[EL] TIGTA Timeline Provides More Info on EO Decisions

[BZall at aol.com]

The timeline prepared by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax  
Administration and released by various media outlets offers some insight  into what 
was going on at various times, many far earlier than the June 2011  time 
suggested for Exempt Organization Division Director Lois Lerner's first  
involvement. Some of these insights support the IRS version; others do not. For  
example, 
 
*Lois Lerner's statement indicates that these procedures were a normal  
"centralization" triggered by a "doubling" of 1024 applications for c4 status  
following Citizens United. This was also the story I was given in  August 
2012 by an IRS agent in the Advocacy Project. Citizens United was decided  on 
January 21, 2010. The timeline begins with a redacted section which must 
have  been sometime in February, 2010, or at least before the second date, 
which is  "Around March 1, 2010," with an entry that says: "The Determinations 
Unit Group  Manager [probably a third-line employee, and typically a more 
senior and  experienced person] asked a specialist [typically a second-line 
employee] to  search for other Tea Party or similar organizations’  
applications in order to determine the scope of the issue." (emphasis  added.) It is 
highly unlikely that Lois's increase in applications occurred  within a few 
weeks of the Citizens United decision. It is also unlikely  that "other Tea 
Party or similar" cases were being worked only after Jan. 21,  2010. If there 
was a "centralization," it wasn't based on an increase in c4  applications; 
it started long before that. Note: it is not uncommon for IRS EO  
"centralizations" to occur as a result of individual managers' choices; the  credit 
counseling agency "centralization" Lois referred to, reportedly was  started 
when a manager, on a whim, googled "credit counseling and fraud;" her  
research led IRS officials to conclude that there was a need to  block new 
applications and audit existing organizations. That  centralization eliminated 
two-thirds of the credit counseling agencies, just  before and during the 
recession, and at least indirectly led to IRC 501(q). 
 
*Lois's statement also said this was being done by "low-level employees."  
The same sections demonstrate that, unless "low-level employees" includes  
managers (who are typically experienced and senior, and rarely implement new  
procedures without approval) and Directors (who are typically senior 
management  in the EO Division), it is also highly-unlikely that only low-level  
employees were involved. This is reinforced by the later involvement  of "The 
new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, [who] suggested the need for a  
Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program  
Manager agreed." By April 19, 2010, the first "Sensitive Case Reports are shared 
 with the Director, Rulings and Agreements, and a chart summarizing all 
Sensitive  Case Reports is provided to the Director, EO [who was Lois Lerner]."
 
*Lois's statement suggested this was done solely because some "terms" were  
being used on the "centralization" list. The timeline may help Lois's 
position  by reporting that, in March 2010, "Determinations Unit personnel 
indicated that  they used the description Tea Party as a shorthand way of 
referring to the  group of cases involving political campaign intervention rather 
than to target  any particular group. The specialist [searching for "other Tea 
Party or similar  organizations’ applications"] used Tea Party, Patriots, 
and 9/12 as part of the  criteria for these searches." And "While the heading 
of the document  listing these 18 cases referred to Tea Party cases, not 
all of the organizations  listed had Tea Party in their names." It may have 
been that only the specialist  used these terms, at least in March 2010. 
Still, there appear to have been  few, if any, non-conservative groups who have 
admitted publicly that they were  subject to this additional screening. 
 
*By July 2010, the Determinations Unit had prepared and issued a "Be On the 
 LookOut for" (BOLO) alert for its personnel to use during screening. On 
July 27,  2010, the description was changed to read, “These cases involve 
various local  organizations in the Tea Party movement [that] are applying for 
exemption under  501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4).” There was widespread confusion 
following this change,  and the case processings were apparently halted pending 
further guidance from  the Technical Unit. 
 
* On June 29, 2011, A "briefing paper" was given to Lois Lerner listing the 
 following "criteria" for inclusion in the Advocacy Project:
-- “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” or “9/12 Project” is referenced in the case 
 file.
-- Issues include Government spending, Government debt, or  taxes.
-- Education of the public via advocacy/lobbying to “make America a  
better place to live.” and 
-- Statements in the case file criticize how the country is being  run.
The briefing paper was "prepared by Tax Law  Specialists in the Technical 
Unit and the Guidance Unit"!!?? 
 
And so on. 

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.  
_____________________________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130513/0c78d513/attachment.html>