IRS Said to Improperly Restrict Access,1280,-5532353,00.html

Sunday January 8, 2006 10:02 PM


Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration has illegally stopped making
public detailed tax enforcement data, which has been used to show which
kinds of taxpayers get the most and toughest audits, a noted tax researcher

Syracuse University Professor Susan B. Long said in papers filed in U.S.
District Court in Seattle late last week that since Nov. 1, 2004, the
Internal Revenue Service has violated a 1976 court order requiring the
release of the data.

IRS spokesman Terry Lemons responded Friday, ``We do not believe we are in
violation of the court order.''

Long, who has researched and written about federal tax administration for
more than 30 years, used the Freedom of Information Act to win the court
order in 1976 directing the revenue agency to provide her regularly with its
data on criminal investigations, tax collections, the number and hours
devoted to audits by income level and taxpayer category and other
enforcement records.

Since 1989, her FOIA requests have been submitted by the Transactional
Records Access Clearinghouse, a data-research organization at Syracuse of
which she is co-director.

TRAC has used the records to report in 2000 that the Clinton administration
was auditing poor people at a higher rate than rich people and in 2004 that
business and corporate audits were down substantially and criminal tax
enforcement was at an all-time low. TRAC also reported that in fiscal
2002-2004 IRS audited on average only a third of the largest corporations,
which control 90 percent of all corporate assets and 87 percent of all
corporate income.

The 1976 court order listed 38 types of IRS reports, including five produced
quarterly, that Long was entitled to receive ``promptly'' and regularly
under the Freedom of Information Act. The court said IRS must continue to
make the same statistical data contained in the listed reports available
without charge in future years ``regardless of the format ... hereafter

Despite filing regular FOIA requests for the material, the last data Long
received arrived Nov. 1, 2004 and covered only the first six months of
fiscal year 2004, through March, 2004, she said in an interview.

``They really shut down access,'' she said. Although the original court
order covers some data compiled every three months, Long said in recent
years she had shifted mainly to requesting annual data compilations.

But when IRS stopped releasing the data, Long shifted first to six-month,
then nine-month, and finally monthly requests ``because that's how they
compile that data'' - all without success.

``For years, TRAC requested data on an annual basis from the IRS,'' agency
spokesman Lemons said. ``The IRS voluntarily gave TRAC an enormous amount of
data beyond what we routinely release to the public, outside of the FOIA

But he said TRAC shifted in June 2004 to seeking data monthly. ``These were
much broader and sweeping requests than TRAC previously sought, with many of
the requested data sets not normally gathered by the IRS'' since it
reorganized in 2000 from geographic divisions to taxpayer-category

Lemons said ``the IRS continues to provide annual data to TRAC - just as it
has done for years.'' As evidence he cited a report TRAC issued in April
2005, but that report only contained data through March 2004, which is the
last data set Long said she received.

Lemons acknowledged the court order ``is still in effect. Nobody disputes
that.'' But he said the agency cannot find copies of the reports from the
1970s listed in the court order to determine exactly which data Long is
entitled to. She replied that record retention rules require IRS to keep
historical copies of its manual, which describes each record.


On the Net:

TRAC documents:


You are a subscribed member of the infowarrior list. Visit for list information or to unsubscribe. This message 
may be redistributed freely in its entirety. Any and all copyrights 
appearing in list messages are maintained by their respective owners.

Reply via email to