to work this out and to have cooperation between the GAO and the Internal Revenue Service. Senator KENNEDY. I think that is generally the way it is worked. Members of Congress don't ask for an audit of the Defense Department or HEW, but target certain programs or certain divisions, and I think that that is when they are by far the most effective. Mr. CAPLIN. Well I think it might be worthwhile to get the Service to respond fully to that too in terms of what is their objection. I think primarily that they would lean on this question of examination of returns and their limited access under the IRS Code for examination. At the same time we do open up those returns to congressional committees and we to me on this selected basis that it is not shocking to think that GAO has the right to make certain examinations. do open it up to State tax authorities. And it seems Mr. LONG. I think one thing that might be considered is the basic statistical data for 45,000 to 70,000 employees is not available to the GAO or is not in the Library of Congress. You see, the bureaucracy of the Internal Revenue Service, a big part of it is the audit compliance section of it and that has 45,000 to 70,000 employees, but they only contribute for about 3 percent of the revenue. And they are the part, that is the group that does the auditing of the 2 million people per year. We feel that just reviewing the basic statistical data which is in "The Audit Story," just taking "The Audit Story" and then going and finding the background and going back one or two steps so that you get the fundamental statistical data and how they arranged it and then working from there, is important. We will also bring up later the taxpayers compliance measurement programs, where if you go in depth in existing material that is sitting over there on Constitution Avenue-it is not at the Congress or the Library of Congress or at the GAO-we say just get that basic data and you will find fantastic inconsistencies and various things of that sort. INDEXES TO IRS RECORDS Mrs. LONG. Turning next to indexes to IRS records, indexes are not a particularly exciting subject, but they are basic to the issue of public access. When we have approached the agency without knowing the specific document number, we are usually given the run around. We are told, "No records exist," or that "The information isn't compiled," or simply, "We are unable to locate any records pursuant to your request." Yet often it turns out later that these answers were untrue. To cite a recent example, we received a letter from Assistant Commissioner Hanlon stating that the Agency did not compile figures on the number of tax returns filed by income last year. We thought that an amazing statement to come from one's tax collection agency in this computer era. Indeed we were almost positive that IRS was misleading us, and we had a fairly good idea where such information would be found and who in the agency we would ask if we were trying to locate it. However, the second catch is that IRS imposes formally or informally a "gag" rule on its operating employees so that we are refused permission to speak with anyone having direct knowledge. of where information is located. Last November we wrote IRS Assistant Commissioner John Hanlon in Washington, D.C., and requested "authorization to inspect and copy the form 1767 files" which index IRS publications. Nearly 2 months later we finally received a letter denying our request on the grounds: "There are no form 1767 files as such." Since each form 1767 is assigned a sequential number and made out in five copies (indeed the fifth copy is referred to as the "control" card), we found IRS's response curious. After many phone calls it developed that files were indeed kept of form 1767's, the most accessible being those kept of the fifth copy of form 1767, the control card, which is referred to as part 5. When asked why we had been told no files existed, Mark Farbenblum, Internal Revenue Service Branch Chief, replied "You asked to see the form 1767 files, if you want to see these others you would have to ask for the part 5 form 1767 files." Senator KENNEDY. Do I understand that the document has five parts, and the fifth part, was labelled by the IRS as "control card number five." So, when you asked for the basic document, 1767, you didn't get the document because you hadn't specifically requested control card 5 of document number 1767? Mrs. LONG. Yes, this is a copy here of this form. As you notice, it is also attached together with carbons. So when we asked for the form, they stated they didn't exist when in fact each of these copies was in the files, but they told us they weren't available and they didn't But this is not the end of the story on our form 1767 request for an appeal to the Commissioner we were denied access to the current year's files. The reason? We were just told that the people who kept the files "Just don't want you in their office." Even a request for a specific card index was denied last month on the grounds that our request is "too broad to be considered". We were told they will only consider a request for one card at a time. Senator KENNEDY. Why is that? Why will they only take one request at a time? Mrs. LONG. Well the thing that we wanted was an index. And this has happened. This is a new ruse they are using. We have been getting letters like this back in the last 3 months where when we have been asking for index systems so that you could identify documents, what they say is "you tell us what the document is and we will show you the card on the index for it" when of course you want to look at the index to locate what documents are there. It is just trying to put toanother roadblock on the means of identifying the names and numbers of documents you want to look at. I think the point I might point out, The Audit Story was discontinued and we have found they have discontinued quite a few of the items we have requested and then they publish them under another name and number and the form that we are asking for is their form for asking for publications for each individual documents so that by going through this card file we could see what new documents they have and by name and number we could find out how they have manipulated their coding systems. So that we could just find out what they are doing. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY EXPERIENCE Senator KENNEDY. I understand that your experience has been shared by other individuals and organizations and one such organization is Freedom Magazine, which is published by the Church of Scientology. We will include their letter to me in its entirety in the record, but one paragraph reads: On March 27-which is last week of course-two inspectors came from the Internal Revenue Security Division of IRS, Jerry Daily and William Buffington came unannounced to the Church of Scientology of Detroit where the Detroit Freedom of Information is located. The purpose of their business was to investigate a report received that a representative from Freedom distributed copies of IRS documents labelled "Official Use Only" and the agents were referring to the Table of Contents to the Internal Revenue Service Intelligence Manual mentioned above. Apparently the agents had not been informed of the fact that these documents had been made public by the Internal Revenue Service's national office in August of 1972 almost 2 years earlier. And so this goes on. [The document referred to follows:] MARCH 25, 1974. Hon. Senator KENNEDY, 431 Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: We have been extremely interested in the administrative practices of the IRS for the past three years and have endeavored through our Journal, to keep the general public, as well as government agencies, fully and accurately informed in this area. In this regard representatives of FREEDOM around the country have just conducted a survey with regard to IRS offices and their compliance to Freedom of Information regulations. As you know IRS Manual Supplement 1(19) G-37 (Rev. 1) states that “An IRS local telephone directory is non-exempt 'identifiable record' within the meaning of subsection (a)(3) of the 'Freedom of Information Act.'" This Manual Supplement is entitled Release of IRS and Other Telephone Directories to the Public. In the cities listed below FREEDOM representatives had an individual go to the IRS District Office and request a copy of such a directory listing from all the employees in that office. The requester simply asked for the telephone directory as an average citizen. Our intention was not to be secretive in any way. Our interest was solely one of wanting to know how the Freedom of Information Act was administered by the Internal Revenue Service with regard to an average individual wanting some information from the agency. As the FoI Act does not require one to state "why" he or she wants a particular item(s) the requester in this case was simply instructed to ask for a copy of the telephone directory listing all IRS employees of the district office giving no particular explanations as to "why" he wanted the directory. The survey was done in many cities and each requester was asked to fill out a brief questionnaire following his visit. The results of the survey are listed below by city. Affidavits are, of course, available if necessary. Los Angeles The requester did not receive a copy of the directory. He was told that he would have to write to the District Director and let him know exactly why he wanted a copy. Additionally the requester was asked why he wanted the directory, which agency he was with and exactly who he needed to contact. He spoke with two employees with regard to obtaining a copy of the directory. Hawaii The requester did not receive a copy of the directory. He was told that it wasn't available to the general public and that it was for inter-office use only. He was asked many times why he wanted the directory. He was also asked what company he was with, who he represented, what he wanted to use the directory for and how he came to know of such a telephone book. The requester actually tried twice in this case. He was also told that "practitioners" only were allowed to view a copy. Portland The requester received a copy of the directory. Though he was asked why he wanted it and if he was from an outside firm, he received the directory quite easily. San Francisco The requester did not receive a copy of the directory. He was told that IRS did not give them out to the public. He was asked if he worked for the IRS. The requester was referred by the receptionist to the Cashier. The requester was asked why he wanted the directory and was told by an IRS employee (referring to his request) "I wouldn't know why you want one except to spread propaganda". St. Louis The directory was not given to the requester. He was told that they were for employees of the building only and that IRS couldn't give them out. The requester talked with four different employees at the District Office. St. Paul The requester received a copy of the directory. At first he spoke with an employee at the Tax Information Center and was told it was unlikely that he could get one. From there he was sent to another room where the requester was asked for whom he worked. The requester state that he worked for the Church of Scientology. The IRS employee gave him a copy saying, “Here you go; Monday is my last day here anyway". The employee who gave the directory to the requester was in the Facilities Management Department. Detroit The requester did receive a copy of the directory. The receptionist had asked the requester if he was an employee and when the requester said that he was not, the receptionist told him that she did not think that IRS would give him a copy of the directory. The requester received the directory from an employee in Personnel. Austin The directory was not given to the requester. He was told that it was not a public service to give out a directory. The requester was asked why he wanted the directory by two employees and also asked which company he was with. The requester in this case talked to four employees all together and was told "no" to the question, "You mean there isn't anyway to get one?" Boston The directory was not given to the requester. In addition to being asked why he wanted it, the requester was told that he had to be an IRS employee to get one. It should be noted that a copy fee or monetary charge for the directory was not in any of the above cases a reason for not receiving the directory. Our interest was not to find out if the directory was free or not. We simply wanted to know if the directory was available and if so, under what circumstances. What the survey shows rather clearly is the variance among IRS District Offices with regard to the administration of the Freedom of Information Act. In some cases the directory was given, in others it was not. In cases where it was not given to the requester the justifications were varied. Yet a Manual Supplement has been issued to these offices authorizing the release of these directories to members of the public. We sincerely feel that this information as well as the additional information enclosed is of sufficient magnitude to be brought to your immediate attention. Sincerely, ARTHUR J. MAREN, Publisher. MANUAL SUPPLEMENT U.S. Treasury Department Internal Revenue Service November 27, 1970. RELEASE OF IRS AND OTHER TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES TO THE PUBLIC Section 1. Purpose This Supplement revises the procedure for providing IRS telephone directories, other, or abridged telephone lists to the public. Section 2. Background Service offices often receive requests for local IRS telephone directories from tax practitioners and other members of the public. We have been complying with these requests by providing abridged telephone directories. These telephone listings should contain only the most frequently called telephone extensions by tax practitioners or other members of the public. The telephone extensions listed should usually be limited to those giving the caller general tax information since on a case related tax matter the taxpayer or his representative has already received through correspondence of personal contact the name of the IRS employee or organization to call for additional information. District Office surveys have revealed that where numerous telephone extensions by name, activity or work functions have been listed, callers became confused and this has resulted in misdirected phone calls, interruption of Audit and Collection enforcement operation activity, and fragmentation of the service provided by Taxpayer Service Program personnel. Minimizing the number of telephone extensions we provide and emphasizing Taxpayer Service information phone extensions should relieve this problem. Section 3. Requests for IRS Local "Telephone Directories" .01 Request for "telephone directories" should be met by first providing a region, district or service center compiled listing of the most frequently called telephone extensions. .02 Indicated below are suggested guidelines to be followed, principally by district offices, in developing the contents of an abridged "telephone directory." Using the suggested guidelines should result in not only improving service to the users of these telephone directories but should materially assist in eliminating the problem referred to in Section 2 above. (1) Only the names of the districts' key officials should be shown. Listing of telephone extensions for these key officials is optional. (2) In the section of the abridged telephone listings for the headquarters office, the Taxpayer Service information telephone extension shall be listed first. If deemed desirable, an alphabetical listing of types of information provided by Taxpayer Service Representatives may be shown. It should be followed by the telephone extension, if this is a separate number, for requesting tax forms, public-use documents, etc. (3) Where it is deemed necessary, a listing of telephone extensions alphabetically arranged for tax information items related to technical matters outside the scope of the Taxpayer Service Program can be included in the headquarters section of the "telephone directory." However, the telephone extensions listed should be limited to those tax items for which information is most frequently requested. (4) Subordinate offices below headquarters should usually list only the Taxpayer Service information phone number. For Area offices or large Zone offices, if it is necessary to list the telephone numbers of other divisional components, the listing of extensions for the office should be shown as follows: Taxpayer Service Information: 337-0450. Audit Matters: 337-0670. Collection Matters: 337-0930. (5) For subordinate offices not providing Taxpayer Service on a full-time basis, the hours when service will be available should be shown. (6) For districts having a Centiphone installation, both the metropolitan telephone number and the Centiphone number should be listed in the headquarters section of the "telephone directory" with a legend explaining the use of each number. Subordinate offices should only list the Centiphone telephone number. 42-846-75-3 |