Well, she didn't "run" the agency but you make one of the first valid points in this thread.
She was running her department within the confines of the law...because she got told what the law was by the attorneys who had oversight over the program. The reason that problems like this didn't happen 30 years ago was that the IRS had their own attorneys, fully insulated from any political pressure. They would not hesitate to tell Justice to take a long walk off a short pier if the DOJ tried to interfere in in-house procedures.
BHO, however, finalized the process of removing all the lawyers from the IRS. They now work for the DOJ where they are subject to political pressure, pressure they brought to bear on Lerner's work processes. In fact, they stuck their noses way, way into the basic workings of the program, micromanaging parts of it by requiring reviews of several processes that were, frankly, none of their business.
Lerner was caught in the middle. The right thing to do would have been to resign but when you work for the IRS you trade a lifetime of substandard pay for a decent retirement pension. (I believe Lerner was a CSRS employee, not a FERS employee.) However bad that decision was in retrospect, I can understand why she stuck it out for a few years longer than was prudent.
I don't blame her for wanting protection; she may well need it, just for doing the job that the BHO-influenced DOJ lawyers forced her to do.
If you believe nothing else, you should believe that. Working for the IRS gets you death threats even if you're just a clerk.I do not believe her when she claims this fear for her life.
If you believe nothing else, you should believe that. Working for the IRS gets you death threats even if you're just a clerk.
If you believe nothing else, you should believe that. Working for the IRS gets you death threats even if you're just a clerk.
I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. There's a big difference between "death threats" and "credible death threats." People who work for the IRS get stupid threats all the time at work. Outside of work, they don't let anyone know where they work. "I work for the U.S. Treasury" is the basic dodge, used by just about everyone.People constantly get death threats. YouTube personalities get death threats on a daily basis.
I can believe she may have gotten threats, but I don't believe she actually fears for her life. ...
Lois Lerner is now a public figure, not eligible for a security detail like the IRS Commissioner. She is the focal point of hate for anyone who really wants to kill someone from the IRS. Real fear for her own life, under these circumstances, is not easily dismissible.So why do the threats suddenly become worthy of giving her special protections now?
Three things:...she and other agents were not leaving the IRS due to these threats.
I can understand the lens through which you view the agency; thanks for the insight.Well having jacked with the IRS for 2 years over a tax return with a fraudulent SSN used, I can understand this.
Then the system is seriously flawed- and has a known vulnerability that should be addressed ASAFP... (but you and I already know this)Protip for everyone - To avoid someone else using your SSN, file first. I mean, quite literally, file your taxes the second you have all the forms you need. Frankly, these days, if I were a W-2 earner I'd use a Substitute W-2 and file the first week of January, the day after the forms become available. If you beat the bad guys to the punch, they're the ones who get denied the refund.
Oh, yeah.Then the system is seriously flawed- and has a known vulnerability that should be addressed ASAFP... (but you and I already know this)
Agreed. The Equifax problem was clearly known from a specific date, with solutions that could be implemented quickly. That didn't happen.in my line of work (financial networking), knowing about a vulnerability and ignoring it is criminal (I'm hoping the Equifax management gets the book thrown at them for this).
That's a tough situation but I've known filers who used exactly that solution. They shouldn't be forced to but sometimes life makes you do things you shouldn't have to do.But because of a flaw with the SSA's "system", I have to file twice a year (once to CYA, once to amend)?
That's smart. However, every doctor's office I've been in for the last few years no longer asks for my SSN for anything; I find it odd that you're still encountering that problem.This is another reason why I don't give out my SSN unless I really have to... every doctor's office asks for it now... I write in that space "DECLINE"
I can understand the lens through which you view the agency; thanks for the insight.
BTW, the problem you describe is one of the worst out there and toughest to handle. If you got it resolved in 2 years, you did well.
Protip for everyone - To avoid someone else using your SSN, file first. I mean, quite literally, file your taxes the second you have all the forms you need. Frankly, these days, if I were a W-2 earner I'd use a Substitute W-2 and file the first week of January, the day after the forms become available. If you beat the bad guys to the punch, they're the ones who get denied the refund.
I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. There's a big difference between "death threats" and "credible death threats." People who work for the IRS get stupid threats all the time at work. Outside of work, they don't let anyone know where they work. "I work for the U.S. Treasury" is the basic dodge, used by just about everyone.
Lois Lerner is now a public figure, not eligible for a security detail like the IRS Commissioner. She is the focal point of hate for anyone who really wants to kill someone from the IRS. Real fear for her own life, under these circumstances, is not easily dismissible.
Three things:
If those options didn't exist, no one would be willing to do the hard jobs in that organization.
- For most employees, simple anonymity, as referenced above, is sufficient protection.
- Revenue Agents, Revenue Officers, and Special Agents who do taxpayer-facing work and can reasonably be expected to receive credible death threats on an ongoing basis may be issued an alias under which they work, making it very difficult for anyone to find them outside work. Obviously, this is not a workable solution for executives like Lerner.
- Finally, for those employees who are occasionally credibly threatened, a temporary security detail is assigned until the threat can be assessed with more granularity and appropriately resolved.
The condemnations in this thread, coming from folks who haven't read her testimony, don't know how the system works, and (I'd be willing to bet) haven't even read the relevant TIGTA report are, in my opinion, entirely unjustified.
GS-1811? Good for you. But it if you weren't an 1811 (or an 1169 or a 512 or any of a half-dozen more) in the IRS, then you do realize, I hope, that your experience doesn't provide a basis for judging how these things are handled at the IRS.I speak as a former Criminal Inv. Myself.
Frequently, no. Stealing your identity to steal your tax refund is big business and the crooks can cover a lot of those bases just as well as the innocent taxpayer who got ripped off. Figuring out who's telling the truth and who isn't is always difficult and often takes a long time. You got it fixed in 2 years; you did well.We lived in the same house for a decade, both of us had the same employer from the year before (my wife for 13yrs), we actually paid the IRS the year before and they can’t figure out which is the fraudulent return?
It's not an excuse for the agency; it's a strategy to beat crooks. Those are very different things.I am sorry but “filing first” is a poor excuse for and agency that is beholden to tax paying citizens.
Probably because:I take this to mean that having all of the information would show that she isn't as vilanace as we are taking her to be. If this is the case, why would she be appealing to keep these records sealed?
Yes, you have absolutely communicated your logic clearly. In much of it, I agree with you. We already know that something F'd up happened.Hope that makes sense and somewhat communicates my logic in coming to the conclusion that something pretty F'd up must have gone on and whatever is sealed must be pretty incriminating.
What's to prevent a criminal from filing an amended return anytime after the initial?Oh, yeah.
<snip>
That's a tough situation but I've known filers who used exactly that solution. They shouldn't be forced to but sometimes life makes you do things you shouldn't have to do.
Perhaps it's because I moved here from out-of-state, so I'm seeing all new doctors that don't already have it on file, or because East Texas is simpler, and they haven't caught up with the latest trends. (by no means a slam, I like simpler)That's smart. However, every doctor's office I've been in for the last few years no longer asks for my SSN for anything; I find it odd that you're still encountering that problem.
Well, she didn't "run" the agency but you make one of the first valid points in this thread.
She was running her department within the confines of the law...because she got told what the law was by the attorneys who had oversight over the program. The reason that problems like this didn't happen 30 years ago was that the IRS had their own attorneys, fully insulated from any political pressure. They would not hesitate to tell Justice to take a long walk off a short pier if the DOJ tried to interfere in in-house procedures.
BHO, however, finalized the process of removing all the lawyers from the IRS. They now work for the DOJ where they are subject to political pressure, pressure they brought to bear on Lerner's work processes. In fact, they stuck their noses way, way into the basic workings of the program, micromanaging parts of it by requiring reviews of several processes that were, frankly, none of their business.
Lerner was caught in the middle. The right thing to do would have been to resign but when you work for the IRS you trade a lifetime of substandard pay for a decent retirement pension. (I believe Lerner was a CSRS employee, not a FERS employee.) However bad that decision was in retrospect, I can understand why she stuck it out for a few years longer than was prudent.
I don't blame her for wanting protection; she may well need it, just for doing the job that the BHO-influenced DOJ lawyers forced her to do.
Yeah, talk dirty to me...long, boring, and technical