49–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 114–69 

IRS EMAIL TRANSPARENCY ACT 

APRIL 13, 2015.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, from the Committee on Ways and Means, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 1152] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 1152) to prohibit officers and employees of the Internal 

Revenue Service from using personal email accounts to conduct official business, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended 

do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND ................................................................. 2 

A. Purpose and Summary ......................................................................... 2 

B. Background and Need for Legislation ................................................ 2 

C. Legislative History ............................................................................... 2 

II. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL ...................................................................... 3 

A. Prohibition of Use of Personal E-mail for Official Government 

Business (sec. 2 of the bill) ................................................................ 3 

III. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE ...................................................................... 4 

IV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL ............................................................... 5 

A. Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects ......................................... 5 

B. Statement Regarding New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures Budget Authority ...................................................................... 5 

C. Cost Estimate Prepared by the Congressional Budget Office ........... 5 

V. OTHER MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE RULES OF THE 

HOUSE .......................................................................................................... 6 

A. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations .................... 6 

B. Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives ................ 6 

C. Information Relating to Unfunded Mandates .................................... 6 

D. Applicability of House Rule XXI 5(b) .................................................. 6 

E. Tax Complexity Analysis ..................................................................... 7 

F. Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff 

Benefits ............................................................................................... 7 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
2 

G. Duplication of Federal Programs ........................................................ 7 

H. Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ................................................. 7 

VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED 8 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘IRS Email Transparency Act’’. 

SEC. 2. IRS EMPLOYEES PROHIBITED FROM USING PERSONAL EMAIL ACCOUNTS FOR OFFICIAL BUSINESS. 

No officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service may use a personal email 

account to conduct any official business of the Government. 

I. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND 

A. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 1152, reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, prohibits employees of the Internal Revenue Service (‘‘IRS’’) from 

using a personal email account to conduct any official business, 

codifying an established administrative policy barring the use of 

personal email accounts by IRS employees for official governmental 

business. 

B. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Federal agencies are required to preserve certain documents defined as ‘‘records’’ under applicable law regardless of form. However, there is no requirement to retain all documents. Agencies’ retention and disposal policies must comport with procedures dictated by the Archivist of the United States. Agencies are required 

to provide instruction to employees and contractors regarding the 

use of email. The use of personal email accounts for agency business is discouraged, but not actually prohibited by law or regulation. 

In addition to Federal record retention requirements, the IRS is 

entrusted with sensitive and confidential taxpayer information. The 

Tax Code imposes criminal and civil penalties for the unauthorized 

use, inspection, or disclosure of such information. Because of the 

sensitive nature of taxpayer information and the need to retain official records, the IRS has instituted policies restricting the use of 

personal email accounts. In 2012, the agency revised the Internal 

Revenue Manual, banning the use of non-IRS or Treasury email accounts for any official purpose. 

Notwithstanding internal IRS policy, the Committee’s investigation of the agency’s targeting practices revealed that the former Director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division, Lois Lerner, 

among others, conducted official business involving taxpayer information, using a personal email account. 

C. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Background 

H.R. 1152 was introduced on February 27, 2015, and was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. The same legislation, 

H.R. 5418, passed the House of Representatives in the 113th Congress under suspension of the rules by voice vote on September 16, 

2014. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
3 

1 44 U.S.C. sec. 3101. See 44 U.S.C. sec. 3301 for a definition of Federal records that generally 

includes all documentary materials that agencies receive or create in the conduct of official business and that may have evidentiary value with respect to official business, regardless of the 

physical form of the materials. 2See generally Title 44, at chapter 29 (records management by the Archivist of the United 

States and the General Services Administration), chapter 31 (records management of Federal 

agencies) and chapter 33 (disposal of records). 3 36 CFR sec. 1236.22(a). 

4 A quarterly bulletin published by the National Archives and Records Administration provides guidance to executive agencies. See generally NARA Bulletin 2013–03, available at http:// 

www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/bulletins/2013/2013-03.html. 5Sec. 6103(a). 

6See secs. 7213 (criminal unauthorized disclosure), 7213A (criminal unauthorized inspection) 

and 7431 (civil remedy for unauthorized inspection or disclosure). 

Committee action 

The Committee on Ways and Means marked up H.R. 1152, the 

‘‘Email Transparency Act,’’ on March 25, 2015, and ordered the bill, 

as amended, favorably reported (with a quorum being present) by 

voice vote. 

Committee hearings 

The need for permanent rules against the use of personal email 

use for official purposes was discussed during multiple Committee 

hearings during the 113th Congress: • Oversight Subcommittee Hearing on the IRS Exempt Organizations Division Post-U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration Audit Report (September 18, 2013). • Oversight Subcommittee Hearing with IRS Commissioner 

Koskinen (February 5, 2014). • Oversight Subcommittee Hearing on the IRS Operations and 

the 2014 Tax Return Filing Season (May 7, 2014). • Full Committee Hearing with IRS Commissioner Koskinen 

(June 20, 2014). 

II. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL 

A. PROHIBITION OF USE OF PERSONAL E-MAIL FOR OFFICIAL

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS (SEC. 2 OF THE BILL) 

PRESENT LAW

Federal executive agencies are required to maintain and preserve 

Federal records,1 whether in paper or electronic form, and protect 

against unauthorized removal of such records. Policies for the retention and disposal of records must conform to the requirements 

of the record-management procedures, as implemented by the Archivist of the United States.2 Email accounts are specifically included within the scope of records subject to the record-retention 

policies.3 Each agency is required to provide instruction and guidance to persons conducting business on behalf of the agency, including employees, officers and contractors, and use of personal 

email accounts for agency business is to be discouraged.4

The government-wide record-management requirements are in 

addition to the obligations to protect the sensitive information for 

which IRS is responsible. Tax information is sensitive and confidential.5 The Code imposes civil and criminal penalties to protect 

it from unauthorized use, inspection or disclosure.6 As a condition 

of receiving tax data, outside agencies must establish to the satisfaction of the IRS that they have adequate programs and security 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
4 

7Sec. 6103(p)(4). 

8 I.R.M. paragraphs 1.10.3 et seq., and 11.3.1. 9 I.R.M. paragraph 10.8.1.4.6.3.1, ‘‘Privately Owned E-Mail Accounts.’’ (May 3, 2012). 

protocols in place to protect the data received.7 Personal email computer storage systems are not inspected by the IRS for security. 

Given the sensitive and confidential nature of the information 

handled by the IRS and the need to be accountable for all agency 

records, IRS policies restrict the use of email accounts.8 Transmission of Federal tax information is only permitted outside the 

IRS in limited circumstances. In 2012, the IRS published a revised 

section of its manual in which it updated its administrative rules 

on e-records generally, and banned use of non-IRS/Treasury email 

for any governmental or official purpose.9

REASONS FOR CHANGE

The Committee is concerned that IRS employees have continued 

to use personal email to conduct official business, contrary to administrative rules. By doing so, IRS employees place sensitive information at risk of disclosure, whether deliberately or inadvertently. In addition, to the extent that official conduct is reflected in 

emails on personal accounts and not in the IRS systems, the integrity of IRS record systems is compromised, making tax administration less transparent and officials less accountable. The Committee 

believes that the security and confidentiality of information gathered in the course of official business must be safeguarded, and 

records of official actions with respect to such material must be 

properly maintained in order to maintain public trust in the accountability of the IRS. Accordingly, notwithstanding the existing 

administrative rules that discourage the use of email for official 

business, the Committee believes that a statutory ban on use of 

nongovernmental email accounts by IRS employees conducting official business is necessary. 

EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

The provision bars use of personal email accounts by IRS employees for official government business. 

EFFECTIVE DATE

The provision is effective on the date of enactment. 

III. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE 

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statement is made concerning the vote of the Committee on Ways and Means in its consideration of H.R. 1152, the ‘‘IRS Email Transparency Act,’’ on 

March 25, 2015. 

The Chairman’s amendment in the nature of a substitute was 

adopted by a voice vote (with a quorum being present). 

The bill, H.R. 1152, as amended, was ordered favorably reported 

to the House of Representatives by a voice vote (with a quorum 

being present). 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
5 

IV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL 

A. COMMITTEE ESTIMATE OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS

In compliance with clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statement is made concerning the effects on the budget of the bill, H.R. 1152 as reported. 

The bill, as reported, is estimated to have no effect on Federal 

budget receipts for fiscal years 2015–2025. 

Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the following statement is made by the Joint Committee on Taxation with respect to the provisions of the bill amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986: the gross budgetary effect 

(before incorporating macroeconomic effects) in any fiscal year is 

less than 0.25 percent of the current projected gross domestic product of the United States for that fiscal year; therefore, the bill is 

not ‘‘major legislation’’ for purposes of requiring that the estimate 

include the budgetary effects of changes in economic output, employment, capital stock and other macroeconomic variables. 

B. STATEMENT REGARDING NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX

EXPENDITURES BUDGET AUTHORITY

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee states that the bill involves no new or increased budget authority. The Committee further states that there are no new or increased tax expenditures. 

C. COST ESTIMATE PREPARED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET

OFFICE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, requiring a cost estimate prepared by 

the CBO, the following statement by CBO is provided. 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, April 3, 2015. 

Hon. PAUL RYAN, 

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1152, the IRS Email 

Transparency Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 1152—IRS Email Transparency Act 

H.R. 1152 would amend federal law to prohibit Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS) employees from using personal email accounts to perform any official government business. CBO estimates that enactVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:54 Apr 16, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR069.XXX HR069

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
6 

ing the legislation would have no significant impact on the federal 

budget. 

Under current law, email records (official and personal) created 

in the course of official business are considered to be federal 

records. Guidance from the National Archives and Records Administration states that employees should generally not use personal 

email accounts to conduct official business. The IRS currently has 

a policy that employees should not contact taxpayers through social 

media or text messages. Consequently, CBO estimates that implementing this bill would not have a significant effect on the agency’s 

operations or administrative costs. CBO and the staff of the Joint 

Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting the bill would 

not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

CBO and JCT have determined that H.R. 1152 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of 

state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew Pickford. The 

estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

V. OTHER MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE 

RULES OF THE HOUSE 

A. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives (relating to oversight findings), the Committee advises that it was as a result of the Committee’s review of 

the provisions of H.R. 1152 that the Committee concluded that it 

is appropriate to report the bill, as amended, favorably to the 

House of Representatives with the recommendation that the bill do 

pass. 

B. STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the bill contains no measure that authorizes funding, so no statement of general performance goals and objectives for which any measure authorizes funding is required. 

C. INFORMATION RELATING TO UNFUNDED MANDATES

This information is provided in accordance with section 423 of 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104–4). 

The Committee has determined that the bill does not contain Federal mandates on the private sector. The Committee has determined that the bill does not impose a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate on State, local, or tribal governments. 

D. APPLICABILITY OF HOUSE RULE XXI 5(b) 

Rule XXI 5(b) of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides, in part, that ‘‘A bill or joint resolution, amendment, or conference report carrying a Federal income tax rate increase may not 

be considered as passed or agreed to unless so determined by a 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
7 

vote of not less than three-fifths of the Members voting, a quorum 

being present.’’ The Committee has carefully reviewed the bill, and 

states that the bill does not involve any Federal income tax rate 

increases within the meaning of the rule. 

E. TAX COMPLEXITY ANALYSIS

The following statement is made pursuant to clause 3(h)(1) of 

rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Section 

4022(b) of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform 

Act of 1998 requires the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation 

(in consultation with the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department) to provide a tax complexity analysis. The complexity analysis is required for all legislation reported by the Senate Committee on Finance, the House Committee on Ways and 

Means, or any committee of conference if the legislation includes a 

provision that directly or indirectly amends the Internal Revenue 

Code and has widespread applicability to individuals or small businesses. 

Pursuant to clause 3(h)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation 

has determined that a complexity analysis is not required under 

section 4022(b) of the IRS Reform Act because the bill contains no 

provisions that amend the Internal Revenue Code and that have 

‘‘widespread applicability’’ to individuals or small businesses, within the meaning of the rule. 

F. CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND

LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS

With respect to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee has carefully reviewed the provisions of the bill, and states that the provisions of the bill do not 

contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 

tariff benefits within the meaning of the rule. 

G. DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

In compliance with Sec. 3(g)(2) of H. Res. 5 (114th Congress), the 

Committee states that no provision of the bill establishes or reauthorizes: (1) a program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, (2) a program included in any 

report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139, or (3) a program related 

to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, published pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act (Public Law 95–220, as amended by Public Law 98– 

169). 

H. DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

In compliance with Sec. 3(i) of H. Res. 5 (114th Congress), the 

following statement is made concerning directed rule makings: The 

Committee estimates that the bill requires no directed rule makings within the meaning of such section. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
8 

VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS 

REPORTED 

With respect to clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the bill, as reported, includes no provisions proposing to repeal or amend an existing statute or part thereof. 

Therefore, no additional materials otherwise required to be included in this report or an accompanying document under that 

clause are required to be included with respect to this bill. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE