\n<\/p>\n
Julia Demaree Nikhinson\/AP<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n In an exclusive<\/span> story on Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal<\/em> reported<\/a> on the Trump administration\u2019s plans to weaponize the IRS, much as he has weaponized the Department of Justice, against his perceived enemies.<\/p>\n \u201cSweeping changes\u201d are planned, the Journal<\/em> reported, citing anonymous sources, \u201cthat would allow the agency to pursue criminal inquiries of left-leaning groups more easily.\u201d<\/p>\n A senior IRS official involved in the effort has drawn up a list of potential targets that includes major Democratic donors, some of the people said. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n A key aspect of the changes is giving President Donald Trump\u2019s political appointees control over the IRS\u2019s criminal investigations division. Gary Shapley, an adviser to Treasury Secretary\u00a0Scott Bessent, will take the reins, per the Journal<\/em>. In April, Shapley, a former IRS agent, was named acting commissioner<\/a> at the behest of Elon Musk, and then fired days later<\/a> after Bessent objected. He will now reportedly work to weaken the role of career IRS lawyers in investigations, paving the way for politically motivated probes of people and groups Trump and his allies dislike.<\/p>\n Shapley is already collecting a target list of progressive donors and groups, the paper reported, including, not surprisingly, billionaire George Soros, that bogeyman of right-wing conservatives, and groups with ties to his Open Society Foundations.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019ve been speaking to friends\u2026who are just absolutely appalled at at this, and in shock that this would materialize.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n \u201cThis is, without doubt, a very troubling development,\u201d John Koskinen, who served as IRS commissioner under President Barack Obama and at the beginning of Trump\u2019s first administration, told me in an email.<\/p>\n Such investigations could be used not only in pursuit of criminal cases, but also as a rationale for yanking a progressive organization\u2019s tax-exempt status, eliminating the ability of its donors to take a tax deduction\u2014a potential death knell for any nonprofit group\u2019s ability to survive and support its mission. (During the 1980s, the Reagan administration tried doing this to Mother Jones<\/em>. Spoiler alert: We won.<\/a>)<\/p>\n Partisan IRS enforcement also happens to be illegal. \u201cSection 7217 of the US Criminal Code prohibits the president or anyone in the White House from suggesting or ordering an IRS audit,\u201d Koskinen says.\u00a0\u201cPutting administration loyalists in charge of the IRS generally and the criminal division in particular with the expressed aim of auditing individual taxpayers or trying to eliminate the tax exemption of nonprofits the administration does not approve of certainly violates the spirit if not the letter of the Criminal Code.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ve been talking about this a lot,\u201d says a corporate lawyer who specializes in criminal tax defense and asked for anonymity to protect his clients from potential retribution by the administration. \u201cI\u2019ve been speaking to friends of mine who used to work in the government, who believed in the system, and who are just absolutely appalled at at this, and in shock that this would materialize.\u201d<\/p>\n If that lawyer were defending one of these liberal entities\u2014especially one that Trump and his minions have threatened in the past, like the Ford Foundation\u2014he would make the case that the government was practicing selective prosecution: \u201cThere is a slim line of authority a defendant could use to argue here, and of course, the danger here is that the government will forum shop.\u201d That is, the Justice Department would file the case in a judicial circuit whose judges were more likely to side with<\/a> the administration.<\/p>\n \u201cBut this seems like a situation,\u201d the attorney adds, \u201cwhere a lot of juries might rebel at what might be perceived as an overreach of government authority,\u201d even if they believe the defendant is guilty: We\u2019re going to find this person not guilty, and F you for bringing this case!<\/em> <\/p>\n Even if the group or individual prevails in court, however, the time and money required to defend against such actions is a major drain on resources\u2014and a distraction from a group\u2019s charitable mission. So even if a vindictive government loses in the courtroom, it still wins by harassing its foes.<\/p>\n This whole episode,<\/span> assuming the administration moves ahead with its plans, represents a wild about-face<\/a>. After taking over the House in 2010, congressional Republicans were so incensed by the IRS\u2019s investigation of sketchy tea party groups under Obama that they set about gutting the IRS\u2019s enforcement budget, and launched a series of dog-and-pony House hearings to justify further cuts. Representing the government at one 2015 hearing<\/a> was Koskinen, who had described the evisceration of his budget as \u201ca tax cut for tax cheats.\u201d<\/p>\n Indeed, those cuts decimated the taxman\u2019s ability to conduct audits of wealthy, sophisticated individuals and businesses. A Democratic-led Congress finally restored ample funding under President Joe Biden\u2014an effort Republicans tried to defeat by spreading disinformation<\/a>. But the GOP has since succeeded in rescinding the lion\u2019s share, not to mention the Trump administration\u2019s layoffs of virtually all IRS employees hired under Biden, which included lawyers capable of tackling those high-level audits.<\/p>\n If the IRS goes after liberal groups as promised, another former agency higher-up told me, it would fall upon the Treasury Department\u2019s Office of the Inspector General (TOIG) to investigate complaints and determine whether there was, in fact, improper politicization of tax enforcement. But in this era of rampant abnormality, it\u2019s unclear that the normal oversight process will stand.<\/p>\n Soon after taking office, Trump unceremoniously fired inspectors general throughout the government. On the list for dismissal was Loren Sciurba, a career deputy inspector general<\/a> then standing in at TOIG, which didn\u2019t have a confirmed chief. When that office reached out to the White House for clarification on its intent, noting that Sciurba wasn\u2019t even in an \u201cacting\u201d role, it got no reply, and Sciurba apparently stayed on<\/a>\u2014he\u2019s still listed as IG on the office\u2019s website<\/a>. (Sciurba did not respond to a message left for him at home.)<\/p>\n Regardless of the outcome, the mere appearance that the IRS is willing to do the administration\u2019s bidding \u201cwill undermine the average taxpayer\u2019s confidence that the IRS is acting solely on the merits of the case rather than pursuing a political vendetta when they are contacted by the IRS,\u201d Koskinen says. \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe fear generated by this action is totally inconsistent with the goal of having a government that follows the law rather than doing whatever it pleases or is asked to do by the president,\u201d he continues.\u00a0And the administration\u2019s goal, per the Wall Street Journal<\/em>, of trying \u201cto remove to the extent possible the Chief Counsel\u2019s office from criminal enforcement indicates that following the law is not a goal.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\n
\n