Lawmakers Should Support Braun and McConnell's 'Don't Weaponize the IRS Act'
Today, Senator Mike Braun (R-Ind.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) introduced the Don’t Weaponize the IRS Act, which has garnered the support of 43 Senate Republicans. This bill will codify important protections for non-profit organizations irrespective of their political affiliation and ensure that the IRS has one less tool to harass Americans that are exercising their first amendment rights.
H.R.1 would repeal these protections, providing the Biden administration with ammunition to attack conservative organizations, the same way they were attacked under the Obama administration.
Specifically, this bill would codify the final Rule issued by the Trump administration protecting tax-exempt organizations from unnecessary filing requirements. The Trump Rule ensured that many tax-exempt entities including 501(c)(4)s and 501(c)(6)s do not have to provide the IRS with a list of donors. This list is not used by the IRS for any official purpose. Instead, it creates needless compliance costs on both non-profits and the IRS. Last year, when the Rule was finalized, the Institute for Free Speech estimated that nonprofits would save about $63 million per year compliance costs if Schedule B were fully repealed.
If Democrats repeal this protection, it will create a new way for the IRS to harass organizations based on their political beliefs. Under the Obama administration, there were several cases where agency officials leaked the sensitive information contained on Schedule B forms for political purposes, such as leaking of the schedule B belonging to the National Organization for Marriage.
During this time, the IRS also wrongly used its authority to target and harass taxpayers, especially conservative non-profits. Most notably, the Obama IRS was caught unfairly denying conservative groups non-profit status ahead of the 2012 election.
Lois Lerner’s political beliefs led to tea party and conservative groups receiving disparate and unfair treatment when applying for non-profit status, according to a detailed report compiled by the Senate Finance Committee. Because of Lerner’s bias, only one conservative organization was granted tax exempt status over a period of more than three years.
Since these scandals, the IRS has done little to fix the problem. A 2016 report by the Government Accountability Office warned that the IRS may still be unfairly targeting non-profits “based on an organization’s religious, educational, political, or other views.”
Contrary to opponents’ claims, these protections do not limit transparency. In fact, the same information is still available to the public as before. There are already measures in place to track foreign donations. Even in the unlikely case that the IRS did suspect laws were being broken, it has no authority to share the information it collects with the FCC and the DOJ, the two agencies with the ability to enforce campaign finance laws.
Lawmakers should support Sens. Braun and McConnell’s Don’t Weaponize the IRS Act. The IRS has no official use for this kind of sensitive information. It can only be used for bad.
Photo Credit: Senator Mike Braun
Senators Should Reject Adding Grassley-Leahy Anti-Fraud Amendments Act to Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal
Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) have introduced the “Anti-Fraud Amendments Act,” as an amendment to the bipartisan infrastructure bill. This amendment (#2435) should be rejected by Senators.
The amendment would dramatically change the burden of proof standards in False Claims Act (FCA) cases. It would essentially require companies to prove their innocence, rather than requiring the government to prove its own case against defendants.
Specifically, the legislation requires defendants to disprove the plaintiff’s contention with a heightened “clear and convincing” standard of proof. In this way, the defendant’s burden to prove their innocence is higher than the plaintiff’s burden of proof to prove the defendant’s guilt. To make matters worse, this would apply retroactively to any FCA case that is pending on the date of enactment.
FCA cases are taken up when the government suspects a company has falsely billed the government, over-represented the amount of a delivered product, or under-stated an obligation to the government.
Adopting this new evidentiary standard ignores the views of a unanimous Supreme Court. Universal Health Servs. v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar explained that the FCA materiality element is “demanding” and “rigorous” because of its potentially penal application, detailing that the FCA “is not ‘an all-purpose antifraud statute’ or a vehicle for punishing garden-variety breaches of contract or regulatory violations.”
In this case, the Court required the government to prove that the alleged false claim “went to the very essence of the bargain,” but imposed no additional burden on defendants in these cases. Imposing a higher burden of proof for defendants than for plaintiffs in these cases is the opposite of what the SCOTUS attempted to achieve in Escobar.
While this amendment makes it more difficult for companies to defend themselves, it also shifts the cost of government discovery to defendants. It would require defendants to pay the government’s attorney fees and discovery costs unless the defendant proves that the information sought is “relevant, proportionate to the needs of the case, and not unduly burdensome.” As the National Law Review notes, this would “effectively require defendants to pay for the costs of government discovery in nearly every case because of the practical impossibility of proving a negative – the absence of an undue burden on the government.”
Not only is the policy concerning, but it has also not received proper debate. The Grassley-Leahy amendment is a combination of S. 2428 and S. 2429. Neither has received a hearing or a markup. This is especially concerning given how substantive the legal changes are in this amendment.
The Grassley-Leahy amendment would establish an evidentiary standard that is antithetical to both the aforementioned 2016 SCOTUS case and the principles which guide the function of our court system. If lawmakers are serious about protecting defendants’ presumption of innocence, a principle core to this country’s judicial system, they should oppose this amendment to the bipartisan infrastructure bill.
Photo Credit: Jeffrey Zeldman
Taxpayer Funded WHO Colludes with Mike Bloomberg to Stop Smokers from Quitting
The coronavirus outbreak and resulting worldwide pandemic has resulted in more than four million deaths, including 612,000 Americans. In the early days of the pandemic, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) arrested journalists and doctors who dared to tell the world about the deadly virus that was spreading across China. The CCP blocked information about the virus on social media sites and removed news stories reporting accurate infection data. By the time the world was finally made aware of the danger Covid-19 posed, it was far too late.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the murderous and authoritarian CCP deserves recognition for the “transparency” and “leadership” they showed in the face of a deadly virus. WHO publicly said that China’s oppressive regime was “making us safer” from Covid. The four million people who have died thanks to CCP recklessness would surely disagree.
Unfortunately, WHO isn’t finished repressing opportunities to save lives. Just three days ago, on July 27, WHO released their eighth global tobacco report, focused on reducing global access to reduced harm tobacco products and alternatives to tobacco. There are 1.1 billion people in the world who smoke cigarettes every single day, an all-time high. In 2019, eight million people died as a result of smoking. Thanks to WHO, millions more will die without access to these lifesaving alternatives.
Just imagine how corrupt an organization would need to be to actively work against lifesaving technology. Fortunately, there is ample evidence demonstrating exactly who is influencing WHO tobacco control policy and how they are doing it. Mike Bloomberg, the billionaire former Mayor of New York City, and his multi-billion-dollar “charity” Bloomberg Philanthropies funded, and contributed to, the WHO report and have used their massive endowment to exert undue influence over low- and middle-income countries that are more vulnerable to philanthropic pressure.
The WHO report is only one example of Bloomberg using his wealth to global health policy. In January 2021, Philippine Food and Drug Administration officials revealed that they have been receiving money from the Bloomberg Initiative and The Union, charities funded by Bloomberg himself. According to reports, the funds were bestowed on the condition that the Philippine government implemented Bloomberg-sanctioned tobacco control policies. While the Philippines are one of the first countries where Bloomberg’s pseudo-colonialism have been publicly exposed, the former Mayor and failed 2020 Presidential candidate has been pouring money into dark money groups for years in pursuit of prohibitionist policies.
WHO’s report is filled with downright lies about e-cigarettes. In one section, the report states that “The outbreak of electronic-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) in the United States in 2019–2020 highlights the potential dangers associated with (e-cigarettes)”. There is zero evidence that EVALI is the result of nicotine-containing e-cigarette use. Rather, illicit THC vaping products containing Vitamin E-Acetate have been identified as the culprit behind the outbreak. This is common knowledge among the scientific and health community. The report also attempts to tie “popcorn lung” to e-cigarette use, even though there has never been a case of popcorn lung resulting from vaping. WHO is more interested in following Bloomberg’s misguided ideology than sharing the truth about vaping.
It is truly inconceivable that WHO would allow a prohibitionist like Mike Bloomberg to fund a report that will have incredible influence over the policies of dozens of countries. Bloomberg, and by extension WHO, would prefer to see the one billion global smokers die from cigarettes than switch to an alternative that reduces their exposure to harmful chemicals.
There are, however, countries that have embraced, or at the very least tolerated, vaping products and other safer alternatives and have seen incredible improvements in public health as a result.
WHO’s report claims that evidence is “inconclusive” that e-cigarettes help smokers quit, yet 2.4 million British smokers have quit cigarettes with vaping. Even as cigarette smoking has increased globally in the last few years, England has seen a dramatic decrease in smoking prevalence thanks to vaping. The British government has embraced vaping as a method of smoking cessation, publicizing data demonstrating that vaping is 95% less harmful than cigarettes and two to four times more effective at helping smokers quit than traditional nicotine replacement therapies.
In Japan, cigarette sales have decreased by 43% over the past five years, the greatest decrease in recorded history, as a result of heat-not-burn tobacco products that significantly reduces exposure to harmful chemicals compared to cigarette smoking.
A form of “clean” smokeless tobacco called snus contains less toxins than other tobacco products and is highly popular among Swedish men. Sweden has the lowest rate of lung cancer in the developed world.
The World Health Organization knows this, of course. Just how they knew that China was arresting journalists, making truth-telling doctors disappear, and shutting down the spread of information that would have alerted the world to the once-in-a-generation pandemic that would soon sweep the globe.
This much is clear, the World Health Organization is more interested in lining their own pockets than saving lives. The United States, currently the largest contributor to WHO’s budget, cannot in good conscience continue to fund their willful ignorance that continually costs lives all over the world. American taxpayers must demand that the U.S. defund, or at least suspend, funding to WHO until they commit to expanded transparency and true pro-science policies.
Photo Credit: United States Mission Geneva
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Crypto’s Taxing Predicament
The fight over the cryptocurrency tax reporting provision in the bipartisan infrastructure bill just got a lot more interesting.
After Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) publicly announced he supported a vote on Senator Wyden (D-Ore.), Toomey (R-Pa.), and Lummis’ (R-Wyo.) amendment (No. 2498), he switched gears and filed his own amendment with Senator Warner (D-Va.). Industry leaders and trade associations such as the Blockchain Association, Coinbase, and Coin Center have publicly supported the changes in Wyden-Lummis-Toomey but oppose Portman-Warner.
As currently drafted, the infrastructure bill would jeopardize the cryptocurrency and blockchain industry’s future in the United States.
The provision titled “Enhancement of Information Reporting for Brokers and Digital Assets” would likely lead to a host of unintended consequences, not only for the technology’s ability to operate in the United States but also for the privacy rights of all Americans. The last thing the United States government needs to do is regulate the cryptocurrency market to the point where the industry leaves the country entirely. Totalitarian regimes such as the Chinese Communist Party have already kicked out Bitcoin miners much to the benefit of states like Texas who welcome all kinds of business.
The cryptocurrency language in the bill was hastily thrown together in an act of desperation to pay for its large expenditures. The Congressional Budget Office’s announcement that the bipartisan bill would increase the federal deficit by $256 billion over 10 years underscores the lawmakers’ desire to shore up additional revenue, much to the dismay of the cryptocurrency ecosystem.
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the language in the bill would raise approximately $28 billion in revenue. This is curious since cryptocurrency brokers already report to IRS, so its hard to see where JCT is deriving these new numbers from.
The Wyden-Lummis-Toomey Amendment addresses a significant concern in the underlying bill. The amendment removes the obligation of network participants, such as miners and software developers, who don’t have—and shouldn't have—access to customer information to report tax information to the Internal Revenue Service. It does so without affecting the reporting obligations placed on brokers and traders of digital assets.
On the other hand, the Portman-Warner Amendment excludes proof-of-work mining and blockchain validators. However, the amendment makes no mention of software developers, node operators, and aggregators thus requiring them to report to the IRS. Interestingly, singling out proof-of-work only exempts one technology and does not allow blockchain technology to continue to innovate in the US. These technologies are changing, and the newer proof-of-stake technology is more energy efficient but would not be exempt in the Warner-Portman amendment. It's surprising that the White House and Democrats would put these kinds of limitations on the ability of technologies to become more energy efficient.
The White House has signaled their support for Portman-Warner in an effort to maximize revenue and crack down on digital asset tax avoidance. Unfortunately, this is par for the course for an administration that is obsessed with regulating digital assets all in the name of “investor protection”.
Tomorrow, the Senate is expected to vote on both of these amendments. What the Senate should not do is be complacent and vote down both of the amendments. The Wyden-Lummis-Toomey amendment is best suited to clarify the definition of brokers for crypto purposes without unnecessarily exposing Americans' private information; however, allowing the language in the base text to pass without any changes will undoubtedly require numerous individuals in the cryptocurrency ecosystem to suddenly hand over information to the IRS that they do not possess.
Photo Credit: QuoteInspector.com
S. 1981, the “Accelerate Charitable Efforts Act,” Would Impose Unnecessary Burdens on Charitable Giving
In June, Senators Angus King (I-Maine) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced S. 1981, the “Accelerating Charitable Efforts (ACE) Act.” Rather than increase charitable giving, this bill would impose unnecessary burdens on giving and create a new, 50 percent tax.
Specifically, the bill would require that all donor-advised funds (DAFs) be paid out within 15 years, or 50 years for those not claiming the charitable tax deduction. If DAFs do not pay out within the arbitrary 15-year timeline, they would face a 50 percent tax on the charitable funds. The ACE Act would also implement new rules against anonymous giving, threatening donor privacy and create more tax complexity for charities.
Donor-advised funds (DAFs) are giving accounts created and maintained by individual donors. Many DAF donors keep money in these funds for long periods of time in order to strategically plan their giving and allow it to appreciate over time, enabling them to make even larger donations. Perhaps, they wish to pass on their funds to their children, save up for a huge charitable project they’ve always dreamed of organizing, or save funds so they can donate in their retirement.
Ultimately, donors’ plans are their business. Once money is put into these funds, it is irrevocably committed to charitable giving. The government has no place deciding when it’s best these funds are paid out, especially when these funds must eventually be used for charitable giving.
It is untrue that DAFs are falling short in paying out their funds. Historically, the DAF payout rate is higher than private foundations. While private foundations often payout the legally required minimum of 5 percent, the DAF payout rate has been over 20 percent for the last 10 years.
DAF accounts are open and accessible to donors of all income levels: the accounts average $166,000. The Philanthropy Roundtable describes DAFs as, ‘small, personal foundations for middle-class donors.” While the wealthy might also use these funds, they certainly do not define these funds. Middle-class donors should not be punished simply because wealthy donors also use DAFs.
Imposing a 15-year payout requirement stifles donors’ ability to plan their giving and grow their assets over time. Imposing a 50 percent tax on these funds if donors do not comply is especially troubling. This bill will, in turn, stifle charitable giving itself.
This bill would also force private foundations to disclose DAF gifts in detail and would prohibit anonymous contributions of non-cash assets to DAFs. This new requirement should be alarming given that the IRS has failed miserably at protecting donor information. During the Obama administration, there were several cases where agency officials leaked the sensitive donor information contained on Schedule B forms for political purposes, such as leaking of the schedule B belonging to the National Organization for Marriage. Exorbitant donor reporting requirements threaten the safety of donors and blatantly violates their right to privately support causes.
The ACE Act creates more tax complexity for charities. This bill treats all anonymous gifts as if they were coming from one person, making it difficult for charities to attain public charity status under the tax code. In addition, several provisions in the bill would place more regulatory and administrative burden on DAFs, creating overhead costs ultimately borne by donors at the expense of those the money would have otherwise helped.
If lawmakers are serious about promoting accessible, carefully-planned charitable giving, protecting donor privacy, and preventing tax complexity, they should oppose S. 1981, the “Accelerating Charitable Efforts (ACE) Act.”
Photo Credit: DC Central Kitchen, Volunteers Hard at Work
New CBO Report Finds TCJA Made Tax Code More, Not Less Progressive
Democrats routinely claim that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed by Congressional Republicans and signed into law by President Trump in 2017 cut taxes for the rich. President Biden, Nancy Pelosi and others have repeatedly called the bill a “tax scam” that did little or nothing for the middle class.
However, new data from the Congressional Budget Office found that the TCJA made the tax code more progressive, not less. The report found that the top one percent of earners and the top 20 percent of earners paid a greater share of income taxes and federal taxes after the TCJA was signed into law:
- The top one percent of earners paid 38.6 percent of income taxes in 2017 and 41.7 percent of income taxes in 2018.
- The top 20 percent of earners paid 87.1 percent of income taxes in 2017 and 90.9 percent of income taxes in 2018.
- The top one percent of earners paid 25.5 percent of all federal taxes in 2017 and 25.9 percent of income taxes in 2018.
- The top 20 percent of earners paid 69.3 percent of all federal taxes in 2017 and 69.8 percent of federal taxes in 2018.
This latest report proves that the claim the TCJA benefited the rich is merely a left-wing talking point. American families at every income level saw strong tax reduction including the middle class.
According to IRS statistics of income data analyzed by Americans for Tax Reform, households earning between $50,000 and $100,000 saw their average tax liability drop by over 13 percent between 2017 and 2018. By comparison, households with income over $1 million saw a far smaller tax cut averaging just 5.8 percent.
Thanks to the TCJA, millions of Americans saw an increased child tax credit, and millions more qualified for this tax cut for the first time. The TCJA expanded the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000 and raised the income thresholds so millions of families could take the credit. In 2017, 22 million households earning $200,000 or less took the child tax credit. These households received an average tax credit of $1,213.
By 2018, 36 million households earning $200,000 or less took the child and other dependent tax credit. These households received an average credit of $2,002.
The TCJA repealed the Obamacare individual mandate tax by zeroing out the penalty. Prior to the passage of the bill, the mandate imposed a tax of up to $2,085 on households that failed to purchase government-approved healthcare. Five million people paid this in 2017, and 75 percent of these households earned less than $75,000.
The tax cuts also resulted in businesses giving their employees pay bonuses, pay raises, increased 401(k) matches, and new employee benefit programs.
Even left-leaning media outlets have (eventually) acknowledged the tax cuts benefited middle class families. The Washington Post fact-checker gave Biden’s claim that the middle class did not see a tax cut its rating of four Pinocchios. The New York Times characterized the false perception that the middle class saw no benefit from the tax cuts as a “sustained and misleading effort by liberal opponents."
While Biden and Democrats continue to mislead about the benefits of the TCJA, the fact is, this law reduced taxes for middle class families across the country and made the tax code more, not less progressive.
Photo Credit: Victoria Pickering
Muriel Bowser's Anti-Science Policies Are Costing Her Constituents Their Lives
Despite the fact that every American has access to a safe, effective Coronavirus vaccine, Washington DC Mayor Muriel Bowser has re-instituted a mask mandate in the District- including for vaccinated individuals. This action is in direct contrast to the words of the leader of Bowser’s party, Joe Biden, who said: “If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in an ICU unit, and you’re not going to die.” Bowser’s mandate demonstrates a mistrust in the effectiveness of the vaccine which is contrary to settled science. This is just one of many anti-science actions taken during Muriel Bowser’s tenure. On July 21, 2021, Washington DC Mayor Muriel Bowser officially banned the sale of flavored Tobacco. Bowser’s mandate and ban call into question the Mayor’s priories, as murders and crime ravage the District at record rates.
Bowser has attempted to paint the ban as a victory for communities of color. However, her actions will have the opposite effect. They will actually harm communities of color, as “smokers who use sweet-flavored vapor products were 43% more likely to quit smoking than those who used unflavored or tobacco flavored vapor products.” Reduced risk tobacco alternatives, such as personal vaporisers, have been overwhelmingly proven to be 95% safer than combustible cigarettes, and at least twice as effective as more traditional nicotine replacement therapies, leading to the sharpest declines in both adult and youth smoking on record. So, by banning flavored tobacco products, Bowser is eliminating a commonly used and effective pathway to overcoming nicotine addiction.
Overregulation of tobacco products creates black market demand, causing smokers to use riskier, totally unregulated forms of tobacco. For example, in Minnesota, where tobacco taxes are 7 times higher than neighboring states, 35% of all tobacco consumed comes from illicit sources. Bowser’s ban will likely create a similar effect, putting her constituents at rick of consuming harmful, unregulated tobacco products. Furthermore, most tobacco smuggling is operated by multi-million dollar organized crime syndicates that also engage in human trafficking, money laundering, and have been shown to use their profits to fund terrorism. As a result, the US State Department has explicitly labeled tobacco smuggling as “a threat to national security”.
By giving her attention to ineffective tobacco policies, Bowser has proven herself derelict in her duty to protect the people of her city. So far in 2021, there have been 234 homicides in and around Washington DC, with the vast majority of victims being people of color. If Bowser were serious about protecting communities of color, she would focus on stopping the record-setting crime in her city instead of banning life-saving products.
Bowser’s priorities are obviously out of whack. The Mayor’s anti-science policies are costing her constituents their lives.
IRS Agents Accidentally Discharged Guns More Often than They Intentionally Fired Them
Inspector General found that “Special agents not properly trained in the use of firearms could endanger the public, as well as their fellow special agents, and expose the IRS to possible litigation over injuries or damages”
President Biden's push to increase the size and power of the IRS has significant criminal justice ramifications. The agency has a long and poor track record of misusing service weapons and ensuring agents receive the required firearms training. This failure to follow basic procedures puts American lives and property in danger.
According to a report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), special agents at the IRS Criminal Investigation Division (IRS-CI) accidentally fired their weapons more often than they intentionally fired them:
“According to documentation provided by all 26 CI field offices, the NCITA, and the TIGTA OI, there were a total of eight firearm discharges classified as intentional use of force incidents and 11 discharges classified as accidental during FYs 2009 through 2011.”
Additionally, the audit found that that some special agents did not meet all of the firearms training or qualification requirements:
“Field office management did not always take consistent and appropriate actions when a special agent failed to meet the requirements because the guidance is vague. In addition, there is no national-level review of firearms training records to ensure that all special agents meet the qualification requirements.”
This lackadaisical approach to firearm safety has led to easily preventable accidents. The Inspector General cryptically references accidental discharges that caused "property damage or personal injury":
“In three of the four accidental discharges that were not reported, the accidental discharges may have resulted in property damage or personal injury.”
The details of these incidents are for some reason redacted in the report:
As the agents are authorized to carry weapons, they must meet certain firearms training and qualification standards.
In order to carry or use an IRS-owned weapon, agents must: engage in handgun firing training at least once each quarter, shoot at least the minimum of 75 percentage points on the firearms qualifying test using the issued handgun during two nonconsecutive quarters, participate in biannual firearms building entry exercises, participate in an annual briefing on firearms safety and security policies and CI’s directives and procedures regarding the safe handling and storage of firearms, and participate in a briefing each quarter regarding the policy of discharging a firearm at a moving vehicle.
CI’s National Criminal Investigation Training Academy (NCITA) is responsible for implementing the formalized firearms training and qualification program nationwide. This includes developing the firearm qualification requirements they are expected to meet and the training special agents will undergo. Despite these requirements, CI agents have regularly failed to stay up to date on training or report incidents, endangering the taxpayers they are supposed to protect.
Insufficient procedures for special agents who do not meet firearms qualification requirements
TIGTA found 24 special agents who did not meet the requirement to qualify with the weapon concealed and 48 special agents who did not qualify while wearing warrant service apparel. In all, 13 special agents did not meet both those requirements, while nine of the 13 also did not meet the biannual standard requirement. Making matters worse, the agency failed to secure the firearms of those who did not meet their requirements:
“controls did not ensure that CI personnel properly secured firearms when special agents failed to meet the biannual standard qualification requirement. CI was only able to provide evidence that firearms were surrendered in nine of the 27 instances when special agents did not qualify. The Criminal Investigation Management Information System was only updated to reflect the custody change in four of those nine instances.”
The agency did not keep track of special agents on temporary assignment to another field office:
"In addition, controls did not ensure that special agents on temporary assignment to another field office met the firearm qualification requirements."
The report also found that:
"controls did not ensure that CI personnel properly secured firearms when special agents
failed to meet the biannual standard qualification requirement. CI was only able to provide evidence that firearms were surrendered in nine of the 27 instances when special agents did not qualify."
Ultimately, TIGTA's analysis of the qualification process led to some damning conclusions:
"Considering the gravity of carrying and using a firearm, there should be no margin for error in the firearms training and certification program. By not having effective procedures to ensure special agents are qualified to carry and use a firearm when needed, CI risks endangering other special agents and the public. In addition, the IRS could be held liable for injuries or damage resulting from special agents using a firearm who have not met the required qualifications."
Investigations are put at risk when special agents do not meet firearms training requirements
Despite the importance of firearm training, TIGTA could not always determine if offices conducted training:
"we could not always determine if the field offices conducted the required training or if all special agents participated in the necessary training because field office supporting documentation varied among the locations. For example, two locations did not always document that they conducted training or which special agents attended. This lack of documentation was the main reason we could only verify that 78 (13.1 percent) of the 597 special agents in our judgmental sample met all of their training requirements during FY 2011."
In addition, the Inspector General noted that "there were numerous unexplained absences" that led to firearms training not being conducted.
Special agents are required to surrender their weapons when they fail to participate in this training, however this often does not happen:
"However, there is currently little consequence for special agents who fail to meet the training requirements listed on the checklist. The responses of field office management and the UFCs from the four field offices varied as to the actions taken after a special agent missed such training. The responses included:
- The UFC will try to schedule makeup training, but the special agent needs to at least qualify to keep the firearm.
- Management will speak to the special agent personally if there is a pattern of unexcused absences.
- Depending on the circumstances, the special agent may have to surrender the firearm if management concludes that the reason for missing the training was not sufficient.
- Management will discuss the circumstances with the supervisory special agent and emphasize the importance of training attendance. However, missed training would not result in the surrender of the firearm."
These lapses by the IRS-CI could torpedo their ability to effectively try cases:
"Court decisions in the past have held law enforcement entities liable because their law enforcement agents did not have training that reflected the environment that they would likely encounter, such as training involving moving targets and low-light conditions. Other court decisions underscored the importance of properly documenting firearms training. One decision dismissed the claims against a law enforcement entity that maintained thorough records that showed the law enforcement personnel had been trained. Another decision upheld a jury’s conclusion that undocumented police training did not constitute adequate training."
The IRS-CI regularly failed to ensure their agents met firearms training and qualification requirements. This failure could have grave consequences for the public. As noted in the report:
"If there is insufficient oversight, special agents in possession of firearms who are not properly trained and qualified could endanger other special agents and the public."
Discharge incidents often went unreported
CI management is required to be notified when a special agent discharges their weapon. CI must report all accidental discharge incidents externally to the TIGTA OI and internally to the NCITA and the Director of Field Operations. Despite these directives, CI did not always properly disclose accidental discharges:
“we found that four accidental discharges were not properly reported. This included two that were not reported to both to the TIGTA OI and the NCITA, one that was not reported to the TIGTA OI, and one that was not reported internally to the NCITA.”
These cases were not reported as a result of CI’s failure to ensure that proper actions were taken after an accidental discharge and conflicting or unclear reporting information.
Agents did not undergo remedial training after discharges due to special agent negligence
Compounding their mistakes, CI agents did not always provide remedial training when an accidental discharge occurred. Even when they did undergo training, the standards remained wildly inconsistent. The report found that:
“two of the four use of force coordinators stated that they may require the special agent to participate in some type of remedial training, one stated that the special agent would be counseled, and one stated that there would be no additional training required."
Given the history the IRS has of misusing its service weapons, the Biden proposal to give the agency even more power and money is alarming to law-abiding taxpayers.
With Lapse of TPA, Biden Rejects Bipartisan Calls for a Taiwan Free Trade Agreement
The Biden Administration recently let Trade Promotion Authority lapse, making any type of comprehensive trade agreement impossible. Just days before, his administration received a bipartisan letter from 42 senators calling on the U.S. Trade Representative to pursue a Free Trade Agreement with Taiwan. A trade agreement with Taiwan, the UK, or even to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is now all but impossible.
Instead, the Biden-Harris administration will resume a limited executive-level Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) with Taiwanese officials. As an executive agreement, the TIFA will be nonbinding and avoid any reduction in tariffs or other commitment that would require implementation legislation.
The narrow scope means American workers will be missing out on the massive benefits that free trade with allies like Taiwan has to offer. A bipartisan group of senators say the TIFA talks don't go far enough and they're calling for U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai to pursue a real Free Trade Agreement with Taiwan instead.
In a letter to Ambassador Tai at the end of June, the group of 42 senators led by Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla) and Senator Mark Warner (D-Va) requested that the administration "take steps to begin laying the groundwork for negotiation of a free trade agreement... with Taiwan." This letter follows a previous letter by 50 senators in late 2020 calling for a free trade agreement with Taiwan and a letter by 161 members of Congress in 2019 calling for the same. Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen also stated her own desire for a free trade agreement with the United States last year, and Taiwan's chief trade negotiator John Deng reiterated this desire to U.S. officials last month.
While the United States does not have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, it shares deep economic ties with the island nation. Taiwan is the U.S.'s ninth-largest trading partner in the world, and the U.S. exports more to the island than to France or Italy. The island is particularly important for American farmers as the seventh-largest destination for agricultural exports from the United States.
Taiwan is a strategic technology partner as well, home to companies like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), the global leader in high-end chip production. A trade agreement would incentivize greater technological exchanges between countries and could seal in rules on how to deal with state-owned enterprises, like those found in the USMCA, that would prevent a Chinese takeover of the industry.
Previous free trade talks between the United States and Taiwan had stalled due to trade barriers from the island government, in particular those on U.S. meat exports. As of January 2021, however, Taiwan lifted its restrictions on American pork and beef, showing an open willingness to negotiate and make concessions in order to get a larger deal.
In addition, USTR has previously identified numerous trade barriers from Taiwan that remain today, such as those restricting imports of rice, ground beef, certain animal byproducts, and genetically modified foods. Additionally, Copyright Piracy was one of Taiwan's worst-performing subcategories on the 2020 International Property Rights Index. While Taiwan has made recent progress on combatting copyright infringement, US-Taiwan negotiations could result in robust enforcement for intellectual property belonging to American companies. Without TPA, the Biden Administration ensures these barriers stay intact.
The Biden Administration must shift its focus away from bloated international tax cartels that will harm American workers and toward Free Trade Agreements that will lower trade barriers to provide an economic boost for all countries involved. Taiwan would be a great place to start.
Photo Credit: Pixabay
Heads Up: Infrastructure Bill Paves the Way for a Miles-Traveled Tax
Bill sets up pilot program with the goal of imposing a permanent vehicle mileage tax, shovels money to states to push them to do the same, and spends taxpayer money for politicians to lobby the public to support the tax
The $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill would pave the way for a new miles-driven tax on drivers by creating various pilot programs for a "vehicle per-mile user fee.”
A vehicle miles-traveled tax (VMT) would charge motorists based on how many miles they have traveled and is often pitched by proponents as a means of capturing additional revenue from the American people.
Biden administration officials, including White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, have repeatedly stated that a VMT would violate President Biden’s pledge that he will not raise any taxes on people making less than $400,000 a year.
In March, Secretary Buttigieg was even forced to make an embarrassing walk back of his previous support for a VMT. “No (a VMT) is not part of the conversation about this infrastructure bill,” Buttigieg told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “I just want to make sure that's really clear."
Despite these promises from the Biden administration, $125 million is included in the legislative text to fund the creation of VMT pilot programs. Below are details taken straight from the infrastructure bill:
Spends $75 million doling out grants to State, local and regional transportation departments to set up pilot programs
Section 13001 authorizes $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2022 through 2026 to be distributed as grants by the Secretary of Transportation with the purpose of establishing pilot projects at the State, local, and regional level “to test the feasibility of a road usage fee.”
Taxpayer dollars used to lobby the public for tax hikes
Sections 13001 states that an objective of the pilot programs that the Secretary of Transportation will be responsible for meeting will be “to conduct public education and outreach to increase public awareness regarding the need for user-based alternative revenue mechanisms for surface transportation programs.”
Translation: Taxpayer dollars used to lecture drivers on why they need to pay more taxes. Imagine a public service announce from Pete Buttigieg promoting a miles-traveled tax and paid for by taxpayers.
Spends $50 million creating a national VMT pilot program
Section 13002 authorizes $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2022 through 2026 to carry out the implementation of a national VMT pilot program. Program participants would volunteer to participate in the pilot program with the goal of testing “the design, acceptance, implementation, and financial sustainability of a national motor vehicle per-mile user-fee.” Volunteers would be solicited from all 50 states and include both commercial and passenger vehicles.
Creates an Advisory Board stacked with special interest groups, lobbyists and woke activists
Section 13002 sets up "Federal System Funding Alternative Advisory Board" to make recommendations on the structure, scope and methodology of the pilot program and to carry out a public awareness campaign for the program. The bill mandates that the board shall include representatives of the trucking industry, transportation focused non-profits, and “advocacy groups focused on equity.”
Outlines tools used to track driver’s miles driven
The bill lays out the various “vehicle-miles-traveled-collection tools” that would be used by the federal government to track drivers. These tools include third-party onboard diagnostic devices (GPS tracking devices), smart phone apps, data from automakers and data obtained by car insurance companies.
Photo Credit: WTOP
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Khan Promises FTC Bipartisanship, But Her Record Proves Otherwise
Last week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee had its first opportunity to ask newly-anointed FTC Chair Lina Khan questions regarding her plan for running the FTC. Congressman Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) questioned, if Khan would “commit to [run the FTC] in a bipartisan fashion where you will consult and coordinate with all commissioners and ensure that they have the resources of the commission available to them on all pending business.” Khan answered affirmatively, stating that she would be “happy to find shared areas of agreement” at the FTC.
What a wonderful sentiment, if only Khan meant it. So far, Khan has launched one of the most partisan crusades in the history of the FTC. She has taken advantage of her temporary 3-2 majority to steamroll consequential changes and smash long-held bipartisan norms. 71 percent of proposals during the Open Commission Meetings have been pushed through with this 3-2 majority. Some of these proposals overturned enforcement principles previously agreed to with bipartisan support. One example is the 2015 “Statement of Enforcement Principles Regarding ‘Unfair Methods of Competition Under Section 5 of the FTC Act,” which was written to limit the FTC’s “standalone” authority over unfair methods of competition when addressing anticompetitive conduct outside of the scope of the Sherman or Clayton Acts. Another example is the Policy Statement on Prior Approval and Prior Notice Provisions in Merger Cases, which essentially functions as imposing a decade-long merger tax on corporations.
Even though Khan said that “staff is always available to provide analysis and assessment and commissioners are routinely requested that analysis from staff and staff is providing it,” FTC commissioners from the Republican minority have disagreed with that description. Commissioner Christine Wilson has discussed that the loss of “full consultation with staff through oral briefings,” along with “comprehensive memoranda” and “a robust dialogue amongst the commissioners” has harmed her ability to make fully informed decisions, as they only give monologues that are “akin to theater.”
We may not know for a long time the perspective of staffers on the impacts of this half-fast procedural approach due to an agency-wide gag order. Jen Howard, Khan’s chief of staff, has put a “moratorium on public events and press outreach.” The internal and external silencing of FTC staffers under Khan is troubling. Thankfully, Khan has been unable to silence commissioners that have emphasized her careless changes to long-standing procedures.
House Republicans, including House Energy and Commerce Committee Republican Leader Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (R-Wash.), Rep. Jim Jordan [R-Ohio], and James Comer [R-Ky.], wrote a letter to the FTC denouncing these radical reforms. They noted that “reports suggest radical changes at the FTC may be damaging morale and having significant negative effects on experienced FTC staff.”
Khan reckless pursuit of “reforming” the FTC appears to be willingly ignoring the commissioners outside of the temporary Democrat majority and the perspectives of other scholars. Despite Khan’s words promising bipartisanship, her actions promote a partisan transformation of the agency.
Photo Credit: New America
State news
Top Stories
