IRS: So… Our Computer Crashed And Erased All Of Lois Lerner’s Emails

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**IronWarLeg**

d-usa wrote:
IronWarLeg wrote:
d-usa wrote:
They also tell you what you owe, because they already get a copy of (most) your income before you even file your taxes.

They get a copy of your W2 from your employer, so the IRS knows if you claimed all your income on your tax forms without having to audit you.

This is incorrect, we do not receive income information until around May/June, most returns are accepted after they pass some scrutiny for obvious frivilous returns. This is why some audits can take 6 months, like one from AUR, where you forget income on your return, we come along after and correct the return for you to include the forgotten income (arnt we nice?).

More to come, dont know how to multi-quote..

It is automatically figured out though.

I found out the hard way a couple years after my job switched payroll processor and I only got one W2 instead of two. I didn't even know that my second one was missing until 3 years later when the IRS had it and I didn't and they send me an updated "by the way, this was your correct income so you owe us $X,XXX in taxes".

Yep, that's the AUR I was referring to in my other post, they send you a CP2000 (cool name for a crappy notice to get). Yes our systems do match your income to what is reported, within certain criteria, but this can happen anywhere from 6 months past your filing date to 3 years, when we are no longer able to review returns by law. I apologize, I should have been more specific to which part of your post I was referring to, mainly the part where we know your income when you file before April 15th

**d-usa**

Fun part is that you guys apperantly switched to the same system that we did during the same time (DFAS).

The IRS lady that I spoke to wanted to know how I can just "forget" to file part of my W2 and sounded pretty skeptical at first. I explained to her that we switched to DFAS and I was mailed my W2 at the end of the year like the year before, but I didn't realize that I had to download the other half of my W2 from the payroll site.

She heard "switched to DFAS" and said that they had to do the same thing and it was a bit of a clusterfeth and then she understood.

Had to spend many times on the phone setting up payment plans and figuring stuff out. Everybody was very nice and professional though, it probably helps when the person calling isn't a dick either though.

**IronWarLeg**

whembly wrote:
@IronWarLeg: I meant that we have obligations to file taxes and that the process is voluntary.

It's like we know we're supposed to obey traffic lights, but some folks choose to ignore them at their own peril.

Yes, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to file, but by law you are supposed to, the consequences of not filing are commensurate to your income and the amount of taxes potentially owed. The income you report is voluntarily reported when you are self employed (w2 earners are different as d-usa noted, the IRS knows), as are the credits you claim, but you better be able to back up what you put on a return, hence why the "guilty until proven innocent" saying doesn't work here. If you put something on a tax return, you have to be able to back it up. We don't accuse you of taking a credit, you filed a return claiming you qualify for that credit, we only ask for proof.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Fun part is that you guys apperantly switched to the same system that we did during the same time (DFAS).

The IRS lady that I spoke to wanted to know how I can just "forget" to file part of my W2 and sounded pretty skeptical at first. I explained to her that we switched to DFAS and I was mailed my W2 at the end of the year like the year before, but I didn't realize that I had to download the other half of my W2 from the payroll site.

She heard "switched to DFAS" and said that they had to do the same thing and it was a bit of a clusterfeth and then she understood.

Had to spend many times on the phone setting up payment plans and figuring stuff out. Everybody was very nice and professional though, it probably helps when the person calling isn't a dick either though.

We hear this all the time, "Man I thought you guys were all a-holes and this call was gonna suck but you guys have been great!". Ill be the first to admit that we have some bad apples who are indeed a-holes, but honestly the caller sets the tone. I take a whole different approach to people calling looking for help than I do people who want to call in and argue tax law for frivolous crap, like saying I don't have to pay taxes because I live in the "Republic" of California... sir I am going to put you on hold while a smash my forehead against my keyboard.

Edit: And now we are paid by the Dept. of Agriculture...

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
Factually true. Even the IRS' own IG confirmed it.

Nope, it's false. 16 groups were identified for greater scrutiny based on having the word 'progressive' in their name.

Now, you can argue that groups with conservative flags like 'Tea Party' were more likely to be flagged purely on that word search, and that argument has a basis on the limited stats we've been given so far (30% of groups with progressive were sent for further review, 100% of 'Tea Party' were flagged for further review). That isn't conclusive, because we can't just assume all groups are equally likely to be needing further scrutiny - it could well be that 70% of progressive groups were clearly engaged in greater charity, while none of the Tea Party groups were - that can only be established with a case by case review.

But what you absolutely, completely cannot say is that only conservative groups were considered for further review. That is absolutely, definitively incorrect.

**whembly**

So you're don't believe J. Russell George, Treasury’s own inspector general for tax administration?

**sebster**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Politicians over egging something to get their base fired up before the mid-terms and keep the pressure on an Administration that has terrible approval ratings? Say it isn't so

Of course, the irony that a politically motivated inquisition is making lots of noise about a government resource being used for political purposes shouldn't be lost on anyone.

And I agree that there's a credibility gap. My point is simply that lurching from that credibility gap to concluding the wildest theories are established is a really bad way to go about this... unless of course the objective is just to score media headlines.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
J. Russell George[/url], Treasury’s own inspector general for tax administration?

Well now I know you're even pretending to read anything posted here.

Your link says "Liberal groups weren't targeted by IRS like Tea Party". I have already said "Now, you can argue that groups with conservative flags like 'Tea Party' were more likely to be flagged purely on that word search, and that argument has a basis". So, if you're actually reading this, you'll see I've already recognised what you tried to argue with that link.

Where the disagreement lies is with your claim that only conservative groups were targeted, which is absolutely 100% false. Progressive groups were targeted, making your claim simply wrong.

**whembly**

Now you're just playing the semantic war here.

"Targeting" in the sense that one side received different treatment than the other.

But, you know that.

**Dreadclaw69**

sebster wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Politicians over egging something to get their base fired up before the mid-terms and keep the pressure on an Administration that has terrible approval ratings? Say it isn't so

Of course, the irony that a politically motivated inquisition is making lots of noise about a government resource being used for political purposes shouldn't be lost on anyone.

And I agree that there's a credibility gap. My point is simply that lurching from that credibility gap to concluding the wildest theories are established is a really bad way to go about this... unless of course the objective is just to score media headlines.

You may claim that it is politically motivated, but the fact that there is substantial evidence to suggest that a government body targeted groups based on their political leanings should be chilling. The fact that Watergate happened once is once too often. People should be able to express their political beliefs free from fear of government reprisal.

What wild theories are you talking about specifically? Lest we forget the IRS just settled a case yesterday where they admitted to leaking a conservative groups confidential details (including a donor list) to their rivals. The IRS paid a fine and it remains to be seen if anyone will be prosecuted for the leak, which is a felony. The conduct of the IRS has been evasive at best; lies, obfuscation, silence. They are doing themselves no favours.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/23/politics/irs-e-mails/index.html

Washington (CNN) -- To the pile of accusations against the IRS, now add one of the first opinions by a nonpartisan official that the agency went outside the law.

That conclusion on Tuesday from the official responsible for managing historically important U.S. records came at a congressional hearing during which Republicans also tried to widen the spotlight of IRS scandal to include the White House.

David Ferriero, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration, told a House panel that the IRS "did not follow the law" when it failed to tell his agency about the loss of emails belonging to former IRS official Lois Lerner.

The Lerner emails are of particularly high-interest because she was the most senior manager so far connected to IRS targeting of tea party and other political groups.

Lerner retired last year and has refused to testify before Congress, exercising her constitutional right not to do so.

The House has charged her with contempt as a result and her lack of testimony has frustrated Republican investigators.

Over a week ago, the IRS revealed that Lerner's hard drive crashed in 2011, destroying thousands of emails and documents. The agency insists it has retrieved some 24,000 of the missing emails by checking the accounts of other IRS employees who corresponded with Lerner.

Republicans have pounced on the technical aspects of the crash as well as on whether the IRS followed federal records keeping law by not having a better backup system to retain electronic information. Those laws also require agencies to notify the archives of any loss of official records.

Tuesday's hearing before the House Oversight Committee followed a contentious session on Monday night during which the panel grilled agency commissioner John Koskinen.

In questioning before the panel on Tuesday, Ferriero told lawmakers that Lerner's emails were certainly federal records -- either temporary or permanent. And he said the IRS has yet to report the loss of the hard drive and the emails to his agency.

"Did they break the law?" Rep. Tim Walberg, a Michigan Republican, asked.

"I'm not a lawyer," Ferriero answered.

"Can we safely assume they broke the law?" Walberg followed.

"They did not follow the law," Ferriero concluded.

White House official testifies
The IRS has maintained that it did not realize the full extent of the hard drive crash until late April or early May.

Koskinen testified the IRS waited to tell Congress because it was trying to retrieve and reconstruct what information it could at first.

The same hearing included testimony from White House attorney Jennifer O'Connor, who worked at the IRS from May to November of 2013.

Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa subpoenaed O'Connor after the White House initially said that she left the IRS before the agency knew about the hard drive crash and could not offer any meaningful testimony. She agreed to appear following the subpoena.

That set up immediate tension, as the California Republican opened his questioning by accusing O'Connor of being a hostile witness, demanding quick yes or no answers.

"I'm definitely not hostile," she answered in an almost gentle voice, stressing that she was eager to cooperate and ultimately sparking Issa to say the term "hostile" was not accurate.

As the White House foretold, she shed no light on the Lerner hard drive crash. But O'Connor did give one of the most detailed public descriptions yet of how the IRS initially responded to the congressional investigations into the tea party targeting.

Tedious process
She laid out a tedious five-step process to find and collect tens of thousands of emails, for which the agency was unprepared at first.

"The IRS' material is protected with careful encryption," O'Connor said. "So it needs to be processed before it can be reviewed. They have to load it and flatten it and then decrypt it. ... Then, they would run the (search) terms that the congressional committees had identified over the material and once that was done and the material was viewable, they would move it over into a review tool."

O'Connor said that then acting IRS Commissioner Dan Werfel was emphatic in directing that the agency turn over documents as fully and quickly as possible in response to congressional requests.

But when she arrived, O'Connor saw an IRS that did not have the resources in place for such an operation.

"We (needed) to add people because the IRS had never encountered anything like this," O'Connor told the panel. "We didn't have the staff in place to do this kind of document review production."

She added that the agency also had to add significant server capacity to handle the requests.

"I think the record of the IRS reflects very very hard work to produce the documents," O'Connor concluded.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:
In other news related to IRS wrongdoing: (complete with the perp taking the 5th, the IRS withholding documents, and Eric Holder’s DOJ refusing to prosecute)

That article does not indicate Holder is unwilling to prosecute.

It also doesn't feed into the general "issue" of conservative targeting, given that it has been well established that leaks occurred.

whembly wrote:

"Targeting" in the sense that one side received different treatment than the other.

You have proof of this which extends beyond probability?

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The fact that Watergate happened once is once too often.

That's not what Watergate was about, and this is clearly nothing like Watergate.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

People should be able to express their political beliefs free from fear of government reprisal.

I agree, but I don't know how that is relevant to the present issue. Though that may be related to my belief that spending is not speech.

**whembly**

Bad enough that those emails were destroyed...

The ones found however?
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/06/25/emails-reveal-irs-official-lois-lerner-audit-gop-senator-Charles-Grassley/20920180/?ModPagespeed=noscript

Is bad enough. Those destroyed emails must be pretty darn bad.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Is bad enough. Those destroyed emails must be pretty darn bad.

My first thought was "AOL still exists?"

But my second thought was "Wow, Whembly is reaching." as none of the quotations from the emails noted in your article are especially bad. Indeed, the article itself refers to a lack of clarity:

It was unclear from the emails whether Lerner was suggesting that Grassley or the group be audited - or both.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

Is bad enough. Those destroyed emails must be pretty darn bad.

My first thought was "AOL still exists?"

Heh... my first thought too! It was the first one on my twittah feed. There's more on AP, CNN, etc...

But my second thought was "Wow, Whembly is reaching." as none of the quotations from the emails noted in your article are especially bad. Indeed, the article itself refers to a lack of clarity:

It was unclear from the emails whether Lerner was suggesting that Grassley or the group be audited - or both.

Think about it man... she's the head of the Tax Exempt Division.

Evidently, both Grassley and Lerner were invited to the same tax event, but somehow Grassley’s invite ended up in Lerner’s envelope. No biggie...right?

That’s how she knew he’d been invited. And because Grassley’s wife was included on the invite, Lerner jumped to the conclusion that the event organizers were offering to “inappropriately” pay for his wife.

What’s wrong with her raising the alarm about that?
(a) there was no reason yet to think Grassley had accepted the invitation. She wanted to “examine” the guy (or the c3/c4 organization) on the mere possibility that he would.
(b) per her e-mail exchange with her deputy on this, she seems … not to understand the law at all. It falls to the deputy to explain to her that it’s not illegal for event organizers to pay for his wife so long as he reports the income on his 1040.

In other words, not only did she assume without knowing that Grassley and his wife would attend, she assumed without knowing that they’d end up lying about it on their next tax return.

That's the mindset we're dealing with. And giving the sensitivity of this, this adds fuel to the fire.

@IronWarLeg: do you find that unusual?

**IronWarLeg**

whembly wrote:
dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

Is bad enough. Those destroyed emails must be pretty darn bad.

My first thought was "AOL still exists?"

Heh... my first thought too! It was the first one on my twittah feed. There's more on AP, CNN, etc...

But my second thought was "Wow, Whembly is reaching." as none of the quotations from the emails noted in your article are especially bad. Indeed, the article itself refers to a lack of clarity:

It was unclear from the emails whether Lerner was suggesting that Grassley or the group be audited - or both.

Think about it man... she's the head of the Tax Exempt Division.

Evidently, both Grassley and Lerner were invited to the same tax event, but somehow Grassley’s invite ended up in Lerner’s envelope. No biggie...right?

That’s how she knew he’d been invited. And because Grassley’s wife was included on the invite, Lerner jumped to the conclusion that the event organizers were offering to “inappropriately” pay for his wife.

What’s wrong with her raising the alarm about that?
(a) there was no reason yet to think Grassley had accepted the invitation. She wanted to “examine” the guy (or the c3/c4 organization) on the mere possibility that he would.
(b) per her e-mail exchange with her deputy on this, she seems … not to understand the law at all. It falls to the deputy to explain to her that it’s not illegal for event organizers to pay for his wife so long as he reports the income on his 1040.

In other words, not only did she assume without knowing that Grassley and his wife would attend, she assumed without knowing that they’d end up lying about it on their next tax return.

That's the mindset we're dealing with. And giving the sensitivity of this, this adds fuel to the fire.

@IronWarLeg: do you find that unusual?

I find it to be a bit premature, if the emails in question were during the same tax year, then the IRS would have nothing to audit until after the return had been filed the following year to see if the "income/gift" of the dinner supplied to his spouse had been claimed. These are functions that are WAY above my head so things do operate differently I am sure. For the regular citizen that I deal with everyday exams (audits) are chosen at random if no probable cause is given to scrutinize the return.

**Jihadin**

I think they are trying to establish "indicators" or whatever behavior

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

(a) there was no reason yet to think Grassley had accepted the invitation. She wanted to “examine” the guy (or the c3/c4 organization) on the mere possibility that he would.

Yes, and?

The IRS administers campaign fundraising laws, as threads of this "scandal" go this is a thin one.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

(a) there was no reason yet to think Grassley had accepted the invitation. She wanted to “examine” the guy (or the c3/c4 organization) on the mere possibility that he would.

Yes, and?

The IRS administers campaign fundraising laws, as threads of this "scandal" go this is a thin one.

For something that hasn't happened...yet. What it suggest is that Lerner had what you might call an itchy trigger finger syndrome, particularly when it comes to conservatives.

These emails themselves are not especially damning, but they do support the central narrative surrounding the IRS scandal. Which is thusly: that political considerations came into play in the application of tax law.

**Jihadin**

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen is in the spotlight as he is set to further testify to Congress regarding the IRS targeting of conservative groups. It is important to remember that Koskinen has shelled out nearly $100,000 to Democratic candidates and groups.

Koskinen has been contributing to Democrats for four decades, starting with a $1000 contribution to Democratic candidate for Colorado Senate candidate Gary Hart in 1979.

Koskinen has been a reliable donor over the years, contributing a total of $19,000 to the Democratic National Committee from 1988 to 2008. He has made a contribution to the Democratic candidate for president in each election since 1980, including $2,300 to Obama in 2008, and $5000 to Obama in 2012.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has received $3,000 from Koskinen since 2008, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee received $2,000 from 2004 to 2006.

Hillary Clinton has received $3,800 for her various political campaigns from Koskinen.

Koskinen’s most recent contribution was $2,500 to Sen. Mark Warner (D., Va.) in February of 2013.

Its silly. Plain out right silly.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

These emails themselves are not especially damning, but they do support the central narrative surrounding the IRS scandal. Which is thusly: that political considerations came into play in the application of tax law.

And the end result is?

Of course political considerations came in to play. I mean, we're talking about regulations that may as well be campaign finance law.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

These emails themselves are not especially damning, but they do support the central narrative surrounding the IRS scandal. Which is thusly: that political considerations came into play in the application of tax law.

And the end result is?

An agency that can not remain neutral.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

An agency that can not remain neutral.

When has any Agency been expected to remain "neutral"?

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

An agency that can not remain neutral.

When has any Agency been expected to remain "neutral"?

Dude... why bother?

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Dude... why bother?

So you neither have an answer, nor would you produce one if you did.

**whembly**

You're simply advocating what Nixon tried to do.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:
You're simply advocating what Nixon tried to do.

As I understand it Nixon was the person that refused to answer direct questions.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:
You're simply advocating what Nixon tried to do.

As I understand it Nixon was the person that refused to answer direct questions.

They are expected to remain neutral.

If you want to talk about Nixon... fine:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/us/politics/johnnie-m-walters-ex-irs-chief-dies-at-94.html

...
Mr. Walters had not been told of Nixon’s other job requirements, as revealed in a White House conversation recorded on May 13, 1971. “I want to be sure he is a ruthless son of a bitch, that he will do what he’s told, that every income-tax return I want to see I see, that he will go after our enemies and not go after our friends,” the president said.

Mr. Walters failed to follow this script — which was unknown to him — when John W. Dean III, the White House counsel, summoned him to his office on Sept. 11, 1972. Mr. Dean handed him the “enemies list” of 200 people, most prominent Democrats, whom he wanted investigated.

“I was shocked,” Mr. Walters said in a 1997 interview with The Washington Post. “John, do you realize what you’re doing?” he remembered saying. “If I did what you asked, it’d make Watergate look like a Sunday school picnic.”

But Mr. Dean was emphatic, he recalled, saying, “The man I work for doesn’t like somebody to say ‘no.’ ”

Several days later, Mr. Walters went to his immediate boss, Treasury Secretary George P. Shultz, showed him the list and recommended that the I.R.S. do nothing. Mr. Shultz told him to lock the list in his safe.
...

Awfully close... no?

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

If you want to talk about Nixon... fine:

I didn't want to talk about Nixon, you did; but we should dispense with that matter.

whembly wrote:

Awfully close... no?

And seemingly do.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

If you want to talk about Nixon... fine:

I didn't want to talk about Nixon, you did; but we should dispense with that matter.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:

Awfully close... no?

And seemingly do.

Okay... but, be specific. Should the IRS conduct itself in a non-partisan way?

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Okay... but, be specific. Should the IRS conduct itself in a non-partisan way?

Sure, assuming such a thing is possible.

**Jihadin**

Like watching a tennis match here

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
Now you're just playing the semantic war here.

"Targeting" in the sense that one side received different treatment than the other.

But, you know that.

I'm not playing a semantic game, but it seems like you're playing to get out way over-stating your case.

Here's what you said; "that IRS were in the right to target only conservatives"

But it wasn't only conservatives targeted, left wing phrases like progressive and medical marijuana were also searched, and groups picked up under those terms were referred for greater examination.

Your statement was simply not correct.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You may claim that it is politically motivated, but the fact that there is substantial evidence to suggest that a government body targeted groups based on their political leanings should be chilling.

Chilling is more than bit dramatic.

And your claim that there is substantial evidence to suggest is pretty far off the mark. At this stage we have evidence of a scheme that impacted both sides but one more substantially than the other, and insufficient evidence at this point that that unequal impact was unintentional. That's it. That's what we've got.

That doesn't mean the investigation should stop - exactly what happened and why needs to be established. But it does mean that all the claims that this is a 'chilling' targeting of political enemies is highly fanciful and mostly just political pointscoring.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/06/25/emails-reveal-irs-official-lois-lerner-audit-gop-senator-Charles-Grassley/20920180/?ModPagespeed=noscript

Is bad enough. Those destroyed emails must be pretty darn bad.

"The emails show former IRS official Lois Lerner mistakenly received an invitation to an event that was meant to go to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

The event organizer apparently offered to pay for Grassley's wife to attend the event. In an email to another IRS official, Lerner suggests referring the matter for an audit, saying it might be inappropriate for the group to pay for his wife."

Yeah, that's damning. This is really getting very Benghazi - the more I see people pretending to be shocked and scandalised by the most minor nothing, the more I suspect there really is nothing to this.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
That’s how she knew he’d been invited. And because Grassley’s wife was included on the invite, Lerner jumped to the conclusion that the event organizers were offering to “inappropriately” pay for his wife.

In claiming Lerner jumped to a conclusion you are, ironically, jumping to a conclusion. From your own article "The event organizer apparently offered to pay for Grassley's wife to attend the event." It may we be that the offer to pay for the wife was clear from the invite, as it almost would be.

What’s wrong with her raising the alarm about that?
(a) there was no reason yet to think Grassley had accepted the invitation. She wanted to “examine” the guy (or the c3/c4 organization) on the mere possibility that he would.
(b) per her e-mail exchange with her deputy on this, she seems … not to understand the law at all. It falls to the deputy to explain to her that it’s not illegal for event organizers to pay for his wife so long as he reports the income on his 1040.

And now we get to the nub of the issue - you're trying to find scandal in someone asking a question and then being told not to worry about it. Maybe the absurdity of that isn't readily apparent to people outside of finance, but talking through issues is what happens all the time. You get a document, you notice what might be an anomaly, and you raise the issue with other staff, and either someone knows that issue specifically or you talk it out and reach a final conclusion.

And almost all the time you end up deciding that this is okay, or its a really minor thing that's not worth bothering with. Which is exactly what happened here.