
provided by the Chief Counsel of the Treasury's Chief Counsel for Tax
Administration function, thereby assuring coordination on Tax,
District, Appeals, and Supreme Court cases as they progress through the
system.
The benefits derived from separating these functions from
enforcement functions are numerous:
--It permits recruitment of creative individuals with the temperament
for taxpayer service and provides a promotion ladder for
advancement up the taxpayer advocacy and customer service line;
--It permits technology issues to be addressed by individuals with
technology expertise and broader business experience than
traditional IRS managers;
--It permits technology decisions to be driven by overall business
judgment as it affects 200 million taxpayers;
--It permits taxpayers to seek answers to their questions from an
organization the Congress has appropriately funded with an
adequate budget to serve citizens and it populates the
technical tax law interpretation function with individuals
driven by customer service motivations and not enforcement
attitudes;
--It places the ability to enforce the Taxpayer Bill of Rights
legislation in the hands of truly independent Taxpayer
Advocates who will have the right to intervene in Tax
Enforcement organization cases when appropriate; and
--It provides taxpayers with a truly independent appellate process
thereby improving perceptions of fair and impartial
administration of the tax laws.
Deputy Commissioner, Tax Enforcement
The tax law enforcement functions of Examination, Collection, and
Criminal Investigation should be all that comprise the new Tax
Enforcement organization. The head would also be nominated by the
President and confirmed by the Senate. Its field component would be
headed by local Tax Enforcement Chiefs under the local District
Directors. The organization would take over responsibility for
Collection cases once those cases have completed the notice cycles and
the taxpayer had not adequately responded. The existing Automated
Collection Service (ACS) would be part of this entity. The
responsibility for examination cases would be assumed when the case
required the taxpayer or his/her representative to appear. Thus,
correspondence examinations questioning one or two items would remain
with the Taxpayer Advocacy organization. Obviously, all criminal cases
would originate in and be worked by the Tax Enforcement organization
only. The Chief Counsel of the Treasury would still provide legal
support services through a Chief Counsel for Tax Enforcement function.
This organization would not have its own data processing operation, but
would secure its information technology services from the Taxpayer
Advocacy organization.
The benefits of locating all law enforcement functions under one
roof and permitting one organizational focus to dominate direction
should improve morale of the individuals working in the agency, should
concentrate efforts in combating the growing problems of taxpayer
noncompliance, and permit innovative solutions to targeting law
enforcement.
summary
We hope these ideas have proven useful to the Committee in its
deliberations. I would be very happy to respond to questions you may
have regarding our views.
__________
Prepared Statement of Darren Larsen
My name is Darren Larsen. I am an attorney in private practice in
Southern California, specializing in tax controversies and bankruptcy
matters. From 1981 through 1994, I was employed as an attorney In the
Office of Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service in three
different districts. I served my last three years in the position of
Assistant District Counsel, including extensive duty as Acting District
Counsel. I was personally involved in matters concerning all functions
of the IRS: Examination, Collection, Criminal Investigation and
Disclosure. From 1986 through 1994, I represented the IRS in Bankruptcy
Court as a Special Assistant United States Attorney in the Alaska
District and the Central District of California. I frequently served as
a nationwide instructor for attorneys and managers as well as for IRS
training and continuing education. I was a member of a joint Chief
Counsel--IRS national task force on bankruptcy procedures through which
I visited several districts throughout the country. Because of my
particular expertise concerning IRS collection issues, I maintained
close relationships with many individuals in the IRS, particularly
revenue officers and managers in the Collection Division.
I speak to you today as a tax professional who has spent may years
representing the Internal Revenue Service in court and working with and
advising IRS personnel on their cases. Over the past 2\1/2\ years I
have also had the opportunity to deal with the IRS as a taxpayer's
representative. My feelings toward the IRS as an institution are mixed.
While it is sometimes easy to express frustration and even outrage
at IRS conduct, I must state at the outset that there are many
outstanding individuals currently employed by the IRS who have superior
technical knowledge, commendable devotion to their jobs and a
commitment to fairness. At the other end of the spectrum, however, are
those employees whom I have encountered both as a government attorney,
and as a practitioner, who lack technical skills, lack any sense of
justice or fairness, and are interested only in remaining employed to
receive a paycheck. That having been said, I will now move on to more
specific examples of problem areas within the IRS as an institution.
As an attorney for the IRS, I was often appalled by the lack of
technical knowledge on the part of the front line managers. I knew
group managers who had the responsibility to review and sign off on
administrative summonses who did not know the basic requirements for
content of the summons or the rules for service. The less experienced
revenue officers unfortunately learned from these managers and
consequently made mistakes. I knew one manager who did not understand
the distinction between a lien and a levy. The revenue officers who
knew the manager had these shortcomings were forced to use other
resources for assistance. I was also dismayed at some of the ``on-the-
job instructors'' who were lacking in some of the legal fundamentals
and passing on their incompetence to newer revenue officers.
In addition to simple lack of knowledge, I also knew of revenue
officers who understood the legal and procedural requirements for
certain actions but consciously bypassed them. Specifically, I dealt
with a revenue officer over a period of several years who, on more than
one occasion, issued nominee or alter ego levies without the required
pre-review. Typically he would receive payment of the tax and that
would be the end of it. If there was a problem, only then would he go
through the required steps. He was a ``good'' revenue officer in that
he collected a lot of tax and closed a lot of difficult cases and,
consequently, he was given a great deal of latitude in how he worked
his cases. He felt justified in taking shortcuts because he felt he had
good instincts and got what he felt were the right results, i.e.:
payment of the tax. When he was later promoted to group manager, the
revenue officers in his group were allowed to work their cases in a
similar manner, as long as they didn't make a mistake. There was often
a prevailing notion in the collection groups that if a summons or some
other procedure was not exactly handled in accordance with the law that
the taxpayers probably would not know the difference. And, if the
taxpayer didn't comply and there was a problem down the road, it could
always just be done over. The same attitude was taken with respect to
other actions: if someone's watching, I'll take the time to do it
right; otherwise I will do it the easiest way because it's unlikely my
manager or the taxpayer will catch it.
In one district in California, IRS Collection managers blatantly
disregarded the law with respect to ownership of personal residences
because they felt it was unlikely many taxpayers would know that the
law protected them. In California, if married people hold title to real
property as joint tenants it is presumed, under State law, that they do
hold as joint tenants rather than as community property. The
presumption may be overcome by a factual showing that the couple
actually intended it to be community. The difference for IRS is
significant: when only one spouse owes tax, only \1/2\ of joint tenancy
property may be seized, while 100% of community property may be seized.
In the district, the IRS took the position that all joint tenancy
property would be presumed to be community, and it would be up to the
taxpayer to prove otherwise. The result was the IRS treating 100% of a
personal residence as being subject to the tax lien and insisting on
payment accordingly, whether by seizure and sale or by settlement. The
reality is that most taxpayers do not know the law regarding community
property and they rely upon the IRS to ``do the right thing.'' However,
in this situation the IRS was taking advantage of the ignorance of the
general public on a technical legal issue to the detriment of the non-
owing spouse. The IRS advisors and managers I spoke with admitted
knowledge of the State law, but justified this policy by stating that
people usually think their property is community anyway so this is just
more expedient. It's the ``mindset'' that allowed this to go on that
concerns me.
While reviewing the procedures followed in many districts in
handling bankruptcy cases, it became apparent that in some offices the
IRS was ignoring the law regarding the automatic stay in bankruptcy and
the discharge injunction. Because it was not designated as a program
area, and training was insufficient, some managers devoted few--if
any--resources to stopping collection action upon filing of a
bankruptcy petition, to monitoring bankruptcy cases for issuance of the
discharge order, to properly adjusting taxpayer accounts after issuance
of a discharge, or to the releasing of liens after discharge. This
inattention to the most basic of tasks was also detrimental to the
collection of the revenue.
As a taxpayer representative, I am now even more aware of how
important it is for the IRS representatives to follow the procedures
established by the IRS and the law in collecting taxes. For the most
part, taxpayers are intimidated by the IRS and will do whatever is
asked of them. Because most taxpayers do not know much about tax law
they rely on the IRS with respect to many issues and put their trust in
them as public servants. Even if the taxpayer feels the IRS is not
acting properly it is often too costly to hire representation to
contest the action. The end result is that some taxpayers are paying
more tax than they rightfully should and some individuals are paying
tax which they are not actually liable to pay. I do believe that if a
taxpayer presses an issue and takes it up through the system, and if
that taxpayer is right, he or she will ultimately prevail. It's just
that the process is costly in terms of fees, time and aggravation. It
is important for the IRS to avoid procedural shortcuts and treat the
taxpayers fairly up front, so that mistakes are not made and taxpayers
are not put in the position of choosing whether to pay the wrong amount
of tax or pay for assistance to fight it out. Either way the taxpayer
loses.
As an organization, the IRS has excellent technical resources
which it does not use to its best advantage. Tax collection is a
complex process given the number of applicable federal and state
statutes. Revenue officers can be expected to require assistance in
some cases. The Special Procedures function is designed to provide
technical assistance to the tax collectors in the field, and in those
districts where it is given the staffing and finding it needs, it has
proven to be very valuable. However, each district is given the
discretion to determine how its own Special Procedures will be staffed
and how it will operate. In some districts, Special Procedures is
under-achieving because the advisors have little experience and little
support. Some districts view Special Procedures as a dumping ground for
revenue officers and even managers who have had problems elsewhere.
Some districts view Special Procedures as less important than the field
groups so they rotate revenue officers in for only 18 months at a time.
Consequently there is little institutional expertise. New advisors have
nobody to train them. The field revenue officers have little confidence
in their advisors. On the other hand, the districts with excellent
Special Procedures have advisors who have worked in their program areas
for many years, they work well together and learn from each other, and
they are respected by the field officers. They maintain close
communication with the field and provide effective assistance. The
excellent Special Procedures staffs typically have close working
relationships with District Counsel and have programs which allow them
to stay current on developing issues. The IRS would be well served by
requiring all districts to step up the level of the Special Procedures
staffs so that the IRS, nationwide, can more effectively and justly
collect the taxes owed.
In conclusion, the IRS in my view has much room for improvement in
the way it deals with taxpayers when collecting delinquent accounts.
While there are many positive, productive forces and individuals at
work inside the organization constantly trying to make improvements,
some of the chronic problems remain. The IRS is there to enforce the
tax laws. However, the IRS is also there to ensure that the law is
applied fairly and consistently. The IRS representatives wear two hats:
they are adversaries of the willfully non-compliant taxpayer, but they
are at the same time public servants. There is no excuse for cutting
procedural corners or establishing presumptions which place citizens at
a practical or economic disadvantage. Better training of revenue
officers, as well as managers, and an intolerance of blatant violations
of the law would go a long way toward improving the overall quality of
tax collection and improving the level of public trust in the IRS.
__________
Prepared Statement of Lawrence G. Lilly
Mr. Chairman and Committee members, my name is Lawrence G. Lilly. I
have been a tax attorney for more than thirty years and I am currently
in private practice in St. Augustine, Florida. Prior to opening my
office in Florida, I worked for the IRS for 28 years in several
different capacities. First, I was a Special Agent in the Intelligence
Division (now known as the Criminal Investigation Division.) Then, I
became a Criminal Tax attorney, an Assistant District Counsel in Miami,
and I retired in 1990 from my final position as District Counsel for
one of the larger districts, in San Jose, California.
A fair and efficient tax collection agency is recognized by
everyone as being vital to the future of our country. Although no one
likes to pay taxes, all reasonable people know that our taxes are the
price we pay for our liberty! No one can properly voice a legitimate
complaint about shouldering a fair share of paying for our system of
government.
My purpose today is to present constructive criticism of the IRS
for consideration by the Committee. It is my hope that, with your
guidance, the credibility of the Service can be restored to the high
level which prevailed at earlier times. It is vital to our system of
taxation that the citizens who are paying the taxes have trust and
confidence in the fairness of the system.
I was extremely proud to be an employee of the IRS for the major
portion of my career. During the 1980's however, I began to note what I
considered to be significant deterioration of the Service and its
concern with serving the public. It appeared to me that the IRS had
decided, consciously or unconsciously, to drop the Service aspect of
their job and to focus exclusively on making upper management look good
statistically. This, I fear, has led to undermining the culture of the
organization, lowered the self-esteem of many employees, and caused the
organization to become unfair and oppressive in its treatment of
taxpayers.
Before proceeding, I should make it clear that I was not
technically an employee of the IRS for most of my career.
Organizationally, the attorneys who work with the IRS are not
subordinate to the District Directors or even to the Commissioner of
the IRS. IRS attorneys work within a parallel organization structure,
which reports to the Chief Counsel of the IRS and the General Counsel
of the Treasury Department.
In view of this distinctive organizational structure, I had the
opportunity to see the IRS from a viewpoint that is quite different
than that of most former employees. Whereas most former employees
worked within a particular area, such as Examination, Collection, or
Criminal Investigation, I, as a manager of attorneys, was involved with
all of those functional areas. From this perspective, I had the
opportunity to make detailed observations about the Service's
operations and also had the time to develop what I hope are a few,
solid recommendations for its improvement.
I believe there is too much focus set on achieving statistical
goals set by upper management generally known as the Senior Executive
Service (SES) goals. Goals are important and necessary in the
management of the organization, but the goals, as currently drafted by
management, too often focus on those things which are readily
measurable numerically, such as the number of dollars collected or the
number of cases closed. Generally, the goals do not place adequate
focus on the quality of the work performed, or the acceptance of that
work by the general public. The goals are not always sensitive to the
perceptions of the average American taxpayer.
The organizational structure of the IRS is still too decentralized.
Directives from the top are implemented, or not implemented, in the
manner decided upon locally. Directives with which local employees or
managers disagree take considerable time before they are implemented.
As just a single example, some time ago Commissioner Peggy Richardson
issued a public announcement indicating that the Service would
thereafter be more liberal in its consideration of Offers in
Compromises. Several months later, the district in which I reside had
not implemented her directive and it was necessary for me to directly
confront local officials and to chastise them for failing to implement
the Commissioner's directive.
The regional offices of IRS, or at least the regional offices of
the Chief Counsel, serve little or no purpose except to dilute the
authority of the National Office and to delay the implementation of
national directives. I recommend that consideration be given to
eliminating all of these offices, or if they cannot be eliminated, they
should all be physically located in Washington where they can become
more responsive to national direction. At this time, each of the
regions operates as a fiefdom, rather than as a necessary cog in the
wheel of a national organization.
Selections for managerial positions are made based upon whether the
employee has performed well in his or her current position, i.e. was he
or she was a ``good'' attorney, or a ``good'' agent. Little
consideration is given to the ``people skills'' of the applicants or
whether they are likely to be effective and skilled managers. This too
frequently leads to situations where you loose a good employee and
obtain a poor manager. Management skills of persons being considered
for appointment to higher positions should receive greater scrutiny.
The IRS organization is too insular, with little infusion of new
blood. Traditionally, the Service promotes from within. While it is
good for management to be loyal to employees, this frequently leads to
situations where people are elevated based upon their willingness to go
along with the entrenched views. Innovation and imagination are frowned
upon.
The Tax Section of the American Bar Association has too much
influence over the selection process for the IRS Commissioner. Until
recently it appeared that only those who were active in that selection
had a realistic chance of being nominated for one of the topmost
positions. Management skills rather than skills in other areas should
be emphasized.
Employee satisfaction with the IRS has been on a downward spiral,
due at least in part to the slavish attention to numerical goals.
Employees are given mandates by management to take positions known to
be incorrect in order to obtain preordained results. I know many people
who have retired from the IRS, or left before retirement, but I do not
know of a single person who regrets that they no longer work for the
organization. I personally left the Service at least eight years
prematurely because of the poor management practices that were in vogue
at that time and which, I understand, continue to this day.
It is my considered opinion that some of the problems that I have
addressed can be readily resolved.
(1) The four remaining regional offices should be completely
eliminated or physically relocated to Washington. This will enable the
Commissioner to more readily make any needed changes in the direction
of the organization.
(2) IRS Management, or this Committee, can take action to insure
that the SES goals in the future place greater focus on the quality of
performance by IRS managers and employees. This should cause all IRS
employees to become more cognizant of the sensitivity of their work and
result in fair and equal treatment of all taxpayers
(3) Selection boards for all positions above the first line
management level should include at least one representative skilled in
management skills and, at the same time, be a step in opening the
organization to an infusion of new blood.
I personally commend the many dedicated and responsible employees
of the IRS for their valiant attempt to fairly administer the laws in
an evenhanded manner. The culture of the IRS organization, however, has
eroded to the point where the dedicated employees are leaving the
agency as fast as possible. The management of the IRS must stop
sacrificing the employees in order to make themselves look good.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you
and this Committee. I greatly appreciate being able to offer what I
hope are constructive and positive comments regarding the future role
of the IRS.
__________
Prepared Statement of Jennifer Long
Mr. Chairman, Senators, thank you for allowing me to come before
you this morning to provide an accounting of activities within the
Internal Revenue Service. My name is Jennifer Long. I am currently a
Revenue Agent with the IRS.
Please be assured that I do not take any pleasure in what I am
about to say. I regret that the untenable conditions permeating the IRS
have compelled me to this point. I am here today, along with my
colleagues, in hopes that by exposing some of the unauthorized, but
tolerated, procedures that I personally have witnessed by members of
the IRS Management, congressional oversight will bring a positive
change. I can personally attest to the use of egregious tactics used by
IRS Revenue Agents which are encouraged by members of the IRS
Management. These tactics--which appear nowhere in the IRS Manual--are
used to extract unfairly assessed taxes from taxpayers, literally
ruining families, lives, and businesses--all unnecessarily and
sometimes illegally.
The IRS will often pursue a taxpayer who is viewed to be
vulnerable. To the IRS, vulnerabilities can be based on a perception
that the taxpayer has limited formal education, has suffered a personal
tragedy, is having a financial crisis, or may not necessarily have a
solid grasp of their legal rights. Please understand, many agents are
encouraged by management to pursue tax assessments that have no basis
in tax law from individuals who simply can't fight back. However, if
that taxpayer does object or complain, every effort will be made by the
IRS to run up their tax assessment, deplete their financial resources
and force them to capitulate to IRS demands.
The IRS's Mission of Examination states, ``. . . Reduce
noncompliance by identifying and cost effectively allocating resources
to those returns most in need of examination and taxpayer contact . . .
'' As of late, we seem to be auditing only poor people. The current IRS
Management does not believe anyone in this country can possibly live on
less than $20,000 per year, insisting anyone below that level must be
cheating by understating their true income. Currently, in a typical
case assigned for audit, there are no assets, no signs of wealth--no
evidence that would support a suspicion of higher, unreported income.
So, when the IRS does initiate an audit on these people, these
individuals are already only one short step away from being on the
street. Clearly, such actions do not encourage or promote voluntary
compliance, even in legitimate cases. Before we began to ruin their
lives, these people were at least paying something. However, because of
the tactics used in auditing and condoned by the IRS Management, abject
fear compels many of these individuals to go completely underground
and, as a direct result, pay nothing at all.
In other cases, IRS Management can determine that a particular
taxpayer is simply someone ``to get.'' In other words, they become a
target of the IRS. Management will go about fabricating evidence
against that taxpayer to demonstrate that he, or she, owes more taxes
than was originally claimed. Clearly, it goes without saying that
evidence should never, ever, be fabricated. It also goes without saying
that any evidence used against a taxpayer should be examined first,
before guilt or innocence is established. Not the other way around.
In certain instances, the IRS Management has even employed its
authority to intimidate the actual taxpayers into fabricating evidence
against its own IRS employees. In return for their compliance, the
taxpayer may be offered a reduction in their taxes or a ``no change
case.'' I also know that Management uses this same power to extort
fabricated evidence from IRS employees against their own colleagues by
offering cash awards, promotions, and lightened work loads as rewards
for their compliance. The unfavorable information assembled by
Management against its own employees is used against those whom the IRS
has identified as someone who is unsupportive of its unwieldy methods
of collection.
The IRS Inspection Division, which is somewhat akin to Internal
Affairs in a Police Department, has also been used as a tool by
Management to harass and intimidate its employees. However, complaints
to the IRS Inspection Division about possible Management misconduct are
routinely ignored, but often result in retaliation against the IRS
employee reporting the problem. This is due to the fact that employees
identities are disclosed when the Inspection Division reports the
infraction to Management.
The IRS Mission Statement states, ``The purpose of the Internal
Revenue Service is to collect the proper amount of tax revenue at the
least cost; serve the public by continually improving the quality of
our products and services; and perform in a manner warranting the
highest degree of public confidence in our integrity, efficiency and
fairness.'' I have actually witnessed IRS Management manipulate income
tax return figures just to increase their office or division collection
statistics! It did this through various means including not permitting
valid changes in a tax return that would favor the taxpayer. To allow
those changes would wipe out the assessment placed by the IRS and run
counter to the Management's collection numbers.
For those who choose to fight, it automatically guarantees a
significant financial and emotional toll.
Mr. Chairman--the American taxpayers are not stupid. They clearly
recognize unfairness. Under present IRS Management, it has become so
distorted that when reviewing a tax case it is now our job to ``stick
it'' to the taxpayer, rather than determine a substantially correct tax
assessment for that taxpayer. In the past, the latter was our job. If
our present task has changed, then the IRS Mission Statement needs to
be revamped to reflect what the Service's current mission really is.
And God help the taxpayers.
The IRS Mission Statement of the IRS Examination Division states,
``. . . Examination supports the mission of the Service by . . .
encouraging the correct reporting by taxpayers of income . . . ''
Yet, in reality, when valid changes could be made by the IRS on a
taxpayer's return that favor that taxpayer, we are instructed not to
make those changes.
However, on the other hand, I know of certain IRS employees that
have been instructed by IRS Management not to conduct audits of
particular taxpayers who happen to be personal friends of someone in
IRS Management.
Far too often, the IRS Management automatically assumes that
everyone is a criminal. When a taxpayer comes to the IRS to negotiate a
tax payment issue in good faith, they are subjected to provocative
behavior on the part of the IRS in order to ``set them off.''
Management will then use the taxpayer's response as proof that they
are, in fact, a reactionary saying, ``See, this person's a
troublemaker, a real hot head.'' Based on this pretext, the IRS can
then justify taking severe action contrary to the law in order to
pursue the collection. The immediate and direct consequence of these
actions is the deprivation of the taxpayer's lawful rights.
I look forward to your questions and I hope, that in some way, I
will have assisted you in restoring the IRS to a level of integrity
that will regain the respect of the American people.
__________
Prepared Statement of Hon. Connie Mack
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding these important hearings. I
look forward to participating in this bipartisan effort to clean up the
IRS (a goal that is too important for politics). The IRS interacts with
more Americans than almost every other government agency or private
business in America. Therefore, it is critical that the word
``service'' in Internal Revenue Service returns as a top priority.
Unfortunately, too often we discover that hard-working American
taxpayers do not receive topnotch professional service. This is
unacceptable. We will not tolerate taxpayer abuse by the IRS. Examples
of IRS snooping, billions of dollars in unjustified penalties, and
wrong answers to taxpayers' questions are all too common. Simply
stated, taxpayers who spend $8 billion to run the IRS deserve better
service.
Just like taxpayers are subjected to an audit, I think it is time
we audit the IRS. We need to do a top to bottom inspection of what
works and what doesn't--no stone should be left unturned. The work and
recommendations of the Kerrey-Portman IRS Commission has been an
important first step in this process. I trust these hearings will
further our understanding of what needs to be done to make the IRS
taxpayer-friendly.
It's true that our complicated income tax system adds to the
difficulties of administering and collecting taxes for both taxpayers
and the IRS. Congress must also do its part to ensure the tax laws we
enact are not overly complex. People should be able to calculate their
tax liability with ease. Americans currently waste some $200 billion
dollars and 6 billion man hours just to comply with the tax code.
That's about equal to the amount of man hours it takes to produce all
the cars, trucks, and airplanes in this country each year.
The IRS cannot operate in a vacuum and disregard the rights and
needs of taxpayers. Fiscal mismanagement and negligence only undermine
taxpayers' faith in the fairness of any tax system. Outright abuse and
harassment destroy this faith.
I'm glad this committee has the chance over the next few days to
hear from witnesses that will help us in our efforts to correct the
many problems with the IRS. We are fortunate to have public-spirited
former and current IRS employees who are willing to discuss candidly
the corrosive culture of the IRS. As my Florida offices are flooded
with telephone calls from taxpayers who are having a difficult time
with the IRS, I am particularly thankful that we will be hearing from
two former IRS employees from Florida, Mr. Lawrence G. Lilly and Mr.
Bruce A. Strauss, who can shed some light on the source of these
problems for my constituents.
It is no surprise that legions of taxpayers have offered to tell
their stories in public to this Committee, although it takes no small
amount of courage to do so. The men and women who were selected to
testify are performing a public service and deserve our commendation,
although it hardly makes up for the circumstances that gave rise to
this testimony. I welcome in particular Monsignor Lawrence Ballweg, who
lives both in my state and the state of New York and thus can count
four Finance Committee members in his corner.
Over the next few days we will be hearing from historians and
scholars, taxpayers and practitioners, IRS agents and apologists. These
hearings promise to be both enlightening and infuriating. This is one
story, however, in which we all know the ending before the first page
has been read: The IRS has to be cleaned up for the sake of the
American people.
__________
Prepared Statement of David Patnoe
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Finance Committee. My
name is David Patnoe. I am currently an Enrolled Agent in Camarillo,
California, representing taxpayers before the Collections Division of
the Internal Revenue Service for over seven years. Prior to this, I was
a Revenue Officer for the Internal Revenue Service for over ten years.
During my tenure with the IRS, I was a Revenue Officer, an On-the-
Job Instructor for trainee Revenue Officers, an Instructor for Revenue
Officer training schools Phase I and Phase II sessions, an ``Offer in
Compromise'' Specialist and an advisor in the Special Procedures
function. I have worked in the Anchorage, Alaska; Shreveport,
Louisiana; and Brooklyn, New York IRS offices which provided me a great
opportunity to see how collection worked in different areas of the
country. Now working as a taxpayer's advocate, I have had the
opportunity to see things from the other side. It is from this wide
range of experience that I speak to you today.
Despite what I believe to be a rather unique background, I have
found dealing with IRS personnel to be quite disturbing in a few cases,
and downright maddening in others. In particular I have had my worst
experiences with people I believe had insufficient training to be
performing the jobs they were assigned. In some instances their actions
were outright illegal and highly abusive.
The trouble with discussing ``abusive'' tax collection is that
there is no line drawn between regular tax collection and abusive tax
collection. When you consider that the very act of a Revenue Officer
imposing their will on a taxpayer by use of a levy on wages or
retirement funds or a seizure of assets, such as a personal residence,
will probably be considered abusive by a lot of people, and surely by
the taxpayer themselves. My definition of ``abusive'' tax collection is
the illegal use of certain collection tools, or when the collection
tool used is not warranted in that given situation.
Let me give you an example that I think will demonstrate what I
believe is occurring far more frequently than people may realize. I was
hired to assist in a matter involving the improper use of a levy. A
levy is generally the seizure of money in some form. The IRS had issued
a levy on one of my client's receivables owed to his business, a sole
proprietorship. But the tax that the IRS was trying to collect on the
levy was not owed by my client, but was in fact owed by a company that
my client had worked for at one time as an employee, with no ownership
interest whatsoever.
The Revenue Officer, who at the time was acting as an On-the-Job
Instructor for another Revenue Officer, went to my client's business
with seizure papers in hand. The client, being faced with the seizure
of his new business, became very afraid and paid a payment of $7,000 to
forestall the seizure. Now he paid this despite the fact that he did
not owe any tax. The IRS basically scared this person or ``extorted''
him into paying money that he didn't owe with the threat of seizing his
business for the debt of the company he had at one time worked for.
After the initial payment of $7,000, this same Revenue Officer
issued a levy on one of the client's accounts receivable for roughly
$21,000. That money was going to be used to pay the client's payroll,
and the seizure of those funds would have effectively put the client
out of business. The levy itself was an amazing flight of fancy by that
Revenue Officer. Remember, there was no relationship nor common
ownership between these companies. The client simply had been an
employee of the company that owed the tax. The IRS was well aware of
these facts. Despite having the explanation laid out in black and
white, the Revenue Officer would not release the levy nor refund the
$7,000 she had collected illegally by scaring the taxpayer when she
first showed up at his door.
In fairness, let me add that there are instances when a tax can be
collected from someone other than the taxpayer. A third party can
become liable if there was a transfer of assets for less than fair
consideration, or if a party is holding property in their name simply
to evade the seizure of those assets for taxes due. However, prior to
collecting from a transferee, or a nominee, the IRS must go through a
number of steps involving a group called Special Procedures Function,
and the office of the District Counsel.
In this particular instance, none of this had been done. I
informed the Revenue Officer that she had not taken any of the required
steps and had acted without benefit of legal counsel. I added that her
actions were not just abusive, but blatantly illegal. The Revenue
Officer responded with one word: ``AND?''
Only when the Revenue Officer realized that we would make every
effort possible to expose this action, did she come back with a release
of the levy. When you consider that this was an experienced Revenue
Officer acting with her Group Manager's approval, and not to mention
also trains other Revenue Officers, her actions were absolutely beyond
comprehension. It is this type of action that is designed to intimidate
and instill such fear that the IRS' actions can succeed without
question.
I would like to say that this type of action did not occur while I
was a Revenue Officer. Unfortunately, it did. I know of seasoned tax
collectors who were well aware of the law, take actions that were out
of the realm of legal tax collection. In one instance, a Revenue
Officer who made up a seizure document titled Nominee Levy on the spot
prior to seizing assets from someone who was not the taxpayer, was soon
after made a Group Manager. In another case, I dealt with a Revenue
Officer who had accessed the IRS computer system to get information on
a case I was assigned. When I questioned the Revenue Officer why he was
accessing information on my case he stated, ``. . . my wife works for
this company and if I can help her straighten this (company problem)
out it will be a real feather in her cap . . . .'' I told the Revenue
Officer to put the printouts away. That Revenue Officer also became a
Group Manager. These actions were particularly annoying because I
believed both these Revenue Officers knew what they were doing was
outside the scope of correct tax collection.
When I left the IRS in December of 1989, I considered writing my
own thesis about tax collection. I wanted to suggest that IRS tax
collectors be held to some standards of training prior to promotion.
Not only should they be held to standards of training, but they should
demonstrate their knowledge on proficiency tests. No Revenue Officer
should be promoted or allowed to train others until they are able to
pass increasingly difficult proficiency tests.
While I was working for IRS I was seriously concerned about the
Agency's escalating tendency to place unskilled collectors into
management positions. I used to call these people the ``ninety day
wonders''--ninety days being the span of time they spent doing Revenue
Officer work between Phase I and Phase II Revenue Officer training
classes.
Basically, I found that people hired as Revenue Officers would be
detailed to do special projects. Usually these projects were thought up
by either first line Managers or by upper level Managers. More often
than not the project was to justify some type of statistic related to
cases closed or money collected. The projects were administrative work
that did not lead to a knowledge of collection procedures, or
requirements put on Revenue Officers by the laws and regulations.
Because management had put these Revenue Officers on these
projects these same Managers would not hold them back when it came time
to be considered for promotion. Many times someone who had only
attended the two phases of Revenue Officer training was promoted, even
though that individual may never have actually knocked on a door,
collected tax, or worked with others in the process of collecting
taxes. his led to people being promoted who, in turn, qualified to be
in management based solely on the fact that they were at the right
grade level. I can't remember the number of times I heard, ``You don't
have to know how to collect taxes to be a Manager, you just have to
know how to Manage!'' It's amazing that someone who doesn't know much
about collection is put in charge of people who are sent out to
collect. The person the Revenue Officer is supposed to depend on for
the first level of advice on difficult cases only needs to ``know how
to manage,'' but not how to collect taxes. It is especially frightening
because these Managers are required to review and approve certain
actions of Revenue Officers based on their own understanding of what
action is appropriate under the IRS policies, as well as the law.
As a result of this training and promotion practice, new Revenue
Officers have become less and less effective, while many of the current
Managers do not know what the Revenue Officers are supposed to do.
Additionally, many of these Managers are basing day to day decisions on
whatever they determine important to their own supervisors in order to
``look good.'' And what were these managers judged on? Sheer numbers.
How many dollars collected or how many cases closed was--and is--the
bottom line. Make no mistake about it, there are goals, quotas, that
may be unstated but well known to the agent, that are driving many of
the actions you will hear about today. So what we have now are Managers
who are not thoroughly schooled in the collection of taxes but making
decisions based on how they can get their numbers up.
Now the cycle is complete. Managers, knowing little about what
their employees are supposed to be doing, are evaluating their
employees on how they could collect more tax or close more cases. Since
these Managers do not know enough about tax collection, they have a
tendency to require the Revenue Officer to take actions that might not
be correct but which the Managers feel would lead to a higher closing
rate or higher dollar collection. Sometimes the action might even be
illegal but the Managers did not know it, simply recognizing that a
particular action resulted in more closures. The newer Revenue Officers
might not know a particular action is illegal because they haven't been
around long enough, or are simply not sufficiently trained.
The new Revenue Officers, who have been taking direction from these
Managers, get promoted and are now placed in the position of an ``On
the Job Instructor.'' So you see, the cycle continues and the quality
of tax collection gets worse. As it gets worse, Congress gets more
complaints from irate taxpayers.
In closing I would like to add one thing. I know too many people
who collect tax for the IRS that are fine, hard working, honest people
to paint the IRS tax collection with a broad brush.
To a great number of employees at the IRS, these abuses are not
more tolerable than they are to this Committee. It's a shame that these
abuses can cast a cloud over these same people. The number of abuses
compared to number of cases worked is still small. It nonetheless, is
way too large to be acceptable. No abuse is acceptable.
There are many people with great technical knowledge and skill
whose talent would be better utilized teaching and aiding others. The
Managers who don't have the knowledge or skill to direct tax collection
could learn a great deal from some of these people. They might not
learn anything about management but they need to learn about tax
collection. This may mean a reduction in production as far as closures
and dollars collected for a few months or even a year, but over the
course of one to two years, it should result in an increase in
collection of revenues and less complaints for the members of Congress
to address.
The office of the Ombudsman and the offices of the Problem
Resolution Program should be manned with highly skilled tax collectors
who are capable of resolving these issues before they become highly
contentious issues argued at higher levels.
I want to thank you Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee,
for allowing me to speak here today about a few things that have been
on my mind for the last several years.
__________
Prepared Statement of Hon. Harry Reid
Mr. Chairman, thank you giving me the opportunity to submit
testimony today during these hearings on IRS oversight. Ever since I
have served in this body, I have been very concerned about the rights
of the American taxpayer. I have listened with great interest to the
testimony of the witnesses of the past few days and I would like to
take this opportunity to offer my thoughts as to why the American
taxpayer feels so much anger towards the IRS.
The IRS is a huge, powerful bureaucracy with enormous control over
American lives. The power vested in the IRS has led to overzealous tax
collectors. As a member of the House of Representatives, I introduced a
``Taxpayers' Bill of Rights'' to put taxpayers on equal footing with
the Internal Revenue Service. In my maiden speech on the Senate floor,
I continued my call for IRS reform.
During debate of the bill, I reviewed countless horror stories of
flagrant abuse by an overbearing and overzealous IRS. One Las Vegas
motel manager had her salary garnished and a lien placed on her house
because the IRS was trying to recover money her ex-husband incurred
when she wasn't even married to him!
One man had filled out 200 forms with the IRS, only to receive a
bill for $50 PER FORM because he did not use a ten pitch typewriter.
This man's company only owned one 12 pitch typewriter. The result of
the IRS action: $10,000 in fines and $150 for a new typewriter.
Yet another Nevada woman was audited because she filed late. She
had misclassified expenses, so in August 1986 the IRS told her she owed
between $4,000 and $6,000 without penalties. She waited to hear from
the IRS for an exact amount, but no word came until January 1987, when
she got a $22,000 IRS bill for reassessment and penalties.
But perhaps the one of the most outrageous IRS abuses I ever
witnessed was the failed IRS sting operation known in Las Vegas as
``Project Layoff.'' From April 1984 to March 1985, the Reno office of
the IRS wagered $22 million in Las Vegas as part of a sting operation
designed to nab tax cheats and organized crime figures. But it turned
out the only thing that got nabbed was thousands of dollars in profits
by those running the operation. Thousands of dollars went unaccounted
for, the IRS attempted to cover up its mistakes and lie to
investigating authorities, documents were destroyed . . . it was a
classic example of how not to run an investigation and the IRS's
credibility was seriously impaired.
After years of harping about IRS abuse, Congress passed my
Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, and in 1988 it became law.
The landmark law guarantees taxpayers the right to have an attorney
represent them before the IRS, requires the IRS to clearly explain
taxpayers' rights to them; forbids the IRS from using quotas for audits
or property seizures; and allows taxpayers to recover financial damages
caused by the IRS, among other provisions.
The Taxpayer Bill of Rights has made great strides to put average,
working Americans on a level field with the IRS. Now, we have expanded
the original mandate to further strengthen taxpayer rights. The
Taxpayer Bill of Rights II, written by Senator Grassley and Senator
David Pryor, further strengthens citizens rights with the IRS by
providing relief from retroactive Treasury Department regulations and
setting up a taxpayer advocate office dedicated to enforcing the rights
of taxpayers being pursued by tax collectors.
I worked on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights I and II to give taxpayers
more power in dealing with the collection agency. I am happy that
Congress and the President have acted on these necessary measures. The
door remains open for future improvements at the IRS and I count on
receiving ideas and suggestions from this Committee to help make this
agency more accountable to tax-paying Americans.
Who knows, we could have the beginnings of a Tax Payers Bill of
Rights III being written right here.
But all the laws in the world won't fix what I believe is the real
problem with the IRS . . . our current income tax system. We have a
system which rewards the lazy and hurts those who work. Our tax code is
so complex that we have built up an entire cottage industry of
financial planners to decipher for us each year.
It is a flawed system which is broken and I believe we need to
start seriously exploring a new way to collect taxes. I favor a
consumption based tax and have been researching several plans
circulating through the halls of the Capitol.
Mr. Chairman, oversight is a very important part of our job here in
the Senate and I applaud you for providing the opportunity for the
American people to air their grievances with the IRS. This kind of
intense public scrutiny coupled with laws like the Taxpayers Bill of
Rights I & II, and the support of both Democratic and Republican
Presidents, will help keep the IRS on its toes and focused on its
mission of serving the taxpayers, not serving them up.
But I would also encourage you and your committee to explore ways
to change a system which may be damaged beyond repair. Let's not be
afraid to consider scrapping what we have in favor of something which
will work for all of us.
__________
Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.317
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.318
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.319
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.320
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.321
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.322
Prepared Statement of Hon. William V. Roth, Jr.
This morning we begin the first of three days of oversight
hearings into the tactics, management, and inner workings of the
Internal Revenue Service. There is no other agency in this country that
directly touches the lives of more Americans. Nor is there any agency
which strikes more fear into their hearts. The threat of an audit--the
awesome power of the IRS--looms like the sword of Damocles over the
heads of taxpayers.
As Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I wanted to know why.
I wanted to understand where this fear came from. I wanted to know if
it was justified. Our Committee's responsibility is to provide the
oversight of this agency. This is a responsibility I take seriously.
So, in January of this year--with the support of my friend and
colleague, Senator Moynihan, I began an investigation into how this
agency conducts business with the American people.
There is no political bias--no partisan motive--behind our
investigation and these hearings. As I said, they were initiated some
eight months ago, and what we have discovered indicates that problems
within the IRS are not recent. They cover several Administrations.
Let me also say that the IRS is made up of many fine men and
women--men and women of great character and integrity, who perform a
vital and very difficult job for this country. In reflecting upon our
investigation, I found this to be especially true, and I note that
without the help of many such IRS employees, our investigation would
have been incomplete.
There is no doubt that the powers of the Internal Revenue Service
are extraordinary. The IRS can seize property, paychecks, and even the
residences of the people it serves. Businesses can be padlocked,
sometimes causing hundreds of employees, who are also taxpayers, to be
put out of work. In some instances, the first a taxpayer is aware of
any enforcement action by the IRS is when his or her bank calls to
notify that funds have been frozen. The IRS can take these actions, in
many cases, without giving the taxpayer notice, or opportunity to be
heard.
This is an awesome amount of power to place in the hands of any
governmental agency. Is it appropriate? Perhaps. But with such power
there must be an effective counterbalance of responsibility. Why?
Because the greater the power, the more extensive the damage that can
be done if that power is abused. Any agency with such power must be
above reproach--especially as that awesome power allows it to pervade
the most sensitive aspects of our citizens' private lives.
Congress has granted such power to the IRS. As a consequence,
Congress has a fundamental responsibility to see that the IRS operates
with the highest degree of integrity, honor and ethics. As the Good
Book says, ``Where much is given . . . much is required.''
Unfortunately, our investigation to date has found that in many
cases such high standards are not being upheld. Over the course of the
next three days we are going to see a picture of a troubled agency, one
that is losing the confidence of the American people, and one that all
too frequently acts as if it were above the law.
This is unacceptable.
Even high-ranking employees of the agency have come forward at
some risk to themselves and their careers to speak with us. In
consequence of such risks, employees who will testify have requested
confidentiality, and we have honored that request. We have also talked
with many private citizens whose lives have been altered by IRS
actions. These men and women have related their sometimes tragic
experiences, not out of vindictiveness, or mean-spiritedness, but out
of deep concern and the fundamental belief that such a violation of
their civil rights should not have taken place--not in America.
We have listened to these men and women, and we are holding these
hearings because one thing is certain: we can't fix the IRS without
knowing what ails the IRS. What we seek is constructive criticism--
criticism with the intent to improve, not destroy--to protect, not
denigrate. This is not IRS bashing; it is oversight. There will be no
condoning of tax protestors, or any others who would misinterpret our
objectives to legitimize anti-government attitudes or behavior. These
hearings are about good government, about correcting problems within
government--problems that are acknowledged by those whose lives are
dedicated to public service.
Responsible oversight is the best way to ensure that not only is
the government meeting the needs of the people, but it's the surest way
of letting the people know that they have influence over, and a strong
voice in, their government. That's what these hearings are all about.
Just as the IRS is quick to say that no honest taxpayer should fear an
audit, no government agency should ever fear a Congressional
investigation into its activities.
While it is imperative that Americans pay their fair share of
taxes in an effort to establish and maintain necessary government
functions, it is equally imperative that the agency charged with the
responsibility for this activity be fair, honest, open and accountable.
With this introduction, I believe it's important to outline how we
went about conducting our investigation. Our objective from the
beginning was to keep our methodology fair, and yet still be able to
get inside the agency to uncover the facts. In reviewing the treatment
of taxpayers, we took various cases to the IRS and reviewed every
document that we could obtain. We interviewed the IRS employees
involved in the particular cases.
Over the next three days, we'll hear about a number of these
cases. We will hear from taxpayers and IRS employees. It is important
to understand that these witnesses are typical of far greater numbers
who have been moved to contact the committee. These individuals serve
as a sampling which demonstrates the significance of problems and
concerns within the agency.
The facts will be startling.
For instance, while the use of pseudonyms is forbidden by the
Internal Revenue Manual--except for those in the law enforcement areas
of Criminal Investigations and Inspections Divisions--many Revenue
Officers have been issued false identification credentials. While the
IRS suggests that this is to protect agents from assault, I'm concerned
that it makes them unaccountable. Even members of the Metropolitan
Police Force here in the District of Columbia, despite substantial
danger, wear their true names on their uniforms.
In the next three days, you will hear about an audit term called
``Blue Sky Assessments.'' These are tax assessments made against
Americans that have no basis in fact or tax law. They can either be
designed to hurt the taxpayer, or simply raise the individual
statistics of an IRS employee.
You will hear a lot about statistics and quotas. We have learned
that even at managerial levels, the drive to achieve the appropriate
statistic has caused problems in many areas of the country. While the
use of quotas is specifically prohibited in rating the success of
agents or officers in their jobs, it appears to be commonplace. And
this, I believe, is outrageous--a major problem that has become part of
the agency's culture.
Levies and seizures are also measurements of employee performance.
In one case we learned a revenue officer was counseled for ``not
keeping his statistics up'' so he seized several properties the next
day. Some officers who are able to collect the full amount of taxes due
are often rated lower than those who have seized property. Seizures may
be done for status and promotion as much as for enforcement.
Not only are levies and seizures measurements of an employee's
performance, but so is the number of referrals of cases to the Criminal
Division. In other words, while there may be no basis in fact for a
criminal referral, a taxpayer's life may well be turned upside down
simply to keep an employee's, or district's, performance statistics up.
Liens and levies may be filed against those whom the IRS knows has
no liability for a particular tax. Parents, relatives or a company
employee may have liens filed against their property, or have a
paycheck levied, in order to get the real taxpayer to comply. This is
called the ``whipsaw technique.'' This practice was explained to us as,
``When we go after everybody, we know someone will pay.'' We will
present an example of that method during the course of this hearing.
One of the most distressing things you will learn from this
hearing is the preference to audit middle- and lower-income taxpayers,
as well as mom and pop small businesses. This is almost incredible to
understand. Certainly it's not for the high revenues that these kinds
of audits bring to the Treasury. So why are these Americans audited?
Because it's easy. Most often, these are the taxpayers who can't afford
to fight back.
Beyond learning about the fear taxpayers have concerning the IRS,
I was very much concerned about how agency employees, themselves, feel.
Many expressed fear of being retaliated against for speaking out
against the kind of abuses I have mentioned here. We have heard in our
investigation that the use of false allegations of wrongdoing against
targeted employees takes place. In fact, just the number of times we
heard the term ``targeting'' in relation to harassment of employees was
stunning. Certainly if this treatment bothers the front-line employees
of the IRS, it's devastating to the American taxpayer.
Over the next three days we will hear more about these concerns.
As Congress has given the IRS awesome power in an effort to help the
agency carry out its tremendous responsibility, it is also Congress's
responsibility to ensure that such power is being used prudently,
constructively, and with regard for the taxpayer and employees of the
agency. What we are learning suggests that there are problems and begs
that Congress address three fundamental questions: First, does the IRS
have too much power? Second, if Congress were to limit that power, what
expectations do we have that the new limits will be more effective than
the old limits? Third, how do we go about changing the culture of the
IRS?
What we seek to do is help the IRS get back to its mission
statement. That statement reads: ``The purpose of the Internal Revenue
Service is to collect the proper amount of tax revenue at the least
cost; serve the public by continually improving the quality of our
products and services; and perform in a manner warranting the highest
degree of public confidence in our integrity, efficiency and
fairness.''
This is our desire. Improving the IRS is not only good for
taxpayers; it's good for government.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.325
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.326
----------
Prepared Statement of Tom Savage
Good morning/afternoon. My name is Tom Savage. I run a
small construction management company in Lewes, Delaware, which
my wife and I own. I want to thank the Committee for the
opportunity to share my story which has been no less than a
true ``horror story'' for my wife and me.
We were unfortunate to have been the subject of a zealous,
unrelenting, and abusive pursuit by an IRS Revenue Officer with
the assistance and complicity of attorneys, and particularly
the lead attorney at the Department of Justice, who were
charged with advising the IRS. They were in a position to stop
the abuse and yet permitted it to continue, perhaps even
causing much of it. In the interest of time, I will simply say
that the emotional damage done to my wife and me outstrips the
financial damage we suffered, which was not insubstantial.
There were many sleepless nights. Believe me, when the sources
of the government are unleashed on you, you are in trouble, no
matter how good your case. Few people know what it is like to
be in the cross-hairs of the IRS. We unfortunately do.
I am here today in the hope that by telling my story, and
participating in these hearings, I might help bring about real
and lasting change at the IRS. For the sake of other taxpayers,
I hope that this happens.
The nightmare began when a subcontractor of Tom Savage
Associates or TSA, my own company, fell behind in paying its
employment taxes. The case ended with intense litigation in the
United States District Court, which TSA was forced to bring in
order to recover a payment check issued by the State which had
been wrongfully seized from it by the IRS. In order to keep my
company afloat, we had to settle the case, much as this
offended our desire to ``stand on principle.'' We allowed the
IRS to keep $50,000 of the check that was seized in order to
get the case over, since the litigation was bankrupting our
company financially and us emotionally. We regret not having
pursued the case to the end but we had to save our business.
The government had endless resources to drag the case out. We
did not. In settling the case, the government extorted $50,000
before giving back the check. The government attorneys knew
that it was going to cost an additional $50,000 to litigate the
case and used it to leverage the IRS' position.
In brief, the subcontractor had tax problems that surfaced
during the period it was working for my company, TSA, on a
project for the State of Delaware. Unknown to TSA, the
subcontractor had not been paying its employment taxes for
approximately one year before the project commenced. TSA, with
the subcontractor's assistance, was building a women's
correctional facility. The subcontractor performed the
construction while TSA oversaw the project and provided the
performance bond for the project. Toward the end of the job,
the subcontractor's tax problems came to light. The IRS
investigated the subcontractor, but quickly concluded that the
amount of taxes due were uncollectible. Since the IRS was
unable to collect the money from the subcontractor, the Revenue
Officer, in his zeal, set his sights on TSA. First he attempted
to hold me personally responsible for the unpaid taxes,
asserting that I was a ``responsible person'' representing the
subcontractor. This approach failed when my tax advisors filed
a legal memorandum explaining the severe deficiencies with this
theory, so the IRS then went after my company. The IRS now
asserted, falsely, that TSA and the subcontractor were partners
and that the employees of the subcontractor working on the
project were actually employees of this fictitious association
between TSA and the subcontractor. My tax advisors pressed the
Revenue Officer for some authority for asserting the existence
of this fictitious ``partnership'' that he had established
between TSA and the subcontractor. The Revenue Office pointed
to a non-tax Delaware case that was totally inapplicable.
Undaunted by challenges to provide authority in support of
the fictitious ``partnership,'' the Revenue Officer caused the
IRS to issue a ``30 day letter,'' which proposed as assessment
against the fictitious ``partnership.'' We immediately filed a
written protest with the IRS Appeals Office and eagerly awaited
the Appeals Conference to put the case behind us. As things
turned out, we were never given an opportunity to present our
case to the Appeals Office. While waiting for the Appeals
Conference to be scheduled, the IRS seized a large check paid
to our company by the State of Delaware for the project. At the
time of the seizure, and this is significant, there was no
assessment entered against either TSA or the fictitious
``partnership'' between TSA and the subcontractor. Even if one
were to assume that the partnership existed, which is a
generous assumption even for the sake of argument, the only
assessment on the books allowing the IRS to enforce collection
was against the subcontractor. The seizure of the check thus
constituted a ``wrongful levy.'' Open and shut. Existing IRS
revenue rulings clearly hold that the assets of a partnership
or another partner may not be seized to satisfy the tax debts
of another partner.
It is a fundamental principle of the tax law that the
government may not seize any taxpayer's property, or undertake
any type of enforcement action against a taxpayer until there
has been an assessment entered against the taxpayer. For those
of you not versed in tax procedure, an assessment is the
administrative equivalent of a judgment. In our case, the right
to be free of government collection action until such time as
an assessment has been entered was flagrantly violated. Not
only was this right violated, as will be explained in a moment,
the IRS would later attempt to sweep this fact under the rug in
the US District Court. Indeed, the government attorneys were so
hell bent on ``winning'' that they waged a behind-the-scenes
campaign during the proceedings in District Court to sanitize
the record presented to the judge. The government requested an
extension of time to respond to the plaintiff's brief in
support of its motion for summary judgment and then, during the
extension, entered an assessment against the fictitious
``partnership'' between TSA and the subcontractor by hand
delivering a ``notice of demand'' the Saturday before the
government's answering brief was due. The government attorneys
then had the audacity to argue in their answering brief that an
assessment had been entered against the fictitious partnership.
No mention was made in the government's brief that the
assessment was entered 25 weeks after the IRS seized the check
and literally days before the answering brief was filed. And
these were the attorneys we though would stop the abuse!
When we instituted the suit, we were convinced that the
case would be resolved quickly, that the government would
concede the case once it got into the hands of a competent
attorney. We guessed wrong. The government had my money and was
not going to give it up without a fight. Faced with this ``win-
at-all-costs'' attitude, we were clearly in for a protracted
battle with the IRS. As much as it offended my wife and me, we
chose to settle the case and permitted the IRS to keep $50,000
of the proceeds. We wanted to pursue the case to the end, but
to do so would have destroyed our business.
On top of the $50,000 that the IRS kept, I had other
financial losses. Although my attorneys reduced their fee
substantially in encouraging me to settle the case, their fees
were substantial. We spent $51,000 in legal fees in connection
with the case. We lost approximately $600,000 in business
during the proceedings with the IRS and in its wake. And
finally, we lost our sense of well being, confidence, and
freedom from government intervention.
I believe the IRS, the Revenue Officer, the District
Counsel attorneys, and the attorneys with the Tax Division of
the U.S. Department of Justice should be held accountable for
their conduct. Unless abuses of this type committed by the IRS
and its representatives are met with strong response, including
legislation to compensate victims of IRS abuse, they will
continue.
I thank the Committee for the opportunity to be here today.
Attachments.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.328
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.329
Prepared Statement of Robert S. Schriebman
Thank you for the opportunity to be of service and to express my
views on the current state of the Internal Revenue Service. I am a
practicing tax attorney in a suburb of Los Angeles. For the past 20
years, my practice has been primarily limited to matters of tax
collections, audits and tax litigation. I represent clients in all
walks of life and in all tax brackets. I'm in the trenches everyday,
eye-to-eye with IRS auditors and tax collectors.
One of the high points of my legal career was the obtaining of U.S.
veterans recognition for the American Volunteer Group, commonly known
as the Flying Tigers of World War II fame. I am the author of several
books on IRS practice and procedure with emphasis on audit and
collection practices of the IRS. I wrote the first practitioner's
manuals on IRS and California collection defense practice. I have also
written books for business and individual taxpayers who are having IRS
problems. I frequently speak at major tax institutes throughout the
country such as the NYU and USC Tax Institutes, Northwest Tax Institute
and annual meetings of the American Society of Attorneys-Certified
Public Accountants. I am continuously educating and writing for
attorneys, CPAs and tax practitioners on IRS and California practice
and procedure.
Most IRS tax collectors (Revenue Officers) are decent overworked
people with an unpopular job. However, they do their utmost to follow
the law and the provisions of the IRS Manual. Unfortunately, they do
not keep current on changes within the IRS and very often their
internal libraries are seriously outdated.
Recently, Revenue Officers have informed me that the IRS is
adopting a get-tough attitude with regard to tax collections. While the
first Taxpayer Bill of Rights of 1989 did away with the keeping of
formal internal statistics on collection, it still appears that the
only way to make a name for yourself within the Collection Division is
by the number of seizures under your belt. The remainder of my
testimony will address an unpleasant example of this which I have been
involved with over the course of the past few months.
The IRS has fixed standards relating to allowable living expenses
in order to grant the taxpayer a payment arrangement. A taxpayer has no
right to a payment arrangement. These standards are unrealistic and do
not take into consideration financial commitments made by people prior
to their becoming delinquent in their taxes.
The same unrealistic IRS standards apply to the cost of owning and
operating a car and other essential living expenses such as food,
clothing and personal maintenance. A taxpayer is not allowed
educational expenses such as a child's private school or college
education. A taxpayer is not allowed to support his or her place of
worship.
These unrealistic expense standards have driven many taxpayers into
unnecessary bankruptcy in order to take advantage of the automatic stay
from IRS seizures and wage garnishments and to work out long-term
payment plans, some available without interest. However, these
otherwise productive taxpayers now have the stigma of bankruptcy on
their record. My colleagues around the country have expressed the same
frustrations. The driving of normally solvent and productive taxpayers
into bankruptcy because of unrealistic IRS expense standards is a
national tragedy.
The bottom line is the IRS would rather force a taxpayer into
bankruptcy than to accept a fair payment arrangement or a settlement
known as an offer in compromise.
The IRS can take a taxpayer's home on just the signature of the
District Director alone. There is no court hearing, no notice and no
opportunity to litigate the merits of the IRS' claim.
The IRS can close down a business and take away a taxpayer's
livelihood by merely filing a few papers in federal court. The judge
simply signs the seizure order and that's all there is to it. The
taxpayer gets absolutely no notice or opportunity to contest the
legality of the assessment or the amount the IRS claims is owed. In
doing so, the IRS can commit perjury and get away with it. What is sad
is this type of criminal conduct seems to be condoned by the tax
collectors' superiors. To me, this violates not only the Fourth and
Fifth Amendments and of our Constitution, but one's basic civil rights
as well, it's just plain not fair!
As an example, let me tell you about ``Joe.'' Joe operates a small
business. In the early 1990's he owed the IRS. Because he couldn't pay
in full, he made a deal with the IRS known as an offer in compromise.
This was accepted by the IRS on the condition that regular payments be
made. The IRS claims Joe breached the terms of the deal; Joe claims he
paid in full. The IRS did not send Joe the required default warning
letter. This IRS error entitles Joe to have the offer reinstated. Since
the beginning of the year, the IRS, through seizures and wage
garnishments, has taken more than the terms of the original offer
allowed. Although repeated requests have been made for a copy of the
warning letter, to date it has not been produced.
For the past several years, Joe has been current on his filings and
tax payments. When a taxpayer is current, the IRS directives require
that the IRS work with the taxpayer in suspending collection due to
economic hardship or establishing an installment payment arrangement.
But Joe's assigned Revenue Officer does not want to discuss a
hardship suspension or an installment payment arrangement. The Revenue
Officer wants to close down Joe's business while Joe and his wife are
barely able to provide an income to support their two children.
In order to obtain a court order to close down a business, all that
is needed is a formal application and a sworn declaration that the
revenue officer followed very specific procedures to protect a
taxpayer's Constitutional rights. It's all very secretive. The taxpayer
is never given notice of these proceedings and is never afforded an
opportunity to contest the merits of the IRS' claim. The Revenue
Officer simply obtains the seizure order through the Court, represented
by the U.S. Attorney's Office and serves the final court order along
with the seizure notice to the taxpayer who must immediately vacate the
business premises. The taxpayer's only recourse is a long and costly
tax refund procedure which most likely will wind up in court. In the
meantime, the IRS sells the business assets and the taxpayer's business
is gone!
One day I was negotiating a payment arrangement, and the very next
day the Revenue Officer, without warning, showed up at Joe's place of
business together with several IRS personnel and padlocked the entire
premises. Two court orders were obtained against Joe personally and his
wholly-owned corporation. Joe was not shown the court orders and the
several attempts to request copies of the orders from the Revenue
Officer and his supervisor went unanswered and still go unanswered!
Two court orders were finally obtained from the District Court
Clerk. Both supporting Revenue Officer declarations revealed blatant
perjury. The Revenue Officer represented to the Court that he met with
Joe and asked his permission to enter and seize his business. It was on
these representations that two District Court judges issued the seizure
orders. Joe never met with the Revenue Officer. In fact, during that
week, Joe was out of the state and never spoke to anyone from the IRS.
In obtaining perjured court orders, the IRS violated Joe's civil
rights and rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the
Constitution.
The IRS allowed Joe back in his business a few days later but not
before Joe paid $6,400 which he had to borrow from friends, a most
humiliating experience. Before handing Joe back the keys to his
business, and dangling the keys in front of Joe's face, the seizing
Revenue Officer, the fellow who committed the perjury, insisted that
Joe revoke my power of attorney and sign a paper waiving his rights to
complain about any IRS misconduct. Feeling helpless, Joe complied but
under duress.
One week, the IRS told Joe he owed a little over $160,000. But,
just three weeks later, Joe was told he owes close to $314,000--with no
explanation.
Some IRS auditors and tax collectors have taken the position that
the Congressional directives set forth as statutes in the Internal
Revenue Code are simply guidelines that are free to be rejected at
will. If IRS employees do not follow the law and if they commit perjury
before federal judges, their conduct is often condoned by their
superiors, including those at the highest level.
With increasing frequency, I find that I have to go over the
Revenue Officer's head to his or her manager and even over the
manager's head to the Branch Chief. It is getting increasingly more
difficult to distinguish ignorance from bully tactics and
overzealousness. I do believe that Revenue Officers are being pushed by
their superiors to undertake more seizures in order to achieve
promotions within the system.
The example I have presented here today reflect a lack of
accountability within the system, to the taxpayer, and to the taxpaying
public and reflect an institutional arrogance. This is especially true
in exceptional cases where a maverick or renegade tax collector throws
aside the law and internal IRS procedures in order to achieve self-
promotion and recognition by his or her superiors.
suggestions for improvement of irs service and taxpayer rights
I.R.S. stands for Internal Revenue Service. We're not getting as
much service as we should for our money these days. Taxpayer abuse will
not stop by just putting in a new high tech computer system. While
electronic technology is very important and necessary, we must keep in
mind that these are just machines and machines can serve to further
widen the distance and alienate the American people from their
Government. Creating a new Board of Governors that sits in its
insulated ivory towers is not the answer either.
We need to put some real teeth into the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Of
primary importance, the IRS should not be allowed to take any property
of any kind from a taxpayer without notice and an opportunity to be
heard. The IRS should pay damages not only when its agents violate the
statutes in the Internal Revenue Code, but should also pay damages for
violating internal procedures set forth in their own Manuals. Punitive
damages should also be awarded to taxpayers whose rights have been
violated.
A taxpayer should be allowed a change of IRS auditor or collector
for reasonable cause.
What is needed is an external check and balance system; a forum
where small business owners and the American taxpayer can afford to be
heard without first having to pay what the IRS says is owed and where
all collection activity must immediately stop until the issue is heard
and ruled upon. What is needed is a forum where the burden of proof is
shifted to the IRS instead of the way things are now where the taxpayer
is presumed guilty until proven innocent. This forum must not be part
of the IRS.
May I respectfully suggest the institution of an independent
administrative system of review of IRS collection activities before
they are allowed to be implemented. A taxpayer should be allowed to
appeal IRS action to an Administrative Law Judge and, if necessary,
appeal that Judge's decision to an Administrative Appeals Board.
conclusion
In conclusion, let me make it clear that not all taxpayers who owe
the IRS deserve a kinder and gentler hand. Some of these people need a
fist. Some do not take their tax obligations seriously, but most people
do. Most Americans want to do the right thing by the IRS and get back
on track. The IRS should not be abolished, but the machine definitely
needs a tune-up. Taxpayers deserving respect must be treated with
respect; they must be given a level playing field. Our laws, our courts
and our Constitution must have the highest level of respect.
On this date in 1779, a Scottish born American commanded an old
French ship he renamed the Bon Homme Richard in honor of Ben Franklin.
He got into quite a fight and was out-gunned by a larger British ship
known as the Serapis. When the British captain asked him to surrender,
he replied, ``Sir, I have not yet begun to fight.'' That man was John
Paul Jones, the Father of the American Navy. Ladies and gentlemen of
the Senate, you must show the American people that you, too, have not
yet begun to fight!
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you.
__________
Prepared Statement of Bruce A. Strauss
My name is Bruce A. Strauss and I'm currently an Enrolled Agent
licensed to represent taxpayers before the IRS. I have been President
of the Enrolled Agents in our five county area in Florida for the past
three fiscal years. I retired from the Internal Revenue Service after
31 years, the last 18 of which I held the position of Division Chief
within the Collection Division. I also received nine consecutive
performance awards from 1983 through 1991. At the time of my retirement
(April, 1992), I was Senior Division Chief.
I tell you this trusting you will accept the fact that I have
considerable expertise regarding the operations of the IRS. This
includes its history, its authorities, its personnel practices, and
also its problems. Since beginning my practice representing the public
as an Enrolled Agent, I have become increasingly concerned about the
ability of the IRS to be fair and objective in dealing with the
American public. I am also concerned with the public's fear of the IRS.
THIS ENVIRONMENT OF FEAR MUST CHANGE. That is why I sit before you
today.
The IRS has been very successful in its primary mission of
collecting taxes, bringing in over $1.3 trillion dollars in FY '95. It
is a role model for other countries to follow, and has played no small
role in the economic success of this nation.
Obviously, I do not believe this system is broken. However, my
experience and the feedback I receive in my work, tell me the public's
confidence in the IRS is being eroded by the perception that it is
losing its ability to apply the Internal Revenue Code and the resulting
morass of regulations in a fair and objective manner. When a dispute
with the IRS rises, the current systems in place to deal with the
dispute are cumbersome, expensive, time consuming, and often times
ineffective. The result is that the fear of the IRS continues to grow.
THIS IS AN UNACCEPTABLE CONDITION.
In a Democracy, the first condition that must he met is that the
government must respect the citizens that it serves. I am not sure that
condition exists today within the IRS. My purpose today is to assist in
restoring, the confidence of the American public in the Internal
Revenue Service.
One of the problems which affects the way the IRS personnel
interact with the taxpayers is the drive to achieve statistical
operational objectives. One of the primary drives, if not THE primary
drive, for the Examination Function is, ``dollars recommended for
assessment''. This statistic does not measure how much money was
actually collected nor does it measure how much additional tax was
actually assessed via the examination process. It only measures what
the Examination Function proposes to assess against the taxpayer (30
day letter). The examination function made this measurement one of the
operational objectives for Branch Managers and above, as I recall, in
FY 90. About the same time the formal quality review of cases being
issued 30 day letters was ceased. A fundamental principal of any
organization is that employees will give their managers what their
managers tell them is important. Or expressed a different way:
an organization is driven by the objectives on which the managers are
evaluated
As a result, an environment or culture has emerged within the IRS
that has made its employees often callous to the rights and concerns of
the taxpayers. Statistical objectives for any agency with the power of
the IRS are inappropriate, but when one considers the IRS has a
measurement of what is ``recommended for assessment'', this strive to
achieve specific objectives becomes intolerable.
I have a significant compassion for the IRS employees in their most
delicate responsibility of ensuring that each citizen files and pays
their fair share of taxes. But based on my knowledge, the primary
problem lies with the ineffectiveness of the top management of the IRS.
Instead of assessing the current problems and taking appropriate steps
to ensure correction of these problems, what I see taking place is a
``circle the wagons'' mentality. This management approach has lead to
significant problems which include:
1. Denial of mistakes which lead to integrity issues;
2. Using a sledge hammer to resolve compliance problems:
a. IRS files a return for the taxpayer, with the tax
significantly overstated;
b. Use of Bureau of Labor Statistics to assign
additional income; and
c. Not applying Internal Revenue Code sections which
benefit the taxpayer.
There is a mentality within the IRS that mistakes are rare, and
those that do gain notice are blown out of proportion. In fact, I would
not be surprised if, as a result of this hearing, you hear that any
complaints by taxpayers which you may raise, while unfortunate, are
statistically irrelevant due to the 200 million returns that are
successfully processed each year. Based on my knowledge, such a
statement would not be factual. The truth is that of the Examination
Function cases that I have seen as a representative of the taxpayer,
the IRS often does not operate within its proper authorities. When
called on these matters, the IRS response is often a denial, or a
``spin'' is put on the issue in an attempt to protect their position.
Such conduct shows a complete disregard for the taxpayer and their
fundamental rights as citizens.
I know of numerous cases where the IRS has specifically exceeded
its authority. In one of most egregious examples, the IRS (Collections)
predetermined that 637 taxpayers were liable for employment tax [they
did not conduct legitimate investigations] used extortion tactics to
have taxpayers sign returns which the IRS prepared; did not use any IRC
sections which benefit the taxpayer; and disregarded established law,
authorities and procedures; 630 of these taxpayers were also denied
their ``Due Process Rights.'' When I brought this matter to their
attention, instead of taking corrective action, they ``circled the
wagons.'' After 3 years of my pursuing a resolution of this matter, the
IRS has boxed itself into a position with significant integrity issues
in question. The current status is that I have been unable to obtain a
legitimate response form the Regional Commissioner.
Another example is the tactic of assessing a tax twice for the same
1040 tax form. The tactic involves accepting the Schedule C income, but
disallowing all the related business expenses. When the taxpayer
requested the case to be reopened, the deductions were allowed, but
then the IRS reopens the income issue (in direct conflict with the IRC)
and assesses additional taxes based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics
income information to boost the income of the taxpayer. Then the
taxpayer was informed that he has no appeal rights to contest the
additional resulting tax.
The advent of the concepts, as shown above, that the IRS now has
the authority to assign additional income to a taxpayer at its
discretion, without any basis in fact, is frightening and absolutely
unacceptable.
I admire the current efforts of Congress, such as the ``Commission
on Restructuring the IRS'' to encourage the IRS to become more
responsive to the public. I also appreciate the opportunity to
contribute to the process by testifying at this important hearing, and
I commend you Mr. Chairman for the courage to engage in this effort.
But I do believe that Congress must share some of the blame for what
has happened. Funding must be consistent with a long term philosophy,
and the oversight of the IRS must be significantly improved. This
hearing today is a great start, but long overdue.
For each of you dealing with your constituents, I would offer that
fact that the ability of any single Congressional staff to resolve a
taxpayer issue with the IRS is extremely remote. I would suggest
forming a single staff of highly trained and skilled individuals that
could be a central clearinghouse for all taxpayer complaints received
by the Congress. This would also provide a database of problems, that
when noticed to be widespread, could be used to make systemwide
corrective actions. It is only in this way that the management of the
IRS can be held accountable to the Congress and to the American people.
I am submitting a more comprehensive statement for the record,
which includes some of my recommendations to remove the fear of the
public when dealing with the IRS. I sincerely hope that my 31 years of
experience with the IRS has helped in some small way to create a
clearer picture of the agency. The many good people of the IRS, who
perform a difficult task everyday, and the taxpaying public deserve
your best efforts at cleaning up this important national asset.
__________
Prepared Statement of Lynda D. Willis
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I appreciate being invited here today to discuss the availability
of information on the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) use of its
enforcement authorities to collect delinquent taxes. In general, if
taxes remain unpaid after IRS gives appropriate notice and demand for
payment, IRS is authorized by the Internal Revenue Code to seize the
delinquent taxpayer's property either through direct action or through
demand (referred to as a notice of levy) made on third parties, such as
banks or employers, to turn over the taxpayer's assets or earnings to
IRS.[1] IRS is also authorized to file liens against the delinquent
taxpayer's property.[2]
According to data IRS pulled together from various internal
management systems, in fiscal year 1996, IRS (1) filed about 750,000
liens against taxpayer property, (2) issued about 3.2 million levies on
taxpayer assets held by third parties, and (3) completed about 10,000
seizures of taxpayer property. These enforcement actions can have
severe financial consequences for taxpayers, and the potential exists
for such actions to be taken in error or improperly. Accordingly, you
asked us to determine if information existed that could be used to
determine whether collection enforcement authorities were properly
used.
To determine whether information existed to evaluate IRS' use of
collection enforcement authorities, we (1) asked IRS to provide us with
available basic statistics on its use, and misuse, of lien, levy, and
seizure authority from 1993 to 1996; (2) reviewed a small and
subjectively selected sample of seizure, revenue officer, appeals, and
problem resolution case files to identify the types of information that
may be available from those files; and (3) interviewed IRS employees
involved in these areas to determine how and when collection
enforcement authorities were used, the controls for preventing misuse
of those authorities, and the results of taxpayer complaints about the
inappropriate use of the authorities.
In summary, while IRS has some limited data about its use, and
misuse, of collection enforcement authorities, these data are not
sufficient to show (1) the extent of the improper use of lien, levy, or
seizure authority; (2) the causes of the improper actions; or (3) the
characteristics of taxpayers affected by improper actions. The lack of
information exists because IRS' systems--both manual and automated--
have not been designed to capture and report comprehensive information
on the use and possible misuse of collection authorities. Also, much of
the data that are recorded on automated systems cannot be aggregated
without a significant investment of scarce programming resources. Some
information is available in manual records, but--because collection
enforcement actions can be taken by a number of different IRS offices
and records resulting from these actions are not always linked to IRS'
automated information systems--this information cannot be readily
assembled to assess the use of enforcement actions. Also, data are not
readily available from other potential sources, such as taxpayer
complaints, because, in many circumstances, IRS does not require that
information on the resolution of the complaints be recorded. IRS
officials told us that collecting complete data on the use of
enforcement actions that would permit an assessment of the extent and
possible causes of misuse of these authorities is unnecessary because
they have adequate checks and balances in place to protect taxpayers.
However, IRS does not have the data that would permit it or Congress to
readily resolve reasonable questions about the extent to which IRS'
collections enforcement authorities are misused, the causes of those
occurrences, the characteristics of the affected taxpayers, or whether
IRS' checks and balances over the use of collection enforcement
authorities are working as intended.
use of liens, levies, and seizures in collecting taxes
The magnitude of IRS' collection workload is staggering. As of the
beginning of fiscal year 1996, IRS reported that its inventory of
unpaid tax assessments totaled about $200 billion. Of this amount, IRS
estimated that about $46 billion had collection potential.[3] In
addition, during the fiscal year, an additional $59 billion in unpaid
tax assessments were added to the inventory.
To collect these delinquent tax debts, IRS has established a
graduated enforcement process. The process starts once IRS identifies
taxpayers who have not paid the amount due as determined by the tax
assessment.[4] In the first stage of the process, a series of notices
are to be sent to the taxpayer from one of IRS' service centers.
Collectively, these notices are to provide the taxpayer with statutory
notification of the tax liability, IRS' intent to levy assets if
necessary, and information on the taxpayer's rights. If the taxpayer
fails to pay after being notified, the Internal Revenue Code authorizes
a federal tax lien to be filed to protect the government's interest
over other creditors and purchasers of taxpayer property.
The second stage of IRS' collection process involves attempts to
collect the taxes by making telephone contact with the taxpayer. IRS
carries out this stage through its Automated Collection System (ACS)
program. During this stage, IRS may levy taxpayer assets and file
notices of federal tax liens.
In the final stage of the collection process, information about
the tax delinquency is referred to IRS' field offices for possible
face-to-face contact with the taxpayer. During this stage, IRS may also
levy taxpayer assets and file notices of federal tax liens.
Additionally, as a final collection action, taxpayer property, such as
cars or real estate, may be seized. Attachment I presents a flowchart
that provides additional detail about the collection process.
At any time in the collection process, IRS may find that a
taxpayer cannot pay what is owed or does not owe the tax IRS assessed.
In such situations, IRS may enter into an installment agreement with a
taxpayer, compromise for an amount less than the original tax
assessment, suspend or terminate the collection action, or abate an
erroneous assessment. Also, if the taxpayer is having a problem
resolving a collection action with the initiating IRS office, the
taxpayer may go to IRS' Taxpayer Advocate or to IRS' appeals program
for resolution. If an enforcement action is taken that involves a
reckless or intentional disregard of taxpayer rights by an IRS
employee, a taxpayer may sue for damages. In the case of an erroneous
bank levy, a taxpayer may file a claim with IRS for reimbursement of
bank charges incurred because of the levy in addition to a refund of
the erroneously levied amount. If a taxpayer believes that enforced
collection would be a hardship, the taxpayer may request assistance
from the Taxpayer Advocate.
irs has some limited data on the use and misuse of lien, levy, and
seizure authority
IRS produces management information reports that provide some
basic information on tax collections and the use of collection
enforcement authorities, including the number of liens, levies, and
seizures filed and, in the case of seizures, the tax delinquency that
resulted in the seizure and the tax proceeds achieved. Also, some
offices within IRS collect information on the misuse of these
collection enforcement authorities, but the information is not
complete.
Overall, IRS' management reports show that IRS' collection program
collected about $29.8 billion during fiscal year 1996, mostly without
taking enforced collection action. In attempting to collect on
delinquent accounts, the reports show IRS filed about 750,000 liens
against taxpayer property, issued about 3.2 million levies on taxpayer
assets held by third parties, and completed about 10,000 seizures of
taxpayer property. Attachment II presents this overall information on
IRS' use of lien, levy, and seizure authority during fiscal years 1993-
96. Attachment III presents a summary of the distribution of seizure
cases by type of asset seized in fiscal year 1996.
For the seizure cases completed in fiscal year 1996, the average
tax delinquency was about $233,700, and the average net proceeds from
the seizures was about $16,700. Although complete data were not
available on tax delinquencies and associated net proceeds for liens
and levies, the best information available from IRS indicates that
about $2.1 billion of the $29.8 billion was collected as a result of
lien, levy, and seizure actions. The remainder was collected as a
result of contacts with taxpayers about their tax delinquencies.
The best data that IRS has on the potential misuse of collection
authorities are from the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate.[5] However,
those data alone are not sufficient to determine the extent of misuse.
The data show that about 9,600 complaints involving allegations of
inappropriate, improper, or premature collection actions were closed by
the Advocate in fiscal year 1996, as were 11,700 requests for relief
from collection actions because of hardship. Although the Advocate does
not routinely collect data on the resolution of taxpayer complaints, it
does collect data on the resolution of requests for relief. According
to the Advocate, during fiscal year 1996, the requests for relief
resulted in the release--either full or partial--from about 4,000 levy
and seizure actions and 156 liens.
These Taxpayer Advocate data are not sufficient to determine the
extent to which IRS' initial collection actions were appropriate or not
for several reasons. First, the release of a lien could result from a
taxpayer subsequently paying the tax liability or offering an
alternative solution, or because IRS placed the lien in error. Although
the Taxpayer Advocate maintains an information system that accommodates
collecting the data to identify whether IRS was the cause of the
taxpayer's problem, the Advocate does not require that such information
be reported by the IRS employee working to resolve the case or be
otherwise accumulated. Thus, about 82 percent of the taxpayer
complaints closed in fiscal year 1996 did not specify this information.
Of the remaining 18 percent, about 9 percent specified that IRS'
collection action was in error either through taking an erroneous
action, providing misleading information to the taxpayer, or taking
premature enforcement action.
In addition, the Advocate's data do not cover the potential
universe of cases in which a collection action is alleged to have been
made improperly. The Advocate requires each complaint that is covered
by its information system to be categorized by only one major code to
identify the issue or problem. If a complaint had more than one
problem, it is possible that a collection-related code could be
superseded by another code such as one covering lost or misapplied
payments. Also, complaints that are handled routinely by the various
IRS offices would not be included in the Advocate's data because that
office was not involved in the matter. For example, appeals related to
lien, levy, and seizure actions are to be handled by the Collection
Appeals Program (effective April 1, 1996).
For fiscal year 1996, the Appeals Program reported that of the 705
completed appeals of IRS' enforced collection actions, it fully
sustained IRS actions on 483 cases, partially sustained IRS in 55
cases, did not sustain IRS actions in 68 cases, and returned 99 cases
to the initiating office for further action because they were
prematurely referred to the Collection Appeals Program. According to
IRS Appeals officials, a determination that Appeals did not sustain an
IRS enforcement action does not necessarily mean that the action was
inappropriate. If a taxpayer offered an alternative payment method, the
Appeals Officer may have approved that offer--and thus not sustained
the enforcement action--even if the enforcement action was justified.
In any event, the Collection Appeals Program keeps no additional
automated or summary records on the resolution of appeals as they
relate to the appropriateness of lien, levy, or seizure action.
further assessment of extent or causes of misuse of liens, levies, and
seizures is limited by irs' record-keeping practices
IRS' record-keeping practices limit both our and IRS' ability to
generate data needed to determine the extent or causes of the misuse of
lien, levy, and seizure authority. Neither IRS' major data systems--
masterfiles and supplementary systems--nor the summary records (manual
or automated) maintained by the IRS offices responsible for the various
stages of the collection process systematically record and track the
issuance and complete resolution of all collection enforcement actions,
i.e., liens, levies, and seizure actions. Moreover, the detailed
records kept by these offices do not always include data that would
permit a determination about whether an enforcement action was properly
used. But, even if collection records contained information relevant to
the use of collection enforcement actions, our experience has been that
obstacles exist to retrieving records needed for a systematic review.
Major Information Systems Do Not Contain Data Necessary to Assess
Enforcement Actions
IRS maintains selected information on all taxpayers, such as
taxpayer identification number; amount of tax liability by tax year;
amount of taxes paid by tax year; codes showing the event triggering
the tax payment, including liens, levies, and seizures; and taxpayer
characteristics, including earnings and employment status, on its
Individual and Business Masterfiles. Also, if certain changes occur to
a taxpayer's account, such as correction of a processing error in a
service center, IRS requires information to be captured on the source
of the error, that is, whether the error originated with IRS or the
taxpayer.
Although some related data are recorded in the Masterfiles, those
data are currently not readily accessible because IRS does not have
retrieval programs and IRS officials told us that developing such
programs would take considerable time because scarce programming
resources are unavailable due to higher priority information management
systems work. Moreover, the data that are recorded do not include some
key aspects of enforcement actions. For example, the Masterfiles do not
contain information on attempted levies--IRS' most frequently used
enforcement authority. Also, IRS does not maintain automated
information showing all tax payments received as a result of lien or
levy actions taken. While IRS procedures provide for coding tax
payments according to the event triggering the payment (which could
include liens, levies, and seizures), IRS advised us that controls are
not in place to ensure that the automated data are complete, and, in a
recent limited review, IRS found wide discrepancies between the
automated information and actual collections. As a result of the lack
of such key data, IRS cannot readily produce data on the overall use or
misuse of its collection enforcement authorities or on the
characteristics of affected taxpayers. The lack of such data also
precludes us from identifying a sample of affected taxpayers to serve
as a basis for evaluating the use or misuse of collection actions.
Offices With Authority to Initiate Liens, Levies, and Seizures Do Not
Keep Summary Records Related to Appropriateness of Actions
As I noted earlier, the IRS tax collection process involves
several steps, which are carried out by different IRS offices that are
often organizationally dispersed. Since authorities exist to initiate
some of the collection actions at different steps in the process,
several different offices could initiate a lien, levy, or seizure to
resolve a given tax assessment. In addition, our examination of
procedures and records at several of these offices demonstrated that
records may be incomplete or inaccurate. For example, the starting
point for a collection action is the identification of an unpaid tax
assessment. The assessment may originate from a number of sources
within IRS, such as the service center functions responsible for the
routine processing of tax returns; the district office, ACS, or service
center functions responsible for examining tax returns and identifying
nonfilers; or the service center functions responsible for computer-
matching of return information to identify underreporters. These
assessments may not always be accurate, and as reported in our
financial audits of IRS, cannot always be tracked back to supporting
documentation.[6] Since collection actions may stem from disputed
assessments, determining the appropriateness of IRS actions would be
problematic without an accurate tax assessment supported by
documentation.
Further, offices responsible for resolving taxpayer complaints do
not always maintain records on the resolution of those complaints that
would permit identification of instances of inappropriate use of
collections authorities. We found several examples of this lack of data
during our review.
--If a taxpayer complains about enforced collection actions (other
than allegations of criminal or serious administrative
misconduct by specific IRS employees), the complaint is to be
handled initially by the office responsible for the action.
These offices do not routinely keep automated or other summary
records on the complaints or on the appropriateness of lien,
levy, or seizure actions taken. If this information is
recorded, it would be included in the affected taxpayer's
collection case file and, as I will discuss later,
systematically obtaining these files is impractical. Also, in
cases involving ACS, where an automated system is used for
recording data, specific information about complaints may not
be maintained because the automated files have limited space
for comments and transactions.
--If a taxpayer complaint is not resolved by the responsible office,
the taxpayer may seek assistance from the Taxpayer Advocate. As
noted earlier, the Advocate has some information on complaints
about the use of collection enforcement authorities, but those
data are incomplete. In addition, starting in the last quarter
of 1996, the Advocate was to receive notification of the
resolution of taxpayer complaints involving IRS employee
behavior (that is, complaints about IRS employees behaving
inappropriately in their treatment of taxpayers, such as
rudeness, overzealousness, discriminatory treatment, and the
like.) These notifications, however, do not indicate if the
problem involved the possible misuse of collection authority.
--If a taxpayer's complaint involves IRS employee integrity issues,
the complaint should be referred to IRS' Inspection Office.
According to Inspection, that office is responsible for
investigating allegations of criminal and serious
administrative misconduct by specific IRS employees, but it
would not normally investigate whether the misconduct involved
inappropriate enforcement actions. In any event, Inspection
does not keep automated or summary records on the results of
its investigations as they relate to appropriateness of lien,
levy, or seizure actions.
--Court cases are to be handled by the Chief Counsel's General
Litigation Office. Internal Revenue Code sections 7432 and 7433
provide for taxpayers to file a claim for damages when IRS (1)
knowingly or negligently fails to release a lien or (2)
recklessly or intentionally disregards any provision of law or
regulation related to the collection of federal tax,
respectively. According to the Litigation Office, a total of 21
cases were filed under these provisions during 1995 and 1996.
However, the Litigation Office does not maintain information on
case outcomes. The Office has recently completed a study that
covered court cases since 1995 involving damage claims in
bankruptcy cases. As a part of that study, the Office
identified 16 cases in which IRS misapplied its levy authority
during taxpayer bankruptcy proceedings. IRS officials told us
that the results of this study led IRS to establish a
Bankruptcy Working Group to make recommendations to prevent
such misapplication of levy authority.
Existing Records Cannot Always Be Retrieved
Even if collection files included information relevant to an
assessment of the use of enforcement authorities, obstacles exist to
the reconstruction of records that would permit an assessment of the
use or possible misuse of collection enforcement authorities. As we
have learned from our prior work, IRS cannot always locate files when
needed. For example, locating district office closed collection files
once they have been sent to a Federal Records Center is impractical
because there is no list identifying file contents associated with the
shipments to the Records Centers. On a number of past assignments, we
used the strategy of requesting IRS district offices to hold closed
cases for a period of time, and then we sampled files from those
retained cases. However, the results of these reviews could not be
statistically projected to the universe of all closed cases because we
had no way to determine if the cases closed in the relatively short
period of time were typical of the cases closed over a longer period of
time.
irs officials said that collecting data to assess enforcement actions
is impractical and unnecessary because taxpayers are protected through
checks and balances
We discussed with IRS the feasibility of collecting additional
information for monitoring the extent to which IRS may have
inappropriately used its collection enforcement authorities, and the
characteristics of taxpayers who might be affected by such
inappropriate actions. IRS officials noted that, although IRS does not
maintain specific case data on enforcement actions, they believed that
sufficient checks and balances (e.g., supervisory review of collection
enforcement actions, collection appeals, complaint handling, and
taxpayer assistance) are in place to protect taxpayers from
inappropriate collection action. The development and maintenance of
additional case data are, according to IRS officials, not practical
without major information system enhancements. The IRS officials
further observed that, given the potential volume and complexity of the
data involved and the resources needed for data gathering and analysis,
they were unable to make a compelling case for compiling the
information.
We recognize that IRS faces resource constraints in developing its
management information systems and that IRS has internal controls, such
as supervisory review and appeals, that are intended to avoid or
resolve inappropriate use of collection authorities. We also recognize
that the lack of relevant information to assess IRS' use of its
collection enforcement authorities is not, in itself, evidence that IRS
lacks commitment to resolve taxpayer collection problems after they
occur. However, the limited data available and our prior work indicate
that, at least in some cases, these controls may not work as
effectively as intended.[7]
IRS is responsible for administering the nation's voluntary tax
system in a fair and efficient manner. To do so, IRS oversees a staff
of more than 100,000 employees who work at hundreds of locations in the
United States and foreign countries and who are vested, by Congress,
with a broad set of discretionary enforcement powers, including the
ability to seize taxpayer property to resolve unpaid taxes. Given the
substantial authorities granted to IRS to enforce tax collections, IRS
and the other stakeholders in the voluntary tax system--such as
Congress and the taxpayers--should have information to permit them to
determine whether those authorities are being used appropriately;
whether IRS' internal controls are working effectively; and whether, if
inappropriate uses of the authorities are identified, the problems are
isolated events or systemic problems. At this time, IRS does not have
the data that would permit it or Congress to readily determine the
extent to which IRS' collections enforcement authorities are misused,
the causes of those occurrences, the characteristics of the affected
taxpayers, or whether the checks and balances that IRS established over
the use of collection enforcement authorities are working as intended.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
endnotes
[1]: Under the Internal Revenue Code, levy is defined as the
seizure of a taxpayer's assets to satisfy a tax delinquency. IRS
differentiates between the levy of assets in the possession of the
taxpayer (referred to as a seizure) and the levy of assets such as bank
accounts and wages that are in the possession of third parties such as
banks and employers (referred to as a levy).
[2]: A lien is a legal claim that attaches to property to secure
the payment of a debt. The filing of a lien would prevent the taxpayer
from selling an asset, with clear title, without payment of the tax
debt.
[3]: The $46 billion figure is based on IRS' analysis of a sample
of unpaid tax assessments that, according to IRS' financial statements,
consist of balances due where IRS has demonstrated the existence of a
receivable through information provided directly from the taxpayer or
through actions by IRS that support or validate IRS' claim, such as
securing a taxpayer's agreement. Excluded from the receivables are
financial write-offs, allowance for doubtful accounts, and compliance
assessments where the taxpayer has not responded to validate the claim,
i.e., there is not an established claim with the taxpayer.
[4]: IRS tax assessments may result from a number of actions
ranging from the self-assessment of taxes by a taxpayer on a tax return
filed voluntarily to an IRS assessment of a tax deficiency identified
in an audit.
[5]: The Office of Taxpayer Advocate is responsible for helping
taxpayers to resolve problems they may be having with any of IRS'
various offices, including Collections.
[6]: See Financial Audit: Examination of IRS' Fiscal Year 1995
Financial Statements (GAO/AIMD-96-101, July 11, 1996) and Financial
Audit: Examination of IRS' Fiscal Year 1994 Financial Statements (GAO/
AIMD-95-141, Aug. 4, 1995).
[7]: See Tax Administration: IRS Is Improving Its Controls for
Ensuring That Taxpayers Are Treated Properly (GAO/GGD-96-176, Aug. 30,
1996) and Tax Administration: IRS Can Strengthen Its Efforts to See
That Taxpayers Are Treated Properly (GAO/GGD-95-14, Oct. 26, 1994).
Attachments.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.340
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.341
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.342
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.343
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.344
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.345
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.346
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] SH190.347
Prepared Statement of Witness No. 1
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
and this Committee today. I have spent the last 25 years either working
for the Internal Revenue Service Collection Division or representing
taxpayers before the IRS Collection Division. I have collected taxes
from thousands of taxpayers and I have also represented hundreds of
taxpayers with tax problems. It is my sincere hope that my testimony
today will serve to improve the operation of the IRS for the benefit of
the taxpaying public.
The Internal Revenue Code does not abuse taxpayers. A complicated
tax code may result in some unfair taxation, but rarely is it the cause
of abuse. Long multi-page tax forms also do not in themselves cause
abuse. Frustration maybe, but not abuse. Even an audit, while certainly
stressful should not result in taxpayer abuse.
What then has caused the outcry of American citizens about abuse
from the IRS, and the plethora of media reports of the heavy hand used
by the IRS?
Abuse of the taxpaying public occurs when the IRS improperly, and
sometimes illegally, uses its vast power in the process of implementing
some type of enforcement of the tax laws. Enforcement is the levy of a
paycheck or bank account, the seizure of a car, or home, or business.
It can also result in the forced liquidation of a taxpayer's life
savings, IRA, or retirement account.
There is only one small part of the IRS that implements all of
these types of enforcement--the IRS Collection Division. The Collection
Division is charged with the collection of unpaid taxes and securing
unfiled delinquent tax returns. The Collection
Division serves wage and bank levies, files tax liens, seizes cars,
homes and businesses to enforce the collection of unpaid taxes. The
Collection Division takes literally hundreds of enforcement actions
every day! Yes, hundreds of these actions against taxpayers every day.
It is the Collection Division of the IRS that is responsible for the
overwhelming majority of IRS enforcement actions.
Enforced collection of unpaid taxes is a necessity. As a result,
the danger of taxpayer abuse is both inherent and inevitable. Many
taxpayers will feel they have been abused simply because they do not
like the fact that they are being compelled to pay their fair share. We
understand that ``comes with the territory'' when enforced collection
of taxes is part of one's every day job. So how does one ferret out the
true cases of taxpayer abuse? The answer to that question is the
important issue to be addressed.
First of all, does the IRS correct abuses when they become aware
of them? Often times, they do. However, the more important question is,
does the IRS cover up occurrences of abuse? The answer is, yes! If the
true number of incidences of taxpayer abuse were ever known, the public
would be appalled. If the public also ever knew the number of abuses
``covered up'' by the IRS, there could be a tax revolt.
Why do we not know of these ``covered up'' abuses? The answer is
simple. The IRS protects itself by management support of employee
actions whether those actions are right or wrong. This acceptance of
abusive actions by management is the root cause of taxpayer abuse.
As I mentioned earlier, the initial cause of taxpayer abuse is IRS
employees who actually implement enforcement actions, many of which are
approved by management in advance. The enforcement may be necessary,
however, it is the improper, or sometimes illegal, enforcement that
causes unnecessary abuse. Sadly, some employees repeatedly do not
follow proper collection policies and procedures and thereby repeatedly
abuse taxpayers. There are several reasons why this occurs:
1. IRS tax collectors, Revenue Officers, but more
importantly managers, are not properly trained in IRS policies
and Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) procedures.
2. Revenue Officers, but more importantly managers, often
respond that IRM policies and procedures are ``guidelines''
only and do not carry the force of law.
3. When management condones the abuse, the Revenue Officer
believes the mistake is acceptable and is free to repeat the
error again.
4. Revenue Officers learn the general perception from
management that most tax debtors are trying to cheat the
government, are crooks or flakes, and generally not willing to
pay their fair share of taxes.
5. Revenue Officers capitalize on the taxpayer's inherent
fear of the IRS and the intimidation that they can inflict on
taxpayers without any consequences for their improper
enforcement.
6. Revenue Officers, often with management approval, use
enforcement to ``punish'' taxpayers instead of trying to
collect the most money for the government.
There is an IRS policy statement on Collecting Principles P-5-2
#7,which is the most often ignored. In part, it states:
``We should help taxpayers who try to comply with the law, and
take appropriate enforcement actions when taxpayers resist
complying. Good judgment is needed in selecting the appropriate
collecting tool.''
If this one policy statement were properly applied, it would
eliminate most all taxpayer abuse. But it is IRS management that must
lead the way.
The most important factor in all of the foregoing information is
that occasional frontline employee errors in judgment, violations of
the Internal Revenue Manual and lack of understanding of policy
statements are to be expected. However, what is not acceptable is
frontline management support of these mistakes. What is unconscionable
is upper management's support or tolerance of frontline management
errors. The bottom line is that the abuse of taxpayers by the IRS is
most often caused by the Collection Division--and the problem with the
Collection Division is mismanagement.
The following are some general scenarios of Internal Revenue Manual
violations and taxpayer abuse that I have personally encountered:
1. On far too many occasions, when a taxpayer fails or
forgets to supply one or two items on a long list requested by
the Revenue Officer, the Officer's response is the heavy hammer
of a paycheck or bank levy.
2. Even when a taxpayer is represented by a Power of
Attorney, the Power of Attorney is quite often treated more
aggressively than the taxpayer. Revenue Officers generally
learn from management the perception that most Powers of
Attorney intentionally try to delay the resolution of a case.
This attitude is what causes the greatest animosity between the
tax representation community and the IRS. Disregarding the
policy statement that I read to you earlier results in damaging
the credibility of the IRS and the integrity of the Revenue
Officer.
3. Quite often, the Revenue Officer finds a specious reason
to serve levies on the very source of income or assets that the
taxpayer disclosed to the IRS. Again, this only serves to
undermine the credibility and integrity of the IRS. It is no
wonder that the taxpaying public has an aversion to providing
any information to the IRS. It is an aversion created by the
IRS' repeated misuse of information provided to them by the
cooperative taxpayer.
4. When a levy is served prematurely, even when the IRS
admits that the levy was improperly served, the routine IRS
response is that when the taxpayer provides additional
information, the IRS will ``consider'' releasing the levy. When
the information is provided, the IRS adds insult to injury by
not releasing the levy. The IRS cannot seem to grasp the
concept that when it makes a mistake, it should reverse the
error immediately, no matter what the consequence to the IRS.
5. Revenue Officers routinely violate the relationship with
the Power of Attorney by contacting the taxpayer directly. It
is also a common practice of Revenue Officers and frontline
managers to try to intimidate a Power of Attorney into thinking
that the IRS has a right, false though it may be, to interview
the taxpayer personally.
6. I have heard of Revenue Officers trying to discourage
taxpayers from hiring representatives and making disparaging,
and slanderous statements about representatives. Many taxpayer
representatives know IRS collection procedures better than the
Revenue Officers. In many instances I have heard and
experienced more harsh treatment of representatives simply
because the taxpayer's representative was former IRS.
7. The Internal Revenue Manual states that, ``. . .
reasonable necessary living expenses are always allowed.''
However, on more than one occasion I have seen the IRS punish a
taxpayer by not allowing reasonable necessary living expenses,
even current tax payments. Why? Because the Revenue Officer and
the manager did not think the taxpayer obeyed their commands
appropriately and simply felt that the taxpayer could somehow
survive without reasonable necessary living expenses.
8. A Revenue Officer, with IRS District Counsel concurrence,
can serve what are termed, ``nominee'' liens and levies,
against third parties whom the IRS ``believes'' are in
possession of assets belonging to the taxpayer. The IRS is not
required to provide documentation to the taxpayer. The IRS is
not required to provide documentation to the taxpayer or the
third party supporting the basis of their ``beliefs.'' The IRS
basically has the attitude ``Sue us to prove that we are
wrong.''
9. I have witnessed Collection Division Branch Chiefs,
Assistant Division Chiefs, Division Chiefs, Problem Resolution
(PRO) employees, and even an Assistant District Director,
violate or ignore Internal Revenue Manual procedures and
Treasury regulations simply because they wanted to punish a
taxpayer.
I have seen more violations of IRS procedures and policies than I
can count. The most appalling aspect of the foregoing examples is that
in most every instance, IRS management supported the erroneous actions
of the Revenue Officer.
The Problem Resolution Office (PRO) is responsible for protecting
the taxpayer from IRS abuse. But having appealed many taxpayer abuses
to the PRO, I have found them to be utterly useless. PRO employees are
typically Revenue Officers who came from Collection Division and who
may very well return to the Collection Division after spending some
time in the PRO. The PRO employees must depend on their evaluations and
promotions from the same Collection Division management which they are
required to police while assigned to the PRO. If the public thinks that
the PRO is being objective in assisting with abuse cases, the public is
being hoodwinked!
What are the solutions to end this suffering of repeated abuses
that I have just outlined? I have two basic answers.
First, require the IRS to follow its Internal Revenue Manual as
though it were law. The IRS should be required to follow the manual to
the letter. Taxpayers are required to follow complicated tax return
instructions, so why shouldn't the IRS be required to follow their own
procedures?
Second, make the IRS and management responsible for violations of
Manual procedures. By that I do not mean holding frontline employees
responsible for accidental or unintentional mistakes. However, when
upper management condones the violations which bring great detriment to
taxpayers, then management should be held personally responsible.
As only one taxpayer representative out of thousands across the
country, I have seen dozens of taxpayers severely damaged, even made
homeless, by the IRS Collections Division. The true bottom line
solution to resolving taxpayer abuses is IRS frontline management.
Restitution by an administrative claim as opposed to court action for
erroneous or improper actions would be a giant step in the right
direction, but who will decide when an action is improper?
If left in the hands of the IRS, you will have an IRS proud of the
fact that they paid out a minimal amount of restitution funds over the
course of the year.
The culture of the IRS must change and it will not change on its
own!
Thank you.
__________
Prepared Statement of Witness No. 2
Mr. Chairman and respective members of the Senate Finance
Committee, it is a pleasure to be able to address you here today. I
have been a law enforcement officer for approximately twenty years.
Currently, I am a criminal investigator for the Internal Revenue
Service's Internal Security Division.
IRS' Internal Security Division has a multi-functional purpose. In
the broad sense, we have a mission similar to that of a Federal
Inspector General or internal affairs in a police department, along
with some additional duties. Among our main responsibilities are
conducting investigations into allegations of IRS employee misconduct,
outside attempts to corrupt the administration of internal revenue
laws, and employee safety.
I am here to speak about some of the problems I have observed in
performing my work for the Internal Security Division. By the nature of
our mission, it is imperative that we be unencumbered in opening and
investigating violations of law within the scope of our office.
However, the culture and climate of the Internal Revenue Service
often prevents Internal Security from fulfilling our responsibilities.
In addition, the distrustful and secretive nature often hinders an
investigation.
A lack of independence from District and regional forces intent on
not tarnishing the IRS' image has reduced administrative sanctions
against employees to a point where they have no effect in controlling
employee misconduct. IRS does not want bad press on employee misconduct
at a time when the Agency's public image is at a low point. This has
affected who we investigate and what happens after an investigation has
been completed.
Allegations against Internal Revenue Service managers and National
Treasury Employee Union (NTEU) officials have not been investigated.
The IRS is aware of the administration's favorable view of unions. NTEU
greatly benefits from this. High level Internal Security officials do
not want to take on a case involving the union or union officials.
Allegations against IRS managers, including Criminal Investigation
Division managers, are only worked when an allegation is serious and
Internal Security management can not find a way out of assigning the
case (i.e.: too many people are aware of an allegation). Some Internal
Security managers believe that there is a bond between all IRS managers
that should be maintained in the name of working relations.
There have been violations concerning the taxpayer's Attorney/
Client privilege. IRS management often knows of these violations for
months before reporting them to Internal Security. These types of cases
can involve compromises in privileged communications.
Investigations into serious allegations are shortened by nature of
a 180 day baseline. Six months is insufficient time to conduct a
complex investigation, especially when new allegations are developed
during the investigation. After 180 days the investigator and the
immediate manager start to feel pressure on closing the case. This is
where the IRS ``bean counter'' mentality hurts us. An employee case is
considered an ``actionable'' case. This means proven or not, opening
the case earns the agent credit for what we call a ``stat.'' A case not
involving an employee only gets a ``stat'' if there is judicial action.
In other words, hypothetically, a case involving an armed militia is of
less credit for the Inspection Division than a case involving the
misuse of a government car by an IRS employee. Management feels that
since a ``stat'' is obtained just by opening any employee case, there
is no justification to have any case older than 180 days.
Proven violations of criminal misconduct against an employee have
been ``whitewashed'' by Internal Revenue Service managers and labor
relations. Serious violations such as browsing, unauthorized access to
taxpayer's records, and unauthorized release of taxpayer's information
have received nothing more than counseling letters. These letters are
then removed from the employee's personnel file after one year. This
kind of action does not serve as a deterrent for misconduct.
The IRS can, and does, investigate its own employees when it is
suspected that an employee has acted improperly or illegally. However,
Internal Security management has inappropriately notified and kept IRS
District management officials abreast of these investigations. Such
investigations are supposed to be kept confidential. However, more
often than not, if these investigations target employees who are
friends of management, they will be informed of the probe in time to
quit the agency before adverse personnel action can be initiated
against them. Once an IRS employee resigns, it is rare that the U.S.
Attorney will accept that case for prosecution.
At the same time there is outside interference on Internal
Security's mission, there are internal pressures that corrupt our
ethical standards and place morale at low levels.
Internal Security managers exhibit arrogance while they themselves
violate laws and commit prohibited personnel practices. Investigators
have been told by Internal Security managers to record the
conversations of other IRS employees without the Attorney General's
approval. In other words, we have been directed to make non-consensual
recordings of other IRS employees without fulfilling Justice Department
requirements.
Investigators are often not able to share taxpayer information on
multi-agency investigations, yet Internal Security managers have
``unofficially'' provided taxpayer information to managers at other
agencies.
IRS Internal Security managers are notorious for committing
prohibited personnel practices. After an employee litigates, settles
out of court or obtains a favorable Merit Systems Protection Board
ruling (MSPB), the Agency takes the corrective action without
consequence to the offending manager. In other words, a manager
violates an employee's rights. The employee seeks and obtains redress
from the Agency, but the manager is never sanctioned for violating the
employee's rights in the first place.
Internal Security managers are aware of how difficult it is for an
employee to litigate against the Agency. After all, the Agency does not
have to pay for legal representation. If a manager does not like an
employee for personal reasons, there is nothing to stop the manger from
violating the employee's rights. This is a ``us'' vs. ``them''
mentality that is more flagrant at this Agency than I've ever seen
anywhere else.
The ``corporate culture'' at 1111 Constitution Avenue is not
conducive towards independent, well worked criminal investigations. In
general, IRS pushes employees to open and close a tax or collection
matter as quickly as they can. Often getting the proper tax is
secondary to reducing overall case load as quickly as possible.
For Internal Security this ``bean counter'' mentality means
numbers, numbers, numbers! ``Cases open, cases closed--let's count them
up so we can report at the end of the year what a good job we've
done!'' Quality, where is that found in an accountant's book?
In a way, this has created an atmosphere that has given us many of
our employee misconduct cases. However, criminal law does not afford us
the opportunity to work an investigation in the same manner. As long as
Internal Security is part of the IRS, there can be no real oversight or
independence; we are just part of a greater problem.
Over my 20 years of service, I have become painfully aware of the
ability of the IRS to retaliate against employees who dare to speak
out. Many of the witnesses you will have before you in this hearing
could be retaliated against for their testimony before this Committee.
At times, I have been assigned an employee case and been told that
management does not like that employee, and I have been told that I
need to find something that they can use to terminate their employment.
In the IRS, retaliation is swift and severe. I hope you will respect
the risk that these witnesses took to appear before you, and protect
them from any act of revenge by IRS management.
I came here, today, not to harm this Agency, but to help it heal.
You must decide the best method to accomplish that goal. The IRS cannot
heal itself, so others and I have taken the chance that you are serious
about changing and improving my Agency. I thank you for the opportunity
to participate in that healing process.
__________
Prepared Statement of Witness No. 3
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Finance Committee.
I am presently a GS-12 Revenue Officer, which is also identified as
a Field Collection Officer, with the Internal Revenue Service. I have
worked as a Revenue Officer for over 35 years, having begun my career
with the IRS when John Kennedy was President.
I am here this morning to cite numerous incidents that I have
observed in the course of my career as a Collection Officer with the
IRS. I hope to use these examples to assist you and the Committee in
making our Agency a better place, and ensure greater fairness for the
American people.
Over the last few months, you have heard a great deal about
``browsing'' of taxpayers' files. Allow me to focus on this problem for
a moment and describe to you specific situations that I have personally
witnessed in the IRS workplace which I once considered commonplace:
Tax data being accessed by IRS employees to check on
prospective boyfriends;
Tax data being accessed by IRS employees to check ex-
husbands for increasing income in order to receive increased
child support payments;
Tax data being accessed on people with whom IRS employees
were having some kind of personal disagreement;
Tax data being accessed on locally prominent or newsworthy
individuals, public figures--even team coaches;
Tax data being accessed out of simple curiosity about a
friend, a relative or an employee's neighbor;
Tax data being accessed on individuals who are perceived as
critical of the IRS, such as tax protestors or, as in one case,
a person who had simply written a Letter to the Editor.
The following inquiries, which I consider to be ``institutional''
misuse of taxpayer information, are cases in which the IRS has tacitly
sanctioned looking up data on citizens but who are not the subject of
any investigation being conducted:
Tax data being accessed on relatives and acquaintances of
the subject taxpayer, such as cases where the taxpayer is
suspected of using friends and relatives to hide income or
assets;
Tax data being accessed on potential witnesses in government
tax cases;
Tax data being accessed on jurors sitting on government tax
cases. Senators, there is no excuse for this type of action!
Until recent years, the agency had an almost casual attitude about
privacy and misuse of taxpayer records. It has tightened up now to the
point that good employees, who never think of browsing or gaining
illicit accesses, are fearful that they may be subjected to
investigation for an innocent error.
I have witnessed other serious abuses by the IRS. While these are
separate incidents, they are indicative of a pervasive disregard of law
and regulations designed to achieve production goals for either
management or the individual agent.
One particular incident that occurred in 1994 shows how at least
some managers figure they can get away with almost anything. A
listening device was discovered to exist in our IRS Office. Its
ostensible purpose was a public address system, the users--managers and
secretaries--had installed a receiving capability as well. With the
receiving capability in place, they could press a button and overhear
conversations taking place in the employee break room. While I have no
personal knowledge of the existence of similar devices, I understand
from others that some indeed existed in conference rooms used by
taxpayers and their representatives. A co-worker and I found the device
in the break room and learned how it worked. Learning of our discovery,
higher level officials immediately had the devices removed and have
attempted a reprisal by initiating an investigation of those who
brought the matter to light.
Another incident involved what would be called fraud if perpetrated
by any other institution, and I still cannot believe it was done in the
face of my objections. This was the Case of a Fake Tax Lien. While I
made the matter known to superiors, they did not even seem to want to
hear about it.
When a taxpayer gets a notice of tax due from the IRS, a lien on
the taxpayer's property may arise under the Internal Revenue Code. To
be effective against third party purchasers and lenders, a Notice of
Lien must be filed in the local courthouse. The public accepts that the
IRS files only legitimate notices, but in this case a Notice of Lien
was filed by the IRS when there was no assessment and therefore no
legitimate lien. Mr. Chairman, there must be an assessment of tax due
in order to file a lien--that is the law!
And if that wasn't bad enough, the IRS asserted its seemingly
correct lien against a third party--and that third party, a bank, had
no way of knowing that the lien was not legitimate. The amount involved
was not large, only a few thousand dollars, but the Collection
employees were motivated to close the case rather than take the correct
and legal action and lift the false lien. In this case the Service
acted illegally by collecting money from the taxpayer and quietly
closing the case.
I believe this incident is indicative of a systemic problem
plaguing the Agency--its original mission of collecting tax revenues
has now become incidental to the production of statistics. A case that
is written off as uncollectible, a Form 53, is counted as a closed case
just the same as if it were fully collected. When I started with the
IRS in the early 1960's, warning flags went up if uncollectible
accounts amounted to more than 15%. I have now seen months in which
over 60% of case closures were ``53'd''--closed as uncollectible.
Senators, I have voluntarily come before you today to relay to you
some of the deep concerns I have regarding the current mind-set of the
IRS. I have been in a position to watch the gradual changes taking
place among the IRS management and Agency attitudes. These are not
positive changes and I am very concerned about the Service's future
road. Although my comments today may appear negative and anti-Agency,
it is my sincerest hope that they will help bring about just the
opposite result. I hope you will come to the aid of the IRS with the
positive and forthright oversight it so badly needs. The IRS needs
help, it needs careful attention it cannot possibly provide itself. The
help must come from the outside--through effective and forthright
oversight of an ailing system.
It is my deepest hope that this hearing will initiate these badly
needed steps.
__________
Prepared Statement of Witness No. 4
Mr. Chairman, Senators, thank you for allowing me to appear before
you today and share with you some personal observations I have made
during the more than 25 years I have been employed by the Internal
Revenue Service. For the majority of these years, I have served as a
Revenue Officer in the IRS' Collection Division.
Until very recently, I felt a great sense of pride in my job. I
actually looked forward to going to work. Over this past year, however,
I have seen dramatic changes take place in this organization and, in my
opinion, most were not for the good of the Service, or the public that
we are supposed to serve.
In the past, with few exceptions, I felt that management truly
cared for its employees. I find this no longer to be the case. I have
never seen overall morale in the IRS as low as it is right now. Many of
my fellow colleagues have expressed to me recently that they no longer
feel motivated, and many are feeling the physical and emotional effects
of constant stress.
Management fails to acknowledge employee concerns as evidenced by
the fact that they refuse to hear grievances or address workplace
concerns. Managers fail to realize that if employees are under stress
or disillusioned with the Service, their attitude will surely flow to
the taxpayers, the people we are paid to serve.
I have recently seen many abuses by IRS managers as well as first
line employees. These abuses range from the deception of taxpayers to
gross misuse of travel funds. I could write a book on the subject of
IRS abuse of both its employees and of the American taxpayer. Allow me
to provide some brief examples.
But before doing so, allow me to point out that I have never had a
performance problem during my employment with the IRS. To the contrary,
I have received numerous annual performance awards, so I am not here
today because I have any axe to grind. I truly hope that by appearing
before you that I can contribute--positively--to restore pride in our
organization and re-establish the confidence of taxpayers.
The area that causes me significant concern is the widely varied
treatment that taxpayers can, and do receive. The IRS' approach toward
a taxpayer can vary dramatically depending upon the IRS Group Manager
whose group is assigned the case; depending on the employee working the
case; and/or depending on the Collection Division policy in effect at
the time the case is received. For example, you may have one business
owner who is allowed to make monthly payments on delinquent employment
taxes, while another business owner, given the same set of
circumstances, is put out of business or forced into bankruptcy. In
other words, one taxpayer may have their taxes simply ``written off''
as uncollectible, while another taxpayer under the identical
conditions, may be forced to pay their taxes in full, or risk losing a
home or business. Taxpayers deserve a consistent and fair policy when
it involves the survival of their businesses.
Another concern I have is based on the fact that collection
initiatives change regularly. It appears that management is more
concerned about maintaining high statistics than with the quality of
work being performed, or even whether the taxes were collected, or were
just written off. Whenever there is pressure to maintain high
statistics, and the performance levels of the different departments
within the organization are a source of constant comparison, you can be
certain that someone is going to suffer the consequences of such an
explosive situation--and it is usually the taxpayer.
Recently a local Revenue Officer planned an elaborate sale to
dispose of certain assets seized from a taxpayer. Many of the IRS
employees were invited to help in the effort. The Group Manager was
also present. Even though the Revenue Officer failed to achieve the
minimum bid, as required by law, before selling the assets, he went
ahead and sold the property at a significant loss to the taxpayer.
Property which had a minimum bid of at least $40,000 was sold for
roughly $7,000. Although this wrongdoing was found out and the Revenue
Officer and his manager now face possible disciplinary actions, the
real victim is the uncompensated taxpayer.
In terms of travel abuse, I know of situations where managers
arrange travel to outlying IRS offices simply to accommodate their own
personal travel. They charge the government mileage and occasionally,
even a night's lodging, in their effort to get to their final vacation
destination. A previous District Director, who had a condo at the
beach, would frequently make brief appearances at the outlying IRS
offices while his family waited for him in the car. When his visit was
over, he and his family would simply continue their drive to the beach.
All this was done at taxpayer's expense while management was telling
employees that they had to conserve on official travel, and that
overnight lodging was not permitted. While this may seem minor compared
to many other things you will hear in this hearing, trust me when I say
these activities by management have a devastating effect on morale.
In another abuse of travel funds, a Collection Division Chief
assigned a Revenue Officer in her office to travel out of state in an
effort to check-up on the work habits of other IRS employees. Extensive
travel was involved and the secret investigation of our own agents
caused significant confusion among taxpayers and IRS employees alike.
When contacted by this IRS employee, who was following up behind the
work of the real case agent, some taxpayers called their local IRS
offices. Some of the local officials initially thought that an IRS
impersonator was at work. In fact, a taxpayer with whom I had been
working was contacted by this ``spy'' employee, and contacted me
afterward, wanting to know what I thought was going on. Fortunately, in
this case, nothing detrimental occurred to affect my taxpayer's case,
but the manner in which this secret study was conducted was underhanded
and humiliating to the rest of the IRS employees involved. In addition,
if this information was determined to be of such importance to the out-
of-state Collection Division Chief, why not inquire about such
information in a professional, above board manner, not deceptively
behind employees' backs. The effort undoubtedly would have been more
effective, less disruptive and certainly far less costly to everyone
involved--taxpayers and IRS employees alike.
Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate being afforded this opportunity
to inform this Committee of what I have observed while working with the
IRS, and the great disservice the actions of some of my colleagues have
brought upon unsuspecting and undeserving taxpayers, not to mention
each other. When the American taxpayer is defrauded of their due
rights, we all stand to suffer.
It is not a pleasure for me to share such stories with you. These
stories are about my colleagues, those with whom I work. But my
intention to do so is simple. I, too, am an American taxpayer, and I am
asking this Committee to return the Service's management and
operational standards to the level that will again earn my own trust,
as well as that of all tax paying Americans.
Thank you.
__________
Prepared Statement of Witness No. 5
I am a long term employee of the Internal Revenue Service employed
as a Revenue Officer. I am appearing before you today to bring to your
attention concerns share by many of the employees in my District
office.
In the past two years all of the standards of ethics by which we
have been lead to believe were an integral part of our job, and
responsibility in dealing fairly with both taxpayers and employees,
have been replaced with practices that were widely viewed as not only
unethical, but often illegal.
To elaborate on this statement let me refer you to IRS policy
statement, P-1-20, which essentially states that employees will not be
evaluated on statistics. This mandate was made in an effort to insure
that taxpayers would be treated fairly by the IRS so as to curtail the
IRS from being overly zealous in their collection activities. However,
our office has taken to disregarding this policy and has unfairly
targeted long-term, good employees in an effort to ``motivate'' others
into making more seizures. We are told that if we are to ``justify''
our jobs, we must ``prove'' that we are willing to take strong
enforcement action.
I would like to point out to you that my evaluations over the
years have always been very high. I am considered to be one of the most
effective collection officers in this district. However, I find it
disturbing to learn that even though I collect more money with a
substantially high number of my cases paying in full, that I am now
evaluated on my number of seizures rather than my over all
effectiveness. The message we are receiving from upper management is
let's take the action that will get us noticed. Don't worry about
whether it's the right thing to do or not.
Many other issues have come to my attention over the course of time
that have created a threatening environment for myself and many other
employees. Examples of these issues are:
managers are targeted for termination on the basis of who
their ``friends'' are
statistics are manipulated to make it appear that our office
is producing much higher statistics than what is factual
selected employees are encouraged to file EEO complaints on
the basis of trumped up charges with the promise that their
claim will be settled so they can then be promoted--unfairly--
without having to compete for the job against more qualified
employees
Revenue Officers have been directed to release seized assets
because management personally feels indebted to the taxpayer's
representative--a former IRS employee and a friend of
management.
The list of code and ethics violations is too long and cumbersome
for me to further elaborate in on at this time. [I will be happy to
provide the Committee with further documentation and information under
proper disclosure guidelines] However, I am willing to answer any
questions you may have.
I am not revealing my identity hear today for fear I would run the
risk of retaliation, not only for myself but for colleagues with whom I
work. However, I am thankful that you permitted me this opportunity to
come before you and make my concerns for the Agency known to you. If I
did not believe in this Agency, I would not have dedicated eight years
of my life working for it. However, motivation to execute one's
responsibility should not be based on statistics at the expense of
quality, nor should motivation be based on unfair competition among
colleagues for promotion, nor for any other reason I sadly offered to
you today. I hope you can bring integrity back to the IRS and allow the
good and ethical employees to do their jobs well while serving the
American taxpayers with the fairness and integrity they deserve.
Thank you.
__________
Prepared Statement of Witness No. 6
Mr. Chairman, Honorable Members of this Committee, I work in the
Inspection Division of the IRS which investigates employee misconduct
and responds to and investigates threats and assaults perpetrated
against IRS employees. I am appearing here in front of you at great
personal risk to my career with the IRS. I have seen too many times how
swift and severe the IRS can be in retaliating against those who do not
conform and agree with its own corporate mentality and attitude. I have
seen how the IRS management attempts to kill the messenger, but ignores
the message. I do not appear here today to try and hurt this Agency or
the majority of dedicated career government workers who staff the
offices, but I have seen the efforts by the IRS to try and heal itself.
The result is but dismal window dressing to appease you in Congress
while they continue with business as usual. The IRS and the public need
and deserve a strong, independent, fully staffed and fully funded
Inspection Division, able to carry out its investigations without
interference, subtle or otherwise, from within. I do not see how this
is possible given the IRS' current climate.
In the IRS' nationwide all-manager training in the late 80's, one
of the messages delivered was that it is permissible to lie or mislead
the public and/or IRS employees as long as it accomplishes the goals
and mission of the Agency. This information was relayed to me by a
former IRS manager who attended this training session and could not
believe that the IRS was instructing its managers to do so. He
questioned this policy. Coincidently, his position was later
eliminated.
A 1992 Inspection Division re-organization memo addressed Regional
management structure and other issues regarding the Inspection Division
having at least 1 to 2 excessive levels of management. The Inspection
Executive Committee voted to retain that same management structure.
Coincidently, the Inspection Executive Committee is composed of the
same people occupying the very positions that were identified as
excessive.
Criminal investigations cannot be worked with the same auditor
mentality and goals as audits are conducted. In criminal
investigations, leads generally dictate where and how long the
investigation and case go on. Applying an artificial time limit to
cases severely stifles the creativity and progress of an investigation,
and sends the wrong message to the investigator to get the cases closed
ASAP. The attitude is ``big cases, big problems; little cases, little
problems!'' Quantity not quality is the message. According to Special
Agents in the Criminal Investigation Division, (CID) emphasizes opening
the traditional tax cases, the ``Mom and Pop'' cases, which are easy
``hits'' and can be opened and closed quickly to bolster CID's average
and numbers, rather than investing time in the large cases which take
longer and require more resources. Big cases are often put off or
overlooked in deference to the small, quick ones.
Mr. Chairman, it has been my observation and experience that
taxpayers are treated as being ``guilty until proven innocent.'' Based
on my experience, this attitude coupled with an arrogant and
indifferent manner in which citizens are sometimes treated, directly
contributes to, and in some instances instigates many of the threats,
assaults, resistance to and lack of cooperation experienced by IRS
employees when dealing with the public. If police officers displayed
this same attitude when interacting with the public, they would be
fired! Why is this attitude tolerated and encouraged by the IRS?
The Inspection Division's budget is directly controlled by the
IRS. Therefore, by depleting or denying budget dollars, subtle limits
and boundaries are placed on who and what is investigated, as well as
what resources we get. We are dependent upon the very people and Agency
we investigate for our budget resources, and every year have to go hat
in hand to get money. Field Agents feel that there is too close a
relationship and that we are too cozy with IRS Management to
impartially and effectively investigate internal IRS matters without
interference or pressure. Investigations into allegations of misconduct
by IRS Management are generally not opened. Only by detaching the
Inspection Division's Criminal Investigative Function from the Internal
Audit Division and then moving our function under the Department of the
Treasury's Office of Inspector General, or under the office of the
Under Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement, or permanently fencing
our budget, will this pattern be broken. Every other federal law
enforcement agency is hiring and expanding, why is Inspection the only
federal law enforcement agency that is closing field offices and
downsizing and proposing RIF's? A recent Chief Inspector memorandum
reports that FY98 budget funds 1214 Full Time Equivalents, (FTE) yet we
are still planning to close offices and do a RIF to get down to 1150
full time employees. The IRS is also in contempt of Congress for only
reducing field positions and closing field IRS offices and not reducing
its Management structure. The current restructuring eliminates field
investigator positions only. Only one Inspection Management position
has been slated for elimination. There was a jockeying and
gerrymandering of the span of control in order to retain every
Inspection Management position, at the sacrifice and expense of field
investigator positions.
I have observed little or no accountability for misconduct,
mistakes and/or errors, whether innocent or intentional, and seldom--if
ever--does the IRS or the responsible employee ever apologize to the
taxpayer for the errors committed by the IRS. Again, this displays an
attitude of indifference or arrogance to the public it serves.
During my experience with the IRS I have observed a real lack of
``meet and greet'' qualities and people skills among IRS employees, as
well as an arrogant attitude which originated with, and is perpetuated
by, IRS Management down to the field level employees.
Most of the complaints from taxpayers regarding abuse or misconduct
on the part of the IRS employees do not rise to the level of
criminality or egregiousness, the level at which my section would get
involved. Such cases do not usually reach us and are thus handled by
the Management of the involved employee. Union agreements and
concessions by the IRS, create difficulty in disciplining employees
beyond much more than a reprimand and slap on the wrist. This, too,
must be strengthened to have any deterrent effect.
Mr. Chairman, allow me to thank you for inviting me to testify
before you today. As employees we are the ``IRS,'' and unless you get
views and input from the field and do not rely entirely on the views
from 1111 Constitution Avenue, you will not get a true picture of what
needs to be changed. I am grateful that you sought out the feelings and
experience of the street level agents for the Committee. As I stated
earlier, it is not my intent to hurt the IRS in any way. It is my
sincere hope that by informing you of some of the problems I have had
the opportunity to personally observe from within the IRS, you and your
Committee will provide the Agency with necessary help and motivation to
correct them.