close X

Search Results for: IRS

Congress Investigates IRS for Trying to Evade Oversight

February 14, 2018 by

Over the past two weeks, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (“HSGAC”) Chairman Ron Johnson and HSGAC Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs Chairman James Lankford have sent two letters to investigate the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) claim that any economic impact from the agency’s rules is due to the underlying statute and not its regulatory choices.  Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) profiled the IRS claim, its implications, and the role of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in a recent investigative report and op-ed.

HSGAC Letter to OIRA

On February 1, 2018, Chairmen Johnson and Lankford sent a letter to OIRA urging the White House regulatory office to reconsider a “longstanding agreement between [OIRA] and the Department of the Treasury to exempt regulations issued by the [IRS] from the requirements contained in Executive Order 12866.”

In 1983, OIRA, under President Reagan, agreed to create a three-tiered system to review IRS rules, which has resulted in very few IRS rules being sent to the White House regulatory office for pre-publication review.[1]  The IRS finally released the long-secret agreement in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from CoA Institute.  The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) has also called for the agreement to be revisited.

In their letter, Chairmen Johnson and Lankford:

strongly urge[d] [OIRA] to revisit the regulatory agreement between OIRA and Treasury, as directed by President Trump’s EO 13789, with a critical eye as to why this agreement is necessary.  [They] also encourage[d] OIRA to implement all the recommendations in GAO’s September 2016 report and provide a full explanation to the Committee and Subcommittee in the event that OIRA declines to implement any of GAO’s recommendations.

The Chairmen also announced that they “intend[] to hold an oversight hearing in the very near future regarding OIRA activities.  The issues outlined in this letter will likely constitute a major part of this hearing.”

This effort is important because OIRA plays a key role in coordinating and legitimizing Executive Branch regulatory actions.  If an agency is able to make federal regulatory policy without oversight from the President, that policy not only lacks independent review but also political legitimacy.  OIRA is well-positioned to rein in the IRS and demand that the agency begin to do the same pre-publication regulatory cost-benefit analysis and economic-impact analysis as other federal agencies.

It will be interesting to hear OIRA Administrator Neomi Rao’s thoughts on the long-standing, long-secret memo at a congressional oversight hearing, as I do not believe OIRA as an institution has spoken on the issue since 1993.  Hopefully, Administrator Rao will take this opportunity to review and end the agreement between OIRA and Treasury and bring the IRS into line with other agencies.

HSGAC Letter to IRS

In addition, on February 13, 2018, Chairmen Johnson and Lankford sent a letter to Acting IRS Commissioner David Kautter presenting many of the findings from CoA Institute’s report.[2]  In their letter, the Chairmen summarized the report’s central finding:

[CoA Institute’s] report found that the IRS “takes the position that its rules have no economic effect because any impact is attributable to the underlying law that authorized the rule, not the agency’s decision to issue or alter the rule.”  The IRS’s position apparently dates back nearly 20 years, when the IRS Office of Chief Counsel issued a notice taking this position.  The report notes that while the IRS initially limited its economic analysis exemption to only “interpretative regulations and revenue impacts, both limitations fell away over time.”

The Chairmen asked the IRS a number of oversight questions, to learn more about the agency’s behavior and any justification it may have.  First, they asked whether “the IRS has conducted any retrospective economic impact analyses of regulations that did not receive an initial economic impact analysis.”  I am dubious that the IRS has done so.  If it believes its rules are exempt from initial economic impact analysis, I doubt its going back to see if it was right or wrong.  Any retroactive analysis likely would just shift blame back to the underlying statute again.

Second, the Chairmen noted that in 2016 “the Small Business Administration’s [(“SBA”)] Office of Advocacy wrote to the IRS disputing the agency’s assertion that the IRS’s regulations are not subject to the requirement to conduct economic impact analyses.”  The Chairmen want to know if the IRS ever responded to SBA or if any other agencies have pushed back on the IRS claim.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Chairmen asked the IRS to “explain the process by which a determination is made as to whether the agency will or will not conduct an economic impact analysis on a proposed regulation.”  This final question is critical because, up to now, the IRS has provided very little explanation of how it goes about making the determination in an individualized case that a certain rule’s impact flows from the statute.  CoA Institute’s work in this area shows that the agency developed these self-bestowed exemptions over time, found them a convenient tool to avoid additional pre-publication work, and rarely gives more than a boilerplate claim that the exemption applies to certain cases.

It is heartening to see that Chairmen Johnson and Lankford are beginning the oversight process on this issue.  I look forward to seeing the responses from OIRA and the IRS.

James Valvo is Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor at Cause of Action Institute.  He is the principal author of Evading Oversight.  You can follow him on Twitter @JamesValvo.

[1] In 2016, CoA Institute found that “over the past ten years, the IRS has submitted only eight rules to OIRA for regulatory review and deemed only one of those rules significant.  Those eight rules are less than one percent of the final rules the IRS published in the Federal Register over the same period.”

[2] President Trump recently nominated Chuck Rettig to be the new IRS Commissioner, and CoA Institute has urged the Senate Finance Committee to press Mr. Rettig on whether he will end this IRS practice of evading oversight of its regulatory actions.

Filed Under: Media, Blog Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Rettig Nomination Gives Congress Chance to Hold IRS Accountable

February 9, 2018 by

Last month, Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) released an investigative report detailing a pernicious practice at the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).  The agency claims that none of the economic impact caused by its rules is attributable to its regulatory choices. Instead it says the impact flows from the underlying statute.  The IRS uses this claim to evade three important oversight mechanisms.  When we released the report, we called on Congress to press whomever President Trump nominated to be the next IRS commissioner to promise to reform this practice.  Well, Trump just nominated Chuck Rettig to head the agency.  So it’s time for Congress to stand up and hold the IRS accountable for its decades-long practice of playing by its own rules.

CoA Institute just sent a letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch and Ranking Member Ron Wyden urging them to press Mr. Rettig on this issue during their face-to-face meetings and at a public hearing.

View the Letter Concerning Mr. Rettig’s Nomination Below

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [394.17 KB]

James Valvo is Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor at Cause of Action Institute.  He is the principal author of Evading Oversight.  You can follow him on Twitter @JamesValvo.

Filed Under: Media, Blog Tagged With: , , , ,

IRS Dodges Oversight, Refuses to Measure Economic Impact of its Rules: Investigative Report

January 10, 2018 by

Washington D.C. – Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) today released a groundbreaking investigative report, Evading Oversight: The Origins and Implications of the IRS Claim that its Rules Do Not Have an Economic Impact, that reveals how the IRS has developed a series of self-bestowed exemptions allowing the agency to evade several legally required oversight mechanisms. The report outlines in detail how the IRS created this exemption to exempt itself from three critical reviews intended to provide our elected branches and the public an opportunity to assess the economic impact of rules before they are finalized.

Read about the report in today’s Wall Street Journal, including suggestions for how the White House and Congress can work together to end this harmful practice.

CoA Institute Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor James Valvo: “The IRS for too long has evaded its responsibilities to conduct and publish analysis of its rules. Rules issued by the IRS can change the economic landscape for Americans in many ways, including how the agency calculates deductions, exemptions, reporting, and recordkeeping. By creating bureaucratic loopholes, the IRS deliberately sidesteps several oversight mechanisms designed to provide a check on overly burdensome rules. The IRS should be held to the same standard as other regulatory agencies and stop avoiding its responsibilities.”

For years, the IRS has evaded several laws directing agencies to create economic impact statements for rules. These analyses are part of three oversight mechanisms: The Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Congressional Review Act, and review by the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.  All three are good-government measures designed to provide a check on abuse by the administrative state.

CoA Institute’s investigative report reveals the origins and implications of the unprecedented IRS position that its rules have no economic impact and do not require such analysis because, it claims, any impact emerges from the underlying law that authorized the rule, and not the agency’s decision to issue or alter it.

The full report, including executive summary and key findings, can be accessed HERE.

For information regarding this press release, please contact Zachary Kurz, Director of Communications at CoA Institute: zachary.kurz@causeofaction.org.

Filed Under: Media, Press Release Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Evading Oversight: The Origins and Implications of the IRS Claim That Its Rules Do Not Have an Economic Impact

Evading Oversight: The Origins and Implications of the IRS Claim That Its Rules Do Not Have an Economic Impact

Updates:

In The News:

Introduction:

A tension exists in federal administrative law. Agencies are tasked by statute with executing delegated functions, and the president is assigned by the Constitution to head the Executive Branch and take care that laws are faithfully executed. This creates tension because agencies can make controversial, burdensome, unwise, or unaccountable decisions that may conflict with statutory mandates or the president’s chosen governing course. This tension has heightened over the past one hundred years as the size and scope of the administrative state has dramatically increased. Disputes over how to control administrative agencies and the validity of their actions have also sharpened during the same period.

We Recommend

In an attempt to alleviate these tensions, Congress and the president have installed various regulatory-oversight mechanisms. The mechanisms, embodied in statutes and executive orders, seek to mitigate the worst agency abuses, while also reinjecting constitutional actors into the agency decision-making process. When agencies act to subvert these oversight mechanisms, they undermine legitimate checks on their power and raise concerns about the propriety of their decisions, thereby exacerbating concerns about lack of control over the administrative state.

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) is one such agency. It has systematically constructed a series of exemptions from certain aspects of three important oversight mechanisms: the Regulatory Flexibility Act, White House review pursuant to Executive Order 12,866, and the Congressional Review Act. The IRS purports to base these self-made exemptions on the claim that any economic impact of the rules that it issues flows from the underlying statute and is not attributable to its regulatory actions, for the purpose of triggering economic impact analyses and information sharing under these three oversight mechanisms. The agency, however, has not provided any detailed, public explanation to justify its position. Further, the IRS position, if correct, would apply to any regulation promulgated by any agency, as hopefully all regulations are based on a statute.

All three oversight mechanisms are designed to: (1) increase information sharing between agencies and the constitutional actors that oversee their actions, and (2) disclose to the public the economic significance of agency decisions. By claiming an exemption from these mechanisms, the IRS is denying Congress, the president, and the public important information about how IRS rules impact the economy and how different administrative choices could alleviate that impact.

Key Findings:

  • Finding #1: In the three sections of the Internal Revenue Manual that govern the IRS approach to compliance with three important regulatory oversight mechanisms, the agency claims that its regulations have no economic impact because any such impact is attributable only to the underlying statute.
  • Finding #2: The agency asserts that its regulations have no economic impact to claim self-bestowed exemptions that allow it to avoid economic impact analyses and the sharing of information with the White House, Congress, and the public. The IRS has provided no detailed, public explanation to justify its position.
  • Finding #3: The IRS first claimed that its regulations have no economic impact to evade a congressional amendment to the Regulatory Flexibility Act that was explicitly designed to cover IRS regulations.
  • Finding #4: Over time, the agency has expanded its self-bestowed exemption to avoid a greater number of regulatory-oversight mechanisms. The exemption first applied only to the “revenue impacts” of IRS regulations but is now claimed for all “effects.” In addition to avoiding the requirement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the IRS also applies its exemption in the context of White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs review and the Congressional Review Act. The IRS has provided no detailed, public explanation to justify these expansions.
  • Finding #5: The combination of the IRS assertion that its rules do not create an economic impact and a 1983 memorandum of understanding between the White House and the Department of the Treasury has created a moral hazard that allows the IRS to determine which rules it sends to the White House for pre-publication review, as required under Executive Order 12,866 and its progeny.

 

The Forgotten 21 Disks: The IRS’s Unlawful Disclosure of Taxpayer Data to DOJ & FBI

November 9, 2017 by

Just as the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) targeting scandal was beginning to fade from Washington’s collective memory, it returned to the forefront of the national political scene with a vengeance.  It started with the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) decision in early September to forgo further criminal investigation of Lois Lerner and other IRS officials because of allegedly insufficient evidence of “criminal intent.”  Shortly thereafter, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration’s (“TIGTA”) released an audit review that expanded upon the watchdog’s 2013 report, which had concluded the IRS inappropriately selected conservative tax-exempt applicants for heightened scrutiny based on their names and policy positions rather than objective criteria.  TIGTA’s new report found that the IRS had similarly mistreated left-leaning groups.  As my colleagues argued, TIGTA’s findings hardly diminished the import of the earlier investigation, but “widen[ed] the scope of IRS misconduct and increase[ed] the urgency for further changes at the agency.”  More importantly, the report impliedly highlighted the absence of any serious attempts to root out the cause of IRS politicization.

While TIGTA announced its revised findings, the IRS rolled out a work plan for the Tax Exempt and Government Entities division—the component in which Ms. Lerner worked—which signaled efforts to develop “data-driven” criteria and “analytics” for IRS decision-making.  That, of course, raised the curious question of what exactly the IRS meant by “data-driven” and what criteria it previously had been using to assess tax-exempt compliance.  And this development was followed in quick succession by a DOJ announcement that it had reached a settlement agreement with some of the so-called “Tea Party” groups, who successfully argued their constitutional rights had been violated by the IRS.  Finally, Commissioner Koskinen ended his tenure as head of the IRS and, on the way out the door, tried—yet again—to downplay TIGTA’s role in exposing IRS wrongdoing.  “Sometimes they get a little carried away with their reports,” he suggested.

Lost in all this news—particularly, the DOJ decision not to reopen a criminal investigation—was the government’s stunning admission that confidential taxpayer data was, in fact, unlawfully disclosed by the IRS to the DOJ Public Integrity Section and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  As Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) reported last year, the DOJ Inspector General (“DOJ-OIG”) confirmed that “protected taxpayer information was included on compact discs (CDs) that the IRS provided to the Department [of Justice] in response to a Department request.”  Those infamous twenty-one disks contained more than 1.1 million pages of return information on different tax-exempt groups.  DOJ-OIG summarily concluded that the “matter does not warrant further investigation.”  TIGTA, which was also alerted to the unlawful disclosure, refused to comment.

DOJ ostensibly sought this trove of non-public information as part of the Obama Administration’s efforts to prosecute exempt entities for engaging in prohibited political activity.  Given the pattern of IRS abuse and politicization in previous administrations, however, those stated goals were always suspect, particularly given Ms. Lerner’s involvement.  Now, in light of TIGTA’s revelations about the scope of the IRS’s targeting, progressives should be as alarmed as conservatives about the lack of accountability for one of the largest and most significant breaches of taxpayer confidentiality laws in U.S. history.

When it confirmed that taxpayer data had been mishandled, DOJ-OIG also claimed that DOJ informed Congress about the unlawful disclosure.  We filed a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request last year to investigate the matter.  That request has gone unanswered.  We filed two additional follow-up requests last month (here and here), one of which also seeks records about the processing of the 2016 request.  To date, the authorities have refused to hold anyone at the IRS or DOJ accountable for the wrongful disclosure of countless pages of Americans’ private tax information.  The importance of these records cannot be overstated.  CoA Institute remains committed to bringing them to public light.

Ryan P. Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute

Filed Under: Media, Blog Tagged With: , , , , ,

Has the IRS Changed Its Selection Criteria or Just a Machine?

November 3, 2017 by

In May 2013, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (“TIGTA”) reported audit results showing that between May 2010 and May 2012, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) used “inappropriate criteria” to identify which organizations’ applications for tax-exempt status it would give heightened scrutiny.  TIGTA found that IRS selections had been based on groups’ names or policy positions rather than objective indicia that groups might act outside the requirements and limitations for tax-exempt status under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c).  As restated by TIGTA in its latest Review of Selected Criteria Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review, published this month, “using names and/or policy positions instead of developing criteria based on tax-exempt laws and Treasury Regulations is inappropriate.”

The IRS asserts it has been reforming its review-selection process ever since in an effort to develop “data-driven” criteria and use “data analytics to inform decision-making.”  For example, the latest work plan for the Tax Exempt and Government Entities 2018 fiscal yeatar says the IRS will “continue to improve Form 990, 990-EZ, and 990-PF compliance models” as part of a new “data-driven approach” to checking compliance and selecting returns for examination.  The phrases “data-driven selection criteria” and “data analytics” can conjure algorithms and black-box calculators that are supposed to mirror impartial decisions and whose lack of bias is notoriously difficult to understand without expert background and sophisticated mathematics.

The IRS’s description of its approach, however, proffers something much simpler that does not involve sophisticated mathematics or algorithmic analysis.  Instead, its new “data-driven” approach involves analyzing informational returns for indicia that the group is operating outside the restrictions of the tax-exempt statutes or not complying with reporting obligations.  So, under the 2018 Plan, examinations will target organizations whose returns show the “highest risk of Employment Tax non-compliance” (such as 1099 information showing “high distributions” or numerous employees but “zero or minimal Medicare and/or Social Security wages paid”).  And examinations will focus on entities that do not file schedules required by their Form 990 information.  More generally, when an entity’s Form 990 suggests it has taxable business income unrelated to its charitable purposes, an examination should ask whether the entity filed Form 990-T and if not, why not.

If this “data-driven” approach is new, a few questions arise:  How was the IRS using data from Form 990 series returns before now?  Why weren’t these compliance criteria used previously?  Shouldn’t the IRS have been flagging these potential problems all along?

In any event, to the extent “data-driven” analysis does not rely on names or policy positions but instead focuses on objective indicia of compliance with the law and Treasury regulations, the new approach will be better than the IRS’s past inappropriate practices.  But if that’s all that’s being changed, and the data being relied upon is still from Forms 1023 and 990, then perhaps “machine-driven” better captures the new examination-selection criteria than “data-driven.”

Mike Geske is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute.

Filed Under: Media, Blog Tagged With: , , ,

Newest TIGTA Review Shows Broader Extent of Political Targeting by IRS

October 27, 2017 by

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a proposed consent order settling a federal case in which scores of organizations allege that the IRS violated their rights to free speech, free association, and equal protection of the law when it screened their applications for tax-exempt status on the basis of their names and policy positions alone. In the consent order the IRS admits its process was wrong and the Court will declare that “discrimination on the basis of political viewpoint in administering the United States tax code violates fundamental First Amendment rights.” That’s a spectacular settlement and a welcome outcome for the plaintiffs. But it will not end the IRS’s continuing practice of preparing sensitive case reports for supervisory review whenever an application or request for information might “attract media or Congressional attention.” The Internal Revenue Manual provisions that authorize sensitive case reports are where the scandal of political targeting by the IRS began. And until those provisions are withdrawn, cases and requests that an administration considers “sensitive” but outside the terms of the new consent order may still get special treatment within the IRS.

In a 2013 Audit Report, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (“TIGTA”) found that the IRS “inappropriately identified specific groups applying for tax-exempt status” whose applications would receive special scrutiny. Over a two-year period beginning in May 2010, the IRS inappropriately identified those groups “based on their names or policy positions instead of developing criteria based on tax-exempt laws and Treasury Regulations.” The result was a process by which the IRS demanded and examined additional information from these groups after labelling them “Tea Party cases,” and the ensuing controversy was dubbed the “IRS Tea Party targeting scandal.”

In its new 2017 Review, published earlier this month, TIGTA recounts how the IRS developed and used 17 “selection criteria” between 2004 and 2013 to identify which groups and applications for tax-exempt status deserved extra attention. Politicians and media outlets are claiming that the 2017 Review proves there never was an “IRS Tea Party targeting scandal” because the IRS also used names and policy positions to select progressive, liberal, and Democratic-affiliated groups for heightened scrutiny. A Washington Post headline sums up the revisionist interpretation:  “Four years later, the IRS tea party scandal looks very different.  It may not even be a scandal.”

This 2017 Review provides new information, disclosing that the IRS sometimes used names and political positions alone as selection criteria for heightened scrutiny of tax-exempt applications instead of the organization’s activities and the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations. The initial 2013 Audit Report was limited to two years of IRS practice beginning in May 2010 because that was “the first date that [TIGTA was] informed that the Determinations Unit was using criteria which identified specific organizations by name.” 2013 Audit Report at 9 n. 20.  Yet the 2017 Review shows that the same kind of “inappropriate” practice began at least five years earlier, and neither the new 2017 Review nor the early press and political commenters recognize the significance of this revelation.

Yes, as the early reactions suggest, two of the overtly partisan criteria identified in the 2017 Review are tied expressly to the Democratic Party and “progressive” partisans.  But the IRS first used these criteria to choose applications for heightened scrutiny way back in 2005 and 2007, during the George W. Bush administration.

At the end of 2007, the IRS selected applications from groups named in the “Emerge network of organizations” whose purpose “was to train women to run as Democratic candidates for public office.” By September 2008 the IRS highlighted the “Emerge” criterion in an e-mail alert and training.  Up to 12 applications may have been affected by the Emerge criterion, either initially or upon subsequent review.

In October 2005 the IRS began using the “Progressive” criterion, identifying “the word ‘progressive’” and the “Common thread.”  In April 2007, the IRS noted further that the groups “appear as anti-Republican” with “references to ‘blue’ as being ‘progressive.’”  Up to 74 applications may have been affected by the Progressive criterion.

These two criteria are no small potatoes. Together, the Emerge and Progressive criteria may have played an inappropriate role in more than half (96 of 181) of the applications considered in the 2017 Review.

Two other criteria identified in the 2017 Review are overtly partisan for the other side. Just before the 2010 mid-term elections, the Obama IRS looked for “Pink Slip” and “We the People” in names or titles as proxies for Tea Party groups to select tax-exempt applications for special examination. And in the run up to the 2012 general election in which President Obama was re-elected, the IRS began using “Paying the National Debt” to identify applications for extra scrutiny, a criterion which overlapped with “We the People.”

So, reporters and politicians who claim that the IRS’s inappropriate use of names and policy positions was never a scandal are ignoring the important chronology revealed in the new 2017 Review. By claiming that this selection process was not scandalous because goose and gander got the same sauce without considering who applied that sauce and when, they are condoning politically influenced tax decisions at the IRS so long as the law allows presidents of both political parties to harass their political opponents. But wrongs on both sides don’t make a right. As John McGlothlin of Cause of Action Institute opined last week in “The Hill,” the 2017 Review shows that “neither side focused on the larger point – that citizens from both sides of the political spectrum, were being denied their rights.”

Politics periodically infects tax enforcement and administrations of both parties have used political targeting by the IRS. But as Cause of Action Institute has discussed many times, the larger point is that the IRS and Congress have turned blind eyes to the identifiable, current provisions in the Internal Revenue Manual that allow such meddling. So inappropriate political targeting by the IRS remains a threat under the agency’s own regulations, even now under President Trump. Leviathan’s nature is to flee reform, so let’s hope Congress exercises its power to tame that beast, and soon. Without those reforms, the IRS can and inevitably will continue to use  inappropriate, politically-charged criteria in enforcement, investigatory, and compliance decisions, to evade congressional reforms, and to avoid accountability.

Mike Geske is counsel at Cause of Action Institute.

Filed Under: Blog, Media Tagged With: , , , ,