Skip to main content
Subscribe
Give Gift
Renew
Current Issue

Home

Login or Register

Donate

  • Follow @theprospect
  •  
  • Newsletters
  • RSS
  • Home
  • Politics
    • Economy
    • Energy & Environment
    • Gender & Sexuality
    • Health Care
    • Immigration
    • Labor
    • Science & Technology
    • World
  • Culture
    • Books
    • Film
    • Television
  • Blogs
    • Vox Pop
    • Policy Shop
  • Voices
    • Jamelle Bouie
    • E.J. Graff
    • Robert Kuttner
    • Harold Meyerson
    • Abby Rapoport
    • Robert Reich
    • Paul Waldman
    • Other Contributors ⇒
  • Magazine

Search form

The Vindication of the IRS

Nicholas Confessore

December 19, 2001

PinItInstapaperPocketEmailPrint

Back in April of 1998, several employees of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) came before the Senate oversight committee to testify about a litany of supposed fraud and abuse at the agency. IRS officials, they charged, had pursued vendettas against outside individuals and corporations and fudged audits to help former co-workers who had moved to private industry. Many Republicans, especially antitax crusaders, denounced the IRS as just one more overbearing government agency in need of comeuppance--which they promptly delivered via the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, signed into law by President Clinton the summer after the hearings.

They may have been too hasty. In late April, the IRS released a report completed by the General Accounting Office (GAO) in 1999 but kept confidential for nearly a year. GAO investigators found that although "witnesses were correct in some of the facts supporting their allegations in some of the cases ... the allegations themselves had been based on an incomplete awareness of the total circumstances surrounding the matters." In other words, they found no evidence that IRS officials had acted improperly. "Generally, we found no corroborating evidence that the criminal investigations described at the hearing were retaliatory against the specific taxpayer," wrote the GAO. And the investigators "did not find any evidence" to support allegations of audit-fudging. Perhaps the Senate Finance Committee could be a little less credulous next time?

--Nicholas Confessore



class="nonprinting">

  • See the complete issue
PinItInstapaperPocketEmailPrint

You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)

  • Create new account
  • Request new password

About the Author

Nicholas Confessore is a reporter for The New York Times. Previously he was an American Prospect senior correspondent and an editor of The Washington Monthly.

Articles By Nicholas Confessore
RSS feed of articles by Nicholas Confessore

More From This Issue

Features

  • Requiem for a Public Defender

  • The WTO Vote: The Wrong Whipping Boy

  • The WTO Vote: Whose Rules for Globalism?

  • Sandy's Moment

  • Conversation: Open Science or Junk Science?

  • Rights under the Knife

  • Tom Delay's Empty suit

  • The Real Risk for Gore

  • Inventing Al Gore: A Biography

  • Our China Illusions

  • The Tax Cut Nobody Wants

  • The Taxonomist

  • The Vindication of the IRS

  • Comment: Beyond the Fringe

  • Those Goofy Plutocrats

  • Abortion and Autonomy

  • Love, Sorrow, and Rage; Destitute Women in a Manhattan Residence

  • Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace

  • Social Security: The Phony Crisis

  • Bloom in Love

  • Interstate Hero

  • Playing Soldier

  • Drawing Board

  • Peeking Over the Great Wall

  • Don't Mess with Television

Advertisement

© by The American Prospect

  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • Jobs/Internships
  • Masthead
  • Submissions
  • Reprints
  • Privacy Policy
  • Archive
  • Customer Service