America's IRS Can't Find Millions of Sensitive Tax Records: Watchdog (thehill.com) 69
An anonymous reader shares The Hill's report from earlier this month. Apparently America's tax-collecting Internal Revenue Service "cannot locate thousands of microfilm cartridges containing millions of sensitive individual and business tax account records, according to a watchdog report."
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration said in a report released August 8 that the IRS cannot account for microfilm cartridges — which contain backups of tax records as required under federal law — from fiscal 2010 that were originally stored at a processing center in Fresno, California... The watchdog also found seven empty boxes, which could hold up to 168 cartridges total, at the Ogden Tax Processing Center in Utah. Ogden personnel did not know where the missing cartridges were.
More than 4,000 cartridges containing business tax account information from fiscal 2018 and 4,500 cartridges containing individual tax account information from fiscal 2019 also could not be accounted for at the Kansas City facility, according to the report.
"The personal taxpayer and tax information included on these backup cartridges is key information that can be used to commit tax refund fraud identity theft," the report noted.
More than 4,000 cartridges containing business tax account information from fiscal 2018 and 4,500 cartridges containing individual tax account information from fiscal 2019 also could not be accounted for at the Kansas City facility, according to the report.
"The personal taxpayer and tax information included on these backup cartridges is key information that can be used to commit tax refund fraud identity theft," the report noted.
Re:Did they check Trump's toilet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, I was going to ask if they checked Biden's garage.
As if the two situations are even remotely identical.
One person (allegedly) specifically took files, he wasn't entitled to and/or authorized to have, and tried to keep them, even when asked repeatedly to return them, by hiding them from even his lawyer and was subject to a legally authorized search warrant so the government could recover them ... while the other (allegedly) had them inadvertently and then returned them voluntarily and immediately upon finding them and volunteered to have his home searched.
Furthermore, if the first person really, actually believed he was entitled to have said documents, he could have avoided his entire legal mess by simply returning everything *then* filing a request and/or filing a suit to have them returned to him. But no... He didn't want anyone to know what he actually had. Wonder why?
Re:Did they check Trump's toilet? (Score:5, Insightful)
If he declassified them then he (and republicans) should be ok with providing a complete list of them and publishing the complete, unredacted content of each for all of us to read. We can then see how responsible he was with our Nation's security by seeing what he considered to not be important.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems reasonable enough. I wouldn't mind seeing why everyone's so up in arms over these documents in the first place.
Re:Did they check Trump's toilet? (Score:5, Informative)
One person (allegedly) specifically took files, he wasn't entitled to and/or authorized to have, ...
Well that's for a court to decide since he was the one person in government who had solo authority to declassify them.
So you fell for that. It doesn't matter if they are/were classified or not -- they're literally not his documents. They belong to the Office of the President -- not the President and, certainly, not an ex-President. The documents from his term are now the responsibility of the National Archives. If Trump wants/needs access to them after leaving office, he can request that through them.
He is charged with *obstruction* (Count 33) for not returning the documents when asked to (repeatedly) and trying to conceal them (Count 35) from recovery. Also note that the retention charges are concerning "Willful Retention of National Defense Information" (Counts 1-32), not classified documents -- as classification didn't exist at the time the laws in question were written.
[Presidential Records Act] ... “Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the president.”"
Which is currently Biden, not Trump. Trump's incoherent ramblings about the Presidential Records act ignore the fact that he... is... not... President. None of the presidential records belong to *him* -- even when he was President, they belong to the *office* of the President.
Re: (Score:2)
So you fell for that.
I fell for nothing, I cited a court ruling.
It doesn't matter if they are/were classified or not -- they're literally not his documents. They belong to the Office of the President -- not the President and, certainly, not an ex-President.
You misunderstand his argument. He claims he declassified them while still President. And again, you seem misinformed as to what the Presidential Records Act says. It give the President the right o custody and management. The President is only required to seek Archivist proposal to dispose of records. As President Clinton had the right to say what is in that sock drawer is personal, Trump argues he had the right to say what is in that box is personal. That box was
Re: (Score:2)
He claims he declassified them while still President.
This doesn't matter in this case. He's charged with "Willful Retention of National Defense Information" -- from a law that pre-dates the classification system. Furthermore, regardless of whether he was/wasn't allowed to possess the documents, when subpoenaed to return them, he was legally required to do so. Keeping them and hiding them is obstruction -- which is illegal. He didn't do this because (a) he didn't want anyone to know what he had (wonder why) and (b) was afraid he wouldn't get them back (whi
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't matter in this case. He's charged with "Willful Retention of National Defense Information" -- from a law that pre-dates the classification system.
New laws supersede old.
Furthermore, regardless of whether he was/wasn't allowed to possess the documents, when subpoenaed to return them, he was legally required to do so. Keeping them and hiding them is obstruction -- which is illegal.
Unless you are raising a legal challenge to a higher court. He didn't do this because (a) he didn't want anyone to know what he had (wonder why) and (b) was afraid he wouldn't get them back (which is probably the case. His situation is of his own making.
It give the President the right o custody and management.
Sure, but Trump is not President and was not President when he was asked to return things.
That's not how it works. The determination of personal vs presidential is made while still in office. For example Clinton saying I considered these tapes personal when I stored them in the sock drawer. Trump may try to say he cons
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't matter in this case. He's charged with "Willful Retention of National Defense Information" -- from a law that pre-dates the classification system.
New laws supersede old.
Not always and not in this case.
Actually I listen to attorneys for and against, ...
Me too and I've read all the indictments. You're on the wrong side of this. And you really should read up on the Clinton Sock case: Yes, Bill Clinton kept tapes in his sock drawer. Here's why Trump's case is different. [politifact.com]
The National Archives had told Judicial Watch that the materials were personal records that did not fall within the Presidential Records Act’s purview.
The Judge agreed. Also, as far as I can tell, Clinton wasn't asked/subpoenaed to return them pending litigation. Stop trying to compare apples to oranges.
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't matter in this case. He's charged with "Willful Retention of National Defense Information" -- from a law that pre-dates the classification system.
New laws supersede old.
Not always and not in this case.
In the context of Presidential Records, it does.
Me too and I've read all the indictments. You're on the wrong side of this. And you really should read up on the Clinton Sock case: Yes, Bill Clinton kept tapes in his sock drawer. [politifact.com]
Tapes that people claimed were official records. And the judge said the President makes the call, not the archivist. And that ruling applies to all records, tapes or otherwise.
The National Archives had told Judicial Watch that the materials were personal records that did not fall within the Presidential Records Act’s purview.
Irrelevant trivia. The judge rules that its the President's call not the archivists.
The Judge agreed.
With the President, who she considered the only person that could make the call.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously there's not point discussing with you. But to sum up. Under no circumstances could the official records -- especially the classified records, even if declassified (they actually belong to the agency that created them) -- Trump took be considered "personal" and he was ordered to return them and he didn't. The President doesn't have the discretion to designate official records as personal. Those are the facts. Quoting that article from above:
The Presidential Records Act requires that all "official" documents be returned to the National Archives upon a president’s departure.
Baron said, "No prior case has held that a president has absolute discretion to designate official government records — classified or unclassified — as his own personal records."
Jackson’s ruling cited a prior appeals court opinion that said, "We did not hold (in a prior case) that the President could designate any material he wishes as presidential records, and thereby exercise virtually complete control over it notwithstanding the fact that the material does not meet the definition of ‘presidential records.’"
Baron said, "it would contravene the very reason Congress created the Presidential Records Act were a court to allow a president to designate official records as his own personal records to do with what he pleases."
Lawyers wrong half the time ... (Score:2)
Under no circumstances could the official records -- especially the classified records, even if declassified (they actually belong to the agency that created them)
And those defense and intelligence agencies are in what part of government? The Executive Branch.
Who is in Command of the Executive Branch? The President.
Who is in Command of the US Military? The President.
So the President has the authority to change ownership. Also note we are talking about copies sent to the White House. Not the one and only sole copy of something.
Baron said, "No prior case has held that a president has absolute discretion to designate official government records — classified or unclassified — as his own personal records."
That merely says there is no legal precedent. It leaves the question legally open.
Jackson’s ruling cited a prior appeals court opinion that said, "We did not hold (in a prior case) that the President could designate any material he wishes as presidential records, and thereby exercise virtually complete control over it notwithstanding the fact that the material does not meet the definition of ‘presidential records.’"
That merely states the she did not create a preceden
Re: (Score:2)
You are mistaken. As a Senator Biden had no right to see some of those files outside of s SCIF. His removal of those document, even as a high ranking Senator, is a serious criminal activity. The whole point of a SCIF is that the documents cannot leave it.
Well... No. According to Can classified documents be removed from secure facilities? Sometimes. [poynter.org] (and other articles):
Although all classified documents can be viewed in a SCIF, it is not required that documents in the least restrictive classification categories be viewed in those facilities. The facilities are used typically for materials categorized as “top secret/sensitive compartmented information.”
Can highly secret material be removed from a SCIF?
Even information classified as top secret/sensitive compartmented information may be removed from a SCIF as long as proper protocols are followed, experts said. The same is true for material with lower classifications.
Summary
SCIFs must be used when documents with the highest-level classifications have to be reviewed. But even the most highly classified documents can be taken out of a SCIF, as long as specific precautions are taken that ensure similar levels of security.
In addition, it’s not required that documents with lower levels of classifications be viewed in a SCIF in the first place.
There's more, but basically (a) not all classified documents are required to be retained in a SCIF and (b) documents can be removed and reviewed outside a SCIF. In fact, people with the appropriate clearances, in buildings with the appropriate clearances, review classified documents in their offices and at their desks all the time -- they are required to lock them up if/when they need to b
Re: (Score:1)
Can highly secret material be removed from a SCIF?
Even information classified as top secret/sensitive compartmented information may be removed from a SCIF as long as proper protocols are followed, experts said. The same is true for material with lower classifications.
True. I've had to transport TS/SCI material outside a SCIF, sometimes taking them on domestic flights across the country. The material is double-wrapped and stored in a approved, locked container which remains with me at all times until it can be stored inside a storage area approved for that level of information. If my travels took more than a single day, then I had to plan a route that allowed the material to be stored securely overnight, then signed them out again for the next leg of the journey. I r
Re: (Score:2)
information classified as top secret/sensitive compartmented information may be removed from a SCIF as long as proper protocols are followed, experts said.
The fact that the Biden documents are considered mishandled indicates no such protocols were followed.
Re: (Score:2)
information classified as top secret/sensitive compartmented information may be removed from a SCIF as long as proper protocols are followed, experts said.
The fact that the Biden documents are considered mishandled indicates no such protocols were followed.
It's called "spillage" and it happens way more than it should. Most people aren't punished or, at least, not prosecuted, if the incident is reported promptly once noticed and the person cooperates and especially when it's self-reported, etc ... This is the main difference in the Biden and Pence vs. Trump cases. The first two people handled the situation well and the third, well, didn't.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the main difference is Biden storing the documents where foreign agents might have had access. Shared offices, university storage, public storage, etc.
A distinction w/o a difference. Mar-a-lago is open to the public and several (suspected) foreign operatives have been caught there, according to many news reports. But thanks for playing.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the main difference is Biden storing the documents where foreign agents might have had access. Shared offices, university storage, public storage, etc.
A distinction w/o a difference. Mar-a-lago is open to the public and several (suspected) foreign operatives have been caught there, according to many news reports. But thanks for playing.
They were stored in area where the public did not have access. In areas monitored by the secret service. The storage was inspected, he was asked to add a second lock, he did.
Joe's storage was not are shared offices, university storage, public storage was not. His garage with the corvette might have had some secret service monitoring, but it did have people in there who were security threats nonetheless.
Re:Not so fast there, sparky (Score:4, Insightful)
This is simply untrue. As I noted elsewhere [slashdot.org]:
Well... No. According to Can classified documents be removed from secure facilities? Sometimes. [poynter.org] (and other articles):
Although all classified documents can be viewed in a SCIF, it is not required that documents in the least restrictive classification categories be viewed in those facilities. The facilities are used typically for materials categorized as “top secret/sensitive compartmented information.”
Can highly secret material be removed from a SCIF? Even information classified as top secret/sensitive compartmented information may be removed from a SCIF as long as proper protocols are followed, experts said. The same is true for material with lower classifications.
Summary SCIFs must be used when documents with the highest-level classifications have to be reviewed. But even the most highly classified documents can be taken out of a SCIF, as long as specific precautions are taken that ensure similar levels of security.
In addition, it’s not required that documents with lower levels of classifications be viewed in a SCIF in the first place.
There's more, but basically (a) not all classified documents are required to be retained in a SCIF and (b) documents can be removed and reviewed outside a SCIF. In fact, people with the appropriate clearances, in buildings with the appropriate clearances, review classified documents in their offices and at their desks all the time -- they are required to lock them up if/when they need to be away from those documents.
As for your comment:
Your statement that "he could have avoided his entire legal mess by simply returning everything *then* filing a request..." is the evidence you do not understand the situation. It's absolutely NOT how things are done where disputed Presidential powers are in play.
Repeat after me: Trump is not President and was not President when the National Archives requested the documents be returned and when the FBI seized them pursuant a search warrant. The current President -- Biden -- did not grant Trump access to classified records in his post-presidency -- irrelevant anyway as the charge is "Willful Retention of Defense Information" (from a law that pre-dates the classification system). It's clear that you don't understand how things work. Trump could have avoided his legal problem with-regard-to the retained documents if he had simply returned them *then* filed a request to get them back -- there would have been no subpoena, no search, no seizure, no obstruction or retention charges. He is 100% at fault for his current circumstances.
Watch less Faux "News" ...
ha (Score:2)
I do not watch Fox News.
Critically, IT DOES NOT MATTER that Trump was not President when the archives requested the documents - at THAT point in time, the Presidential Records Act is in full effect (When he was President he had full rights to ALL classified documents, by definition - WE HAVE A UNITARY EXECUTIVE). It DOES matter that he was President when the documents were transported to his Florida residence, and it matters that they were transported there by government employees authorized to transport th
Re:Did they check Trump's toilet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, I was going to ask if they checked Biden's garage.
Biden released his tax returns. I'd be more suspicious of someone who made flimsy excuses why they couldn't.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny, I was going to ask if they checked Biden's garage.
Biden released his tax returns. I'd be more suspicious of someone who made flimsy excuses why they couldn't.
Trump doesn't want people to know (for a fact) that he's not actually nearly as wealthy/rich as he says he is.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not, but they sure should check the Bidenâ(TM)s and Pelosiâ(TM)s and Newsomâ(TM)s out.
The iPhone is so popular that even this clown has one.
Maybe if the IRS was properly funded (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe if the IRS was properly funded (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Not only did that money restore good customer service but money spent on enforcement turns a tidy profit, especially on the top percentiles;
On average, $1 in audit spending raises $2.17 in initial revenue. Audits of high-income taxpayers are more costly, but the additional revenue raised more than offsets the costs. Audits of the 99-99.9th percentile have a 3.2:1 return; audits of the top 0.1% return 6.3:1. [nber.org]
Re: (Score:2)
And the effects of that will ripple back years in time to the point where this stuff was mislaid.
There seems to be a lot of magical thinking running around here. The other day I had someone claim that LA has bad smog beause California has strict car emissions standards.
Re: (Score:1)
Properly funded? Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law August 16th, 2022, earmarked $80B for the IRS to hire as many as 87,000 employees.
How much more funding do you jack-offs need?
That's to undo many years of funding cuts, over the course of the next decade IF it doesn't get scuttled by the GOP
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But if the IRS was properly funded they could afford to hire more well-trained accountants to research more complex tax returns like those submitted by corporations and wealthy people and those entities might have to pay more taxes. While with less funding, the IRS is left going after simpler returns submitted by small(er) businesses and less-wealthy people, who often make simple mistakes rather than engage in purposeful obfuscation. Oh... wait.
Re: Maybe if the IRS was properly funded (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe if the IRS wasn't trying to maintain armed officers and swat teams, they'd be able to pay for more accountants.
Sure, though it sounds like you watch way too much Faux "News". According to IRS Criminal Investigation [wikipedia.org]:
IRS-CI Special Agents are the only employees within the IRS authorized to carry and use firearms. The authority to carry and use firearms is derived from United States Code Title 26, Section 7608, wherein criminal investigators of the IRS are authorized to make arrests under Federal law.
Sometimes people need to be arrested. People doing the arresting are usually armed to protect themselves.
Re: Maybe if the IRS was properly funded (Score:1)
Maybe if you didn't knee-jerk like that, you'd see that a lot of places, not just Fox, are reporting on the IRS's SWAT team. Do you even know the background of the "Faux news" meme?
Re: (Score:1)
Nah with more funding they'll just go after people sending money over CashApp and Venmo.
Re: (Score:2)
The IRS needs to be persuaded somehow to pursue the tax frauds at the top...
Its get rid of IRS and current tax code ... (Score:1)
The USA is strange in that every aspect of the government is politicalized to the point that defunding the IRS seems like a good idea to some people. This is a country that purposely makes their tax code difficult and outlaws the IRS giving tools to citizens to make it easier.
You seem to be conflating the IRS with revenue collection. The IRS is quite biased and bad at it. Also people who want to get rid of the IRS tend to want it replaced with a system that has no loopholes. Something that is quite simple. Where the math could fit on a damn postcard. Enter your total income. Lookup the percentage you owe and calculate your tax. Record how much you prepaid. Subtract to determine the amount due or the refund..
The IRS is nothing more than the current enabler of our current tax c
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
A new tax code would probably cause most of the IRS to lose their jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
The IRS enables the current tax code because it is their job. If you come up with a new tax code, they will administer it. Do not blame the messenger blame the sender (i.e., Congress).
I blame Congress for the tax code. I blame he IRS for administering it in an inefficient and biased way and unfair way.
All of the "simple" suggestions I have seen are basically designed to make sure the rich pay as little as possible.
Wrong. I offered one as an example that does not.
Remember that a poor person's tax bill is coming out of necessities and a rich person's is coming out of luxuries.
Hence the tiered scheme I mentioned based on income, one that allows for no credits or deductions. A tax rate is determined for an individual, they pay that rate.
The complexities of the tax code have nothing to do with tax rates, they are caused by the incredibly complicated definition of what is income.
The definition of income, credits and deductions, etc ... the definitions are the source of corruption. So a system without exceptions should be created, be they income, credit, dedu
The fraud has already been comitted (Score:1)
This is just to ensure it is not prosecutable...
Those Are Some Real Nice Tax Records (Score:2)
You got there. Be ashamed if something happened to them.
In the trash (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The Fair Tax sounds pretty great and would probably be an improvement, but that ship has already set sail. It had its time years ago and failed. Sorry.
Re: (Score:1)
This is the sort of thing where you only lose if you give up and quit. Not happening. The effort is quite possibly to be provided a path to reality through the Convention of States project.
The reason that the Fair Tax has not passed is that the corrupt in congress use the tax code to write favors for specific campaign donors' interests. You contribute to their campaign, they write you a tax break. Congress likely will never pass the FairTax. But going thru the Convention of States, the amendment to a
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, fair statement.
Everyone backing the Fair Tax got tarred, feathered, and thrown out of politics. I think only Paul is left, and maybe Ted Cruz if he counts. And he only does marginally.
Everyone else gave up.
Unless you're planning some major (and perfectly legal) coup wherein Libertarians pose as Republicans and Democrats, get nominated, and run against one another for a majority of seats in the House and the Senate, you're never going to get enough Libertarian or Tea Party types in the legislature to
Re: (Score:1)
Again, Congress can be completely bypassed by the Convention of States. State legislatures have no incentive to preserve the income taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck with that. If you mean to overturn federal law via Convention of States, uhhh that'd be hard. First you're talking about a possible Constitutional crisis, and secondly, imagine herding cats, only 100x worse. Getting people to focus on important matters instead of chasing every little thing would be difficult.
You'd have to really focus on one agenda (e.g. simplification of the tax code), and you'd have to overcome over two hundred years of people NOT using the Convention of States to overturn/re
Re: (Score:1)
There is no Constitutional Crisis involved in a Convention of States as specified by Article 5 of the Constitution. It is all laid out, and when the rules are followed, Congress has no input. The States get together in Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. If one of the amendments is, "The 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is hereby repealed", and it is ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures, then the 16th amendment is repealed. It is
Re: (Score:1)
There's so much there that doesn't seem to relate to the FairTax I don't know how to respond. This: "Worse, sales taxes are an area of law that is riddled with problems relating to complexity" doesn't seem to make sense. If an item is a new items sold at retail, then it gets taxed. Pretty simple. If a service is performed for money, and paid for by a citizen, then it gets taxed. Used items for sale do not get taxed. This all seems pretty simple to me.
Additional points that you seem to misunderst
don't worry (Score:3)
Accountability (Score:2)
Did they ever exist? (Score:2)
par for the course (Score:1)