New York Firearms Forum banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,547 Posts
Yeah, I am sure it was low level people in Cincinnati and no one higher up possibly could have been involved. Of course not. It is always the underlings that commit all the crimes, and the leaders never know anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,547 Posts
Sounds like bad management to me...
That is the other side of it. If the leaders are innocent, well then they are terrible supervisors and should be fired for that. Either way, heads gotta roll.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,547 Posts
Well ..You will never know , as it is not possible to subpoena an employee of the IRS
It is okay, I don't need to know. They royally screwed up, in the civilian world, they would be fired. They should lose their government jobs as well. I know you agree with me on that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,749 Posts
lets start here ...

  1. An IRS employee faced with a court order to testify or produce documents prior to receiving testimony and/or production authorization should respectfully decline to testify. The employee should explain to the court that Treasury Regulation 301.9000-3 does not permit him/her to testify or produce IRS information unless the employee has received authorization to testify or produce IRS information and that he/she is awaiting authorization. To the extent necessary, Disclosure or Chief Counsel personnel or Government counsel (usually an Assistant U.S. Attorney) should accompany the employee to explain the situation.
  2. An IRS employee faced with a court order to testify or produce documents with respect to information that is not authorized to be disclosed by the testimony and production authorization should respectfully decline to testify or produce documents with respect to those matters. If returns and return information are involved, the employee should explain to the court that disclosure could subject him/her to civil and criminal sanctions. Disclosure or Chief Counsel personnel, or Government counsel (usually an Assistant U.S. Attorney) should accompany the employee to explain the situation to the court.
  3. In nontax cases, the fact that a person presents a subpoena or other request or demand indicating he/she is the attorney for a taxpayer, is not sufficient to establish that person as the authorized representative of a taxpayer for purposes of disclosing confidential tax information. IRC §6103(c) and (e) require that a taxpayer consent in writing or in open court on the record to the disclosure of his/her confidential tax information. In tax cases, disclosure may be made where the requirements of IRC §6103(h)(4) are met.
  4. Prior to taking the stand as a government witness or a witness for the opposing party in a nontax civil or criminal proceeding, the subpoenaed employee should apprise Government counsel of the limits of the testimony authorization.
  5. Should Government counsel ignore IRS instructions and request testimony which clearly is beyond the scope of the authorization (e.g., testimony concerning third parties or confidential informants) or raise no objection when such testimony is requested by the opposing counsel, the employee should inform the court of any statutory restrictions on disclosure and of the testimony instructions issued by the IRS. The employee should be careful to not directly or indirectly disclose tax information (e.g., fact of filing) when making this explanation. If the line of questioning is pursued, the employee should request the court's permission to consult with IRS officials before responding. If the court refuses to grant permission and insists that the employee testify, the employee should respectfully decline to testify because statutory authority and/or IRS approval is lacking.
  6. Where the legality of the disclosure is questionable, such as when non-Government counsel moves for disclosure based on a constitutional premise as in Brady v. Maryland 373 U.S. 83 (1963) ( See IRM 11.3.35.14), the employee should be guided by Government counsel in providing testimony. In either situation, the IRS will support its employees in any " good faith" decision on their part about the propriety of their actions in protecting the confidentiality of IRS information.
  7. Any IRS officer, employee, or contractor who discloses IRS records or information without authorization under Treasury Regulation 301-9000-3, may be subject to administrative discipline, up to and including dismissal, applicable contractual sanctions and civil or criminal penalties, including prosecution under 5 USC 552(a) or IRC § 72132
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
If the office of treasury inspector tells you to go to court, doesn't matter what IRC says. They work outside IRC, since they are not part of the IRS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,749 Posts
I would take a look into it. ;)
United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen
, 340 U.S. 462, 463 n.1, 468 (1951), the
Supreme Court upheld the validity of a Justice Department regulation prohibiting
an employee of the Department from responding to a subpoena duces tecum
without prior approval from the Attorney General. We applied
Touhy in the Case "United States v. Allen , 554 F.2d 398, 406 (10th Cir. 1977),
where we upheld the validity

of a regulation requiring the person seeking evidence to submit an "affidavit or
statement summarizing the testimony desired so that the Department could
choose to deny, or affirm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,101 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
It's the Teflon Administration... nothing sticks to the great one or his cronnies.
Nothing sticks to the ruling class. It's not just this administration. It's anyone politically connected.

$1 Billion dollars of client money disappears from MF Global. The CEO's best explanation for where it went was "I have no idea", and apparently that was a good enough explanation to avoid prosecution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,547 Posts
Are those IRS regs you are listing there Embree?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen
, 340 U.S. 462, 463 n.1, 468 (1951), the
Supreme Court upheld the validity of a Justice Department regulation prohibiting
an employee of the Department from responding to a subpoena duces tecum
without prior approval from the Attorney General. We applied
Touhy in the Case "United States v. Allen , 554 F.2d 398, 406 (10th Cir. 1977),
where we upheld the validity

of a regulation requiring the person seeking evidence to submit an "affidavit or
statement summarizing the testimony desired so that the Department could
choose to deny, or affirm
You win, proved me wrong. I have to leave for work now. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,547 Posts
Quote NYShooter1 ...Are those IRS regs you are listing there Embree?

Yes
Thought so. Fortunately in my career I have had to research federal tax issues exactly once -15 years ago. This means I know nada about them now. However, last time I checked, federal law has greater authority than agency regulations. After all, it is law that creates the agencies, including the big bad IRS, and is what authorizes them to issue regulations and administrative rules. So what is the authority for them to violate the rules governing a response to a valid subpoena duces tecum? The proper procedure is for the government to move to quash the subpoena, not decide whether to obey it. Is it simply the cases you cited? Never read them and I know you know this stuff well. Curious.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top