[EL] Wall Street Journal IRS Atmosphere Timeline

[Mark Schmitt]

I *love *the rhetorical move that takes the form, "The fact that we are
debating X bears out my point about X."

We're debating it because some political operatives decided to construct an
entirely fictional narrative around a plain, banal statement about tax
policy. Read the quote: Goolsbee's message was not that the Koch's are
"bad." It was that 50% of corporate income escapes corporate taxation,
legally, and that some of those LLCs are large corporations. He could have
used KKR or Bechtel as examples, but they are probably not as well known to
the reporters.



Mark Schmitt
Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute <http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/>
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: mschmitt9


On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org> wrote:

>  Just to clarify—I don’t think that he intended to send a coded message
> to the IRS.  His message, like the Administration’s message in general, was
> far broader and quite clear:  the Kochs were (and are) bad.  That’s the
> extent of what he said and what would result from that was anybody’s guess,
> which I seem to recall was Barnaby’s original point.****
>
> ** **
>
> Also, the fact that the Administration publicly identified the Kochs as
> enemies should have meant that he should have specifically *not chosen
> them* to make a point about tax policy.  If he wanted to make a deep
> point about tax policy, he should have used someone else because he should
> have known that the discussion would be about those he used to demonstrate
> his point, not what the point actually was.  The fact that we are debating
> what he meant months later instead of talking about the point of tax policy
> he was making appears to bear this out. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Bill ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Mark Schmitt
> *Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2013 12:20 PM
>
> *To:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Wall Street Journal IRS Atmosphere Timeline****
>
> ** **
>
> I wasn't aware that there was some sort of taboo about mentioning the
> corporate structure of a large company. I don't know if Reagan mentioned
> any of the companies that were identified as paying no tax in 1985 by name,
> though he certainly mentioned the general fact, often, but I can't imagine
> anyone would have thought there was anything wrong with it if he had gone
> further. ****
>
> I should probably drop out of this at this point, and just acknowledge
> that a scandal is probably out of juice when it's gone from "What did the
> White House order the IRS to do?" to speculating that maybe the chair of
> the Council of Economic Advisors dropped a coded hint in a conference call
> that, while incorrect and about a totally different topic, nonetheless
> subtly encouraged clerks in Cincinnati to be careless and confused. ****
>
>
> ****
>
> Mark Schmitt
> Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute<http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/>
> 202/246-2350
> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
> twitter: mschmitt9 ****
>
> ** **
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org> wrote:****
>
> An “A” for effort, but the fact that he used a policy report as the
> opportunity to do this doesn’t change the fact that a political appointee
> was talking about the tax status of a group the President doesn’t like and
> over which he had no regulatory authority.  ****
>
>  ****
>
> The correct approach should have been to avoid any discussion about
> their—or anyone else’s—tax status, correct or incorrect.  The fact that a
> previous administration did use a private company as an example doesn’t
> excuse doing it this time. ****
>
>  ****
>
> And the fact that he just happens to choose the Administration’s top
> political targets seems to be one of those unusual coincidences that has
> been regularly occurring lately.  If anyone thinks that he mentioned the
> Kochs, and did so in a way that implied they don’t pay tax, just because
> they are a large company, there are a number of deposed former finance
> ministers from oversees that would like to talk to you about investment
> opportunities via email.  Also, they have some good deals on toner.****
>
>  ****
>
> There’s no excusing what he did, regardless of whether he was right or
> wrong and I would have had the same response if someone from the Bush
> Administration had done it to George Soros.  I guess it demonstrates,
> though, that expecting discretion and evenhandedness from our government
> with respect to the reputations of Americans regardless of whether the
> current occupant of the executive office likes them or not is too much to
> ask.****
>
>  ****
>
> Bill****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Mark Schmitt
> *Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2013 11:34 AM****
>
>
> *To:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Wall Street Journal IRS Atmosphere Timeline****
>
>  ****
>
> He was discussing a report released that day, on tax reform options. (
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/PERAB_Tax_Reform_Report.pdf)
> A major section of the report was on corporate tax reform, and the idea of
> lowering the corporate rate by broadening the base. One option for
> achieving the lower corporate tax rate was, "Option 2: Review the Boundary
> Between Corporate and Non-Corporate Taxation." This sub-section discussed
> at length the problems created by the different treatment of companies
> based on corporate structure, and the increasing use of pass-throughs, and
> proposals to bring more such entities into the corporate tax base.****
>
> In a call with reporters about the report, he said: "So in this country,
> we have partnerships, S corps, we have LLCs—we have a series of entities
> that do not pay corporate income tax. Some of which are really giant firms.
> You know, Koch Industries, I think, is one, is a multibillion dollar
> business, and so that creates a narrower base because we got literally
> something like 50 percent of the business income in the US is going to
> businesses that don’t pay any corporate income tax."
>
> Koch is a well-known company, most people or reporters are aware that it's
> quite large, so if it were an LLC, it would be a good example to illustrate
> the tax-reform point. Goolsbee's mistake was that he was wrong. But the
> fact that he was wrong pretty much exonerates him of the charge of
> accessing IRS information, doesn't it?****
>
> Examples are a tried and true way of making complicated concepts like
> corporate tax reform accessible. A major event in the 1986 tax reform was a
> report identifying some large corporations that paid no tax -- not to
> "place a political target on them" but simply to illustrate that the system
> was a mess. ****
>
> Ironically, since it's not a pass-through entity, Koch Industries would
> pay a lower tax rate under the proposal the administration floated at that
> time. ****
>
>  ****
>
>
> ****
>
> Mark Schmitt
> Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute<http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/>
> 202/246-2350
> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
> twitter: mschmitt9 ****
>
>  ****
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org> wrote:****
>
> Why exactly was a high-level political appointee of the Administration
> speaking publicly about the tax status of a private entity over which he
> had no regulatory authority in the first place if not to place a political
> target on them?****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Mark Schmitt
> *Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2013 10:44 AM
> *To:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Wall Street Journal IRS Atmosphere Timeline****
>
>  ****
>
> I remember Austan Goolsbee well, what of it? He made a statement, which
> was wrong, that he "thought" Koch Industries was structured as an LLP or
> MLP. He was mistaken. It was a statement about tax policy, a reminder that
> some large companies aren't subject to the corporate income tax, which is
> true. As it turns out, his example was mistaken. The Koch Industries
> website shows that several of its large subsidiaries are LLCs, but the
> corporation itself is not.
>
> What is the signal that you think low-level IRS employees would take from
> that misstatement about tax policy and public information?****
>
>
> ****
>
> Mark Schmitt
> Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute<http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/>
> 202/246-2350
> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
> twitter: mschmitt9 ****
>
>  ****
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:27 AM, <BZall at aol.com> wrote:****
>
> No one seems to be reacting to the *Wall Street Journal* column
> attempting to use a timeline to explain how "low-level" IRS agents might
> find it necessary to scrutinize 1024s from some groups more than others,
> asking otherwise inappropriate questions about volunteers and individuals.
> ****
>
>  ****
>
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323844804578529571309012846.html?mod=opinion_newsreel
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> This echoes a debate at last week's First Tuesday Lunch meeting where one
> set of public policy attorneys (my own term for lawyers who specialize in
> both campaign finance and exempt organization law) discussed with another
> set whether there was direction, either explicit or tacit, from the
> Administration. One set remembers Austan Goolsbee very well; others not so
> much, and the discrepancy taints the analysis of current events. ****
>
>  ****
>
> We have long known that the IRS reads the newspapers, as you would expect
> them to. The question is whether they consciously or unconsciously absorb
> some of the campaign rhetoric, and if they do, whether it is absorbed
> evenly or not. In an area where confirmation bias runs rampant, as
> evidenced by recent posts to this list, are we training IRS agents to avoid
> it? Even lawyers who read some IRS publications have no clue about how the
> political rules actually work. In many cases, it takes years to understand,
> just as you expect in any other complex area. There's no real evidence of
> that type of training in the IRS, and the TIGTA report indicates that
> training sessions were either late or incomplete. Was Judy Kindell, the
> resident guru on political matters in the IRS EO Division, consulted in
> 2009, when this whole mess began? Apparently the isolation of Cincinnati
> imposed by the 2003 IRS reorganization bore its bitter fruit, fertilized by
> a continual lack of resources, in that time period.****
>
>  ****
>
> Perhaps the point is one also made at last week's lunch: the real problem
> here is that IRS Determs was using audit techniques instead of reviewing
> applications. That may have been because the agents were fearful that some
> of what was being said in the media (as opposed to the applications) was
> true, and sought to get to the bottom of it. That is not necessarily a bad
> thing if you are tasked with determining how organizations will operate in
> the future (itself an incredibly difficult task), particularly with
> charities. But these were c4s, where political activity is perfectly
> lawful. Audit techniques are likely inappropriate when an organization does
> not have a track record, and will only result in shutting down the smaller
> and newer organizations who can't afford the skilled counsel who can simply
> stare down the inappropriate questions or call the managers they already
> know to complain. It is all well-and-good to question the competence of
> low-level employees who made mistakes, but we should look at the system to
> see the real structural issues. ****
>
>  ****
>
> Barnaby Zall
> Of Counsel
> Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani, LLP
> 10411 Motor City Drive, Suite 500
> Bethesda, MD 20817
> 301-231-6943 (direct dial)
> bzall at aol.com
> _____________________________________________________________
> U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice
>
> Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this communication (including
> any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
> used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding U.S. federal tax-related penalties
> or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
> tax-related matter addressed herein.
> _____________________________________________________________****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130610/b9559db0/attachment.html>