The IRS Claims New Patriot Act Type Powers to Punish Political Dissenters

by Robert R. Raymond November 28,2003

In a precendent-setting case, the IRS wielded new power to punish the
political speech of those who "espouse views" the government considers
"inconsistent" with government-held beliefs. In a hearing originally closed
to the public in a secret tribunal on a military island, but moved to a
public location after protests from the press and the public, the IRS wants
to wield this power against a former IRS whistleblower, who was forced to
resign upon his discovery of fraud in the agency. After monitoring and
taping the whistleblower's appearances on Sixty Minutes, talk radio shows,
and political publications where he rebroadcast his findings of IRS fraud,
the IRS initiated this inquisition against their former whistleblower. This
new power may find new political targets soon enough.

The IRS, through the small office of "Director of Practice," claims the
authority to wield carte blanche authority over all the other powers of
government -- the authority to monitor, surveil, and eavesdrop on political
dissenters, the authority to pry into the private financial records of
banks, businesses, and taxpayers, the authority to conduct secret
investigations under a criminal grand jury, and the authority to censure
political dissenters by branding on them a badge of infamy and stripping
them of governmentally-protected licenses. In short, under the guise of a
"practice" investigation, the IRS claims the right to wield all intrusive
and invasive powers of government available.

A "license" to practice before the IRS -- even for people who have never
requested such a license or actually practiced before the IRS, but are given
one as a matter of law if they are accountants -- "licenses" the IRS to
conduct private audits without notice to the taxpayer, confer with criminal
prosecutors without disclosure, and bring special "disbarment" proceedings
against disfavored dissenters, even if the alleged "disreputable" conduct
has nothing to do with any "practice" before the IRS.

The IRS now claims it can use these so-called "practice" investigations of
anyone who Congress licenses to practice before the IRS -- regardless of
whether they actually practice before the IRS -- to surveil the public
appearances of dissenters, eavesdrop on the political conversations of
dissenters, benefit from secret grand jury investigations, hold secret
conferences with the criminal investigators, surreptiously tap the private
database of taxpayer information, including taxpayers who merely have some
financial "connection" to the accused, audit the political dissenter's
personal financial records, and use all this information against the
dissenter in the "practice" proceeding.

Under the guise of a "practice" investigation, the IRS can ignore all the
normal procedural protections against an illicit audit while it conducts
such an audit. Simultaneously, the IRS can ignore all the legal protections
afforded a person accused of a crime while conferencing with the people
conducting a criminal investigation. Indeed, the IRS can even ignore the
sunshine laws, as the records of such "practice investigation" are exempt
from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, as are grand jury
proceedings.

The IRS claims it can exercise this authority in a secret proceeding without
allowing a person the opportunity to cure any alleged mistakes, the
opportunity to prepare a defense by knowing the exact facts they are accused
of, without any opportunity for discovery, without any opportunity to call
witnesses necessary for their defense, without any opportunity to cross
examine their accusers, without any opportunity to testify at their own
hearing about the merits of their position, without being forced to testify
against themselves without such an assertion being held against them, and
without even an opportunity for a hearing on the evidence.

This power of this little office with a Napoleonic vision goes even beyond
the Patriot Act type authority and stories of FBI monitoring of war
protestors.

Too Hoover-ish to be true in modern America? Just read the case of the IRS
against Joe Banister scheduled for a "hearing" -- a hearing where the IRS
prohibited Banister from introducing any witnesses or presenting any
evidence as to his defenses, and even discussing the sincerity, the truth or
the "reasonableness" of his positions -- on December 1 in the city by the
bay, in the Tax Court chambers of the federal courthouse in San Francisco.
History is being made.