Slashdot Mirror


After Non-Profit Application Furor, IRS Says It's Lost 2 Years Of Lerner's Email

As reported by the Associated Press, via US News & World Report, the IRS says that it cannot locate much of the email sent by a former IRS official over a two-year period. "The IRS told Congress Friday it cannot locate many of Lois Lerner's emails prior to 2011 because her computer crashed during the summer of that year. Lerner headed the IRS division that processed applications for tax-exempt status. The IRS acknowledged last year that agents had improperly scrutinized applications for tax-exempt status by tea party and other conservative groups." Three congressional committees are investigating the agency because of the allegations of politically motivated mishandling of those applications, as is the Justice Department and the IRS's own inspector general. As the story says, "Congressional investigators have shown that IRS officials in Washington were closely involved in the handling of tea party applications, many of which languished for more than a year without action. But so far, they have not publicly produced evidence that anyone outside the agency directed the targeting or even knew about it." CBS News has a slightly different version, also based on the AP's reporting.

69 of 372 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Yawn by dale.furno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As soon as the Obama administration lives up to their promise of being the most transparent administration in the history of the ministry of truth

  2. Very fishy by MrLogic17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd love to see what she would say to a taxpayer "losing" 2 years of receipts during an audit.

    I think that "my bad" wouldn't be enough.

    1. Re:Very fishy by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd love to see what she would say to a taxpayer "losing" 2 years of receipts during an audit.

      I think that "my bad" wouldn't be enough.

      Welcome to the realities of asymmetric power.

    2. Re:Very fishy by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      Government officials are required to keep official records, including emails, for freedom of information requests.

    3. Re:Very fishy by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 5, Informative

      Is there a law, or Executive order, which required their retention?

      See 36 CFR 1220.14. The Federal Records Act. NARA. Actual regulations and laws requiring archiving of all records, including e-mails.

      You have presented an assymetric argument, and one that does not make any sense. Refine it, or retract it.

      We'll wait for you to do so...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  3. Re: Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The messiah of transparency fails yet again. In the private sector, incompetency like this would be a career-killer. In government, though, it's business as usual.

  4. Oh Well There's Your Problem by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Oh her computer crashed did it? Did you try looking on the server where you keep the mail, and not on her computer?

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Oh Well There's Your Problem by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think it's POP3 for a very convenient reason.

      "Oops, lost my shit...oh well" Yeah, real fucking convenient.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Oh Well There's Your Problem by Copid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Last time I worked for a big corporation with a large IT department, we had a ridiculously small total space limit for emails stored on our server. It always seemd ridiculous to me until a senior IT guy said that it's basically for legal discovery reasons. As long as you have a policy of purging everything from your servers on a certain schedule (or based on size limits or some other reasonable variable that's not explicilty "purge the email because we're about to be sued"), you can minimize your what's available for discovery when somebody takes you to court and demands "all emails pertaining to X." You give them what you have on the server and odds are good that the employee hasn't kept copies of anything too old on thier PC, so if the opposition tries to drag out stuff from more than a year or so back, they're usually out of luck.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    3. Re:Oh Well There's Your Problem by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The government has days retention laws though, this should not be an issue, it should be on a server or on backups, also they have the resources to recover from a bad hdd

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:Oh Well There's Your Problem by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'd bet the NSA has all of them. They collect everyone's.

    5. Re:Oh Well There's Your Problem by daninaustin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Same here but i work for an insurance company and do searches for legal discovery all the time. We journal everything and keep it forever ( i think it's the same way for most regulated companies now.) It's highly suspicious that they can't find this data. I can find any email sent or received going back many years and i can do it within a week (usually within hours.) either their email/archiving system is completely fucked or someone is not telling the truth. Either way, there should also be a paper record unless Lois was intentionally violating policy. If someone knows anything about the IRS email architecture it would be helpful. Anyone know what email system they are on? I assume it's Exchange but it wouldn't make much difference if it's Notes/Domino (it might actually make it easier to recover from tape.) they must have some type of email archiving system. One other thing. from the IRS's own documents, employees are required to make paper copies for FOIA . http://www.irs.gov/irm/part1/i... 1.10.3.2.3 (07-08-2011) Emails as Possible Federal Records All federal employees and federal contractors are required by law to preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency. Records must be properly stored and preserved, available for retrieval and subject to appropriate approved disposition schedules. The Federal Records Act applies to email records just as it does to records you create using other media. Emails are records when they are: Created or received in the transaction of agency business Appropriate for preservation as evidence of the government’s function and activities, or Valuable because of the information they contain If you create or receive email messages during the course of your daily work, you are responsible for ensuring that you manage them properly. The Treasury Department’s current email policy requires emails and attachments that meet the definition of a federal record be added to the organization’s files by printing them (including the essential transmission data) and filing them with related paper records. If transmission and receipt data are not printed by the email system, annotate the paper copy. More information on IRS records management requirements is available at http://erc.web.irs.gov/Display... or see the Records Management Handbook, IRM 1.15.1 http://publish.no.irs.gov/IRM/...). An email determined to be a federal record may eventually be considered as having historical value by the National Archivist prior to disposal. Therefore, ensure that all your communications are professional in tone. Please note that maintaining a copy of an email or its attachments within the IRS email MS Outlook application does not meet the requirements of maintaining an official record. Therefore, print and file email and its attachments if they are either permanent records or if they relate to a specific case.

    6. Re:Oh Well There's Your Problem by guruevi · · Score: 2

      You assume actual computer experts are investigating this matter? These are the same people that when presented with non-Windows OS or any type of encryption will be expert witnesses that testify in court that you're a hacker/terrorist and obstructed the investigation.

      And if they'll look on the server, they'll find a bunch of binary blobs. This is going to be Exchange after all and probably migrated to Cloud-Exchange so they have no access to the data on the servers.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    7. Re:Oh Well There's Your Problem by perpenso · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its not that hard to recover data from a crashed drive most of the time.

      Assuming you actually want to recover it. The crash seem to occur about the same time the controversial policy was coming to light and the emails might be considered incriminating. Just a coincidence I'm sure.

    8. Re:Oh Well There's Your Problem by donaldm · · Score: 2

      Its not that hard to recover data from a crashed drive most of the time.

      It is when that hard drive has been hit with a sledge hammer a few times or put through a shredder, which is precisely what some organisations require when a drive is faulty. Of course the data on the faulty disk can't be copied over to the new drive because "the old drive was faulty" so data is effectively lost. Backups? what are they :)

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
  5. Everyone's Personal Email Server by reynols · · Score: 4, Funny

    The IRS told Congress Friday it cannot locate many of Lois Lerner's emails prior to 2011 because her computer crashed during the summer of that year.

    Wow! I didn't know the IRS had personal email servers on every individuals personal computer, where all copies of a persons email sent and retrieved is kept and deleted from everywhere else.

    The rest of us just use shared central email servers where multiple copies of everyone's email is kept, backed up daily. Boy, are we out of touch with reality!

    1. Re:Everyone's Personal Email Server by Tailhook · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Federal Records Act requires retention of records. That email is a "record" for statutory purposes is a long settled matter. Conducting government business on a system with a retention period of 14 days and no archive is a crime.

      It's your banana republic government either deliberately neglecting their obligation to preserve or destroying evidence or both. There aren't any plausible alternatives.

      Enjoy.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    2. Re:Everyone's Personal Email Server by superwiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's the IIII RRRRR SSSSS. You know.... the people who get electronic records of all executed buy/sell orders of all the public exchanges... among other electronic documents that they manage of infinitely higher complexity than an email server. Yeah, crashing computers is NOT the reason they don't have those emails. This isn't kindergarten. IRS losing a Summer's worth of emails of a supervisor-level employee doesn't even work as a science fiction scenario.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    3. Re:Everyone's Personal Email Server by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

      You have only one solution. Move. England, Australia...

      Really? Seriously? You think the UK or Australia has more "freedom"/ Seriously? You don't follow politics in those countries, do you.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:Everyone's Personal Email Server by DutchUncle · · Score: 2

      It's your banana republic government

      I never voted for this current administration.

      Funny, I never voted for the previous one, but I had to put up with it; in fact I was in the MAJORITY who voted against it and I still had to put up with it. I'm a bit disappointed with this one, but at least it shouldn't be court-martialed for sending troops into danger on false pretenses with insufficient equipment.

  6. Re: Yawn by Onuma · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Incorrect. This is how they promote people.

    --
    What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
  7. The corruption is amazing by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everybody should be depressed and angry but they are complacent. New chief executive, same ole shit. Corruption and lies.

    1. Re:The corruption is amazing by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 2

      It's time to learn that the President does not matter to the direction of policy. The President is informed by long time position holders that certain things are of paramount importance to national security, or some such story.

      You cannot expect a new President to keep his campaign promises. It will never happen, because of what he learns as part of the n00b initiation process. Either he is brainwashed, or genuinely believes, or considers it an obligation to acquiesce.

      In no circumstance will a new President, even excluding corruption and lies, give way to the Executive Branch. I submit that there may be ways, but you have to go way outside of Republican and Democrat to get there.

  8. Because IRS has never heard of exchange servers by Isara · · Score: 2
    Actually, even knowing what little I do of federal IT infrastructure, this doesn't surprise me. I'm actually surprised they HAVE email :P

    Seriously, I have a feeling they set up local email accounts, thought archiving was too difficult or expensive to implement, and called it a day - 20 years ago.

    And for the record, targeting political organizations wasn't isolated to conservative groups, and the only application rejected was for a progressive organization.

    --
    BOOP!
  9. Re:Because IRS has never heard of exchange servers by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 2

    Yes,
    Just like you can say that there has never been a oil pipeline that has been rejected either. By not quickly approving simple applications and letting them linger for years - you effectively reject the application, without the political backlash of having to actually do it. I would assume it was a simple progressive organization that didn't qualify for the tax break - it was quickly rejected so they can fix their problem, or get back to doing what they should be doing.

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
  10. Not on my servers by BobandMax · · Score: 3, Informative

    I spec'ed, installed and managed mail servers for several organizations and this never happened on my watch. We had this magical power called "backups" that insulated us from user ineptitude and malfeasance. Another item is the "ten million dollars" to retrieve emails and documents. I was asked to provide several years of emails and documents involving eleven employees and specific criteria for a lawsuit. Legal had it in their hands within two days and that involved pulling and selectively restoring the identified tapes and burning to DVD. I call bullshit.

    --

    "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
    -- Pablo Picasso
    1. Re:Not on my servers by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you think that the Government does not have backups, you are sorely mistaken. Federal regulation requires backups and maintenance of backups of all mail data. Durations may vary slightly between certain divisions, but in almost all cases this is required and not optional.

      That said, the issue is what regulations have they broken if in fact they are claiming correctly that a persons computer was configured and managed illegally? Followed immediately by "Who is going to lose their job in addition to Lois Lerner?" I have a feeling that if jail time is threatened for management and employees responsible for mismanagement, backups may magically appear.

      Then again, they could be telling the truth which should not prevent the termination of employees failing to follow regulation and law. Simple solutions to these types of problems have huge impact on future cases.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  11. umm by superwiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Were those her emails to herself? Otherwise, they went through servers. This isn't a school board email server.... it's the IRS. Does anyone seriously think they don't have copious records of all the documents? My dog ate my homework? If you are gonna post any kind of credible reply to this, don't be an AC. Any AC reply to this will be assume to be coming from the legal staff of the Criminal Democratic Party.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re:umm by dissy · · Score: 2

      and had a limited quota on an Exchange server.

      In reality there are two sides to their exchange configuration: how it technically works, and how it legally works.
      Being the US government however that means there is only "How it works" which is an alias for how it legally works (How it technically works might as well be magic)

      http://www.archives.gov/record...

      Installing exchange server and not raising the default retention period is a criminal act.
      Actually, I'm pretty sure not installing a backup package to work around exchange store limitations would also count as a criminal act, but it may just be negligence or something instead of willful destruction of records.

      Of course as you mentioned, if they would have gone a step further above zero-point on the server side setup, XP/outlook/PSTs wouldn't even need to be involved in the matter.
      The very fact the even mention the client PC crashing implies that isn't the case.

      Personally coming from a long line of competent IT work, it's a tiny bit shocking it was even a thought to go look at the client PC... That's the kind of thing one should only resort to if/when the exchange shit hits the bit-bucket fan. At my organization that would be called "unexpected disaster recovery plan C"

      Sadly I very much doubt the person responsible for information and technology will be held responsible for their crimes.
      If the PC didn't get the blame, then some poor outsourced Indian fella would have been one more addition for the no fly list instead :/

    2. Re:umm by Cytotoxic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We are not talking about email in 1998. By the early 2000's even small to midsized businesses were having to face document retention policies and discovery requests. Whether by implementing in-house solutions like Vault or using outside services to implement email retention and discovery most companies had to have this in place for more than a decade. The IRS has nearly 90,000 employees. Their IT shop is no mom-and-pop operation.

      So to claim that all outside email was lost from 2010 is pretty shocking. The client computer mention might be an error, or it might be that an outside email service was being used. If the latter is the case, this should be a huge red flag.

  12. This worked for the NSA by Required+Snark · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Snowden said he sent emails to the appropriate internal authorities before he went rogue, and the NSA said they couldn't find them. Everyone in the political establishment believed the NSA version. Now the IRS says that they can't find emails because of a technical problem, and no one believes them.

    The NSA are professional liars. They've been caught lying about a huge number of things: spying on friendly foreign leaders, mass phone surveillance on everyone in the USA, modifying routers before they are shipped overseas, etc.

    Double standard much? Who is more likely to be lying: the NSA or the IRS? Everyone in Washington are going after the IRS. Committees are meeting, IRA officials are testifying under oath, criminal investigations have been started. Higher ups at the IRA are going to be forced out, and there will be criminal charges. The same thing is also going to occur with the Veteran's Administration scandal.

    Meanwhile over at the NSA, the sound of crickets. They claim that their own secret investigations have found they did everything right. Somehow this seems good enough. No one has been called to task. Even the people responsible for letting Snowden get access to all that information seem to be off the hook.

    As bad as the IRS and VA situations are, they pale in comparison to the NSA situation and yet nothing has happened as a result. It's business as usual. The NSA is completely unaccountable to anybody for anything, and when they do screw up nothing happens to any insiders. This is guaranteed to result in a culture of incompetence. We are in big trouble.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:This worked for the NSA by Krishnoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyone in the political establishment believed the NSA version. Now the IRS says that they can't find emails because of a technical problem, and no one believes them.

      Because the NSA watches over us to protect our freedoms, and they're the good guys. The IRS takes away our money, so they're the bad guys. See? Not that difficult to understand.

  13. Re:Because IRS has never heard of exchange servers by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bullshit, its all irrelevant to the issue at hand. The irs specifically targeted groups they didnt like and asked them to jump through hoops.which were highly illegal. For example you cant ask them for their member list, or if they are religious, all things asked. If they did the same thing to socialsts communists black panthers gay groups women groups or the kkk, id still feel the same, this shouldnt be partisain, unless you beleive it was ok and that makes it ok when the other side has the whitehouse...remember that

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  14. Obama trumps Nixon! by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Two years of emails?!? Nixon only lost 18 1/2 minutes of the Watergate Tapes and he had to resign.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  15. Re:Yawn by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There seems to be a cabal of people who will spend all their mod points modding everything on your posting history down if they find you posted something they find particularly offensive. This causes a lot of people to post controversial stufff as AC.

    There are also groups of people like groupies who follow topics in order to impress a particular viewpoint that seems to match their worldview. Both seem to be problems on Slashdot in the last couple of years.

    You will find that with the retaliation that seems to be going on in today's environment, people just don't want their online persona associated with something controversial. There is the mass down modding to ruin your karma and restrict your posting abilities but also take Mozilla for instance. They canned a new CEO (who had been working for them in other offices since their inception) for something he did 8 years ago that had the majority support of his community at the time. What will you be driven away from or refused or jailed or whatever retaliation that happens in 8 years over a comment you made today or yesterday?

  16. Re:Because IRS has never heard of exchange servers by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually they did the same thing to socialist etc. groups. In fact the only group that was actually denied a tax exemption was a progressive church.

    But don't let facts bother you.

  17. NSA should have a copy somewhere in Utah by JonathanR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Amazing how ineffective these intelligence agencies are when the issue in question goes against the absolute power agenda...

  18. Re:Yawn by rickb928 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would settle for this Administration following the rule of law.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  19. Re:Yawn by philip.paradis · · Score: 2

    plainly opposite in many cases if they are trying to stop social improvements like immigration reform

    This is a subjective statement. One person may consider a particular immigration reform position as representing social improvement, while another may view the position as damaging to the same society.

    --
    Write failed: Broken pipe
  20. Re:Because IRS has never heard of exchange servers by laird · · Score: 2, Informative

    No, in reality the IRS investigated all groups with political parties and movements in their names, since they're required by law (i.e. Congress) to only allow non-political groups to be granted tax exempt status. And the IRS investigated (and rejected) far more liberal groups than conservative groups. So (1) they were required to investigate political groups, so the investigation was not only proper, it was required by law passed by Congress, and (2) they didn't target Tea Party groups exclusively or even disproportionately.

    So what were you complaining about?

  21. It is becoming a pattern, isn't it ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First they lied to the congress

    Then the US Marshals seizing police Stingray records to keep them out of the ACLU

    Now IRS is lying about a certain computer crash in justifying their refusal of disclosing tghe email records of a key IRS employee who was in charge of harassing groups which were affiliated with the so-called "TEA party"

    The Obama administration simply does *NOT* respect the rule of law anymore !

    1. Re:It is becoming a pattern, isn't it ? by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      The Obama administration simply does *NOT* respect the rule of law anymore !

      What do you mean anymore? They never did, F&F, Benghazi, take your pick of a dozen other things. After all "what does it matter?" - Hillary Clinton.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:It is becoming a pattern, isn't it ? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think we need an addendum to Godwin's law: Anyone who responds to criticism of a sitting US president by raising the ghost of a prior one automatically loses the argument.

  22. Stop making stuff up AC by Tailhook · · Score: 3, Insightful

    if you think any but a handful of emails that aren't sent to or from the a White House are required by the FRA to be archived

    Having read the statute, prior to hitting my crack pipe, I see no such "White House" criteria.

    You may read the latest revision of the IRS interpretation of the statute here, where you will learn that e-mail — all e-mail — that meets that statutory definition of a "record" must be preserved within either an "electronic recordkeeping system," as defined by the IRS manual and well beyond Lois's broken computer, or "must be printed out and placed in the appropriate record system." Any e-mail communication Lois made regarding the disposition of some non-profit's status would obviously have qualified as a "record" under the plain language of 1.15.6-1.

    And yes, we do prosecute people for destruction of government records. Probably not the protected political appointee hatchet-people of the powers-that-be, but it does happen, because it's criminal.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  23. Re:Yawn by fustakrakich · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would settle for any administration to follow the law. But yes, it would be nice to start with the present one, and work our way forward. And a good message would be sent by also indicting the surviving criminals from past ones. Alas, it is but a fantasy of mine.

    Just a note about this IRS "scandal", The only group that was actually denied was a "liberal" group, the Maine chapter of Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office. So boo on anyone that is trying to keep the story alive.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  24. Re:We'll its Bush's fault by Orgasmatron · · Score: 2

    Maybe it has something to do with the IRS not being in the White House, and not using the White House's email system.

    Or maybe it has something to do with the article itself saying that the White House's email system archives everything, and has been in place "since Obama took office", which most people would suppose means 2009, not a year after the 2010 article discussing the system in the past tense.

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
  25. Re:Because IRS has never heard of exchange servers by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  26. Re:massive govt agency, no backups... by DutchUncle · · Score: 3, Informative

    I work for a Fortune 500. They have strict archive and retention policies, automatically enforced at the email server. The Federal government also has archive and retention policies. The IRS, in particular, expects taxpayers to keep records FOREVER (or until you die and your will is probated). I don't need to come up with "cockamamy scenarios" to say that the IRS losing email is sort of stupid. Yes, that was two years ago; but did she lose the email of everything she was working on AT THE TIME? That would be a complete mess for any work in progress, and somehow I would imagine that the IT department tries to avoid it.

  27. Re:Because IRS has never heard of exchange servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually they did the same thing to socialist etc. groups. In fact the only group that was actually denied a tax exemption was a progressive church.

    But don't let facts bother you.

    BULLSHIT

    The Internal Revenue Service on Friday apologized for targeting groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names, confirming long-standing accusations by some conservatives that their applications for tax-exempt status were being improperly delayed and scrutinized.

    Lois G. Lerner, the IRS official who oversees tax-exempt groups, said the “absolutely inappropriate” actions by “front-line people” were not driven by partisan motives.

    Umm, yeah, the IRS didn't target them. That's why they apologized. And no, it wasn't for political purposes. That must be the IRS can't find her emails....

    What was that about facts bothering you?

  28. Re:Yawn by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The real question that should be asked is why are political think tanks granted charity status in the first place? They are often simply a front for monied self interest, pushing self interest through political propaganda is what they are all about. Regardless of whether I agree of disagree with their propaganda, I don't see why they should get a tax break just for disseminating it?

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  29. Re: Yawn by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

    His failure was attempting to negotiate with the far right nutjobs when he had the numbers and the mandate to put the boot in and do what he was elected to do. In his defense, he pissed away his political capital dealing with a real financial black hole, not an imaginary one like we currently have here in Australia.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  30. Re:Yawn by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not merely the majority of investigations and delays were targeted against politically conservative groups, but the nature of the investigations, is an issue.

    If you think some progressive, liberal, or activist groups were also discriminated against, give Issa's office a call. He's probably happy to investigate even more accusations.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  31. Re:For fuck sake, the IRS isn't what you think it by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Informative

    >The IRS, in particular, expects taxpayers to keep records FOREVER (or until you die and your will is probated) What? Where are you getting this nonsense? The IRS does not expect you to keep records for your *entire life*. That's absolute moronic drivel. In fact, the IRS doesn't require you to do *anything*; it's congress that writes the tax code. Not just a different entity, a completely different branch of government. The IRS isn't some extra-legal entity that makes up their own rules to inflict on citizens and delights in making them difficult.

    There are approximately 2600 pages of tax law. That generated over 70,000 pages of tax regulations - which the IRS essentially wrote themselves and enforce. To a large extent, they did make up their own rules.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  32. Re:Yawn by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The only group that was actually denied was a "liberal" group, the Maine chapter of Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office. So boo on anyone that is trying to keep the story alive.

    They were "denied" after they were first approved. Meanwhile the enemies of the current administration were neither denied nor approved, a fate worse than either.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  33. Re:Yawn by rickb928 · · Score: 2

    Insofar as corporations serve their stockholders, employees, and customers, who are real people, they may claim a right to speech on any number of issues that impact them or their constituents.

    We can probably re-write the law to survive constitutional review, but neither major party actually wants that unless one gains an advantage over the other.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  34. Only emails outside of IRS lost ... by perpenso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd love to see what she would say to a taxpayer "losing" 2 years of receipts during an audit.

    Its better than that. Imagine if you only lost the receipts that were of interest to the IRS, that you still have many receipts that they are not interested in.

    From the article:
    "Camp's office said the missing emails are mainly ones to and from people outside the IRS, "such as the White House, Treasury, Department of Justice, FEC, or Democrat offices.""

    Can we just have a flat tax (that phases in at the poverty line, not literally flat) and no deductions? Then the IRS can be scaled down to a small fraction of its current size and have very little power, no deduction no power to interpret things. As an added bonus it removes a major source of political corruption, the creating of those deductions for influential constituents.

    1. Re:Only emails outside of IRS lost ... by RoccamOccam · · Score: 2

      From the article: "Camp's office said the missing emails are mainly ones to and from people outside the IRS, "such as the White House, Treasury, Department of Justice, FEC, or Democrat offices.""

      Oh, so that shouldn't be a problem, then. Just request the emails from the White House, etc. I'm sure they won't have any problems digging up their copies. They couldn't also have lost those particular emails, now, could they?

  35. Re:Yawn by buybuydandavis · · Score: 3, Informative

    I would settle for this Administration following the rule of law.

    Ha! Laws are for peasants, not their rulers.

  36. Re:Yawn by Artifakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's this principle, as part of the RICO act, that says creating a lot of shell corporations, where money moves around between companies in a very complicated way and it's very hard to track it, is one of the signs of an organized crime operation. Parts of the RICO law are written to deal with this specific method. For ciriminals to use this method, they have to build enough shell corps to make tracking the money very hard - a few won't do it, twenty or 50 or 119 is better. The Idea is that the more levels of shells there are, the more time the organization has to delay a criminal investigation, as the investigators have to keep going back to a judge and getting more warrents for new records. If they don't find anything the first few times, the judge is likely to stop giving them more warrents, plus there's more time to move money into places such as offshore accounts, or for the top dogs to skip the country if they must.
              There weren't a whole bunch of new PACs and such made by the Democrats in that election cycle, but because of the very nature of the Tea Party movement, we saw a lot of Tea party this and Tea Party that, over a hundred new non-profits for states, groups of states, and particular parts of the movement. In many cases, some of the Tea party organizers put their names on multiple applications in different positions, which is another sign of potential shell corporations. That's another possible red flag under RICO, seeing the same person's name for different positions in different corporations which are being formed in multiple states, as is seeing organizations incorporated in odd states (i.e.a company doing businesss only in Arkansas, but incorporating in Florida). (Delaware is somewhat of an exception to this, as their laws make it popular for many businesses to incorporate there, but I don't think there are any real advantages to incorporating in Delaware for non-profits).
              The IRS has also long had a position that even if something is technically legal to do as the law is written, it can still be illlegal if the primary purpose of doing it appears to be not to achieve whatever goal the law endorses, but to evade taxes. That means they could have approached this as a case where some of these new organizations might not qualify as their particular type of non-profit, AND might have made a profit AND had the intent to avoid paying the taxes that would entail. Technically, if somebody screws up and didn't stay within the non-profit rules, the IRS next looks to see if they made money, and if they did, for the third step the IRS gets to assume that the mistake in claiming non-profit status isn't an innocent mistake, but a deliberate way to evade taxes on that money. If you think about it, this makes a certain amount of sense - as the plaintiff at that point is often arguing that they accidentally made a profit without trying to, and they just coincidentally filed as a non-profit by innocent mistake. The press has tended to treat this as though the new non-profits could be set up wrong quite innocently, and have made a profit under law, but not done anything really wrong unless the IRS could prove some sort of intent, but the law normally assumes people don't make profits accidentally, and don't just happen to get the paperwork wrong coincidentally.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  37. Re:Yawn by Sarius64 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Or you can just rig the system, like Obama's advisers do, apparently.

    All the President’s Muses: Obama and Prosecutorial Misconduct

  38. Re:Yawn by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only group that was actually denied was a "liberal" group

    The whole point of the scandal (about which you are clearly uninformed, or about which you are being deliberately disingenuous and deceptive) is that the IRS put applying conservative groups through the ringer specifically to delay their activities through then-upcoming election cycle. They dragged out conservative-sounding applications for months or years through an intimidating, recurring process of illegally asking for information like personal information about group members' lifestyles, the books they read, their personal religious musings, and other complete BS. It wasn't about approving or denying the groups' non-profit status, it was about keeping them in limbo while more quickly approving groups that were more likely to back the administration before the election.

    You really think the word scandal needs quotes around it, because none of that was real or mattered? Or are you dismissive of that illegal treatment because you, like the administration, just don't happen to like the thinking of the fellow citizens that were abused in that way?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  39. Re: Yawn by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He'll, I'd settle for the IRS following its own rule that are enforced so strictly on the rest of us, which is that the taxpayer is presumed guilty. If you, as the accused, cannot produce records proving your case, you lose and get reamed. So in this instance, since the IRS claimed to have 'lost' the records that would have proved its case, we will make the same assumption the IRS does.

  40. Re:Yawn by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    It didn't matter, and it doesn't matter. Republicans and democrats will continue to rule for the foreseeable future despite all their "scandals". Personally, I don't vote for either, but I still have to live with the results. The IRS has always been used as a weapon. That's what it is designed for. I find their treatment of regular individuals much more scandalous. This 501 thing is bullshit anyway. As far as I'm concerned, political campaign financing is nothing but money laundering, and the 501 status is legitimized tax evasion. So I have no sympathy for these people seeking it, "conservative" or "liberal". I put them in quotes because those labels are also bullshit. Let's not pretend that harassment of one's political enemies is anything new. It's only now with the demographic threat showing its face that people are starting to whine about it. Crocodile tears, welcome to life in the big city.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  41. Re:For fuck sake, the IRS isn't what you think it by DutchUncle · · Score: 3, Informative

    None of the above, I'm one of those people who has gotten burned because I didn't keep the purchase records for something 25 years earlier, and when I sold it and had to declare a profit, I spent many hours trying to find proof of the cost basis. Perhaps you have not yet bought (or inherited) real property, assets of declarable and insurable value, or stock, and thus have not yet encountered these issues (no, wait, if you're younger you may have bought stock in the no-certificate book-entry-only broker-keeps-records era rather than the old transferable-piece-of-paper era, which makes life a lot easier - until your broker goes under). Rather than insult you back, I will urge you to research the record-keeping requirements before the IRS expects you to pay tax on ordinary income for the ENTIRE sale price of something because, without proof of original investment cost, they peg it at zero.

  42. I am a former federal contractor by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 2

    Each email system had a triplicate of backups done so they would not lose emails. They used Microsoft Exchange Server and digital tape backups. They used Outlook and backed up PST files to network drives.

    If they lost her emails with a system like that it was no accident.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  43. Re:Yawn by budgenator · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you really want people like Government bureaucrat deciding what is charitable and what isn't? It's been a long time since i've felt that Most chareties were more the Moral Narcisism at best and "a front for monied self interest, pushing self interest through political propaganda" at worst, but I can't imagine how having a bureaucrat deciding which plutocrat gets a tax break makes anything better.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  44. Re:I get your point but disagree on it's worth by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2

    What I take personally is the constant, unending, pig-headed suggestion that because I hate (and I mean hate) Obama, I wasn't complaining about Bush when he did similar things.

    I was.

    And I actually voted for Obama, once.

    But the constant parade of water-brained team players who come out to claim 'BUT THE OTHER GUY" every time another one of Obama's constitution-shredding sprees comes to light destroys productive conversation and helps ensure that nothing is done about the problem.

    And I'm fucking sick and tired of it.

  45. Re:Yawn by sycodon · · Score: 2

    When it comes to non-profits and raising money, not being approved is synonymous with not being denied.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  46. Questions to ask by RoccamOccam · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Sharyl Attkisson (investigative reporter formerly with CBS) has posted some questions that should be asked:
    • Please provide a timeline of the crash and documentation covering when it was first discovered and by whom; when, how and by whom it was learned that materials were lost; the official documentation reporting the crash and federal data loss; documentation reflecting all attempts to recover the materials; and the remediation records documenting the fix. This material should include the names of all officials and technicians involved, as well as all internal communications about the matter.
    • Please provide all documents and emails that refer to the crash from the time that it happened through the IRS’ disclosure to Congress Friday that it had occurred.
    • Please provide the documents that show the computer crash and lost data were appropriately reported to the required entities including any contractor servicing the IRS. If the incident was not reported, please explain why.
    • Please provide a list summarizing what other data was irretrievably lost in the computer crash. If the loss involved any personal data, was the loss disclosed to those impacted? If not, why?
    • Please provide documentation reflecting any security analyses done to assess the impact of the crash and lost materials. If such analyses were not performed, why not?
    • Please provide documentation showing the steps taken to recover the material, and the names of all technicians who attempted the recovery.
    • Please explain why redundancies required for federal systems were either not used or were not effective in restoring the lost materials, and provide documentation showing how this shortfall has been remediated.
    • Please provide any documents reflecting an investigation into how the crash resulted in the irretrievable loss of federal data and what factors were found to be responsible for the existence of this situation.
    • I would also ask for those who discovered and reported the crash to testify under oath, as well as any officials who reported the materials as having been irretrievably lost.