https://archive.fo/e0qMC#selection-171.5-171.37

Democrats and the media are deriding the House GOP’s probe into abuses by government agencies. But we’re glad Republicans are on the case, in particular regarding the Internal Revenue Service.

In a Friday letter to IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan demands answers about a bizarre and disturbing IRS house call. The letter recounts that on April 25 a Marion, Ohio, taxpayer received a visit from a man who claimed his name was “Bill Haus” and worked in the IRS criminal division.

Mr. Haus said he needed to talk to her about an estate for which she was the fiduciary. She let him in despite having received no prior IRS communication. Mr. Haus claimed she had not properly filled out estate forms and owed the IRS “a substantial amount.” Only when the taxpayer presented proof of paying all taxes on the estate did the agent reveal that his visit wasn’t about the estate at all. It was about several supposed delinquent tax returns related to the decedent of the estate.

The letter says the taxpayer called her attorney, who insisted Mr. Haus leave the house, only to be told by Mr. Haus: “I am an IRS agent, I can be at and go into anyone’s house at any time I want to be.” Mr. Haus finally left, but not before threatening to freeze the taxpayer’s assets and put a lien on her house if she didn’t satisfy the balance in a week. Fearing a scam, she called the local police, who ran Mr. Haus’s license plate to verify his identity.

When an officer called Mr. Haus, Mr. Haus identified himself as an IRS agent but said Haus wasn’t his real name. He had used an alias. The officer, also suspecting a scam, warned that if he returned to the taxpayer’s home he’d be arrested. Mr. Haus then filed a complaint against the Marion police officer with the Treasury Department inspector general.

The House letter says the taxpayer on May 4 spoke with Mr. Haus’s supervisor, who clarified that she owed nothing and said—in the understatement of the year—that “things never should have gotten this far.” Yet the following day, the taxpayer received a letter—addressed to the decedent—stating that the decedent was delinquent on several 1040 filings. This was the first and only mail notification the taxpayer received. The taxpayer was again told by the supervisor that nothing was owed and was notified on May 30 that the case was closed.

If true, this is something else. An agent of the Treasury, wielding the power of tax enforcement, shows up unannounced at a taxpayer’s home. He lies about his identity and his purpose to get inside, then threatens the taxpayer with punishment if she doesn’t pay a tax bill that she doesn’t owe. The IRS agent leaves only after an intervention by her lawyer, and when local police call the agent he sics the Treasury Department on the officer.

Mr. Jordan wants all IRS documents and communication related to this episode, and Mr. Werfel can’t be allowed to stonewall. This is the second report of an IRS house call since March, when another T-man visited journalist Matt Taibbi at home on the day he was away testifying to Congress on government abuse.

What the hell is going on over there? What in IRS workplace culture gives agents the belief they can do this? Democrats bestowed $80 billion on the IRS last year to empower people like “ Bill Haus. ” Republicans clawed back some of it in the recent debt-ceiling bill, but an IRS that makes threatening house calls deserves to have it all clawed back.

Well, the only portion of my thoughts that wouldn't be unwise to post publicly is to say that that is truly bizarre, and if they keep it up, they are going to end up pulling that shit with the wrong person.

They are dangerously out of control.

That idiot was most likely not a Revenue Agent. That was an 1169 series Revenue Officer who likely got assigned a decedent case and had zero idea how to work it. So the goofus shows up to the house of an executor asking about estate tax returns (and probably already had images of them available on internal databases, had he bothered with case research).

Then, this genius tells the executor that the REAL reason he was there were delinquent personal tax returns for tax periods before the decedent passed on? And filed a complaint with TIGTA when he had credibility issues?

A few points on this:

1) The revenue officer likely disclosed decedents return information to the executor without authorization. Disclosure is a big deal for the normal rank and file, and they'll fire folks for cause on the spot if they get caught doing it. Odds are this Revenue Officer will be canned if they already haven't been.

2) TIGTA is involved due to the idiot failing to properly identify himself and provide the cops who showed up with the numbers for employee verification. They probably had a good laugh in the office at said goofball's expense. Some Revenue Officers use legal pseudonyms, so that isn't determinative in and of itself.

3) Revenue Officers do show up to homes and businesses to collect delinquent returns or tax debts in person. If one shows up at your place of work or home and doesn't provide their employee number or pocket credential, ask for their business card and any paperwork they have and ask them to leave. You can call in to schedule a meeting in an interview room at the local IRS office if they are legit. Or you can have an EA or attorney deal with them for you.

During COVID, most contacts were conducted over the phone but Small Business/Self Employed Revenue Officers are in the field again in most territories.

4) Many experienced Revenue Officers in SB/SE retired after COVID and their knowledge went with them. Some of the replacements that were hired are not that bright and may be straight out of college with zero professional work experience.

A client of mine had an agent show up out of nowhere at his place of business. The female "agent" showed identification & said that she was investigating an estate. After showing her around his HVAC office she left. I thought that it was very strange & told my client that since I had power of attorney with IRS, to never let them in with out an appointment & me being present. When someone of authority stands in front of a person & declares they want to come inside a business or residence it is difficult for someone to refuse.

quote:

Originally posted by Anush:
…When someone of authority stands in front of a person & declares they want to come inside a business or residence it is difficult for someone to refuse.

Nonsense. Absent a warrant or exigent circumstances (e.g., true hot pursuit through the place a la Raising Arizona) a simple

“You do not have my permission to be on this property.

I do not consent to any search or seizure of my person or this property.

I invoke my rights under the Constitution, in particular my rights guaranteed by the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Now please leave so I can contact my attorney.

I hereby invoke my right to refuse any further conversation until I’ve have conferred with counsel.

Again, please leave.”

If the person refuses to leave, call the local sheriff.

Record it all. Including the faces of the intruders. They have no grounds to refuse, if they are involved in their duties.

Be polite, but adamant that they leave. Now.

Most people submit to someone in 'authority'. They're taught to do so in public school, whether it's law enforcement, local schools, or government officials.

A small group of the population will challenge these authorities. Sometimes that's it, and other times they're punished. Examples are all around us.

I don't answer my door for any unannounced visitors. I suppose a brick and mortar business may have to talk to someone at the door, but at home I don't and never will. Absent a warrant, they are trespassing and I'd not hesitate to call the police on them if they didn't leave.

quote:

Originally posted by HKAngusKL:
Some Revenue Officers use legal pseudonyms

Could you expand on this? What is the purpose/line of reasoning for IRS employees using pseudonyms?

I'm not aware of any other government employer that allows their employees to operate under pseudonyms, absent something like undercover criminal investigators or spies.

They got all that funding to hire tens of thousands of new agents to collect taxes from the "evil rich (R)".

Hard to find good help these days.

If one were to accidentally show up a a Congressman's(D) house, then you'd see some action.

Otherwise, not likely.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by HKAngusKL:
Some Revenue Officers use legal pseudonyms

Could you expand on this? What is the purpose/line of reasoning for IRS employees using pseudonyms?

I'm not aware of any other government employer that allows their employees to operate under pseudonyms, absent something like undercover criminal investigators or spies.

This is actually a thing, enshrined in policy. In interactions with the public, then can opt to give their last name only ("Mr. Smith / Ms. Jones") or if their last name is so unique that it'd still be easy to find them, they can request approval to use a pseudonym. Their concern, of course, is harassment or retaliation from the public. OK, I kind of get it (we had "paper terrorism" incidents at the old job by a subset of sovereign types... bogus liens, 1099s and such) but I don't know that it's so pervasive that they need pseudonym credentials, etc. But that's what they can get.

The guy described in the OP article wouldn't be the first Revenue Officer that's impersonated a LEO. We locked one up for an unrelated financial fraud, but several witnesses described him coming right... up... to... the... line in his official dealings with them as far as how he described himself.

quote:

Originally posted by DennisM:
OK, I kind of get it (we had "paper terrorism" incidents at the old job by a subset of sovereign types... bogus liens, 1099s and such) but I don't know that it's so pervasive that they need pseudonym credentials, etc. But that's what they can get.

Interesting. There's a much larger group of government workers who are at as high or higher risk of that kind of stuff (judges, politicians, prosecutors, cops, DHS/CPS social workers, etc.) that don't get such protection.

quote:

Originally posted by DennisM:
The guy described in the OP article wouldn't be the first Revenue Officer that's impersonated a LEO. We locked one up for an unrelated financial fraud, but several witnesses described him coming right... up... to... the... line in his official dealings with them as far as how he described himself.

Not surprising. This is a recurring thing in just about any LE-adjacent position. There are always going to be those handful of knuckleheads that can't get in as a real LEO for whatever reason, so they get another position that's close (support staff, non-sworn jailer, code enforcement, etc.) and then go right up to or over the line playing pretend cop so they can feel cool.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by HKAngusKL:
Some Revenue Officers use legal pseudonyms

Could you expand on this? What is the purpose/line of reasoning for IRS employees using pseudonyms?

I'm not aware of any other government employer that allows their employees to operate under pseudonyms, absent something like undercover criminal investigators or spies.

Any field position where an IRS employee interacts with the public is eligible to establish a legal pseudonym, but the process is a pain. The justification for using a pseudonym is that some investigations require in person interaction with crazy and/or irate people and violent career criminals. Dealing with business owners and people in nice areas of town are not usually an issue. 1169 Revenue Officers don't carry weapons and the job is inherently dangerous because it is hard to predict what kind of situation you are in until it is too late.

Some folks get angry and make actual threats of violence. TIGTA is theoretically responsible for employee safety, but is a small outfit with few employees, and they don't have the resources to be in the field doing ride alongs.

Unless you have a unique surname it is not worth the effort in most cases. In the future, for example, you are required to disclose the pseudonym on any background checks (it complicates an SF-86 background investigation or security clearance investigations in ways that make it a pain to complete).

https://uscode.house.gov/view....-title26-section7804

Use of Pseudonyms by Internal Revenue Service Employees
Pub. L. 105–206, title III, §3706, July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 778 , provided that:

"(a) In General.-Any employee of the Internal Revenue Service may use a pseudonym only if-

"(1) adequate justification for the use of a pseudonym is provided by the employee, including protection of personal safety; and

"(2) such use is approved by the employee's supervisor before the pseudonym is used.

"(b) Effective Date.-Subsection (a) shall apply to requests made after the date of the enactment of this Act [July 22, 1998]."

quote:

Originally posted by HKAngusKL:
The justification for using a pseudonym is that some investigations require in person interaction with crazy and/or irate people and violent career criminals. 1169 Revenue Officers don't carry weapons and the job is inherently dangerous because it is hard to predict what kind of situation you are in until it is too late.

Again, there's a wide range of government employees who are paid to do the same thing - dealing with irate/crazy people and felons without being armed or having LE protection all the time - but who aren't afforded the same luxury. (Besides, using a fake name doesn't do anything to protect that crazy/irate/violent person from becoming crazy/irate/violent with you in person when working out in the field.)

Look at DHS/CPS social workers who go out in the field to investigate child abuse and potentially remove kids from their parents. Or non-sworn animal control/code enforcement officers who go onto people's property to conduct investigations and write code violation tickets. Or non-sworn probation officers who supervise career criminals out in the field without being armed or having LE authority. Etc.

There's even a whole slew of other non-sworn/non-LE federal investigator types (like nearly all of the non-1811 jobs in the 1800-series) who work out in the field doing similar types of compliance investigations as these IRS employees, but who don't get that luxury.

Not arguing with you specifically, as I understand that you're just sharing facts. Just wondering out loud as to why it was such a priority to protect the identity of IRS employees specifically.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by HKAngusKL:
The justification for using a pseudonym is that some investigations require in person interaction with crazy and/or irate people and violent career criminals. 1169 Revenue Officers don't carry weapons and the job is inherently dangerous because it is hard to predict what kind of situation you are in until it is too late.

Again, there's a wide range of government employees who are paid to do the same thing - dealing with irate/crazy people and felons without being armed or having LE protection all the time - but who aren't afforded the same luxury. I wonder why it was such a priority to protect the identity of IRS employees specifically.

And using a fake name doesn't do anything to protect that crazy/irate/violent person from becoming crazy/irate/violent with you in person when working out in the field.

That is absolutely true, and it is not going to prevent someone from finding out who you are if they are motivated. Most Revenue Officers go in the field in personally owned vehicles. Anyone taking pictures of the license plates will figure it out pretty quickly.

That job is not for the timid and using a pseudonym isn't going to help immediate safety in the field. I've heard of some folks who were on the receiving end of harassment campaigns at their homes and spouses businesses, including identity theft and filing false liens/Quit claim deeds to tie up their assets. That type of behavior is something that TIGTA/DOJ would likely prosecute. It just takes years and litigation to fix.

The best way to stay safe in the field is to be direct and forthright. Treating people with respect and dignity avoids a lot of problems. The Feds who play games and throw their weight around to escalate usually end up causing situations when cooler heads would prevail.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: HKAngusKL,