Romney's Tax Returns

September 24, 2012 2:04 PM

According to Wikipedia the IRS has 106,000 employees. How many of them have access to Mitt Romney's tax returns? And the real question: why haven't they been leaked? Are there protections in place to not have just anyone access anyone else's tax return anonymously?
posted by Dadoes to Law & Government (24 answers total)

Access is undoubtedly logged and it would be easy to track the people who were accessing it just before a leak. Also, people who do have wide access to tax returns (e.g. the people who answer the phones) probably need to enter the taxpayer's personal information into the system before being granted access, and the only way to get that is (supposedly) from the taxpayer.
posted by kindall at 2:07 PM on September 24, 2012

Access to these documents is both restricted and tracked. So if Mike Whistleblower wanted to get Romney's returns and had access to the system they're in, the security people would know, and Mike Whistleblower would get a call -- probably very, very quickly with such a high-profile individual -- asking why he needs to see Mitt Romney's returns. As he would doubtfully have a good reason, he'd probably be fired immediately and probably sentenced for fraud.
posted by griphus at 2:08 PM on September 24, 2012

Would you jeopardize an excellent paying job with amazing benefits?

I wouldn't.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 2:10 PM on September 24, 2012

My guess as to why they haven't been leaked is that the consequences of doing so are very bad, and the upshot, is what, your guy (who already has a commanding lead in the polls) might become president?

Short of someone offering millions of dollars as a reward, this just isn't worth doing.

Most likely the person who leaked them would not only be fired, but blackballed. It's something that could follow you forever and make you basically unemployable.
posted by Sara C. at 2:10 PM on September 24, 2012

Oh! I forgot! Print restrictions. I set up a secure document tracking system at my old job and printing a document you shouldn't be able to print involved a lot of work. Short of a spy-camera, I doubt most IRS employees have the ability to export important documents, and the ones that do care about their jobs a whole lot more than they care about the election.
posted by griphus at 2:12 PM on September 24, 2012

I agree with kindall, a lot of systems track who has accessed records. And you probably need the social security number and not just a name. Employees have been fired for accessing records they had no reason for viewing, see Michael Jackson and Farah Fawcett.
posted by shoesietart at 2:14 PM on September 24, 2012

I work at a specialty veterinary hospital. We see a decent number of local celebrities and the occasional national celebrity. Their accounts are flagged such that any activity on those accounts is logged and sent to a senior administrator. If you have no reason to access those accounts, you will get a phone call about it. I have to imagine the IRS has a much more robust system than ours.
posted by Rock Steady at 2:16 PM on September 24, 2012

10 years ago when I was working at an Australian government department, we were informed that not only was accessed tracked, but so too was the search function, and the act of searching for high visibility people (politicians, celebrities) had immediate repercussions.
posted by b33j at 2:17 PM on September 24, 2012

FYI, it would be a felony. So even if some close-to-retirement IRS agent took Larry Flynt up on his offer of a million dollars, the IRS would throw the book at him.
posted by Oktober at 2:30 PM on September 24, 2012

Because public servants care about their jobs, and they care about the integrity of their roles.
posted by smoke at 3:19 PM on September 24, 2012

[Folks, this needs to not become "weird stuff you didn't know about the IRS" thread. Cite sources if you're making wacky claims.]
posted by jessamyn at 3:20 PM on September 24, 2012

According to my IRS pal, the number of people who could access your IRS records is astronomically high. He says that if the IRS has 106,000 employees, than probably a fifth of them or more can access accounts. Type in the name alone and if it's weird enough, it'll come up. Add an address or city to a more common name, and you can find it easily enough - easier than Googling someone, in fact. You definitely don't need the SSN, as one big reason they look people up is because a missing SSN is one of the most common filing mistakes. You can get basic tax records for nearly anyone going back several years.

However, well-known people like Mitt Romney or Oprah actually have some sort of block on their accounts, and are impossible to access by all but a few employees, exactly for fear of leaks.

Everyone's right, he says - the penalties are harsh, and most IRS employees really do care about professionalism.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 3:24 PM on September 24, 2012

The relevant legislation is primarily the Privacy Act of 1974, put into place after President Nixon abused his authority by ordering the IRS to investigate his Democratic opponent George McGovern, and subsequently seeking to intimidate leakers and internal dissension by similarly investigating his own staff.

More specifically, 26 USC § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information, which does contain a narrow whistleblower exemption.

Ah, here's the personnel manual on the topic.
posted by dhartung at 3:24 PM on September 24, 2012

You would not be thanked by the democrats if you did it, and you would go to prison.
posted by empath at 4:12 PM on September 24, 2012

Note that if the IRS claims it has 106K employees there's a good chance they're not including a much larger amount of government contractors who work for but are technically not part of the IRS. Such is typical of the US government these days, contractors have been part of the workforce for a long time but their numbers have been increasing dramatically over the past few decades. Actual GS-number government employees with their lavish benefits don't actually do any/the work, instead, they supervise the contractors. And if a contractor was to leak this info the government would come down much harder on them and their company.
posted by Rash at 4:22 PM on September 24, 2012

As one of many GS-number employees I assure you that I and my co-workers do indeed actually work, and none of us supervise contractors. We have taken an oath of office and abide by that oath. I trust the ethics of my team mates in regard to disclosure of private information.
posted by X4ster at 5:02 PM on September 24, 2012

When I worked for an insurance company, which, as a financial services company, is covered under Gramm-Leach-Bliley (federal legislation), I could not access records merely out of personal curiosity. I had to have an actual work-related reason. Surfing internal financial and medical info was a punishable offense. Punishment could include firing.

Although the IRS does not appear to be covered by Gramm-Leach-Bliley, I have difficulty imagining they don't have some very similar standard. I can readily believe that, as someone else suggested, it is a felony.
posted by Michele in California at 5:09 PM on September 24, 2012

Sorry, perhaps I tar with too broad a brush, each organization is different, I only know what I've seen during decades as a contractor.
posted by Rash at 5:15 PM on September 24, 2012

Datapoint from the last presidential campaign: State Dept. fires 2, reprimands 1 for viewing Obama's passport file
posted by Xalf at 7:56 PM on September 24, 2012

Actual GS-number government employees with their lavish benefits don't actually do any/the work, instead, they supervise the contractors.

This is absolutely untrue for the majority of GS-number workers. I know many GS-number government employees (family members and friends, mid-20s to mid-60s, for a variety of government agencies) and they work hard, take their roles as public servants very seriously, and would not risk their jobs for this (especially with Obama in the lead). Many are also very sensitive to the charges of "lazy overpaid government drones" and do everything they can to prove that wrong--leaking information this way would work against that effort.
posted by sallybrown at 8:11 PM on September 24, 2012

Elaborating on dhartung's note about governing legislation, unauthorized disclosure is a felony. From IRS Publication 1075 [pdf]:

IRC Section 7213 prescribes criminal penalties for Federal and State employees and others who make illegal disclosures of federal tax returns and return information (FTI), which is a felony offense. Additionally, IRC Section 7213A makes the unauthorized inspection of FTI a misdemeanor punishable by fines, imprisonment, or both. And finally, IRC Section 7431 prescribes civil damages for unauthorized inspection or disclosure and upon conviction, the notification to the taxpayer that an unauthorized inspection or disclosure has occurred.

Publication 1075 describes the safeguards (as in security controls) for federal taxpayer information.
posted by kovacs at 8:40 PM on September 24, 2012

This is reminiscent of the unlawful records searches by various Ohio State employees and a contractor, from 3 different state agencies, who, without conspiracy or any connection to the Obama campaign, thought to do records searches without cause on Joe Wurzelbacher, aka "Joe the Plumber," during the campaigns 4 years ago, following his temporary elevation to fame. One person was charged with a misdemeanor, one person was terminated, and two others resigned their jobs while on administrative leave.

Additionally, his Bureau of Motor Vehicles records were searched, but it wasn't clear at the time whether that was illegal, and I don't have any followup info on that. At any rate, the Ohio Legislature and Governor passed a law with stricter rules and penalties for such inappropriate searches.
posted by Sunburnt at 8:50 PM on September 24, 2012

I have access to some sensitive information where I work, and we are required to acknowledge that we will only use the info for business purposes. Our usage is tracked.

If I were to take someone's personal information and make it public, I would be violating multiple policies, would be fired, possibly sued and possibly arrested. That aside, if it were a high-profile situation the media would almost certainly identify me and follow me everywhere. It would be very difficult to find a new job and start my life over ... once I got out of jail.

Also, it would be unethical.
posted by bunderful at 4:55 AM on September 25, 2012

Rash: Actual GS-number government employees with their lavish benefits don't actually do any/the work, instead, they supervise the contractors.

Citation needed... especially for paranoid anti-government claims that contradict direct experiences of many.
posted by IAmBroom at 8:51 AM on September 25, 2012