close X
03/15/2017

Fighting Confusion and Complacency to Keep the IRS Accountable

It seems like a simple idea – the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allows any interested citizen to request documents from the people and agencies who exercise power over them. Elected officials have called it “our nation’s premiere transparency law” and one which serves a “crucial need … for open access to government information.”  Unfortunately, as one recent case shows, the process rarely works this way, leading to frustrating and sometimes bizarre results.

In 2014, Cause of Action Institute became concerned that lawyers employed by the Tax Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) were being detailed to work at the White House. At least two of these attorneys had access to the confidential taxpayer information of administration opponents because of their prior work on lawsuits connected to the IRS “targeting” scandal, and giving them this kind of assignment was unprecedented.  Taxpayer information would normally be kept private from White House officials, including the president, but now a pipeline had been opened where such information could reach political appointees. [See our investigative report discussing this issue in greater detail]

IRS quotes[Excerpts from IRS letters complaining about having to search its own records. CoAI would later discover a search had already taken place]

The IRS has a long history of misusing tax information, one that reaches as far back as FDR. Without proper procedures or training, the same kind of misconduct will inevitably happen again no matter which political party is in charge.  To find out more about the attorney transfers and whether any steps had been taken to safeguard taxpayer privacy, we submitted a FOIA request to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for e-mails between three attorneys assigned to the White House and the IRS division at the heart of the targeting scandal.

The request was sent in January 2014. The first reply arrived a month later, but it was merely notification that the agency would be “unable to send the information” within the 20 business days required by FOIA.  A second delay letter arrived in May, followed by a third delay in August and yet another delay in December.

Finally, in April of the following year – a full 282 business days after the 20 business-day deadline – we received a response. But it was not the e-mails we requested; it was a notice that our request was now too broad and would be closed because searching the e-mails of three people was “an unreasonable burden upon the IRS.”  Even if this were true, which seemed very unlikely, the agency had violated its own rules by dragging out the process and then failing to give us a chance to narrow the request before rejecting it.  We pointed out these problems in an appeal of the IRS decision, but the agency refused to acknowledge these problems and again rejected our request.

In an attempt to figure out how the process had gone so wrong, we submitted another FOIA request in May 2016 requesting the “processing notes” for the original request.  These notes document what happens to a request once it arrives at a government agency.  They are internally made, follow a particular format, and should be among the simplest of documents to locate and share.  Yet the first delay letter soon arrived, and another one three months later.  Not wanting to wait for a third delay notification, we filed a lawsuit against the agency to get a full explanation of what happened.

Such lawsuits are often required to get a meaningful response from the government, and ours finally forced the IRS to release the processing notes for our original request. So what was the explanation for the agency refusing to conduct a simple search – and taking over a year to say so?

Apparently, there wasn’t one. The IRS tax law specialist processing the request had marked in her records all the way back in December 2014 that a search had been done and “produced no documents.”  This happened four months before the IRS called our request “an unreasonable burden,” seven months before the agency claimed it was “unable to initiate a search” at all, and a full two years before we filed suit just to discover the IRS could have saved everyone time and money simply by reporting its original findings.

Why would government officials compare our request to “an all-encompassing fishing expedition” if they already knew there weren’t any fish to catch? The answer, if there is one, remains to be seen.  The original FOIA request is the subject of a separate and ongoing lawsuit, but the IRS has not yet produced any responsive documents.  If no improper communication took place between the lawyers transferred to the White House and their former IRS colleagues, then that is good news.  If no ethics training was given to those lawyers, then that good news is merely a coincidence.  Whatever the truth turns out to be, it is a worrying sign that a simple request can result in years of delays, constant obstruction, contradictory answers, and no solid explanation for any of these.

John McGlothlin is counsel at Cause of Action Institute

Media, Blog Learn More
03/14/2017

CoA Institute Files Lawsuit for ObamaCare Records

Washington, D.C. – Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) failed to disclose records about the potential misuse of taxpayer information to market the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), as well as records on the funding of two controversial ACA programs.

The lawsuit follows three Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests to HHS and its subsidiary agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), seeking records relating to obligations under the transitional reinsurance program and the risk corridors program, as well as attempts to market ObamaCare to individuals who declined coverage by using information obtained from individual federal tax returns. The agencies failed to produce any responsive records well past the applicable FOIA time limits.

Cause of Action Institute President and CEO John Vecchione: “It appears that senior Obama administration officials acted against taxpayers’ interests and disregarded the law to make ObamaCare appear more successful. Under the law, Americans’ tax information may be used to determine eligibility for subsidies, but not to market ObamaCare to individuals who have already declined to enroll. Disclosures of taxpayer information by the IRS raises serious privacy concerns. As Congress continues its efforts to repeal and replace the ACA, it’s more important than ever for HHS to be transparent and forthcoming about ObamaCare’s failures and missteps in implementation.”

Background

Taxpayer Information: To boost enrollment in ACA programs, it appears the Obama administration attempted to market the ACA to individuals who declined coverage by using information obtained from individual tax returns. A fact sheet released by CMS highlights its plan to “conduct outreach to individuals and families who paid the fee for being uninsured, or claimed an exemption from that fee, for 2015.” Under the ACA, however, tax information may only be used to determine ACA subsidy eligibility; it may not be used to market the ACA to individuals who have already declined to enroll. Taxpayer information disclosures by the IRS to an unknown number of individuals at CMS and throughout the government raises serious legal and privacy concerns.

Risk Corridors: Since its enactment, the ACA has faced considerable funding issues. The risk corridors program was supposed to collect payments from insurers with lower than expected losses and redirect the money to subsidize insurers with higher than expected losses. Because of low enrollment and monetary shortfalls, a CMS memorandum announced that funding for the risk corridors program would not be available to insurers in 2015. The memorandum, however, appears to invite insurers to sue CMS and then settle with the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to obtain funding, which would constitute an end-run of a provision enacted by Congress in 2014 to prevent shifting funds into the risk corridors program and a violation of DOJ guidance regarding “backdoor bailouts.” Obtaining risk corridor funding through the DOJ Judgment Fund would be an illegal misuse of appropriated taxpayer money.

Reinsurance Program: Section 1341 of the ACA requires the HHS to return payments to taxpayers under the transitional reinsurance program. Under this program HHS collects reinsurance contributions from health insurance providers and third party administrators on behalf of group health plans. In 2014, HHS was supposed to collect $10 billion in payments to health insurers who enroll high-risk individuals and an additional $2 billion in contributions to be deposited directly to the U.S. Treasury. Unfortunately for taxpayers, it appears when HHS collected less money than required by the ACA, the agency violated the law by allocating all funding to health insurers, depriving taxpayers of billions of dollars.

The full complaint can be found here

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

 

 

 

 

Media, Press Release Learn More
03/3/2017

Transparent Procedures about the President’s Tax Returns

As we explained earlier this week, post-Watergate reforms to the Internal Revenue Code declared taxpayer’s tax returns and related information confidential.  Disclosure of confidential taxpayer information is the exception and is prohibited except for enumerated, limited purposes and situations that are “authorized by statute.”  Even when disclosure is statutorily authorized, the Internal Revenue Code imposes additional procedures so that, absent prior consent, disclosure of confidential taxpayer information to the government for purposes other than administering or enforcing tax law becomes a matter of public record.

Recent debate about President Trump’s tax returns has provided a case study about how the confidentiality rule and limited disclosure exceptions operate, both legally and politically. Under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f), the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee can request access to examine any taxpayer’s information (including the president’s) without the taxpayer’s consent, but only subject to procedural safeguards designed to make the fact of Congress’s request publicly transparent.  Last week, the Ways and Means Committee considered but decided against invoking that authority to obtain the president’s returns.  On February 27, 2017, the Democrats forced the entire House to take a floor vote on whether the Committee should invoke the statute.  Again, along party lines, the decision was made not to seek the President’s returns (although two Republicans voted “present” rather than nay).

Thereafter, in a March 1, 2017 letter, Democratic members of the Senate Finance Committee requested that their Chairman, Orrin Hatch (R-UT), use the same statutory authority to obtain President Trump’s tax returns for the Committee’s review.  The Democrats argued that the information would help investigate suspicions about the President’s business and political relationships.  Senator Hatch, in a joint letter with House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Brady, rejected the Democratic members’ request.  The Senate and House Chairmen argued that their Committees’ authority to obtain taxpayer information should only be invoked when tax improprieties or abuse of taxpayer rights were suspected, and that broader uses to investigate business and political relationships would be an “abusive” and “dangerous precedent.”

The press has widely reported these events and arguments, as it should. As we wrote earlier this week, “by requiring that every congressional request for an American taxpayer’s confidential information is transparent, the Tax Reform Act of 1976 implicitly relies on the press and third-party watchdog groups to make that information known to the broader public, hopefully, in an accurate and user-friendly form.”  The public is indeed paying attention and some constituents are vigorously inquiring about their representatives’ and senators’ position about the President’s tax returns.  Engagement like that indicates that the statutory protections promoting transparency for congressional requests to see confidential taxpayer information are operating as they should.  Lawmakers must weigh the value of confidentiality whenever they consider seeking access to a taxpayer’s protected information and, when they choose disclosure over confidentiality (or when, as in this instance, they vote against disclosure), constituents will know and be able to use that information in evaluating the work of their representatives.

Mike Geske is counsel at Cause of Action Institute

Media, Blog Learn More
01/5/2017

IRS Watchdog shields records on breach of confidential taxpayer information

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) has concluded its review of allegations brought by Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute) concerning the unlawful disclosure and inspection of more than one million pages of confidential taxpayer information. The agency opened its investigation in July 2016 but now claims it cannot provide any further information about of the outcome of its review because such information is itself protected by confidentiality laws originally intended to protect taxpayers.

In June 2016, CoA Institute called on TIGTA and the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (DOJ-OIG) to examine potential legal violations arising from the October 2010 disclosure of more than one million pages of tax returns and return information to the FBI and DOJ Public Integrity Section by Lois Lerner and the IRS.  CoA Institute first alerted TIGTA about the possible violation of Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to these records in July 2015. [For more information, see pages 11–15 of CoA Institute’s recent investigative report.]

Just months prior to TIGTA’s response, DOJ-OIG confirmed the unlawful disclosure of taxpayer information but dismissed a request to investigate the wrongdoing.  The IG concluded that CoA Institute was correct that “protected taxpayer information was included” on CDs provided by the IRS to the FBI and DOJ, yet it determined inexplicably that the matter “does not warrant further investigation[.]”

CoA Institute Assistant Vice President Lee A. Steven: “Although it appears that TIGTA has investigated our now-proven allegations of wrongdoing, we are concerned by the lack of transparency surrounding whether the responsible IRS officials will be held accountable for the unlawful disclosure of over one million pages of confidential taxpayer information. Congress never intended taxpayer confidentiality laws to be a shield against the disclosure of information concerning the conduct of officials who have abused their positions and acted in contravention of their duty to protect American taxpayers’ most private information.  This incident involves one of the largest and most significant breaches of taxpayer confidentiality laws by the federal government in U.S. history.  The DOJ-OIG seems to have washed its hands of the matter and it is disappointing to see TIGTA do the same.”

The DOJ Public Integrity Section and the FBI originally sought the records at issue in an attempt to identify non-profit organizations who may have engaged in prohibited political activity.  As part of its public oversight efforts, CoA Institute obtained records demonstrating that, between 2009 and 2012, neither agency ever submitted the statutorily-required requests for disclosure of this information to the IRS.

Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code provides a strict rule of confidentiality for tax returns and return information.  Unless a statutory exception applies, government agencies and their employees may not disclose such information.  Violations can include fines, termination from employment, and imprisonment.

To access CoA Institute’s June 29, 2016 Letter to TIGTA and DOJ-OIG, click here.
To access DOJ-OIG’s October 12, 2016 response, click here.
To access TIGTA’s December 19, 2016 response, click here.
To access CoA Institute’s October 2016 Investigative Report, click here.

Media, Blog Learn More
12/1/2016

CoA Institute Sues IRS for Improperly Shielding Records

Washington D.C. – Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute) today filed a lawsuit against the IRS after the agency refused to produce records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) relating to its dealings with Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT).

In December 2015, the IRS Office of Chief Counsel issued new guidance claiming that nearly all IRS records relating to the JCT should be treated as “congressional records” and therefore shielded from public disclosure under FOIA. This revised guidance contradicts long-standing precedent for what records government agencies must provide in response to FOIA requests.

CoA Institute Vice President John Vecchione: “The IRS continues to withhold agency records that the American people have a right to see. Agency records, including communications with Congress, are subject to FOIA. But the IRS is now attempting to change the rules and withhold all of its communications with, and other records relating to, the JCT. Our lawsuit challenges what appears to be a ploy by the IRS to avoid transparency.”

For months, CoA Institute has sought IRS communications with JCT and other JCT-related records, including those that reflect internal deliberations concerning the agency’s dealings with the JCT.  By definition, these are agency records, as they would necessarily have been received or created by the IRS and are currently in the possession of the agency.  Such records would have been used by IRS employees and uploaded or stored into IRS recordkeeping systems, including e-mail or correspondence tracking databases.

On November 22, 2016, in response to CoA Institute’s administrative appeal, the IRS re-affirmed its conclusion that the requested records were not subject to FOIA and went a step further to describe CoA Institute’s FOIA requests as “too broad and too nebulous.” The Department of Justice has explained, however, that “[t]he sheer size or burdensomeness of a FOIA request, in and of itself, does not entitle an agency to deny that request on the ground that it does not ‘reasonably describe’ records.” The IRS never indicated that it was unable to locate records responsive to CoA Institute’s FOIA requests, nor did it suggest it required a narrowed scope or clarification as to the records sought.

CoA Institute’s lawsuit seeks to prevent the IRS from improperly shielding agency records from disclosure under FOIA.

The lawsuit can be found here
Exhibits can be found here

 

Media, Press Release Learn More
10/12/2016

Report Reveals How White House Evaded Checks, Likely Accessed Confidential Taxpayer Information

Washington, D.C. – Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute) today released a comprehensive investigative report, Presidential Access to Taxpayer Information. The report covers in detail recent IRS misuse and unauthorized release of confidential taxpayer information and the possible role of a detailee program in the Office of the White House Counsel that may have provided access to the protected information.

The report states:

Following the misuse and unauthorized release of confidential taxpayer information during President Obama’s first term, including the largest breach of taxpayer confidentiality laws by the federal government in United States history, Cause of Action Institute investigated the legal and institutional checks designed to protect against such improper disclosure and the means by which the Obama administration may have evaded those checks.

That investigation revealed that President Obama has circumvented the congressionally created and authorized procedures for accessing confidential taxpayer information—procedures that were designed to be exclusive—by relying on individual consent forms that were never intended for use by the president. The practice has allowed the president to avoid the reporting requirements and limitations placed on presidential access to taxpayer information by the Tax Reform Act of 1976. In particular, the use of individual consents enables the administration to skirt statutory recordkeeping and reporting requirements to Congress, the limitations on the kind of information available for disclosure, and the extent to which such information can be shared within government agencies and offices.

The report reveals that throughout the Obama administration the Office of the White House Counsel employed at least one attorney detailed from the Department of Justice (DOJ) Tax Division.  At least two of those attorney-detailees had intimate knowledge of confidential taxpayer information gained while serving as counsel to the IRS in litigation with nonprofit groups opposed to President Obama’s policies. This information is otherwise restricted from disclosure to the President and other White House officials.

The report shows that neither the DOJ Tax Division nor the Office of the White House Counsel has implemented context-specific training, guidelines, or ethical screens to prevent the inadvertent or deliberate disclosure of confidential taxpayer information by attorney-detailees.

Inherent conflicts of interest in the detailing program make it imperative that Tax Division attorneys who work on detail to the Office of the White House Counsel, especially those who have served as counsel to the IRS in matters involving the political opponents of the president, receive enhanced training and supervision to ensure the safeguarding of confidential taxpayer information. There does not appear to be any such program, specialized training, or targeted guidelines in place.

The report makes several recommendations, including that Congress should amend the Internal Revenue Code to ensure that the exclusive mechanisms created by the Tax Reform Act of 1976 for presidential access to confidential taxpayer information are enforced.

The full report and executive summary can be found here.

 

Media, Press Release Learn More
02/26/2016

Florida Bankers Association: The Supreme Court Must Check IRS Abuse of Discretion

Today, Cause of Action Institute submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court urging it to grant a petition for certiorari to review the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Florida Bankers Association v. Department of the Treasury.  The Court should take the case to ensure that IRS rules are subject to the proper judicial review, a much-needed check on the agency’s rulemaking discretion.

In August 2015, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the Anti-Injunction Act shielded the IRS rule at issue from judicial review.  The Act requires taxpayers to pay taxes first and sue later for a refund if they believe a particular rule is infirm.  The rationale behind this rule is to protect government’s ability to generate a consistent stream of revenue without litigation slowing down that process.  However, the rule at issue in Florida Bankers was simply a reporting requirement and the penalty attached to it is designed to ensure compliance, not generate revenue.  Nonetheless, the IRS argued, and the majority of the divided D.C. Circuit panel agreed, that the Act applied to challenges to the reporting requirement as well.  This argument directly conflicts with a unanimous Supreme Court decision from last term, Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl.

Cause of Action Institute’s amicus brief brought a unique perspective to the question.  We revealed that although judicial review is an important part of constraining agency discretion, it comes at the end of a long rulemaking process and is especially important when an agency, such as the IRS, routinely defies established oversight procedures.  The IRS is notorious for skirting numerous rulemaking procedures that help ensure both accountable and higher-quality rulemaking.

The IRS, for example, evades Executive Order 12,866, which requires agencies to submit significant rules to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for pre-publication review.  As Cause of Action Institute informed the Court in its brief, “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.”

In addition to evading pre-publication review, the IRS also flouts the Administrative Procedure Act’s rulemaking requirements.  Cause of Action Institute relied on University of Minnesota Law School Professor Kristin Hickman’s empirical research to show the Court that in “almost ninety-three percent of the cases she surveyed over a three-year period, ‘Treasury claimed explicitly that the rulemaking requirements of APA section 553(b) did not apply.’”

Effective and accountable agency rulemaking requires robust judicial review of agency authority, the process followed in promulgating rules, and the record upon which the rulemaking is based.  Overextension of the Anti-Injunction Act undermines these important principles, and the Supreme Court should grant certiorari and reverse the D.C. Circuit.

Click here to read the amicus brief in its entirely.

 

Blog Learn More