[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 25, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H1917-H1919]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             TAXPAYER TRANSPARENCY AND EFFICIENT AUDIT ACT

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2530) to improve transparency and efficiency with respect to 
audits and communications between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue 
Service, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2530

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Taxpayer Transparency and 
     Efficient Audit Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEADLINE FOR RESPONSES TO TAXPAYER CORRESPONDENCE.

       Not later than 30 days after receiving any written 
     correspondence from a taxpayer, the Internal Revenue Service 
     shall provide a substantive written response. For purposes of 
     the preceding sentence, an acknowledgment letter shall not be 
     treated as a substantive response.

     SEC. 3. TAXPAYER NOTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURES BY IRS OF 
                   TAXPAYER INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after disclosing 
     any taxpayer information to any agency or instrumentality of 
     Federal, State, or local government, the Internal Revenue 
     Service shall provide a written notification to the taxpayer 
     describing--
       (1) the information disclosed,
       (2) to whom it was disclosed, and
       (3) the date of disclosure.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary's designee, 
     determines that such notification would be detrimental to an 
     ongoing criminal investigation or pose a risk to national 
     security.

     SEC. 4. DEADLINE FOR CONCLUSION OF AUDITS OF INDIVIDUAL 
                   TAXPAYERS.

       If any audit of a tax return of an individual by the 
     Internal Revenue Service is not concluded before the end of 
     the1-year period beginning on the date of the initiation of 
     such audit, the Internal Revenue Service shall provide the 
     taxpayer a written letter explaining why such audit has taken 
     more than 1 year to complete.

     SEC. 5. NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED.

       No additional funds are authorized to carry out the 
     requirements of this Act. Such requirements shall be carried 
     out using amounts otherwise authorized or appropriated.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bentivolio). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam) and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Danny K. Davis) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  H.R. 2530, the Taxpayer Transparency and Efficient Audit Act, is a 
direct response to testimony and inquiries and news reports that the 
Ways and Means

[[Page H1918]]

Committee and other interested Members of Congress have heard about as 
it relates to the IRS scandal.
  Part of the difficulty that American taxpayers have, Mr. Speaker, is 
that they feel that they are basically on their heels, that the 
Internal Revenue Service has all the power and has all the inertia and 
has all the momentum; and if you are a taxpayer and the IRS is coming 
after you, you feel as if, look, this is a one-way street, and they are 
able to target, and they are able to focus, and they are able to keep 
all this momentum and have us on our heels.
  This is an effort to correct this problem. Every time the IRS shares 
a taxpayer's information, the IRS, under this bill, must send a 
disclosure letter to the taxpayer within 30 days of the disclosure, 
except in cases where it would be detrimental to an ongoing criminal 
investigation or to national security.

                              {time}  1700

  Whenever the IRS receives correspondence from a taxpayer, the IRS 
must substantively respond within 30 days, and the response can't 
simply be a pat on the head and an acknowledgment letter but a 
substantive reply. Finally, the bill creates the goal that audits 
should be completed within 1 year. If not, the IRS must send an 
explanation to the taxpayer as to why it took too long.
  In a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do is to put the 
IRS on notice that they have got an obligation to operate within 
certain timeframes, which is a 30-day substantive response; to finish 
an audit in a year and, if you can't finish it in a year, have a good 
explanation as to why; and then also to make sure that, if information 
is being disclosed to someone outside the IRS--again, outside the 
context of a criminal investigation or of a national security 
incident--the IRS has to disclose that to the taxpayer.
  Now, you might be thinking, Wow, what in the world? That is against 
the law already, and this information shouldn't be shared outside the 
Internal Revenue Service. You would be right in thinking that.
  The problem is we heard testimony--and it was very compelling 
testimony, Mr. Speaker--from a witness down in Texas, who described 
this experience. Her name was Catherine Engelbrecht, and she was the 
founder of an organization called True the Vote. This is somebody who 
decided to participate in public life, who decided to get organized and 
have a group. Lo and behold, over a period of time, once she decided 
that she was going to petition the Federal Government for status for 
her group True the Vote to be involved in election issues and ballot 
integrity issues, all of a sudden, she finds herself the subject of a 
great deal of interest from other elements of the Federal Government 
that have nothing to do with the tax inquiry. According to my 
information, she had 15 different visits from four different Federal 
agencies.
  We may never get to the bottom of where it came from--where the leak 
took place--what was the theory behind it and how all of that came to 
pass, but we know this: we know that we can do something about it. We 
know that we can put limitations on the Internal Revenue Service that 
create a duty and an obligation and a legal sanction around which the 
IRS has to operate that says you cannot disclose this information and 
that, if this information is disclosed, you have a duty to let the 
taxpayer know.
  Clearly, what we are trying to do with this legislation is to limit 
the Internal Revenue Service, not from collecting taxes, not from 
enforcing the law, not from doing the things that they are tasked and 
created by this body to do, but, instead, to do it in a limited 
fashion, to be wise, not to be abusive, not to be lording power over 
taxpayers. When it all comes down to it, let's not forget this: we have 
a system of taxation that is based on--what? It is based on voluntary 
compliance. The Federal Government does not have the ability to go 
about and do all of this enforcement. So a voluntary tax compliance 
system is presumed.
  What does that mean?
  That means that the taxpayer has to have confidence that the tax-
paying institution, itself, has integrity. As we know, that integrity 
is seriously in question, so I urge the favorable consideration of H.R. 
2530.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I am pleased to join my colleague from Illinois in the discussion and 
debate of H.R. 2530, the Taxpayer Transparency and Efficient Audit Act.
  Since 2010, the Internal Revenue Service's total budget has declined 
by 8 percent. This may not sound like much except that the number of 
individual tax returns has gone up by 11 percent, and the number of 
business tax returns has gone up by 23 percent. What happens when you 
combine a larger workload with fewer employees? You get more unanswered 
mail, more unreturned phone calls, and the closing of taxpayer 
assistance centers around the country.
  I recently had the pleasure of welcoming the new Internal Revenue 
Service Commissioner, John Koskinen, to the Ways and Means Committee. 
He painted a very bleak picture of the challenges the agency is facing.
  Over the same 4-year period that the Internal Revenue Service's 
budget has been slashed, the number of phone calls the agency receives 
has gone up by 40 percent. Over 100 million calls were placed by 
taxpayers to the Internal Revenue Service last year, and nearly 20 
million of those calls went unanswered because the IRS did not have 
enough employees to answer them.
  The Internal Revenue Service's ability to process taxpayer 
correspondence has taken a similar hit. The IRS tries to respond to 
taxpayer correspondence within 45 days. During the final week of fiscal 
year 2013, the IRS was unable to process 53 percent of its letters 
within the 45-day timeframe, and the open inventory of unanswered 
letters stood at 1.1 million.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us requires the Internal Revenue Service 
to provide written responses to taxpayers within 30 days. That is 
simply an impossibility given the current funding levels. The 
Republicans can't have it both ways.
  You can't both complain about the IRS' not answering its mail within 
30 days and then demand that its budget be cut at the same time.
  Of course, the Internal Revenue Service would have more resources to 
spend on taxpayers if they were not wasting time and money responding 
to the Republicans' infinite document request. According to the latest 
letter from the Internal Revenue Service, dated February 7, 2014, over 
150 IRS personnel have worked for a total of more than 79,000 hours to 
respond to ongoing congressional investigations. They have produced 
more than a half a million pages of documents, have had more than 60 
transcribed interviews taken of IRS employees, and have answered 
questions at 14 congressional hearings.
  Enough is enough. It is time for the Internal Revenue Service to get 
back to its primary mission of administering taxpayer services.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned about the provision in the bill that 
calls for audits to be completed within 1 year. This will create an 
incentive for criminals to try and delay any audit or investigation by 
the Internal Revenue Service to try and ``run out the clock'' so that 
they can avoid their taxes. We would not say that if you can avoid a 
criminal investigation for 1 year that your crime will be forgiven. So 
why would we say that for cheating on your taxes? Our constituents 
expect us to provide a level playing field when it comes to the Tax 
Code, and the Republicans should not tilt that playing field towards 
tax cheats in the pursuit of their November preelection strategy.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that all of this legislation 
designed to hurt the Internal Revenue Service instead places the burden 
most directly on the elderly, the poor, and the disabled. They are the 
ones who are most likely to need the services from the Internal Revenue 
Service that they can no longer find. This is not just a problem for 
the Internal Revenue Service or for taxpayers but also for this 
Congress. When our constituents cannot get the help they need and 
deserve from a Federal agency, they turn to us. It is not just the 
Commissioner who has called for more resources but also the IRS 
Oversight Board, the Taxpayer Advocate, and the Treasury inspector 
general.
  I am hopeful that this Congress will listen. These are our 
constituents who need us.

[[Page H1919]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are accused now of wanting to have it both ways. I 
suppose we are guilty as charged. We have an expectation that the 
Internal Revenue Service is going to work well with the resources that 
they have been appropriated and be able to be responsive to inquiries, 
but it is an important distinction because we are saying that the IRS 
has to respond at the same level at which they demand responses from 
the taxpayer.
  So, when you get a letter at home from the Internal Revenue Service, 
there is nobody who is cavalier about that. What happens? You look at 
that. My constituents look at that. The business owners in my 
district--the small businesses in my district--look at something from 
the Internal Revenue Service, and they say, Stop the presses. Wow, we 
have got to stop everything. The IRS is coming in, and we have got to 
deal with this. Get on top of it.
  Yet we are told that the Internal Revenue Service cannot be held to 
that same standard, to that same level of responsiveness that the IRS 
demands from American citizens--demands with the ability to fine, 
demands with the ability to imprison if necessary, demands with the 
ability to take your property away through the force of liens.
  I think the IRS can handle it. I think the IRS is now recognizing, 
hey, there is something that is going on, and the American public is 
recognizing that what has actually happened is that they have delegated 
a great deal of authority to the Internal Revenue Service. With the way 
our Founders created our system, Mr. Speaker, now these citizens are 
saying, We want to reclaim the authority. Why? Because the authority 
has been abused.
  You are going to be limited, Internal Revenue Service, based on this 
legislation and other legislation because you abused this.
  This is not about the poor. This is not about the elderly. This is 
not about the disabled. Those arguments are not very persuasive. This 
is about the limitation of the long arm of the Federal Government being 
able to hold you to account and my constituents to account to a 
standard that they are unwilling to live by themselves. That is just 
wrong.
  So do we want it both ways? Yes, we do. We want the Internal Revenue 
Service to be wise with the money that has been allocated to them, and 
we want them to be forthcoming and helpful when it comes to responding 
in the same way to which they have been responded.
  Now, my distinguished colleague from Illinois has mentioned the 
consternation and hand-wringing that has come upon the Internal Revenue 
Service. Here is a fairly simple remedy, Mr. Speaker:
  The Internal Revenue Service can be forthcoming. They can say, Here 
is the information, to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, 
that you have requested. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee 
has requested documentation, particularly about Lois Lerner, who is at 
the heart of this investigation.
  Has the Internal Revenue Service been forthcoming to give Lois 
Lerner's emails? The answer is ``no.'' It is difficult. It is one 
excuse after another. ``We are looking.'' ``We are searching.'' It is 
all of these sorts of ``the dog ate my homework'' responses.
  Here is the simple remedy:
  If it has taken too much time, if it is that big of a problem, if it 
is taking all of this energy that they want to devote to helping 
taxpayers that, instead, they are spending devoting to defending 
themselves in an investigation, save a lot of time--print out the 
emails, and send them to Chairman Dave Camp. That is how they can save 
time, and that is how they can save money.
  By golly, we have got to get to a point where this agency is under 
control and is doing the right thing by those who have entrusted them 
with a great deal of authority.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have no further 
requests for time and am prepared to close. I will end with just two 
things.
  I certainly appreciate the instructions as well as the passion from 
my colleague from Illinois, and I want every agency of our government 
to be as efficient as it possibly can and should be.
  One of the things that we have learned is that you can't get blood 
out of a turnip.

                              {time}  1715

  You can squeeze it; you can tease it; you can do everything to it 
that you want to, but it will still end up being blood.
  The other thing that I will end with is this month we celebrate 
African American History Month. I am reminded of something that 
Frederick Douglass said:

       In this world, we may not get everything that we pay for, 
     but we most certainly must pay for everything that we get.

  I maintain that we must have the adequate resources that are needed 
for employees to do their jobs in a timely and efficient manner. And so 
I appreciate the comments of my colleague. I appreciate his passion.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Illinois 
(Mr. Danny K. Davis) for his willingness to come and debate this issue. 
I appreciate his admonition about Frederick Douglass and that whole 
notion that we need to pay for what we get, and I think that that is a 
good word on which to end.
  In other words, the American public has an expectation that they are 
going to get something, and they are paying for it. They are paying for 
it in taxes that, in some cases, are confiscatory--a very, very high 
tax burden--and they are voluntarily complying with the Tax Code. And 
toward that end, they have the expectation that they are going to be 
treated courteously, that they are going to be treated with respect, 
and that they are not going to be subsequently targeted by some other 
Federal agency completely unrelated to their inquiring.
  So I urge the passage of H.R. 2530, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 2530, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________