One week off did nothing to dim the focus in Congress on questionable actions by the Internal Revenue Service, as the new acting chief of the tax agency will face lawmakers on Monday, while outrage continues to build against the IRS on a number of fronts.
"The IRS spent $50 million on employee conferences? That is outrageous," said Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD). "The American taxpayer deserves better."
That $50 million in conference spending between 2010-2012 included an over $4 million tab for a gathering in California that will be the subject of a hearing on Thursday, as the IRS finds itself on the defensive for much more than the targeting of Tea Party groups that were seeking tax exempt status.
In advance of the release of a report on the spending for that conference, the IRS released a dance video done by the tax agency as part of a 2010 conference in Anaheim, California.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid774331384001?bctid=2428513144001
This is the same conference that also featured a parody video of Star Trek, in which executives of the IRS ventured to the planet "No Tax."
Meanwhile, on the IRS targeting of more conservative groups, there is no sign of let up on that front for Republicans, as two House panels will look at that scandal on Monday and Tuesday, while a third continues to interview IRS employees from the Cincinnati office that has taken the blame for the political targeting.
In a series of transcript excerpts released this weekend by the House Oversight Committee, the GOP argues that it is clear that targeting was spurred by higher-ups in Washington, D.C., and not undertaken by a bunch of rogue employees in Ohio.
Here are some portions of the interivews (taken under oath) released by the panel to reporters:
One Cincinnati IRS employee interviewed by the Oversight Committee rejects the White House assertion and points to Washington as being responsible for targeting effort:
Q: In early 2010, was there a time when you became aware of applications that referenced Tea Party or other conservative groups?
A: In March of 2010, I was made aware.
******
Q: Okay. Now, was there a point around this time period when [your supervisor] asked you to do a search for similar applications?
A: Yes.
Q: To the best of your recollection, when was this request made?
A: Sometime in early March of 2010.
******
Q: Did [your supervisor] give you any indication of the need for the search, any more context?
A: He told me that Washington, D.C., wanted some cases.
******
Q: So as of April 2010, these 40 cases were held at that moment in your group; is that right?
A: Some were.
Q: How many were held there?
A: Less than 40. Some went to Washington, D.C.
Q: Okay. How many went to Washington, D.C.?
A: I sent seven.
******
Q: So you prepared seven hard copy versions of the applications to go to Washington, D.C.?
A: Correct.
******
Q: Did he give you any sort of indication as to why he requested you to do that?
[…]
A: He said Washington, D.C. wanted seven. Because at one point I believe I heard they were thinking 10, but it came down to seven. I said okay, seven.
Q: How did you decide which seven were sent?
A: Just the first seven.
Q: The first seven to come into the system?
A: Yes.
*****
Q: Did anyone else ever make a request that you send any cases to Washington?
A: [Different IRS employee] wanted to have two cases that she couldn't ‑‑ Washington, D.C. wanted them, but she couldn't find the paper. So she requested me, through an email, to find these cases for her and to send them to Washington, D.C.
Q: When was this, what time frame?
A: I don't recall the time frame, maybe May of 2010.
******
Q: But just to be clear, she told you the specific names of these applicants.
A: Yes.
Q: And she told you that Washington, D.C. had requested these two specific applications be sent to D.C.
A: Yes, or parts of them.
******
Q: Okay. So she asked you to send particular parts of these applications.
A: Mm‑hmm.
Q: And that was unusual. Did you say that?
A: Yes.
Q: And she indicated that Washington had requested these specific parts of these specific applications; is that right?
A: Correct.
******
Q: So what do you think about this, that allegation has been made, I think as you have seen in lots of press reports, that there were two rogue agents in Cincinnati that are sort of responsible for all of the issues that we have been talking about today. What do you think about those allegations?
[…]
A: It's impossible. As an agent we are controlled by many, many people. We have to submit many, many reports. So the chance of two agents being rogue and doing things like that could never happen.
******
Q: And you've heard, I'm sure, news reports about individuals here in Washington saying this is a problem that was originated in and contained in the Cincinnati office, and that it was the Cincinnati office that was at fault. What is your reaction to those types of stories?
[…]
A: Well, it's hard to answer the question because in my mind I still hear people saying we were low‑level employees, so we were lower than dirt, according to people in D.C. So, take it for what it is. They were basically throwing us underneath the bus.
******
Q: So is it your perspective that ultimately the responsible parties for the decisions that were reported by the IG are not in the Cincinnati office?
A: I don't know how to answer that question. I mean, from an agent standpoint, we didn't do anything wrong. We followed directions based on other people telling us what to do.
Q: And you ultimately followed directions from Washington; is that correct?
A: If direction had come down from Washington, yes.
Q: But with respect to the particular scrutiny that was given to Tea Party applications, those directions emanated from Washington; is that right?
A: I believe so.
And another more senior IRS Cincinnati employee complained about micromanagement from D.C.:
Q: But you specifically recall that the BOLO terms included "Tea Party?"
A: Yes, I do.
Q: And it was your understanding ‑‑ was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify Tea Party groups?
A: That is correct.
Q: Was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify conservative groups?
A: Yes, it was.
Q: Was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify Republican groups?
A: Yes, it was.
******
Q: Earlier I believe you informed us that the primary reason for applying for another job in July [2010] was because of the micromanagement from [Washington, DC, IRS Attorney], is that correct?
A: Right. It was the whole Tea Party. It was the whole picture. I mean, it was the micromanagement. The fact that the subject area was extremely sensitive and it was something that I didn't want to be associated with.
Q: Why didn't you want to be associated with it?
A: For what happened now. I mean, rogue agent? Even though I was taking all my direction from EO Technical [Washington, D.C], I didn't want my name in the paper for being this rogue agent for a project I had no control over.
Q: Did you think there was something inappropriate about what was happening in 2010?
A: Yes. The inappropriateness was not processing these applications fairly and timely.
******
Q: You have stated you had concerns with the fairness and the timeliness of the application process. Did you have concerns with just the fact that these cases were grouped together and you were the only one handling them?
A: I was the only one handling the Tea Party's, that is correct.
Q: Did that specifically cause you concern?
A: Yes, it did. And I was the only person handling them.
Q: Were you concerned that you didn't have the capacity to process all of the applications in a timely manner?
A: That is correct. And it is just ‑‑ I mean, like you brought up, the micromanagement, the fact that the topic was just weirdly handled was a huge concern to me.
******
At this writing, there are three hearings scheduled this week on the IRS:
+ Monday - House Appropriations Committee with Acting IRS Chief Danny Werfel and the IRS inspector general Russell George
+ Tuesday - House Ways and Means Committee, with groups that were targeted by the IRS
+ Thursday - House Oversight Committee hearing on conference spending by IRS, focusing on 2010 gathering in California that cost over $4 million for 2600 IRS employees
