HEARING ON INTERNAL REVENUE 

SERVICE TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS

ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of May 17, 2013 announcing the hearing .............................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Steve Miller, Acting Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service ................. 21 

J. Russell George, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration ............. 9 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
HEARING ON INTERNAL REVENUE 

SERVICE TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 17, 2013

SERIAL 113–FC07 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS

ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–457 2016

HEARING ON INTERNAL REVENUE 

SERVICE TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 17, 2013 

SERIAL 113–FC07 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan,Chairman 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

TOM REED, New York 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

JIM RENACCI, Ohio 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JENNIFER M. SAFAVIAN, Staff Director and General Counsel 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of May 17, 2013 announcing the hearing .............................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Steve Miller, Acting Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service ................. 21 

J. Russell George, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration ............. 9 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS

ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
(1) 

HEARING ON INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 

TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS 

FRIDAY, MAY 17, 2013 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 1100, 

Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Dave Camp 

[chairman of the committee] presiding. 

[The advisory of the hearing follows:] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
2 

HEARING ADVISORY 

Chairman Camp Announces Hearing on Internal 

Revenue Service Targeting Conservative Groups 

Washington, May 13, 2013 

Congressman Dave Camp, (R–MI), Chairman of the Committee on Ways and 

Means, and Congressman Sander Levin (D–MI), Ranking Member of the Ways and 

Means Committee, today announced that the Committee will hold a hearing on the 

Internal Revenue Service (‘‘IRS’’) practice of targeting applicants for tax-exempt status based on political leanings. The hearing will take place on Friday, May 17, 

2013, in Room 1100 of the Longworth House Office Building, beginning at 

9:00 A.M. 

Acting Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Mr. Steve Miller, and the 

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, J. Russell George, will be the 

only witnesses at the hearing. However, any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by 

the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND: 

Since June 2011, the Committee on Ways and Means has been investigating 

whether the Internal Revenue Service discriminated against taxpayers based on political opinions. News reports indicate that the agency is now admitting this past 

practice. 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Camp said, ‘‘The American public expects the Internal Revenue Service to be apolitical in its enforcement of 

our tax laws. News that the agency admits it targeted American taxpayers 

based on politics is both astounding and appalling. The Committee on Ways 

and Means will get to the bottom of this practice and ensure it never takes 

place again.’’ 

In announcing the hearing, Ranking Member Sander Levin said, ‘‘The American 

people must have the fullest confidence that organizations requesting tax 

exemption receive completely unbiased treatment from the Internal Revenue Service and are never singled out by name or political views. The nation deserves a complete understanding of this matter, and as Chairman 

Camp and I discussed this morning, it is essential that there be a thorough 

and bipartisan investigation and effective remedial action.’’ 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will focus on the Internal Revenue Service’s practice of discriminating against applicants for tax-exempt status based on the political leanings of 

the applicants. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit written comments for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page 

of the Committee website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Hearings’’ Select the hearing for which you would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Click here 

to provide a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, submit all requested information. ATTACH your submission as a Word document, in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below, by the close 

of business on Thursday, May 30, 2013. Finally, please note that due to the 

change in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:09 Jul 09, 2016 Jkt 089457 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\89457.XXX 89457

ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
3 

liveries to all House Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical 

problems, please call (202) 225–3625 or (202) 225–5522. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing 

record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, 

but we reserve the right to format it according to our guidelines. Any submission 

provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for 

the printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for written 

comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will 

be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word format and MUST 

NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised 

that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. 

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. 

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material 

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use 

by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

name, company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness. 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World 

Wide Web at http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov

f 

/. 

Chairman CAMP. The Committee on Ways and Means will come 

to order. 

On May 10th, Lois Lerner, Director of Exempt Organizations for 

the Internal Revenue Service division that oversees tax exempt 

groups, finally acknowledged that the agency had been targeting 

conservative-leaning political organizations. Four days later the 

Treasury Inspector General for Taxpayer Administration confirmed 

that ‘‘The IRS used inappropriate criteria to identify organizations 

applying for tax exempt status.’’ The report also confirmed that 

this abuse of power began as far back as 2010. 

This revelation goes against the very principles of free speech 

and liberty upon which this country was founded. The blatant disregard with which the agency has treated Congress and the American taxpayer raises serious concerns about leadership at the IRS. 

Let’s establish the facts that we do know. Based on the TIGTA 

report we know that for an 18-month period beginning in spring 

2010 IRS employees in the agency’s Determinations Unit employed 

key words such as ‘‘tea party,’’ ‘‘Patriot’’ and ‘‘9⁄12’’ to target applications for tax exempt status. These groups were then subjected to 

further IRS investigation and document requests. IRS employees 

later expanded their search to include groups concerned about government spending, debt, taxes, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, 

or trying to ‘‘make America a better place to live.’’ Let me repeat 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
4 

that. People were targeted for trying to make America a better 

place to live. 

These Americans had their applications delayed for nearly 3 

years and at least 98 applicants were asked for improper and inappropriate information such as donor lists and whether family members planned to run for political office. During that delay and while 

applications of conservative groups sat untouched for more than a 

year, other applications with names like ‘‘progress’’ and ‘‘progressive’’ were approved in just a matter of months. The headline in 

USA Today from earlier this week really says it all. ‘‘IRS gave liberals a pass; Tea Party groups put on hold.’’ 

TIGTA’s audit found that some of those cases should have been 

set aside because of concerns related to their potential political activity, but no such review was done. Without objection, I enter the 

USA Today news report into the record. 

[The news article follows:] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
5 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.017.eps
6 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.018.eps
7 

Chairman CAMP. This week we learned that senior IRS officials 

knew about this activity almost 2 years ago in June of 2011 and 

IRS’s leadership in Washington knew of it in May 2012, a year ago. 

Despite a 2-year long investigation by this committee, the IRS 

never told the American people or their representatives about this 

simple truth. In fact, we were repeatedly told no such targeting 

was happening. That isn’t being misled, that is lying. 

But now we know the truth, or at least some of it. We also know 

that these revelations are just the tip of the iceberg. It would be 

a mistake to treat this as just one scandal. This may be the one 

generating headlines, but in total I count at least five serious violations of taxpayer rights, the right to be treated fairly, honestly and 

impartially by their government. 

First, back in August of 2010 a White House official discussed 

the status of a private company, the tax status of a private company, a clear intimidation tactic. 

Second, in June of 2010 the targeting of conservative groups 

began. 

Third, in May of 2011 the IRS started to threaten donors to conservative-leaning nonprofits that they were liable for certain taxes. 

Fourth, in March of 2012 the Huffington Post published a confidential 2008 donor list of the National Organization for Marriage, 

a conservative tax exempt organization. 

Fifth, but unlikely the final transgression, Pro Publica announced that the IRS had leaked confidential applications for tax 

exempt status from conservative groups. 

Mr. Miller, with all due respect, this systematic abuse cannot be 

fixed with just one resignation or two, and as much as I expect 

more people need to go, the reality is this is not a personnel problem. This is a problem of the IRS being too large, too powerful, too 

intrusive and too abusive of honest, hard-working taxpayers. 

There isn’t a person I come into contact with at home or anyone 

in this country frankly who does not fear the IRS. They fear getting something wrong on their tax filing and they fear the IRS’s 

ability to audit them and wreak havoc in their lives, especially 

when all they are trying to do is improve their lives, let alone, God 

forbid, trying to make America a better place to live, which is what 

the IRS targeted them for. 

Under that kind of thinking, every civic group in America is at 

risk, the Knights of Columbus, the Rotary, the Jaycees, the American Legion and VFW clubs. I am sure you are aware of the saying 

that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Well, under this administration the IRS has abused its power to tax and it has destroyed what little faith and hope the American people had in getting a fair shake in Washington. 

This will not stand. Trimming a few branches will not solve the 

problem when the roots of the tree have gone rotten. And that is 

exactly what has happened with our entire tax system. It is rotten 

at the core and it must be ripped out so we can start fresh. Only 

then will the American people get a tax system that treats them 

fairly and honestly as they deserve. And while that is a larger discussion, it is directly tied to the issue before us today, how and why 

our tax system has gone so far off track. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
8 

Many questions still remain. Why did the IRS repeatedly target 

the American people and then keep that fact covered up for so 

long? Who started the targeting? Who knew? When did they know 

and how high did it go? Who leaked the private taxpayer information? Why were the names of donors asked for and what was done 

with those lists before they were supposedly discarded? And when 

did the administration know about each of these and what was its 

reaction? 

Listening to the nightly news, this appears to be just the latest 

example of a culture of cover-up and political intimidation in this 

administration. It seems like the truth is hidden from the American people just long enough to make it through an election. 

The American people have a right to the truth, to a government 

that delivers the facts, good or bad, no matter what. President 

Obama promised to be different and to deliver a better government, 

the most transparent in history. He was right, America deserves 

better. It is time to end the corruption at the IRS and fix a Tax 

Code that allows Washington and the IRS to pick who wins and 

who loses in America. 

I expect nothing less than total cooperation by the IRS and this 

administration as we investigate what happened and what we 

must do to fix it. 

I now recognize Ranking Member Levin for the purpose of his 

opening statement and thank him for his commitment to pursue 

this issue. 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to read my 

opening statement. I will expand on it a bit, now that I have heard 

the opening statement of the chairman. 

This committee on a bipartisan basis takes seriously its oversight 

role and we are fully committed to ensuring an IRS that serves the 

American people fairly and efficiently. What is now completely 

clear is that the management and oversight of the agency’s handling of tax-exemption applications have completely failed the 

American people. I emphasize that. As we know from the Inspector 

General’s audit, the agency used totally inappropriate criteria in its 

review of tax-exemption applications, singling out organizations for 

review based on their name or political views rather than their actual activities. 

These criteria changed four times over 2 years with little management review or oversight. Applications sat for years. Work 

stopped for 13 months while one department waited to hear back 

from another. Questions were asked that were not necessary. 

Again, no oversight, no accountability. All of us are angry at this 

on behalf of the Nation and we are determined to get answers to 

our questions about how this happened to ensure that it does not 

happen again. 

Finally, throughout this time the IRS leadership has demonstrated a total disregard for the oversight role of the Congress 

and this committee. Former IRS Commissioner Shulman testified 

in front of us in March 2012 and said that ‘‘no targeting’’ was going 

on. Two months later he was briefed on the IG’s investigation and 

was fully informed that indeed singling out by name had occurred 

on his watch. He had an obligation to return to this committee and 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
9 

set the record straight. So did Mr. Miller. Neither fulfilled their obligations. 

A little more than a week ago Lois Lerner was in front of our 

Oversight Subcommittee. She serves as the Director of the Exempt 

Organization Division and she has been directly involved in this 

matter. Yet she failed to disclose what she knew to this committee, 

choosing instead to do so at an ABA conference 2 days later. This 

is wholly unacceptable and one of the reasons that we believe, and 

as I stated several days ago, Ms. Lerner should be relieved of her 

duties. 

Chairman Camp and I put together this hearing on a bipartisan 

basis to get the facts. We must seek the truth, not political gain. 

I just want to add in that regard, Mr. Camp has said listening 

to the nightly news this appears to be just the latest example of 

a culture of cover-ups and political intimidation in this Administration. It seems like the truth is hidden from the American people 

just long enough to make it through an election. 

I totally, totally disagree. If this hearing becomes essentially a 

bootstrap to continue the campaign of 2012 and to prepare for 

2014, we will be making a very, very serious mistake and indeed 

not meeting our obligation of trust to the American people. 

You are here today, Mr. Miller, you are here today, the Inspector 

General, to talk about what happened, how it happened, where it 

happened and who knew what when. And if instead this hearing 

essentially becomes an effort to score political points, it will be a 

disregard of the duties of this committee. 

So I conclude with the sentence we must seek the truth, not political gain. We look forward to full and forthcoming answers to our 

questions today. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. Before the witnesses are recognized for their opening statements I will first swear them in. While 

this is the prerogative of every committee chair, it has not been the 

custom here at Ways and Means, but then it is not customary for 

this committee to have been so repeatedly misled by an agency 

under its purview. So while it is always against the law to provide 

false statements to Congress, the act of swearing in a witness impresses upon him or her the gravity of the proceeding and the need 

to tell the full and complete truth. 

Please raise your right hands. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but 

the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. MILLER. I do. 

Mr. GEORGE. I do. 

Chairman CAMP. Let the record reflect the witnesses answered 

in the affirmative. Thank you. 

I would like to welcome J. Russell George, who has been the 

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. I think we will 

wait for the camera pool to leave at this point. 

Thank you. I would like to welcome J. Russell George, who has 

been the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration since 

2002, and Mr. Steven Miller, who is currently the Acting Commissioner for the IRS. Thank you both for being with us today. You 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
10 

will each have five minutes to present your testimony, with your 

full written testimony submitted for the record. 

Mr. George, we will begin with you. You are recognized for 5 

minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE J. RUSSELL GEORGE, 

TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. GEORGE. Chairman Camp, Ranking Member Levin, Members of the Committee, thank you very much for the opportunity 

to discuss our report concerning oversight by the Internal Revenue 

Service of groups that apply for tax exempt status. As you are 

aware, the organization that I lead, the Treasury Inspector General 

for Tax Administration, protects the integrity of the Federal tax 

system. Our audit was initiated based on concerns expressed by 

Members of Congress because of taxpayer allegations that they 

were subject to unfair treatment by the IRS. 

Our report issued earlier this week addresses three allegations: 

First, that the IRS targeted specific groups applying for tax exempt 

status; second, that they delayed the processing of these groups’ applications; and, third, that the IRS requested unnecessary information from groups it subjected to special scrutiny. All three allegations were substantiated. 

The IRS used inappropriate criteria to target for review Tea 

Party and other organizations based on their name and policy positions. This practice started in 2010 and continued to evolve until 

June of 2011. As the monitor shows, the IRS was following inappropriate criteria. Let me read to you these criteria from a briefing 

held by the IRS’s exempt organizations function in June of 2011. 

The criteria included the words ‘‘tea party,’’ ‘‘patriots’’ or ‘‘9/12 

project.’’ Another listed criterion was that the groups’ issues included government spending, government debt or taxes. Yet another listing criteria appeared as education of the public by advocacy or lobbying to ‘‘make America a better place to live.’’ Finally, 

the criterion consisted of any statements in the case file criticizing 

how the country is being run. 

The reason these criteria were inappropriate is that they did not 

focus on tax exempt laws and Treasury regulations. For example, 

501(c)(3) organizations may not engage in political campaign intervention. 501(c)(4) organizations can, but it must not be their primary activity. Political campaign intervention is action taken on 

behalf of or against a particular candidate running for office. 

Although these criteria appeared in the IRS’s own documentation 

as of June 2011, IRS employees actually began selecting Tea Party 

and other organizations for review in early 2010. From May of 

2010 through May of 2012, a team of IRS specialists in Cincinnati, 

Ohio, referred to as the Determinations Unit selected 298 cases for 

additional scrutiny. According to our findings, the first time that 

executives from Washington, D.C. became aware of the use of these 

criteria was June 2011 with some executives not becoming aware 

of the criteria until April or May of 2012. 

The IRS’s inappropriate criteria remained in effect for approximately 18 months. After learning of the inappropriate criteria, the 

Director of Exempt Organizations changed the criteria in July of 

2011 to remove references to organization names and policy posiVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:09 Jul 09, 2016 Jkt 089457 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\89457.XXX 89457

ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
11 

tions. However, Cincinnati staff changed the criteria back to target 

organizations with specific policy positions, but this time they did 

not include Tea Party or other named organizations. Finally, in 

May of 2012, after learning that the criteria had again been 

changed, the Exempt Organizations Director of Rulings and Agreements changed the criteria to be consistent with laws and regulations. 

The organizations selected for review for significant political 

campaign intervention, again 298 in all, experienced substantial 

delays in the processing of their applications. The organizations experiencing these delays included Tea Party organizations, patriot 

organizations, 9/12 organizations among other organizations. 

As shown on the monitor, the status as of December 2012 for 296 

cases that we reviewed was 108 cases had been approved, 28 cases 

were withdrawn, and 160 cases were still open. Zero cases had 

been denied. Of the cases still open, some had been in progress for 

over three years and crossed two election cycles without resolution. 

Of the 108 cases approved, 31 were Tea Party, 9/12 or patriot organizations. 

My final point is that the IRS requested unnecessary information 

for many political cases. In fact, 98 of 170 cases that received follow-up requests for information from the IRS had unnecessary 

questions. Our evidence indicates that staff at the Determinations 

Unit in Cincinnati sent these letters out with little or no supervisory review. The IRS later determined these questions were 

unneeded, but not until after media accounts and questions by 

Members of Congress arose in March of 2012. 

Examples of the unnecessary information requested included the 

names of past and future donors, listings of all issues important to 

the organization and what the organizations’ positions were regarding such issues, and whether officers or directors have run for public office or would be running for public office in the future. 

Months after receiving these questions, 12 of the 98 organizations either received a letter or a telephone call from the IRS stating that their applications were approved and they no longer needed to respond to the additional requests. The IRS informed another 

15 organizations that they did not need to respond to previous requests for information and instead they were sent a revised request 

for information. Regarding the donor information received from applicants, the IRS informed us that they destroyed that information. 

In closing, our audit found clear evidence that each of the three 

allegations were correct. Was the IRS using inappropriate criteria 

in its review of organizations applying for tax exempt status? Yes. 

Was the IRS delaying their applications? Yes. And, finally, did the 

IRS ask inappropriate and unnecessary questions of applicants? 

Again, yes. 

These findings have raised troubling questions about whether 

the IRS has effective management oversight and control, at least 

in the Exempt Organizations function, so that the public can be reassured that the IRS is impartial in administering the Nation’s tax 

laws fairly. 

Chairman Camp, Ranking Member Levin, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present my views. I look 

forward to your questions. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
12 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you, Mr. George. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. George follows:] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.006.eps
13 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.007.eps
14 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.008.eps
15 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.009.eps
16 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.010.eps
17 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.011.eps
18 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.012.eps
19 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.013.eps
20 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.014.eps
21 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.015.eps
22 

f 

Chairman CAMP. Mr. Miller, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.016.eps
23 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVEN T. MILLER, ACTING 

COMMISSIONER, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR SERVICES AND ENFORCEMENT 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the opportunity to be here today. Unfortunately, given time considerations, 

we received the notice of hearing within the last 2 days, the IRS 

was unable to prepare written testimony. I would note that I have 

a very brief statement before I take your questions. 

First and foremost, as Acting Commissioner I want to apologize 

on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service for the mistakes that we 

made and the poor service we provided. The affected organizations 

and the American public deserve better. Partisanship or even the 

perception of partisanship has no place at the IRS. It cannot even 

appear to be a consideration in determining the tax exemption of 

an organization. 

I do not believe that partisanship motivated the people who engaged in the practices described in the Treasury Inspector General’s report. I have reviewed the Treasury Inspector General’s report and I believe its conclusions are consistent with that. I think 

that what happened here was that foolish mistakes were made by 

people trying to be more efficient in their workload selection. The 

listings described in the report, while intolerable, was a mistake 

and not an act of partisanship. 

The agency is moving forward. It has learned its lesson. We have 

previously worked to correct issues in the processing of the cases 

described in the report and we have implemented changes to make 

sure that this type of thing never happens again. Now that TIGTA 

has completed its fact finding and issued its report, management 

will take appropriate action with respect to those responsible. 

I would be happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
24 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.000.eps
25 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.001.eps
26 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.002.eps
27 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.003.eps
28 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.004.eps
29 

f 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Are you still 

Acting Commissioner of the IRS? 

Mr. MILLER. I am, sir. 

Chairman CAMP. And were you appointed by the President of 

the United States to that position? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

Chairman CAMP. And when was that? 

Mr. MILLER. I was designated as acting in November of 2012. 

Chairman CAMP. 2012. And if I am not mistaken, you hold actually two titles, Acting Commissioner of the IRS and also Deputy 

Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.005.eps
30 

Mr. MILLER. I do, sir. 

Chairman CAMP. And in your role as Deputy Commissioner for 

Services and Enforcement, according to the IRS website in that capacity you direct and oversee all major decisions with regard to the 

Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division? 

Mr. MILLER. That is a division that reports through—to me 

through the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Office, yes. 

Chairman CAMP. So the website is accurate? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

Chairman CAMP. And then who do you report to in that position, actually in both of your positions, first as Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement? 

Mr. MILLER. In the Deputy Commissioner role I would report 

to the Commissioner, if there was one. Without a Commissioner 

and holding both hats, I would report to the Deputy Secretary. 

Chairman CAMP. Of—— 

Mr. MILLER. Treasury. 

Chairman CAMP. Treasury. And is it not a violation of IRC 6103 

to disclose confidential America taxpayer information? 

Mr. MILLER. It is. 

Chairman CAMP. And that really applies to all taxpayer information? 

Mr. MILLER. I am not quite sure what that means, to be honest. 

Chairman CAMP. In practice, it is basically all tax—it is not just 

the return, it is—— 

Mr. MILLER. 6103 obligates us not to disclose taxpayer information. 

Chairman CAMP. Were you ever made aware in August of 2010 

that a White House official in a conference call with reporters disclosed the confidential tax structure of a private company? 

Mr. MILLER. I probably read it in the paper, sir. 

Chairman CAMP. Okay. You were made aware through news reports? 

Mr. MILLER. I think that is probably it. It was a long time ago. 

Chairman CAMP. Did you take any steps when you learned of 

that? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t recall. I am not—I don’t recall. I will have 

to get back to you on that, sir. 

Chairman CAMP. So you didn’t inform the Inspector General of 

that or your superiors that you recollect? 

Mr. MILLER. I am not sure why I would have to notify the superiors. It was in the papers. I don’t remember whether we made a 

referral or I made a referral at that time. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. According to the Inspector General 

audit, the targeting of conservative groups began in March of 2010. 

When were you made aware? 

Mr. MILLER. I was aware of that on May 3rd of 2012. 

Chairman CAMP. And how were you made aware? 

Mr. MILLER. I was made aware of not the targeting, but I was 

made aware of the process that was described in the TIGTA report 

when I asked some of our people to go out and take a look at the 

cases subsequent to the public discussion of over broad letters coming out. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
31 

Chairman CAMP. So that would have been in your role as Acting 

Director as well as the Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement? 

Mr. MILLER. No, I was deputy at that time. 

Chairman CAMP. You were deputy at that time. And when you 

say you asked some of our people, who would that have been? 

Mr. MILLER. So I asked the senior technical adviser for Tax Exempt and Government Entities to lead a team and take a look and 

see what was going on in terms of cases that had gotten those letters. 

Chairman CAMP. Did you inform anyone of that action that you 

took or those steps? 

Mr. MILLER. So I did that. I mean, I asked the senior technical 

adviser to do that in late March, March 23rd or 26th, something 

like that, and she and her team came back to talk to me in May, 

and subsequent to that I am sure I informed the Commissioner. 

But the Commissioner was aware of the letters as well. 

Chairman CAMP. Did you inform anyone other than the Commissioner at that time? 

Mr. MILLER. You mean up the chain, sir? 

Chairman CAMP. Yes. 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t believe so. 

Chairman CAMP. Or the Inspector General? 

Mr. MILLER. The Inspector General was aware of it and had 

made it clear to us they were aware of it and were in looking at 

it at that time. 

Chairman CAMP. Okay. Was there a time when you became 

aware of the IRS launching audits against conservative donors? 

That would have been in about May of 2010. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. I don’t remember the date, sir, but, yes, in 

that time frame. Again, there were press accounts and 

Congressionals coming in and talking about that. 

Chairman CAMP. And did you learn that from the press or did 

you learn that from inquiries from Congress? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t know. It could have been either. It came up 

in a meeting and then it hit the press, and so I don’t know. 

Chairman CAMP. In any event, after learning of that information of the audit, what steps did you take? 

Mr. MILLER. We investigated what happened, we took a look, 

and ultimately I issued a directive that said that the law in the 

area was not that clear, that we had not been enforcing in that 

area substantially since the period of I believe a 1982 or something 

like that revenue ruling that talked about gift tax and (c)(4) organizations, and I said let’s not enforce right now. Let’s talk about it, 

let’s study it, and we will put out guidance, and that guidance will 

be prospective. I thought that was the fair thing to do, Mr. Camp. 

Chairman CAMP. When you say ‘‘we investigated,’’ who would 

that have been? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t remember, but we took a look at the issue, 

we looked at how it happened, and I think you were looking at it 

as well, your committee, sir. 

Chairman CAMP. I mean when you say ‘‘we,’’ what does that 

mean? Who in the agency—— 

Mr. MILLER. The IRS looked at the issue. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
32 

Chairman CAMP. I mean what department? 

Mr. MILLER. It would have been counsel. I don’t know that it 

was Exempt Organizations. I am sorry, sir, I am not going to be 

able to answer with particularity there. 

Chairman CAMP. Were you ever made aware of the publication 

of the confidential 2008 donor lists of the National Organization for 

Marriage, a conservative tax exempt organization? 

Mr. MILLER. I was. 

Chairman CAMP. And when was that? 

Mr. MILLER. That date I will have to get back to you on, sir, 

but I remember the issue. 

Chairman CAMP. And how did you find out about that? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t remember. It might have been press, it 

might have been somebody coming to us with a congressional complaint. 

Chairman CAMP. And when you learned of that publication, did 

you take any steps? 

Mr. MILLER. I believe we made a referral to TIGTA, yes. 

Chairman CAMP. At that time. And you are not sure when that 

referral was made? 

Mr. MILLER. It would have been in the same timeframe. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Shortly after you became aware of 

it? 

Mr. MILLER. It would have been. 

Chairman CAMP. Were you ever made aware of the IRS leak of 

confidential applications for the tax exempt status of the conservative group ProPublica? 

Mr. MILLER. I was. 

Chairman CAMP. Again, when were you made aware of that? 

Mr. MILLER. Again, sir, I am not going to be able to give you 

a perfect timeline, but approximately the time that it became public is when I became aware, so you would know that from the 

timeline. 

Chairman CAMP. Did you inform anyone else of that? 

Mr. MILLER. I believe the service informed TIGTA at that time, 

yes. 

Chairman CAMP. In each of these instances I have asked you 

about, did you ever come forward and inform the Congress? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t believe so, unless it came up in conversation or testimony. Can I suggest something Mr. Camp on those two, 

just to let you know—— 

Chairman CAMP. This would be the National Organization of 

Marriage and ProPublica? 

Mr. MILLER. On those two situations we went to TIGTA, and 

I think Mr. George can speak to what they find, what they found. 

We made the referral, and I believe what they found was that 

those disclosures were inadvertent and that there has been discipline in one of those cases for somebody not following procedures. 

But I will obviously let Mr. George speak to that. 

Chairman CAMP. But you never informed the Congress of any 

of these things that you are aware of, any of these items I have 

asked you about this morning. 

Mr. MILLER. They were in the press, sir. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
33 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Well, obviously the IRS mission 

statement says that the role of the IRS is to help America’s taxpayers understand and meet their tax responsibilities and enforce 

the law with integrity and in fairness to all, and I think clearly 

your mission is not being met. 

Mr. George—I guess I would just have one last question, Mr. 

Miller. When asked the truth and you know the truth and you 

have a legal responsibility to inform others of the truth but you 

don’t share that truth, what is that called? 

Mr. MILLER. I always answer questions truthfully, Mr. Camp. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Mr. George, were you ever made 

aware of the alleged disclosure of the confidential tax structure of 

a private company? 

Mr. GEORGE. We have been alerted to it. 

Chairman CAMP. You personally were made aware of it? 

Mr. GEORGE. To one in specific or in general? 

Chairman CAMP. You specifically. 

Mr. GEORGE. To a specific company or in general, sir? 

Chairman CAMP. It was a specific company, but there was a disclosure of taxpayer information. The confidential tax structure, as 

you know, any information is considered confidential, particularly 

the tax structure of a private company. Were you made aware of 

that public disclosure? 

Mr. GEORGE. We are made aware of public disclosure of information that is protected by Title 26, Section 6103, yes. 

Chairman CAMP. Are you aware of the instance I am referring 

to? 

Mr. GEORGE. The one that you referred to? 

Chairman CAMP. Yes. 

Mr. GEORGE. I am aware of that, yes, sir. 

Chairman CAMP. And when were you made aware of that? 

Mr. GEORGE. I don’t have the exact date, sir. 

Chairman CAMP. Okay. How were you made aware of that? 

Mr. GEORGE. I believe it came through my Office of Investigations or it could have been put through a hotline. That I am not 

completely certain of. 

Chairman CAMP. So you don’t believe you learned of it from an 

IRS employee? 

Mr. GEORGE. I generally do not below the Commissioner or 

Deputy Commissioner level interact with the average IRS employee. It goes through a chain of command. 

Chairman CAMP. That would include the Commissioner. 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes. 

Chairman CAMP. So no IRS employee informed of you this information? 

Mr. GEORGE. Most likely it would have come from one of my 

principal deputies, and they may have received that information 

from someone, I don’t believe at the Commissioner level, but it may 

have been at the Deputy Commissioner level. 

Chairman CAMP. But you are not aware. You can’t tell us for 

sure? 

Mr. GEORGE. At this time I cannot, sir. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
34 

Chairman CAMP. Were you ever made aware of the alleged publication of a confidential 2008 donor list of the National Organization for Marriage? 

Mr. GEORGE. I both read in the newspapers allegations to that 

effect. But I have to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that the Internal 

Revenue Code has very strict rules as it relates to the way that 

confidential taxpayer information is revealed, and we at TIGTA are 

the ones who enforce those rules, so I have to be very careful as 

to exactly how I respond and whether or not I can even acknowledge publicly some of these revelations that you are inquiring 

about. 

Chairman CAMP. Did you respond to that information? 

Mr. GEORGE. A review has been taken. 

Chairman CAMP. Is it ongoing? 

Mr. GEORGE. I will have to confer with my colleague, if you will 

give me a moment. Is it ongoing, yes or no? 

It is not ongoing. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. There are daily reports of new allegations of IRS misconduct, political targeting, and it is clear that 

more work needs to be done. Is your office continuing to investigate 

these allegations? 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes, we are, sir. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Levin is recognized. 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you very much. I wanted to go on to other 

things, but the incidents that Mr. Camp has been talking about, 

the disclosure, what years were those, Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Again, sir, I apologize for not having the date at 

hand. They have been a couple of years now I believe. 

Mr. LEVIN. A couple years. Who was the Commissioner at that 

time? 

Mr. MILLER. I believe it was Mr. Shulman. 

Mr. LEVIN. Who appointed Mr. Shulman? 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Bush. 

Mr. LEVIN. All right. Let me start with two key issues. There 

is no question about the inappropriate criteria. I want to focus on 

that. But let me first ask right up front if I might, Mr. Russell, 

during the course of your audit, were you allowed access to everyone you requested to interview—Mr. George? 

Mr. GEORGE. To my knowledge we were not denied access to 

anyone. 

Mr. LEVIN. Did you interview employees in both Cincinnati and 

in D.C.? 

Mr. GEORGE. Correct. Yes, we did, sir. 

Mr. LEVIN. On page 7, Mr. George, of the IG report, it states, 

‘‘All of these individuals stated that the criteria were not influenced 

by any individual or organization outside the IRS.’’ Is that correct? 

Mr. GEORGE. That is the information that we received. Correct, 

sir. 

Mr. LEVIN. Did you find any evidence of political motivation in 

the selection of the tax exemption applications? 

Mr. GEORGE. We did not, sir. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Miller, during your review of this matter, you 

indicated when you started it, did you find any evidence of political 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
35 

motivation on the part of employees involved in processing the applications at issue? 

Mr. MILLER. We did not, sir. 

Mr. LEVIN. If we could put on the screen the organizational 

chart, is that possible, from the report? Is someone going to do 

that? It is called high level organizational report. 

Mr. Miller, in 2010 the inappropriate criteria that singled out applications for tax-exempt status by name was developed by what office? 

Mr. MILLER. It would be developed by an office that actually is 

not on here, but is on page 2 of this, is under Lois Lerner’s jurisdiction. 

Mr. LEVIN. And where are those employees located? 

Mr. MILLER. For the most part they are located in Cincinnati. 

There is about 140 folks who do this sort of work in Cincinnati. 

There are a handful of people around the country that report in to 

Cincinnati as well. 

Mr. LEVIN. In 2011 the report finds that the Director of Exempt 

Organizations, EO, on this chart, and I am afraid it is not on the 

screen yet, this is Ms. Lerner’s position, became aware of the inappropriate criteria. She ordered the criteria changed and it was 

changed in 2011 to no longer refer by name Tea Party or Patriot. 

Mr. George, is that correct? 

Mr. GEORGE. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Miller, as then deputy, were you aware of the 

problem with the criteria in June and July of 2011? 

Mr. MILLER. I was not, sir. 

Mr. LEVIN. In January 2012, the criteria was changed again to 

‘‘organizations involved in limiting, expanding government, educating on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and socioeconomic 

reform movement.’’ The IG’s report indicates that this change was 

again made in the Cincinnati Determinations office without executive approval. 

Mr. George, is that correct? 

Mr. GEORGE. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. LEVIN. It was changed without executive approval? 

Mr. GEORGE. That is our understanding. 

Mr. LEVIN. The May 2012 criteria that are in place today, it 

states organizations with indicators of significant amounts of political campaign intervention. The IG report states that ‘‘It more 

clearly focuses on the activities permitted under the Treasury regulations.’’ 

Mr. George, is that correct? 

Mr. GEORGE. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. LEVIN. I have no further questions. My time is up. 

Chairman CAMP. At this time I yield to the chairman of the 

Oversight Subcommittee, Dr. Boustany. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Miller, on March 22, 2012, the Oversight Subcommittee held 

a hearing in this room and I specifically asked then Commissioner 

Shulman about reports that the IRS had been targeting Tea Party 

groups and other conservative groups, and I would like to play the 

video of his response. Can we have the video. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
36 

[Video: ‘‘Mr. Shulman: There is absolutely no targeting. This is 

the kind of back and forth that happens when people apply for 

501(c)(4)s.’’] 

Mr. BOUSTANY. This was in March, March 22nd of 2012. Knowing what you know now, was Commissioner Shulman’s response 

truthful? 

Mr. MILLER. It was incorrect, but whether it was untruthful or 

not, look, when you talk about targeting, and we should really get 

into this, Dr. Boustany, because when you talk about targeting it 

is a pejorative term. What happened here was, and I am not defending the list, but what happened here, and I would like to go 

through the application process, what happened here is that someone saw some Tea Party cases come through, they were acknowledging that they were going to be engaged in politics. This was the 

timeframe in 2010 when Citizens United was out. There was a lot 

of discussion in the system about the use of (c)(4)s. People in Cincinnati decided let’s start grouping these cases. Let’s centralize 

these cases. The way they centralized it, troublesome. The concept 

of centralization, not. And we are not targeting these people in that 

sense. What we are doing is making sure that we bring them in 

and have people—— 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Let me ask you this. You said incorrect, but 

not untruthful. Was he not informed of this process? 

Mr. MILLER. To my knowledge, I don’t believe he knew at the 

time. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Because in March you sent a technical adviser 

to Cincinnati, there were press reports, there were letters from 

Chairman Camp and myself dating back to 2011. So clearly there 

was congressional interest in this issue, press reports. And you are 

saying he was not informed of this? 

Mr. MILLER. So let’s divide the world into a couple of pieces 

here. There is the list that was used and there was the processing 

of the cases. At that time we were aware that there were issues 

in the processing of the cases. We were not aware of the list. I 

asked in late March, actually after the hearing I believe, for us to 

go in and take a look, because I thought there were problems in 

processing of the cases. They came back with both pieces, yes, 

there were problems with processing of the cases and there were 

problems with the lists. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. So you were given a complete briefing on this 

improper selection based on political beliefs, and this briefing was 

I think you said May 3rd of 2012, is that correct? 

Mr. MILLER. So I would recharacterize your question, sir. I was 

informed of what we had found out to date. TIGTA was in there 

at the time. I was told that there was a use of the list. The list 

seemed obnoxious to us, as it does to you, and we were going to 

take actions on that. And, yes, that was in May. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. And you say it was not targeting, but why was 

only one side of the political spectrum signaled out in this? 

Mr. MILLER. So I think what happened was, look, they get 

70,000 applications in there for 150 or 200 people to do. They 

triaged those. People look at them and they send them either 

through the system because they are okay, into a mix of folks so 

that they can get technically fixed up, and some go for substantive 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
37 

questions. Politics is an area where we always ask more questions. 

It is our obligation under law to do so. As Mr. George indicated, 

501(c)(3) organizations can’t do it, (c)(4) organizations can do some 

of it. Our obligation—— 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Miller, we have received letters describing 

process, but we are trying to get to the heart of this matter. At the 

briefing in May of 2012 you were told that tax exempt applications 

were being targeted if they contained terms such as ‘‘tea party,’’ 

‘‘we the people,’’ ‘‘patriots’’ and so forth, many of the terms that 

Chairman Camp referenced. And knowing these practices, knowing 

that, you sent letters to Congress acknowledging our investigation 

of these allegations but consistently omitted that such discriminatory practices that are alleged were actually in fact taking place. 

Why did you mislead Congress and the American people on this? 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I did not mislead Congress nor the 

American people. I answered the questions as they were asked. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Why didn’t you tell us about the terms? 

Chairman CAMP. Time has expired. Mr. Crowley is recognized. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. George, you are the Inspector General at the Treasury, is 

that correct? 

Mr. GEORGE. Actually, there are three Inspectors Generals 

within the Department of the Treasury. I am the Inspector General 

exclusively focused on the IRS or the system of tax administration. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Over the IRS. Very good. And you were appointed by then President Bush, is that correct? 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes, correct. 

Mr. CROWLEY. And you state in your report that no one outside 

the IRS was involved in this political targeting of not-for-profit organizations, is that correct? 

Mr. GEORGE. That is the finding of this particular audit, sir. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Your audit, your findings are that no outside 

groups were involved, correct? 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes. As of now, that is our opinion. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. George, who was the last presidentially appointed IRS Commissioner? 

Mr. GEORGE. It was Douglas Shulman. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Douglas Shulman, correct? 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Appointed by President George W. Bush, is that 

correct? 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes, that is correct, sir. 

Mr. CROWLEY. And Mr. Shulman was Commissioner when 

these improper and outrageous activities that both sides of the 

aisle recognize as being outrageous and improper, when they occurred, is that correct? 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes, it is. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. George, prior to Commissioner Shulman, 

the last political head or political appointee of the IRS was Mr. 

Mark Everson, is that correct? 

Mr. GEORGE. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. CROWLEY. He was also appointed by President George W. 

Bush? 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes, I believe so. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
38 

Mr. CROWLEY. And during his tenure, it is widely believed that 

groups like the NAACP, progressive churches that were in opposition to the war in Iraq and environmental groups were targeted by 

the IRS. 

Mr. Miller, while you were appointed Acting Commissioner at the 

IRS, you are not a—you are career Civil Service, is that not the 

case? 

Mr. MILLER. It is, sir. 

Mr. CROWLEY. And you are not a political appointee? 

Mr. MILLER. I am not a political appointee. 

Mr. CROWLEY. What I am trying to point out and basically to 

debunk is the notion or idea of the political statements and I believe nonfactual statements by Chairman Camp to link these scandals to the White House or solely the targeting of conservative 

groups. I was the person last week who asked the question of Ms. 

Lerner as to whether or not the IRS were investigating political 

not-for-profit organizations, and at that hearing we were not given 

a proper—we were not given an answer. I think Mr. Boustany 

would agree. Rather, the world only learned after she was asked 

a planted question at a press event, and that is simply unacceptable. But what I also think is important is to keep this, at least 

in at this point in time, I would hope in a nonpartisan or maybe 

a bipartisan context, because we want to find the facts. We want 

to find out who knew what when and why steps were or were not 

taken. 

I was as outraged when I learned that when she was asked the 

question why she did not tell Congress when she was before Congress, her response was apparently no one ever asked her. I asked 

her and she didn’t answer the question. So we are all outraged. We 

are all upset about this. I don’t believe nor do any of my colleagues 

believe that any organization, political organization, should be targeted solely because of their thought. That is on both sides of the 

spectrum. And I would dare say during the prior administration by 

Mr. Shulman and Mr. Everson that there was targeting of political 

entities as well. That has to end. That has to end on both sides. 

And the President has been very forthright and very strongly condemning that type of action as the entire administration has, as 

has Mr. Lew. 

So I would really ask the chairman and my colleagues on the 

other side, let’s get the answers. Ask the questions, get the facts, 

and then we can draw our own conclusions. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. Mr. Brady is recognized. 

Mr. BRADY. Chairman, thank you for getting to the truth in this 

scandal. 

Let’s look at one of the Tea Party groups in my community. The 

founder, a small businesswoman, originally filed for tax exempt 

status in July of 2010. Fully 20 months later, in February 2012, 

she received a letter from the IRS with numerous follow-up questions, a lot of them intrusive, but she answered every one of them 

and returned it well within the 2-week time limit. Now, almost 3 

years to the day that she first filed her application is still pending. 

But let’s look at what happened to her in the 3 years since she 

applied. Beginning in December 2010 she was visited by the FBI 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
39 

Domestic Terrorism Unit. Her personal returns and her business 

returns were both audited by the IRS. She received four FBI inquiries. And her business received unsolicited audits, unscheduled 

audits by OSHA, the Commission on Environmental Quality and 

the ATF twice. 

Now, this is a citizen and a small businesswoman who had never 

been audited by the IRS or any of these agencies until she applied 

to you for tax exempt status for her Tea Party. 

The broader question here, is this still America? Is this government so drunk on power that it would turn its full force, its full 

might, to harass and intimidate and threaten an average American 

who only wants her voice and their voices heard? 

Mr. Miller, who in the IRS is responsible for targeting conservative organizations? 

Mr. MILLER. Sir, let me first say I cannot speak to a given case. 

We have talked about 6103—— 

Mr. BRADY. This is not just one case. You know we are talking 

about the whole list the Inspector General put up there. Who is responsible for targeting these groups? 

Mr. MILLER. So again I am going to take exception to the concept of targeting because it is a loaded term. The listing was done 

by individuals—— 

Mr. BRADY. This was not a listing. You created a be-on-the-lookout list. That is not a centralized government mandated or directed 

listing. You had a be-on-the-lookout list that you acknowledge. You 

have the cases the Inspector General already verified. So the question remains, who is responsible for targeting these conservative 

organizations? 

Mr. MILLER. So, again, and I think if you look at the TIGTA 

report, it answers your question. 

Mr. BRADY. There are no names in the Inspector General’s report. So I am asking you not only as the Acting Commissioner but 

as the Deputy Commissioner over this organization, who is responsible for targeting these individuals? 

Mr. MILLER. So I don’t have names for you, Mr. Brady, and I 

am willing to try to find that out. I think TIGTA is looking at that 

right now. I don’t think—targeting, again, is wrong. 

Mr. BRADY. You are telling us you have no knowledge of who 

initiated or who approved this targeting of conservative organizations? 

Mr. MILLER. I will stand by what the TIGTA report has put out 

there as the facts. 

Mr. BRADY. Can you assure this committee that none of the information provided to the IRS by these groups was shared or given 

to any other Federal agency? 

Mr. MILLER. That would be a violation of law and I do not believe that happened. 

Mr. BRADY. You can assure us there was absolutely no sharing 

of this information to other government agencies? 

Mr. MILLER. TIGTA and others will look at that, but I would 

be shocked, Congressman, if that happened. Shocked. 

Mr. BRADY. If your earlier answers are any indication, we will 

all read about it in the media. We ought to be getting the truth 

from you. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
40 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. Mr. Rangel is recognized. 

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Is it safe to say that these things that we all are outraged occurred under the Bush appointees as well as the Obama appointees? 

Mr. MILLER. There were no Obama appointees. So under Mr. 

Shulman—I am not sure—I apologize, Mr. Rangel. I am not sure 

what—are we talking about—— 

Mr. RANGEL. The people that were—once it was discovered that 

people were put under a list, a lookout list, that type of thing, regardless of what you call it, were the people responsible in Treasury Department appointed by President Bush as well as continued 

service under President Obama? It was basically the question that 

Mr. Crowley was asking about. 

Mr. MILLER. At the IRS, the Commissioner was appointed 

under the Bush administration. Obviously, at Treasury those would 

be—at main Treasury, those individuals would be Obama appointees. 

Mr. RANGEL. What I am trying to say, this outrage is not Democrat and Republican, it involves the credibility of government as 

relates to American citizens. Now, the President has indicated outrage. You have indicated outrage. So I would assume that we are 

on the same side in trying to determine how did this happen, who 

was responsible for it, how far did this cancer go, how quickly can 

we cut it out, so that tens of thousands of IRS employees have the 

stigma of corruption taken away from them. That you, Mr. Miller, 

who is a career employee, don’t have to explain to your kids and 

friends that you are not involved in a scandal. That all of the people that serve the government—it’s too late for the Congress, but 

it’s not too late for the government to try to get its reputation 

cleaned up for America. 

So I don’t want to see anger with you two, but I certainly hope 

before this hearing is over that you share with us how you intend 

to have your voices heard so that America would know that, whether this was criminal activity or a mistake, I don’t know, but we 

have to get on with it. 

Now, under 501(c)(4) we’re supposed to allow political activity to 

take place, meaning that you can make political donations without 

saying how much and who made the donations. Right? 

Mr. MILLER. I think if I could restructure it, under 501(c)(4) organizations donors and their contributions are not public information, if that was the question. 

Mr. RANGEL. So you can make political contributions. 

Mr. MILLER. You can make contributions to 501(c)(4) that are 

used for political purposes. 

Mr. RANGEL. Yes. And you can do this, as long as it is not the 

prior primary purpose, you can do this for 49 percent of whatever 

the activities are without technically violating the law. Is that not 

correct? 

Mr. MILLER. The test is whether your primary activities are social welfare in nature. 

Mr. RANGEL. And primary means that technically you could do 

49 percent political. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
41 

Mr. MILLER. We have never been that precise. 

Mr. RANGEL. I know, but I am asking, you could say that. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

Mr. RANGEL. And after the Supreme Court decision in Citizens 

Union, there was—what? United, whatever. 

The applications for this type of corporations increased dramatically, did it not? 

Mr. MILLER. They did double, yes, sir. 

Mr. RANGEL. So you don’t have to be a political expert to know 

that there was an increase in political donations given to 501(c)(4)s. 

Mr. MILLER. And I think that if one looks at the reporting on 

the forms 990 of political activities and the money spent, it will 

show an explosion in that money as well, yes, sir. 

Mr. RANGEL. And so, again, it’s almost an invitation, as the law 

is written, for abuse in terms of political activities for corporations 

that primarily are supposed to be doing social service work. Is that 

not correct? 

Mr. MILLER. It is something that we have to look at closely, yes, 

sir. 

Mr. RANGEL. I mean you should have wanted to look at this 

earlier, before this what my friends call a scandal. I mean, this is 

wrong, to abuse the tax system. This screams out for tax reform, 

does it not? 

Mr. MILLER. I think it’s an area ripe for redefinition and reform, yes, sir. 

Mr. RANGEL. Well, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans did something like this, the outrage should still be there. Is 

that not correct? 

Mr. MILLER. The outrage as to—— 

Mr. RANGEL. The abuse. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

Mr. RANGEL. This section of the law has been abused by government employees, not by all of them, but by some of them. And 

our job is to find out who they are. And all I want to get from you, 

Mr. Miller, and you, Mr. George, that it’s your integrity that is on 

the line, it’s the President’s, it’s the administration’s, it is the IRS 

employees that work hard each and every day, and unfortunately 

it’s the Congress that’s involved in this. People are losing confidence in our government. And I hope that you feel the same sense 

to find out what caused this, how it could happen, and help us to 

restore the confidence that Americans should have in their government. 

I yield the balance of my time. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Ryan is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Miller, we have now established, and you have acknowledged 

that you were briefed on May 3rd that there was improper criteria 

used for tax-exempt applications. At the briefing in May 3rd you 

were told that tax-exempt applications were being targeted if they 

contained terms such as Tea Party, we the people, patriots, Bill of 

Rights, Constitution, government spending, taxes, and those that 

criticized how the country was run. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
42 

After that, knowing of these practices, you sent letters to Congress acknowledging our investigation of these allegations, but 

omitted that the discriminatory practices were alleged in fact taking place. Then, remember this briefing took place May of 2012, 

then you came here to a subcommittee hearing on this issue on 

July 25th, where we were investigating the discriminatory filters 

used to hold up the 501(c)(4) applications of groups. Specifically, 

you were told that these conservative groups felt that they were 

being harassed, and you were asked this question. Quote, ‘‘What 

kind of letter or action is taking place at this time that you are 

aware of?’’ And then, knowing full well that these filters were being 

used to target certain groups, you said, and I quote, ‘‘I am aware 

that some 200 501(c)(4) applications fell into this category, the determination letter process. We did group these organizations together to ensure consistency, to ensure quality. We continued to 

work those cases,’’ close quote. That was your answer to this committee after you had received the briefing that these targeting was 

occurring, which you just earlier acknowledged was outrageous. 

Now, the law governing how you must respond to congressional 

inquiries requires you to tell not only the truth, but to tell the 

whole truth. You, quote, ‘‘cannot conceal or cover up by any trick, 

scheme, or device a material fact.’’ How is that not misleading this 

committee? You knew the targeting was taking place. You knew 

the terms Tea Party, patriots were being used. You just acknowledged a minute ago that they were outrageous. And then when you 

were asked about this after you were briefed about this, that was 

the answer you gave us? How can we not conclude that you misled 

this committee? 

Mr. MILLER. So that was a lot of questions, sir. 

Mr. RYAN. It’s one. How can we conclude that you did not mislead this committee? 

Mr. MILLER. I did not mislead the committee. I stand by my answer then, I stand by my answer now. Harassment discussion that 

was part of that question implies political motivation. There is a 

discussion going on. There is no political motivation. 

Mr. RYAN. Let me ask it again. 

Mr. MILLER. May I answer the question, sir? 

Mr. RYAN. Let me—I am going to help give you some clarity 

here. Here is the question you were asked. What kind of letter or 

action is being taken place at this time that you are aware of? 

Mr. MILLER. So the discussion of the context of that—and 

again, we need to go back and look at the context—there was the 

listing, there was the treatment of the cases. My understanding of 

that question was the treatment of the cases, because all of the letters—and he was talking, I think it was Mr. Marchant, was talking 

about: I’m hearing that people are complaining about letters. My 

response was to that. We found out about those letters, we dealt 

with them. As has been explained, we gave more time, we went 

and talked to them about expanding the way they could answer it, 

and we dealt I think fairly and successfully with the donor list 

issue. 

Mr. RYAN. You knew of our concern of this targeting. You knew 

of the allegations that had been reported to this committee. We 

brought you here to talk about it. You had received a briefing that 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
43 

this targeting was taking place, but you did not divulge that to this 

committee when we were asking questions about this. You said in 

your answer that you were aware some 200 501(c)(4) applications 

fell into this, quote, ‘‘category.’’ We did these groupings together to 

ensure consistency, to ensure quality. We continue to work those 

cases. 

You didn’t mention targeting based on ideology. You didn’t mention targeting based on buzz words like Tea Party or patriots or 9/ 

12. You knew that, but you didn’t mention this to the committee. 

Do you not think that that is a very incomplete answer? 

Mr. MILLER. I answered the question truthfully. 

Mr. RYAN. All right. Let me ask you one more question. You just 

gave us a list the other day of approved tax-exempt applications for 

advocacy organizations through 2009 May. We don’t know how long 

these applications sat or how long it took to process them. Just 

from Mr. Rangel’s questioning and from earlier testimony, the IRS 

was doing this because they were concerned about political activities by nonprofits. That’s the debate that seems to be taking place 

here. 

Some of these that were approved were Chattanooga Organize 

for Action, the Progressive Leadership Alliance, and the Progressive USA. If you were concerned about political activity, did you 

have targeting lists that contained words like progressive or organizing in their names? 

Mr. MILLER. So let me—let’s step back again, and let me walk 

you through the process. We centralize cases based on political activity evidenced in the file. We took a shortcut on some of it, but 

we collected, to be blunt, more than Tea Party cases. Mr. George’s 

own report says 70—— 

Mr. RYAN. There were no progressive or organizing words that 

were used for targeting. Is that correct? 

Mr. MILLER. That’s correct. But we collected more people because any time it was seen that political activity was part of the 

file it went into this grouping. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. Time has expired. 

Mr. McDermott’s recognized. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These days Congress can’t seem to agree on whether the sun is shining, but this 

issue has brought us together in a way unlike anything we have 

seen here. We all agree these applications were poorly handled and 

that the IRS stiff-armed us, basically, at best, when we asked 

about it. Our public servants ought to be held to a higher standard, 

and none more so than the agency that oversees and enforces the 

tax collection. 

The IRS is an easy target, and everybody wants to get a pitchfork when the tax man comes. But with our 24-hour media cycle 

passing around lighter fluid, it’s getting harder and harder to get 

to the facts and fix what really has gone on here. There is a difference, in my mind, between stupid mistakes and malicious mistakes. The overwhelming majority of applications for tax-free status for political activities were from far right groups. And examiners took a shortcut, which they clearly regret, deeply regret. The 

report says in black and white on page 7, quote, ‘‘The Determination Unit employees stated that they considered the Tea Party criVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:09 Jul 09, 2016 Jkt 089457 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\89457.XXX 89457

ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
44 

terion as a shorthand term for all potential political cases,’’ close 

quote. These applications were singled out for their names and policy positions, not for the activities, which is really what they should 

have been singled out for. 

Some of these political groups were delayed in getting their taxpayer status, and that was wrong. Much as I dislike the right, I 

think it’s wrong to be unevenhanded in government application. 

The Inspector General report says that no one acted out of malice 

or political motivation. 

Mr. George, I want to know, do you still stand by that? 

Mr. GEORGE. We have no evidence at this time to contradict 

that assertion, sir. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. If we really want to root out the causes of 

this we need to talk about campaign finance laws, and Citizens 

United decision in 2010, which is when this all started. It all started right after Citizens United. People saw the door open. We can 

get in, we can do political advertising, and we won’t have to report 

anybody’s name. Applications for secret money political organizations increased by fourfold after that Supreme Court. 

This small group of people in the Cincinnati office screwed up. 

Nobody’s going to deny that. They simply screwed up. But the Congress, this committee messed up by not giving any clear criteria for 

what a real charitable organization is. The law is not clear, and 

people have to make judgments, and that means they got to collect 

a lot of data to try and figure out what people are actually up to. 

Mr. Miller, clearly there is a problem with our current way of determining what an organization’s primary purpose is, and I want 

to ask you in a minute about that. I want you to think about it 

while I am talking. But as I watch this conversation shift from find 

out what’s right and wrong and fix it to the IRS is broken and let’s 

repeal it—imagine a country without—we could have repealed that 

along with the Obamacare yesterday. I am reminded that it’s only 

part right, part wrong. It’s also about Republicans’ story line in 

this agenda. We need to find some truth here, and I have heard 

members of this committee now talk about it. The IRS can’t access 

your medical file. Is that true, Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Correct, sir. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. They cannot find out your private medical 

information. 

Mr. MILLER. That’s correct, sir. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Their job in Obamacare is simply to collect 

paid financial information on which a determination is made as to 

whether somebody can get a subsidy for their premium. Is that correct? 

Mr. MILLER. Were you covered and over what period is what we 

would be getting. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. It is not a fascist takeover that’s going on 

here of the healthcare system. And let’s not forget that the IRS has 

one of the hardest and most hated jobs, and there are thousands 

and thousands of good, solid, hard-working Americans who work 

every day to run the system. And a couple of people make a problem, that does not damage the organization, in my view. You get 

rid of the people who made the problem. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
45 

But I would really like to hear from you, Mr. Miller, what do you 

need that would make it so that this wouldn’t have happened before? 

Mr. MILLER. So there are two things, sir. And I appreciate the 

kind words for our people, because we are an incredibly hard-working and honest group, frankly, and that seems to be forgotten in 

all this. 

With respect to political activity, it would be a wonderful thing 

to get better rules, to get more clear rules. And in terms of our 

ability to get to this work, it would be—it would be good to have 

a little budget that would allow us to get more than the number 

of people we have to do 70,000 applications and to do our job in 

looking at whether an organization is tax exempt or not. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Time has expired. 

Mr. Nunes is recognized. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Miller, do you know the director of the IRS’ Exempt Organizations Division, Lois Lerner? 

Mr. MILLER. I do, sir. 

Mr. NUNES. Are you aware that she testified before this committee last Wednesday, on May 8th? 

Mr. MILLER. I believe I was. 

Mr. NUNES. Are you aware that she did not acknowledge this 

investigation at the time? 

Mr. MILLER. Actually, I do not know that. But I was engaged 

in other testimony that day. 

Mr. NUNES. Were you aware that the IRS was preparing a 

statement to put out during this time last week? 

Mr. MILLER. Yeah. I don’t know whether we knew at that time 

or not. 

Mr. NUNES. Wouldn’t have Ms. Lerner known that at the time 

last week when she testified before this committee? 

Mr. MILLER. Don’t know that. 

Mr. NUNES. Did you know that Ms. Lerner was going to appear 

last Friday, May 10th, on a panel called ‘‘News From the IRS and 

Treasury’’ at the American Bar Association conference? 

Mr. MILLER. I knew she was appearing. I did not know the 

topic. 

Mr. NUNES. Did you or any of your subordinates direct Lois 

Lerner to make the public statement at the panel discussion acknowledging the targeting of tax-exempt groups? 

Mr. MILLER. It was a prepared Q&A. 

Mr. NUNES. Do you know Ms. Celia Roady, a member of IRS’s 

Advisory Council on Tax-Exempt and Government Entities? 

Mr. MILLER. I do. 

Mr. NUNES. Was Ms. Roady’s question to Ms. Lerner about targeting conservative groups planned in advance? 

Mr. MILLER. I believe that we talked about that, yes. 

Mr. NUNES. Did you ever have any contact, either by email, 

phone, or in person with the White House regarding the targeting 

of tax-exempt groups from 2010 until today? 

Mr. MILLER. Absolutely not. 

Mr. NUNES. How about the Department of Treasury? 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
46 

Mr. MILLER. I certainly would have had some conversations 

with Treasury in my role as Acting Commissioner, because I reported to them. On this topic it was very—it would have been, I 

believe, I have to go back and look, but very recent that that conversation would have taken place. 

Mr. NUNES. How about President Obama’s reelection campaign? 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

Mr. NUNES. Did you ever have any contact with anyone associated with Organizing for America or its nonprofit successor Organizing for Action? 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

Mr. NUNES. Did you ever have any contact with anyone associated with ProPublica? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t believe so, but there was, when this whole 

thing came out, that was previously referenced, I think the IRS 

might have talked to them, yes. 

Mr. NUNES. Something that would probably clarify your involvement in any of this, Mr. Miller, would be if you submitted to 

this committee your emails, phone records, and personal schedule 

from 2010 until you resigned. Would you be willing to do that? 

Mr. MILLER. I’ll have to see what’s legally appropriate. 

Mr. NUNES. You know we could subpoena those records. 

Mr. MILLER. I understand. And I will have to talk to my—the 

lawyers in the agency. I am just saying I don’t know. You’re asking 

me and, you know, we’ll talk. 

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we work hard 

to get those records. I would also encourage you to contact Ms. 

Roady and Ms. Lerner to testify before this committee at our earliest possible time. 

I just have one last question, Mr. Miller. You really are not taking any acknowledgment that you knew anything, that you didn’t 

do anything wrong. You have said that numerous times on the 

record today, that you did nothing wrong. So I find it hard to believe—why did you resign or why are you resigning? 

Mr. MILLER. I never said I didn’t do anything wrong, Mr. 

Nunes. What I said is contained in the questions. I resigned because as the Acting Commissioner what happens in the IRS, 

whether I was personally involved or not, stopped at my desk. And 

so I should be held accountable for what happens. Whether I was 

personally involved or not, a very different question, sir. 

Mr. NUNES. Well, I hope that you would be willing to submit 

all your emails, phone records, any personal meetings that you had 

in the last 4 years. And I think that would really, I think, keep 

your reputation in good standing with this committee and the 

American people. 

Mr. MILLER. Obviously, we’ll have to talk about that. But I’m 

not saying no. I’m not. I just don’t know. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Miller. 

I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. Mr. Neal is recognized. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, earlier 

you referenced an article from USA Today. And I would like, for 

the purpose of this hearing, to insert an article from Bloomberg 

News that appeared on May 14th, indicating that there were 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
47 

Democratic-leaning organizations that were the focus of the IRS as 

well. 

Chairman CAMP. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.284.eps
48 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.285.eps
49 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.286.eps
50 

f 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, when I woke up this 

morning, as I do just about every morning now, I went to my 

phone, and I was curious about what the word of the day would 

be. And the word of the day, because Merriam-Webster is located 

in my hometown—and, Mr. Miller, you have rejected the term targeted. Is that correct? 

Mr. MILLER. I think it’s a term that implies something that 

didn’t exist here. 

Mr. NEAL. Okay. Let me draw you into the weeds based upon 

what Merriam-Webster, by sheer irony this morning, suggested, 

and that is they used the term litmus test, which they define as 

a single factor—as an attitude, event, or a fact—that is decisive in 

choosing these organizations. Would you say that there was a litmus test? 

Mr. MILLER. No, sir. The litmus test, if any, was political activity. 

Mr. NEAL. Political. Okay. I have one of my constituents who 

contacted my office yesterday outlining a pretty egregious situation. He is treasurer of a small nonprofit in Massachusetts, a volunteer organization, I should note, and their association was told 

by the IRS employees that they were not required to file a form 

990 because of their small size, so they didn’t file one. This past 

November, they received a letter from the IRS saying that their 

tax-exempt status had been revoked for failure to file the necessary 

forms, without any advanced notice. 

So the IRS told them they no longer needed to file the forms, but 

instead of notifying them first about the problem, and allowing 

them to fix it, especially in light of the advice they were given by 

IRS, the IRS just went ahead and revoked their tax-exempt status. 

They now have to reapply and pay. This is a nonprofit that’s been 

around for 60 years. 

Now, taxpayers should not be intimidated by the IRS. There is 

broad agreement on that today. The American people should not be 

afraid of the IRS. There is broad agreement on that today. But we 

should be able to rely on advice that they provide and not be punVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:09 Jul 09, 2016 Jkt 089457 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\89457.XXX 89457

ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.287.eps
51 

ished for it. So I hope that we are going to have an opportunity to 

work on this specific constituent issue. 

But I want to turn to a topic of recent focus by the IRS, and 

that’s obviously the question today, and it’s the allegation that it’s 

their political views that have caused them to become that focus. 

We all know that’s outrageous and not acceptable, and a thorough 

review will get us to the bottom of this and ensure that it never 

happens again. But let’s not forget something this morning. Even 

with the egregious actions that have been acknowledged by the 

IRS, there is still an underlying problem here, and that’s 501(c)(4)s 

being engaged in politics. After Citizens United, the IRS was flooded with applications, as you’ve indicated, seeking 501(c)(4) status. 

And why was that? It’s in large part because Super PACs must disclose their donors while 501(c)(4)s do not. 

As policymakers, we have many disagreements on this committee 

and between the parties. However, I think that we should be able 

to agree on that whole notion of disclosure. 

Now, the case that unleashed the torrent of money in public life 

was Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, which the Court held that money enabled speech. But the caveat included in that opinion, which, while 

never fully acknowledged, probably was written by Justice Brennan, quote, ‘‘The suggestion that sunlight is said to be the best of 

disinfectants, electric light the most efficient policeman.’’ 

So as part of our scrutiny I think that we all ought to be able 

to agree, based upon this problem here today, that the simple act 

of transparency and disclosure would alleviate much of what has 

happened here. There wasn’t this rush because they wanted to join 

the Sisters of Mercy and Common Cause for the purpose of engaging politics. It was in many instances to hide the donors. 

Now, I’m hoping that we can get to the bottom of this in fuller 

context. But I want to ask you specifically, Commissioner, has anyone been disciplined directly related to this development, review, 

approval, and use of inappropriate criteria? And have any actions, 

corrective actions been put in place to ensure that this does not 

happen again? 

Mr. MILLER. So let me walk through, and the answer to that 

is yes. What happened in May, when I was told this, I asked the 

management there to reassign an individual who had been involved 

in these letters that were objectionable. I also asked for oral counseling to be given to the person who we thought at the time was 

responsible for the listing. I also was aware that TIGTA was looking at this. And as I mentioned in my statement, now that they are 

out with the facts, we will be able to look again. 

I should note, just because, Mr. Camp, this is—I got to be very 

careful here—the oral counseling that was provided, it turned out 

that that person may not have been involved. So what was done 

in lieu of that was all the managers in that group were brought 

in and walked through the new processes and explained that this 

was no way to behave as the IRS. 

The last thing is, sir, is that in terms of the future, the listing 

cannot be done and cannot be changed absent a very high level of 

approval at the executive level. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Tiberi is recognized. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
52 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Miller, in January of 2010 an organization called Liberty 

Township Tea Party in Ohio applied for tax-exempt status. There 

is no resolution of their application to this day. Liberty Township 

Tea Party received 35 questions, I have got them in front of me, 

in March of 2011, but really there were 94 questions when you look 

at all the subquestions. The letter directs the applicant to provide, 

under penalty of perjury, some of the following information: copies 

of all activity on Facebook and Twitter, resumes of all past and 

present employees, whether a past or present employee or their 

family members plans to run for office in the future. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a copy of a Dispatch, Columbus Dispatch article from yesterday that references this. And in 

fact, Mr. Chairman, in the Article I quote a board member from 

Liberty Township Tea Party who is actually in the audience today, 

Tim Savaglio. Quote, ‘‘ ‘We’re an educational group,’ Savaglio said. 

‘We don’t have a paid staff. We don’t take stands. We don’t endorse 

candidates. We don’t man phone banks. We don’t do any of those 

kinds of political activities.’ ’’ 

Mr. Miller, a question—— 

Chairman CAMP. Without objection, the article will be placed in 

the record. 

[The information follows:] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
53 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.019.eps
54 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.020.eps
55 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.021.eps
56 

f 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Miller, question 26 of the IRS questionnaire to the tea party 

group is as follows: ‘‘Provide details regarding your relationship 

with Justin Binik-Thomas,’’ an American citizen who is in the audience today, who still doesn’t know why he was question number 26. 

The Dispatch article goes on to say, ‘‘Binik-Thomas said he was 

shocked when he found out that the IRS was asking questions 

about him of a group he barely knew. He had been involved in a 

Cincinnati tea party. He’d even served as a spokesman. But he said 

he had not worked with the Liberty Township Tea Party.’’ 

Quote, ‘‘The obvious question that comes to mind are, why am I 

being targeted amongst all the others? Where does this information 

go in the end? Clearly, it’s housed in the IRS, but does it get 

shared with other government agencies? Do I get an audit? If I do, 

is it against my business? All of those things go through your 

mind.’’ 

Now, to this day he doesn’t know why his name is question number 26 for an organization who still hasn’t received approval since 

January of 2010. Now, the article goes on to say, Democratic Governor Ted Strickland, former governor of Ohio, his top aides, who 

I know, very political, filed for tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(3) organization in August of 2011. They were approved 9 months later. 

Mr. Miller, another organization in Ohio, the Ohio Liberty Coalition, this is their—part of their documents in response to IRS requests. This is only part of it. And this, all these documents 

weren’t enough for the IRS to approve their application. And in 

fact, Tom Z., who is a former president of the organization who is 

here today, said that they applied in June 2010. They finally received approval—this wasn’t enough by the way—in December of 

2012, 1 month after the November election. 

There is another lady I met in the audience from Ohio, Fremont, 

Ohio, who indicated that her group had a book club, and the IRS 

demanded a list of all the books that they had read and a book report from the group explaining what was in the books that they 

read. You can’t make this stuff up. This is unbelievable. 

Now, Mr. Miller, I don’t know how you can defend any of this, 

and I don’t know how you can say that it’s not political when the 

liberal group got an exempt status and three that I just mentioned 

didn’t for over 2 years. Mr. Nunes mentioned Ms. Lerner. Who was 

her boss in 2011 and 2012? Who did she report to? 

Mr. MILLER. I believe it would have been—— 

Mr. TIBERI. Sarah Ingram maybe? 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.022.eps
57 

Mr. MILLER. Part of that time, and part of that time another 

gentleman. 

Mr. TIBERI. Okay. And that other gentleman has since submitted his resignation? 

Mr. MILLER. I believe so. 

Mr. TIBERI. And what is Ms. Ingram doing today? What’s her 

job title? 

Mr. MILLER. She works on our—on implementing the Affordable 

Care Act. 

Mr. TIBERI. Okay. Who promoted her to that position? 

Mr. MILLER. I would have moved her into that position. 

Mr. TIBERI. Why would you promote somebody to that position 

who was in charge of the Exempt Organization Division, which certainly has had some controversy over the last couple years under 

an investigation? 

Mr. MILLER. Because she is a superb civil servant, sir. 

Mr. TIBERI. So she had nothing do with this? 

Mr. MILLER. I wouldn’t imagine so. By the way, I can’t speak 

to individual cases. I can say generally we provided horrible customer service here. I will admit that. We did. Horrible customer 

service. Whether it was politically motivated or not is a very different question. 

Mr. TIBERI. You targeted an individual. You targeted an individual, an American who still doesn’t know to this day why he was 

question number 26. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Time is expired. 

Mr. Becerra is recognized. 

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much for your testimony. And let me 

key off of something, Mr. Miller, you said. You said foolish mistakes were made. I think the President actually said it better. He 

said that the handling of those tax-exempt applications in that 

process at the IRS was outrageous and intolerable. No excuse. And 

as much as we know that the folks at IRS have a thankless job because they have to go and tell their fellow Americans that they 

may be audited, or they have to do this work understaffed, we have 

to maintain the confidence in the system, because it’s a voluntary 

system of payment of our taxes. 

Mr. MILLER. Agreed. 

Mr. BECERRA. And so you are right, it was a foolish mistake. 

But the President is even more correct that it was outrageous and 

intolerable. 

Now, let me also focus on something, Mr. George, you said. When 

you were asked was there any finding or evidence of political motivation here, you said no. 

Mr. GEORGE. That’s correct, sir. 

Mr. BECERRA. Okay. And so what we find is a situation where 

inexcusable activity took place, because it erodes the confidence of 

the American people in a system where they participate voluntarily. And if there is a place in public service where you have to 

have the highest level of conduct and standards, it’s at the IRS. 

And so, Mr. Miller, I think it’s unfortunate for those who are in 

positions of authority, but the buck has to stop somewhere, and I 

think that’s exactly what we are saying. That should not diminish 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
58 

the good work that has been done by anyone within the IRS over 

the years. And so I hope you understand that you are here today 

talking to us because we need to get to the bottom of this. We need 

to clean up and clear out so we can go back to the business of making sure that people respect the fact that we have a voluntary system of paying our taxes. 

Having said that, let me ask a question of Mr. George. In your 

report you indicate that, and I think I am quoting correctly here, 

‘‘There appeared to be some confusion by the Determinations Unit 

specialists and applicants on what activities are allowed by Internal Revenue Code section 501’’—or ‘‘allowed by I.R.C. 501(c)4 organizations. We believe this could be due to the lack of specific guidance on how to determine the, quote, ‘primary activity,’ end quote, 

of a (c)4 organization. Treasury regulations state that (c)4 organizations should have social welfare as the ‘primary activity’ of their 

mission. However, the regulations do not define how to measure 

whether social welfare is an organization’s ‘primary activity.’ ’’ 

So, Mr. George, a question. Could some of these delays in processing some of these applications have been avoided if there were 

clearer guidance on section 501(c)(4) organizations and what their 

primary activity constitutes? 

Mr. GEORGE. A direct answer is, yes, sir. But I should also note 

that that Determinations Unit did seek clarity from Washington 

headquarters, and it took months before they received a response. 

Mr. BECERRA. And that’s a great way then to lead to Mr. Miller. I think what we have been saying for quite some time, many 

of us, is that there is not clarity in what is social welfare. So you 

have many (c)4 organizations, these nonprofit organizations, the 

good guys I’ll call them, who are trying to do good work, and 

they’re being tainted by some of these organizations that are out 

there doing nothing more than political activity because the Supreme Court gave them license now to go ahead and use a nonprofit status to go out there and do politics. 

Is the law clear, Mr. Miller, in your mind on what is political 

campaign activity? 

Mr. MILLER. No, it’s very difficult, sir. 

Mr. BECERRA. Can you distinguish between section 501(c)(4) organizations and, say, a Section 527 political organization? 

Mr. MILLER. That’s difficult, but presumably the level of political activities and expenditures needs to be less in the 501(c)(4) 

area. 

Mr. BECERRA. Let me then suggest to you, Mr. Miller, to go 

back in your opportunity with your fellow employees at the IRS, 

and, Mr. George, you in your capacity as our Inspector General, 

and thank you for your service, to please communicate that we 

need to get you all to give us your sense of what is the best guidance so we don’t have this proliferation of organizations that are 

abusing of the nonprofit status at taxpayer expense, because they 

get all these writeoffs, so that we won’t run into this situation 

again and the American people can have confidence in their system 

and in their government. I thank you. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Reichert’s recognized. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
59 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Miller, I have of course like about 15 minutes to question 

you, but I only have 5. I’m disappointed I’m hearing: I don’t know, 

I don’t remember, I don’t recall, I don’t believe. Who knew? You 

don’t even know who investigated the case, but yet you say it was 

investigated. But you don’t even know who investigated it. I am 

puzzled by that. You’re not instilling a lot of confidence in this 

panel and the people across this country. 

But I want to go back to your version to the word target or targeted. And you said there was no targeting because there was no 

intent. Notwithstanding the intent of IRS personnel, would you not 

agree that certain groups were treated differently because of their 

name or policy position? 

Mr. MILLER. So I believe, sir, that the—— 

Mr. REICHERT. Were groups treated differently—that’s the 

question—because of their belief, policy position, or their name? 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

Mr. REICHERT. That’s a yes-or-no question. 

Mr. MILLER. I said no, sir. 

Mr. REICHERT. No? 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

Mr. REICHERT. No one was treated differently? 

Mr. MILLER. May I answer? I would like to be a little broader 

than a yes/no. I understand your view, sir. 

My understanding of the cases that went into this queue is that 

it included elements from throughout the political spectrum, that 

of the 300 cases that were looked at by the Treasury Inspector 

General, 70 of the 300 had Tea Party in the name. 

Mr. REICHERT. Okay. 

Mr. MILLER. My understanding is that the organizations—— 

Mr. REICHERT. Excuse me. Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir? 

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Miller, it’s my time, and I’m going to take 

it back for now. I’m not going to be delayed here. So your answer 

was no, no one was treated differently. But to take you back to Mr. 

Ryan’s question, you knew that groups with the term Tea Party 

had been automatically subjected to extra scrutiny. You’ve admitted that today. You acknowledged your investigation into whether 

certain groups were being treated differently. Whether there was 

intent or not, didn’t this committee have the right to know? 

Mr. MILLER. I answered all questions truthfully, sir. 

Mr. REICHERT. Didn’t this committee have the right to know 

that groups were being treated differently? That you have this 

group of 200, 300, whatever the number was, did not this committee have the right to know? 

Mr. MILLER. I answered all the questions I was asked. 

Mr. REICHERT. So your answer is a non-answer once again. It’s 

an easy question. Do you not think that Congress has the right to 

know all the information that you knew? 

Mr. MILLER. So look, Congress was going to find out. 

Mr. REICHERT. Does this committee—Mr. Miller, does this committee have the right to know the information that you knew? Yes 

or no? 

Mr. MILLER. This committee—— 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
60 

Mr. REICHERT. Yes or no? 

Mr. MILLER.—was always going to get that information. TIGTA 

was looking at it. 

Mr. REICHERT. But you testified before this committee, Mr. 

Miller, and did not—— 

Mr. MILLER. This concept that we were not going—— 

Mr. REICHERT. Please, Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir? 

Mr. REICHERT. You testified before this committee, and you did 

not provide the information, you did not share the information you 

knew. So my question is, do you not believe that—this is the 

United States Congress here that you are accountable to, which is 

accountable to the people, the American citizens across this country. Do you not believe that it’s your job to provide us with the information that you knew so that, as you said, the people of this 

country can be properly served honestly? 

You’re a law enforcement agency for crying out loud. I was a cop 

for 33 years. Now, you raised your right hand today. Did this committee have the right to know what you knew? Yes or no? 

Mr. MILLER. I answered all questions truthfully. I also will tell 

you that it was—— 

Mr. REICHERT. Let me ask—— 

Mr. MILLER. I didn’t have all the facts. 

Mr. REICHERT. I’m going to go to Mr. George because my time 

is—you are not going to cooperate with me, Mr. Miller, and you’ve 

been uncooperative during this hearing. 

Mr. George, we’ve heard that an early draft of your report indicates that you were unable to determine who initially directed the 

IRS employees to target groups based on their political beliefs. Is 

that true? 

Mr. GEORGE. That we were unable to, correct. 

Mr. REICHERT. Yes. 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes. 

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Miller, you’re the Commissioner. Who is responsible? You conducted the investigation. Who was responsible? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t have that name, sir. 

Mr. REICHERT. Why don’t you have the name? 

Mr. MILLER. I tell you the name that I was originally—— 

Mr. REICHERT. Have you asked anybody? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. I asked—— 

Mr. REICHERT. Who did you ask? You don’t have that name either. 

Mr. MILLER. I’ll be glad to provide those names. 

Mr. LEVIN. Let him answer the question. 

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Levin, it’s my time. 

Chairman CAMP. It’s the gentleman from Washington State’s 

time. 

Mr. REICHERT. Who did you ask? 

Mr. MILLER. I asked the senior technical adviser. 

Mr. REICHERT. And what’s the senior technical adviser’s name? 

Mr. MILLER. Nancy Marks. 

Mr. REICHERT. And what did Nancy tell you? Who is responsible? 

Mr. MILLER. That I don’t remember, to be honest with you. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
61 

Mr. REICHERT. You don’t remember again. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Time has expired. The committee 

will—there are votes on the floor of the House of Representatives. 

So the committee will recess for 15 minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman CAMP. The committee will come to order. If everyone 

can take their seats. 

Mr. Doggett is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

What happened here is outrageous and inexcusable and unless 

those of us who strongly disagree with the Tea Party on many 

issues defend it from any impairment and allow it to be as wrong 

as it wants to be, we impair our democracy. 

Mr. George, many charges have been made here this morning. 

You as Inspector General under Title V, Section 2 have a statutory 

responsibility as Inspector General to prevent and detect fraud and 

abuse in the programs and operations of the IRS, do you not? 

Mr. GEORGE. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. DOGGETT. And as best I can determine, sir, you have fulfilled that responsibility faithfully and forthrightly. Let me ask you 

if using the extensive audit and investigation powers you have as 

Inspector General you have found any evidence of corruption at the 

IRS? 

Mr. GEORGE. No, not at this time, sir. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Yes, sir. And let me ask you, sir, with your extensive powers if you have found that our tax system is rotten at 

the core? 

Mr. GEORGE. No, definitely not rotten at the core, sir. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Yes, sir. And let me ask you, sir, if you have 

using your statutory powers and fulfilling your responsibility determined that the IRS picks who wins and who loses in America? 

Mr. GEORGE. I don’t believe that is the case. 

Mr. DOGGETT. No, sir, you have not. And the statements that 

were made and very inflammatory charges at the beginning of this 

hearing it is obvious have no basis in fact, at least any fact that 

has yet been demonstrated this morning. It is important that in addressing and fully correcting one wrong we not complete and be involved in other wrongs such as encouraging the proliferation of secret corporate money, not just the proliferation and pollution of our 

democracy by that money, but that it be tax subsidized secret corporate money; that we not permit those who have a fundamental 

disagreement with the progressive tax system using this incident 

as a basis for shifting even more of the burden of financing our defense and our essential government services on to working people; 

that we not permit those who have an agenda that has now been 

voted 37 times to try to undermine the full and effective implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act so that the health care crisis is ended for families across this country. That is what is at 

stake here. That is what has been discussed here. It is not based 

on any fact associated with this investigation to this date, as indicated by the Republican-appointed Inspector General whose job it 

was to determine whether any of these charges had merit. 

Let me move to an area where I disagree with some of my Democratic colleagues and their comments this morning. I don’t believe 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
62 

there is any lack of clarity in the statute here. The statute that is 

in effect has been in effect for decades, and it requires that before 

there is tax exempt status, as Mr. Lawrence O’Donnell, as the 

CREW Group, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, has pointed out in a petition, you are to be denied this status if you are not exclusively engaged in social welfare, according 

to the statute. Is that not correct? The statute is explicit. It uses 

the word ‘‘exclusively.’’ The regulation the IRS adopted 30 or 40 

years ago uses different language. 

Mr. GEORGE. If this is addressed to me, Mr. Doggett, I have to 

demur to the Secretary. That is a tax policy question and I am not 

in a position—— 

Mr. DOGGETT. I am not asking you for tax policy, I am just asking for a clear reading of the statute, and a clear reading of the 

statute that has been in place for decades and is in place today 

says that there should be a denial of tax exempt status to any 

group that is not exclusively engaged in social welfare operations, 

and it was only after a regulation adopted long ago, long before any 

of you were at the IRS, that changed ‘‘exclusively’’ to ‘‘primarily,’’ 

that there was even any discretion for this section to be involved 

in this operation. 

Mr. GEORGE. Mr. Doggett, I do know that we have indicated 

that some clarification from those in the policy area of the Department of the Treasury might be needed in this area to help clarify 

again. 

Mr. DOGGETT. In April, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics 

in Washington filed a petition with the Treasury Department and 

the IRS to address that. If the statute, the clear wording of the 

statute had been followed, we would not be having to deal today 

with selective enforcement, we wouldn’t have any problems with 

enforcement in this area at all. And I hope that that petition is 

honored and responded to promptly as I believe you have fulfilled 

your responsibilities, Mr. George, as Inspector General. 

Thank you for your testimony, and, Mr. Miller, thank you for 

yours and for stepping aside. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. The time has expired. 

Mr. Roskam is recognized. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Miller, you may object to the word ‘‘targeting,’’ but it is used 

in the IG report 16 times. So it is a common understanding of the 

word, and so I would just suggest that it is a well settled doctrine 

and we not weighs a lot of time parsing on it. 

You admit that you spoke with Ms. Lerner and Celia Roady 

about the planted question beforehand. Can you tell us more about 

that conversation? 

Mr. MILLER. I did not speak to Celia Roady, and I believe I did 

talk to Lois about the possibility of now that the TIGTA report was 

finalized, now that we knew all the facts, now that we had responded in writing and everything was done, did it make sense for 

us to start talking about this in public. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Can you walk me through the logic that animated 

in your mind at the time where you thought it would be a good 

idea to make a public disclosure to the American Bar Association 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
63 

rather than coming and following up on your duty to disclose that 

to the House? 

Mr. MILLER. So we were going to do it at the same time, I believe. Our intent was to talk to you all at the same time. 

Mr. ROSKAM. But that did not happen, did it? 

Mr. MILLER. It did not happen, I don’t believe. 

Mr. ROSKAM. What other recollection do you have or what other 

experience did you have when you were talking with Ms. Lerner 

about this scheme to have the planted question at the ABA? 

Mr. MILLER. I am not sure what you are asking, sir. 

Mr. ROSKAM. I am asking what is your recollection of that conversation? 

Mr. MILLER. We talked about what would be said and how we 

might do it. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Where did the conversation take place? 

Mr. MILLER. I believe it was over the phone. 

Mr. ROSKAM. What day did the conversation take place? 

Mr. MILLER. I would have to look back at my notes on that, sir. 

Mr. ROSKAM. You have got notes on that? 

Mr. MILLER. I would have to try to find them. I am not sure 

I do. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Why did you say you have notes if you don’t think 

you have notes? 

Mr. MILLER. Sir, please. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Please. Do you have notes or don’t you have 

notes? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t know. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Okay. Let’s shift gears. A little while ago you 

were engaged with Mr. Reichert on the question as to whether you 

knew that this committee, this whole idea of does the committee 

have the right to know this information, and then you sort of sheltered yourself in this idea of well, I have always told the truth. 

Let’s set that aside for a moment. 

Now, you are a lawyer and I am a lawyer. You know that in the 

process of discovery Mr. Miller that when you find subsequent information counsel has a duty to disclose that to the opposite party. 

There is no Perry Mason moment. There is no gotcha moment. 

There is no litigious situation where somebody comes in and says, 

oh, we are just showing up, your honor, with this information and 

we haven’t disclosed it to the other side. 

Don’t you acknowledge that you had a duty based on your testimony before this committee of what your actual knowledge was, 

didn’t you have a duty, Mr. Miller, to come forward and disclose 

that to the committee based on all the cascading inquiries that had 

happened from the Ways and Means Committee directed to you? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t believe so, sir. What was happening was I 

was in possession of some facts. I was not in possession of all facts. 

We had done an internal review to see what we needed to do to 

get these cases moving because again the processing was bad, the 

listing was bad, those are two different pieces we were dealing 

with. TIGTA was in at exactly the same time. They were getting 

all the facts. We were going to wait for them to get the facts so 

that I didn’t come in and either mess up their investigation or otherwise give you facts that were not correct, sir. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
64 

Mr. ROSKAM. So you weren’t concerned about the timing of the 

TIGTA investigation when you and Ms. Lerner made the decision 

to move forward and do the planted question, is that right? 

Mr. MILLER. It was done. 

Mr. ROSKAM. It was done. 

Mr. MILLER. We had all the facts and we had made our written 

response. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Right. I understand that. So in other words you 

had the actual information. The totality of the information that you 

are describing today, you had it all in your possession at the time 

at which you were under a scheme with Ms. Lerner to go and do 

a planted question, is that right? 

Mr. MILLER. I sort of object to the term ‘‘scheme.’’ We had the 

information. We were reaching out to the committee at the same 

time. 

Mr. ROSKAM. An understanding, a written or not written down 

contemplated play, a manipulation, call it what you will, you had 

all of the information, isn’t that right? 

Mr. MILLER. We were reaching out to the committee at the 

same time. 

Mr. ROSKAM. What form did that outreach take? 

Mr. MILLER. We called to try to get on the calendar. 

Mr. ROSKAM. You called to try and get on the calendar. Is that 

all you got? 

Mr. MILLER. It is the truth. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Okay. You know, I find it incredibly ironic, you 

know, on the one hand you are arguing today that the IRS is not 

corrupt, but the subtext of that is you are saying, look, we are just 

incompetent. And I think it is a perilous pathway to go down. 

There is sort of this notion that hasn’t been satisfactorily answered 

and that is if the targeting wasn’t targeting, if the targeting wasn’t 

based on philosophy, how come only conservatives got snagged? 

Mr. MILLER. They didn’t, sir. Organizations from all walks and 

all persuasions were pulled in. That is shown by the fact that only 

70 of the 300 organizations were Tea Party organizations of the 

ones that were looked at by TIGTA. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Your testimony is in contradiction to the IG testimony. 

I yield back. 

Chairman CAMP. The time has expired. Mr. Thompson is recognized. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

fact we are having this hearing and want very much to be able to 

get to the bottom of this. More important, I want to make sure or 

as important I want to make sure that we are able to do all that 

we can to prevent it from ever happening again for all of the same 

reasons that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle mentioned today. And I want to associate myself with the outrageous 

and intolerable group as to where I think this ranks. 

What I would like to know, General George first, in your testimony you had a section that is titled Results of Review where you 

say the IRS used inappropriate criteria for identifying these organizations. Is that legal? 

Mr. GEORGE. Is it legal? 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
65 

Mr. THOMPSON. I am trying to get a sense of what is appropriate criteria. 

Mr. GEORGE. It is not illegal, sir, but it was unusual. 

Mr. THOMPSON. So then you enumerate them, inappropriate 

criteria were developed and stayed in place for a total of more than 

18 months. Is that illegal? 

Mr. GEORGE. It is not illegal, but it was inappropriate. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I understand that. I am just trying to get a 

sense of—— 

Mr. GEORGE. If I may, it is contrary to Treasury regulations 

and other policies then in place by the Department. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I understand. The substantial delays, is that 

illegal or inappropriate? 

Mr. GEORGE. Inappropriate. 

Mr. THOMPSON. And then the third, the unnecessary information, illegal or inappropriate? 

Mr. GEORGE. Inappropriate. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Okay. Thank you very much. 

You also outline recommendations that you think are most critical and explain whether if they are enacted they are enough to 

prevent this from happening again. Are they? 

Mr. GEORGE. The vast majority are, and the IRS agreed to the 

vast majority of them. 

Mr. THOMPSON. And do you have some mechanism, some matrix, for making sure that they are put in place and is there a plan 

to go back and review these and to continue your good work of review to ensure that your recommendations are being followed out 

and that your recommendations are enough to protect the citizens 

of our great country? 

Mr. GEORGE. Mr. Thompson, you anticipated almost our entire 

future plan. We are both going to take a look to see whether the 

IRS has successfully implemented, and as I believe you indicated 

or someone did, the President indicated that he was going to ensure that the IRS complies with those recommendations, and it 

would definitely be our intention to follow up to guarantee that 

that has occurred. 

Mr. THOMPSON. One of the responsibilities that we have is also 

an oversight responsibility. Is there something in your recommendations and in your subsequent plans that will keep us in 

that loop, or are we going to have to find out about this outrageous 

and intolerable behavior through some other means? 

Mr. GEORGE. Mr. Thompson, we publish an audit plan each 

year laying out which audits that we are going to engage in. We 

request information or we solicit ideas from Congress, from the administration and from anyone who has a tangible role in the system of tax administration. And it is our intention to once again do 

that, and there is no doubt in my mind that we will follow up with 

Congress on this matter on a regular basis. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Miller, what are your obligations in regard to reporting this 

type of behavior to Congress? 

Mr. MILLER. I would have to go back and take a look. I don’t 

believe there is an obligation. What happened here, sir, is we knew 

TIGTA was in. I knew TIGTA was in in May, almost immediately 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
66 

when we were involved. We had had a meeting with Mr. George 

and company in May where there was an indication they would be 

done this summer. Our understanding is they were going to get the 

facts, they were going to get them out there. There was never the 

intention or belief that these facts would not come out in full. 

Mr. THOMPSON. General George, is there a need to pass specific legislation that would make it more difficult or hopefully impossible for this to happen again and to strengthen the requirements for reporting when something this outrageous and intolerable takes place? 

Mr. GEORGE. Mr. Thompson, I will answer your question in full, 

but I have to again preface that the Secretary has delegated tax 

policy questions to the Assistant Secretary—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. This is a process question. 

Chairman CAMP. Time has expired so you can supplement that 

answer in writing if you wish. 

Mr. Gerlach is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GERLACH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

According to the Inspector General’s report, the IRS started its 

inappropriate handling of certain tax exempt organization applications in early 2010, and to swing back to some of your prior testimony, Mr. Miller, you indicated that you never spoke—excuse me, 

before I ask that question let me highlight two pieces of media articles that appeared also, one in 2010 as well as one more recently 

in September 2010. There was an article in the Weekly Standard 

concerning the concerns of the coke industry’s attorney that there 

had been confidential taxpayer information potentially in the 

hands of senior administration officials that were part of an August 

27, 2010, on-the-record background briefing. 

Subsequently just a few days ago there in the USA Today there 

was a column and op-ed by a gentleman connected with the National Organization of Marriage who indicates in that op-ed that 

the release of this organization’s confidential tax return to the 

Human Rights Campaign is a canary in the coal mine of IRS corruption. Contrary to assertions that the targeting of Tea Party 

groups was an error in judgment by low level IRS bureaucrats, the 

release of this confidential data to a group of this nature suggests 

the possibility of complicity at the highest levels of politics and government. 

So back to the question of whether there was any information 

sharing of taxpayer records, taxpayer returns, with anybody outside of the IRS, Mr. Miller, you indicated in testimony some moments ago that you never spoke personally or communicated personally with anyone in the White House about the sharing of confidential taxpayer information, is that correct? 

Mr. MILLER. I believe so. 

Mr. GERLACH. Do you have any reason to believe that at some 

point you did from say January 2010 speak to somebody in the 

White House or communicate in another way with somebody in the 

White House about the sharing of confidential taxpayer information? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t think that would happen. 

Mr. GERLACH. So the answer is no, you did not? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t believe I did. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
67 

Mr. GERLACH. Are you aware of any other IRS official from 

that time period to present that communicated with anybody in the 

White House concerning the sharing of confidential taxpayer information to somebody outside of the IRS? 

Mr. MILLER. Can I ask, are you asking whether I am aware—— 

Mr. GERLACH. I am asking whether you are aware of anybody 

else in the IRS that ever from January 2010 to present communicated or spoke with anybody in the White House about the sharing of confidential taxpayer information? 

Mr. MILLER. So I don’t believe so, but what I am confused 

about, sir, I will apologize, but just so I am clear of what I am answering, are you talking about whether I believe we shared information? 

Mr. GERLACH. Whether you have information or belief that any 

confidential taxpayer information, taxpayer being individuals, 

being organizations, being businesses, all of that information being 

shared with somebody outside of the IRS in violation of Section 

6103? 

Mr. MILLER. I have no knowledge of that. That is a question I 

understand. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GERLACH. You did indicate previously, however, in questioning you did speak yourself with Treasury Department officials 

regarding the sharing of information. I am not saying the White 

House now, I am saying the Treasury Department. If I wrote that 

correctly, you did speak to somebody in Treasury about that at 

some point, is that correct? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t think so. 

Mr. GERLACH. Again—— 

Mr. MILLER. Let’s be clear—— 

Mr. GERLACH. I will ask the question more clearly and more directly. Did you ever speak or communicate with anybody in Treasury Department who was not within the IRS about the sharing of 

confidential taxpayer information in violation of 6103? 

Mr. MILLER. Can I rephrase it and you tell me—— 

Mr. GERLACH. No, I phrase the questions and you phrase the 

answers. 

Mr. MILLER. If you are asking me whether did I ever share 

6103—— 

Mr. GERLACH. I didn’t ask that. Did you ever communicate or 

speak with anybody in the Treasury Department, not within the 

IRS, about the sharing of confidential information, taxpayer information? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t believe so. But I don’t know whether you 

are talking about the subject, which would be absolutely fine to 

talk to them about—— 

Mr. GERLACH. That is what I am trying to inquire about, Mr. 

Miller. I am trying to find out what you did, what you knew and 

when you knew that and who you spoke with. So you are saying 

today that at no time from January 2010 to present did you speak 

to somebody in the Treasury Department about the sharing of confidential taxpayer information? 

Mr. MILLER. No. What I am saying, sir, is the following—— 

Mr. GERLACH. I would like an answer to my question, sir. Did 

you ever do that? 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
68 

Mr. MILLER. Did I ever talk to them about the sharing—— 

Mr. GERLACH. Talk or communicate. It might have been by 

email. It might have been by fax. It might have been by sign language. 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t believe so. I can tell you categorically I 

never shared information. Did I ever talk to them about the rules 

around it? I don’t think so, but that would be permissible. 

Mr. GERLACH. Were you aware, I think to Chairman Camp’s 

questions you were aware of news reporting about the National Organization of Marriage and the concern they had about the sharing 

of their confidential information. You indicated on the record that 

you were aware of that news story. So on that story or any other 

story did you talk or communicate with anybody outside of the IRS 

in Treasury about that issue? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t know. I don’t believe so though. 

Mr. GERLACH. Okay. Will you check all of your records, all of 

your notes, all of your emails and get back to this committee about 

whether your answer is different than what you are providing right 

now. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. But what I can say again is—— 

Mr. GERLACH. I have a limited time. 

Chairman CAMP. Time has expired at this point, so why don’t 

we move on to Mr. Kind. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony here today. I think it has been illuminating and very helpful. 

Mr. Miller, let me start with you. I assume you agree with the 

premise that if there is an agency in the Federal Government that 

just needs to be above approach, no hint of bias, partisanship, illtreatment, mistreatment, unequal treatment to any individual or 

any organization, it is the IRS, is that right? 

Mr. MILLER. I agree, sir, and that is what is so sad about this. 

Mr. KIND. And obviously the optics of what happened there in 

the Cincinnati office in reviewing the applications, this is what 

comes from it, is that right? 

Mr. MILLER. The perception is bad. 

Mr. KIND. It is my understanding, too, that based on the Inspector General’s report and the recommendations, the IRS has taken 

that up and is trying to do their best to implement that to ensure 

that this does not happen in the future again? 

Mr. MILLER. We will implement all recommendations and it will 

not happen again. 

Mr. KIND. Mr. Neal asked you previously in his line of questioning about the accountability, who is being held accountable and 

why. Obviously you have rendered your resignation to the President and he has accepted that as Commissioner of IRS, is that 

right? 

Mr. MILLER. I have done so to the Secretary. 

Mr. KIND. Okay. And any other instances of accountability as 

far as those at the Cincinnati office, those in charge of the Cincinnati office in the development and use of this criteria? 

Mr. MILLER. So I think I mentioned there were two instances 

in which there was counseling suggested and there was a reassignment of someone. But what I should say and what I said in my 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
69 

opening statement is we now have possession of the facts with respect to the TIGTA report. Now is the time we should be looking 

at that, once we have the facts. 

Mr. KIND. Any pushback in the IRS with the Inspector General’s 

report and some of the recommendations they are making? Any difference of opinion? 

Mr. MILLER. There is no air between us on the recommendations. 

Mr. KIND. Okay. Is there a rule for the Congress to be working 

with the IRS to ensure that something like this does not happen 

in the future? I am thinking specifically of post-Citizens United 

and 70,000 applications that was submitted and a doubling I understand of (c)(4) applications too. Do you feel there is sufficient 

personnel in order to expedite the review of these applications? 

Mr. MILLER. There are not sufficient personnel. 

Mr. KIND. Of course, I don’t think we will have many recommendations on the other side as far as allocating more resources 

to the IRS so you are sufficiently staffed in order to deal with the 

huge influx that the IRS is experiencing right now. I think there 

is a role for the Congress and we have got to share some responsibility as well. 

But Mr. George, let me ask you, I think part of the problem is 

the definition of the criteria of primarily engaged in social welfare 

seems to be an inherently subjective criteria with no clear bright 

lines or clear rules. I think the IRS is trying to further define that 

for the division in Cincinnati. But is there further tightening of 

that definition which would be helpful to IRS personnel when it 

comes time to review the applications? 

Mr. GEORGE. The answer is yes. 

Mr. KIND. Is that something that has to be done internally with 

IRS or is there a role for Congress to intervene and try to help further define and present some more objective and bright line rules 

when it comes to reviewing social welfare applications? 

Mr. GEORGE. It is my understanding that the IRS has the authority to do this on its own without legislative fixing. 

Mr. KIND. I think obviously this committee will need to be working with IRS too to ensure that that gets done, because otherwise 

it is going to be an inherently flawed human process of subjectively 

applying this criteria, I feel, especially with the huge influx of applications. 

Now, some of this has been delved into but I think it is so important that it needs to be reiterated. Mr. George, I apologize if you 

think you made yourself clear on it, but according to your report 

you found no bias or partisanship behind the development and the 

use of the criteria for selecting applications from the Cincinnati office, is that right? 

Mr. GEORGE. That is correct, sir. But we did find gross mismanagement in the overall—— 

Mr. KIND. That is clear in your report too. Did you find any evidence that anyone outside the IRS was involved in the development 

and review? 

Mr. MILLER. Not at this time, sir. 

Mr. NAME. Not the White House or Treasury? 

Mr. GEORGE. That is correct, sir. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
70 

Mr. KIND. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. I will recognize Dr. Price for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think if I am sitting at home trying to figure out what is going 

on here and listening to the testimony and the remarkable revelations some of these questions, you get some snickers after some of 

them, but you have the Federal Government asking what books 

you read, you have the Federal Government asking whether or not 

you know anybody in your organization that is going to run for political office. This is chilling stuff. This is very, very serious. 

Mr. Miller, do you accept the findings of the IG report? 

Mr. MILLER. We do, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. One of those findings is that groups were targeted. 

Do you accept that finding? 

Mr. MILLER. I would not characterize it as targeting, but—— 

Mr. PRICE. You can understand why others would believe, including the Inspector General, would believe that groups were targeted? 

Mr. MILLER. I think the groups that were put into the centralized grouping would have gone in—they would have gone in whether we had done the correct thing—— 

Mr. PRICE. You described the list of criteria being used to identify these groups as obnoxious, correct? 

Mr. MILLER. Correct. 

Mr. PRICE. And it is not just Tea Party groups, right? It is not 

just conservative groups. In fact there are religious organizations, 

are there not? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t know that, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. Are you not aware that there are religious organizations that were identified by the list of criteria that were formulated? 

Mr. MILLER. I am actually unaware that there were. And I say 

that as though I don’t know. I have looked at the list, but very 

quickly. 

Mr. PRICE. Are you aware that there were some Baptist church 

organizations that were identified for greater scrutiny? 

Mr. MILLER. I was not aware of that, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. Who is Sarah Hall Ingram? 

Mr. MILLER. She is an executive at the Internal Revenue Service who does the Affordable Care Act work for them. 

Mr. PRICE. That is where she works now? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. Where did she work during the period of time under 

question here, 2010 to 2012? 

Mr. MILLER. Someone has corrected my prior comment, I think. 

So 2011 and 2012 I think she was already working on Affordable 

Care Act. I don’t know when in 2010 we made that. 

Mr. PRICE. Did she ever hold the title of Director of Tax Exempt 

Organizations for the IRS? 

Mr. MILLER. She held the division commissioner title. 

Mr. PRICE. So she had responsibility over much of the concerns 

and discussion that we are having today, is that correct? 

Mr. MILLER. At the time she was division commissioner, yes. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
71 

Mr. PRICE. Would she have known about this list of criteria that 

has been formulated, had been formulated? 

Mr. MILLER. I have no reason to believe that she would. 

Mr. PRICE. That she would? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. I have no reason to believe that she would. 

I am sorry if I wasn’t clear. I don’t think so. 

Mr. PRICE. You don’t think she knew about the criteria of the 

folks under her responsibility? 

Mr. MILLER. There are a couple of thousand folks. 

Mr. PRICE. Have you ever had that conversation with her? 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

Mr. PRICE. You have never asked her whether she knew? 

Mr. MILLER. So, I am not sure she was in that time at the time, 

sir. 

Mr. PRICE. I know you have identified her current position with 

one with the IRS oversight over the ACA and regulations related 

to the ACA, is that correct? 

Mr. MILLER. Correct. 

Mr. PRICE. Who appointed her? 

Mr. MILLER. I moved her into that job. 

Mr. PRICE. You have also said that in the context of the criteria 

list and what we are talking about today that the IRS ‘‘provided 

horrible service.’’ Correct? 

Mr. MILLER. I think that is correct. 

Mr. PRICE. That is what you said earlier today. And the individual who was overseeing a portion of this and had responsibility 

for the provision of this ‘‘horrible service’’ now sits over the entity 

at the IRS that will determine whether or not people are complying 

with the rules of the ACA, is that not correct? 

Mr. MILLER. No, I don’t think it is, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. So Sarah Ingram is not at the IRS over control of 

the regulatory—— 

Mr. MILLER. She was for at most a period of the time, but we 

would have to go back. I don’t think your timeline works perfectly, 

sir. I would have to go back and check. There may be a period of 

time when she was still in that job, but she had transferred 

over—— 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. McDermott in questioning you said the IRS 

wouldn’t have any access to medical records, is that correct? 

Mr. MILLER. I believe that is correct. 

Mr. PRICE. So it would be unnecessary for them to gain access 

to medical records, correct? 

Mr. MILLER. I can’t—— 

Mr. PRICE. It would be unnecessary? 

Mr. MILLER. I think so. 

Mr. PRICE. Isn’t that how you described the questions and the 

information that the IRS folks were gaining through the criteria 

list, unnecessary? 

Mr. MILLER. I think—are you talking about the letters that 

came out? 

Mr. PRICE. I am saying that there is a parallel here in the expansive nature of what the IRS has done. Would you care to recharacterize the ‘‘unnecessary’’ word? Is it illegal what they have 

done? 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
72 

Mr. MILLER. It is absolutely not illegal. 

Mr. PRICE. It is not illegal what the IRS has done? 

Mr. MILLER. Sir, let me understand the question. What is your 

statement as to what is illegal? 

Mr. PRICE. Do you believe it is illegal for employees of the IRS 

to create lists to target individual groups and citizens in this country? 

Mr. MILLER. I think the Treasury Inspector General indicated 

that it might not be, but others will be able to tell that. 

Mr. PRICE. What do you believe? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t believe it is. I don’t believe it should happen. Please don’t get me wrong. It should not happen. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. Mr. Blumenauer is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the opportunity for our being able to listen to the witnesses 

and try and develop the record and people putting forth their own 

ideas, their own questions, clarification. I think, Mr. Inspector General, that you have provided a tremendous service with the report, 

straightforward, identifying mismanagement, inappropriate activity, and I hope that people will be able to actually read the report, 

to reflect on it. 

I appreciate your being here, Mr. Miller. It is not the most comfortable. I appreciate that you as a career civil servant accepted responsibility even though you hadn’t done these things directly and 

resigned. It is an air of responsibility you don’t often see in the political arena, I will say. But I am hopeful that we can continue to 

probe, to direct, to make sure that no political entity is subjected 

to inappropriate activity on behalf of the IRS. 

I appreciate some of my colleagues talking about efforts that we 

can do to clarify laws and regulations together to be able to make 

sure that there is less ambiguity and there are better standards, 

but I also think at some point it will be interesting to reflect on 

Congress’ role in what the chairman referred to in pretty strong 

terms about a Tax Code. 

When I came here in the 104th Congress there were 114,000 employees in the IRS. Since I have been here, Congress in its wisdom 

has expanded the Code, made it more complex, and cut dramatically the men and women who are on the front lines to deal with 

it. There is an inadequate training budget. We have had this testimony just across the Capitol before the Senate this last week. And 

I really hope that there is an opportunity to think about how we 

support the integrity of the Internal Revenue Service, not just by 

making sure there isn’t inappropriate or gross mismanagement, 

there is accountability, there is clarification, but we rely on it to 

be able to function. And Congress has slowly been starving the 

budget of the IRS at a time when each of those employees, each 

dollar spent on those employees, gives the Federal Government 

about $214 in revenue. And for us to not make sure that it is adequately staffed, adequately trained, adequately equipped invites 

shortcuts, makes it harder to have the oversight and the accountability and harder for overall performance. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
73 

I think it is inexcusable to cross the line. I think it is important 

that we bear down, we understand, we make sure it doesn’t happen 

again. But I also think as the Congress has made the Code more 

and more complex, given the IRS fewer and fewer resources to administer it, made it difficult to train, I think it undermines the 

ability to take a complex entity that relies on self-reporting and 

people having confidence in it. And I am hopeful that this isn’t 

something that we slide past. 

I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your interest in simplifying and reforming the Code, but I also hope that we look at the tasks they 

have been given, the budget they have been given, and think a little bit about maybe a rate of return that would more than pay for 

itself if we invested in training, in management, and having more 

than 150 people to deal with the avalanche of these applications. 

I guess that wasn’t so much a question, but it is something that 

occurred to me, and I know, Mr. Miller, you had referenced the 

stress that that group is on and how hard it is to keep track. And 

at some point if you would provide to the committee, I am not putting you on the spot now, but some reflections on what it would 

take to do this right, I think it would be a valuable part of the committee’s record going forward, because we all want it to have integrity, we want it done right, we want to treat our employees and 

the taxpayers properly. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. Mr. Buchanan is recognized. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Miller, I want to talk a little bit about the culture of the organization, looking at the note, your bio, 90,000 employees, $12 billion budget. You have been there 25 years. I am concerned. 

I guess to start off, we have got a mission statement there. I am 

very concerned about the breadth and the depth of maybe what is 

going on. I think a lot of employees probably do a good job, but I 

have been a person who has been in business 30 years and run 

larger organizations. So you have a mission statement in terms of 

talking about working for the American people, doing what is right, 

playing by the rules. 

Is that something that is internalized at the IRS or is that just 

something on a website? 

Mr. MILLER. I believe, Congressman, it is internalized, and the 

vast majority of our folk are hard-working, incredibly honest people. I am going to tell you, and you guys should hear, that as these 

discussions occur, it is damaging to the morale of those people and 

it is probably ultimately damaging to the sense of voluntary compliance which underlies our entire tax system. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Let me say obviously I think there is probably 

a lot of good people, but at the same time we have a massive PR 

problem at minimum. 

Mr. MILLER. We do. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. And this has got to be dealt with quickly. It 

can’t just drag on for 6 months to a year. So I think we need to 

get to the bottom of it. The other thing, let me just ask, in terms 

of that size organization, who is in charge? Who is the boss? How 

is that hierarchy, how does it work? I ran a very decentralized 

business where I had a corporate structure, but I had managers 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
74 

and partners in different operations. How is the IRS, you know, in 

terms of being an Acting Commissioner, you have been there 25 

years, who do you report to or the Commissioner ideally in the 

past, who do they report to and at what point when something like 

this comes up, who is involved at the next level up? 

Mr. MILLER. So the reporting chain and the organization, there 

are two deputies reporting to the Commissioner and the Commissioner reports to the Deputy Secretary of Treasury. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Who is ultimately responsible? 

Mr. MILLER. The Commissioner, Acting Commissioner. Not 

Treasury. The Treasury relationship is such that they would not be 

involved. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. So who would be responsible for you? Who basically asked you to resign or fired you? 

Mr. MILLER. It would be Secretary Lew. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. The Secretary of the Treasury. The other 

thing is, let me ask you, there has been two people that have 

been—were you terminated or fired? What happened there? Or are 

you getting ready to retire? 

Mr. MILLER. I was asked to resign and I will retire under the 

Civil Service rules. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. On what basis do you feel like you are getting 

asked, and maybe one other person I guess got asked, but it seems 

like there is a lot of other people ideally in Cincinnati and Washington and other parts that haven’t been held accountable. 

Mr. MILLER. I’m not sure what the question is, sir. If I could 

answer it and then tell me if I am answering the wrong question. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Go ahead. 

Mr. MILLER. We are not done yet. We are not. We now have the 

Treasury Inspector General’s report. We now have the sense of the 

facts. Now is the time for those that remain, including the incoming Acting Commissioner, Mr. Warfel, to take those actions. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Let me mention as it has been brought up 

with a couple of the ladies that work with you, Lois Lerner and 

Sarah Ingram, what is being done about those two? Because they 

have been in the press, there is a lot of concern about that. They 

ran a large operation and it seems to be at the heart of the issues 

today. I think that has got to get dealt with in a very aggressive 

clear way in the next week or two. 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t know whether it will be or not. That will 

be up to the new Acting Commissioner. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Let me just ask you in terms of the new Acting Commissioner, are we looking to get a permanent Commissioner, or is this going to be, you know, for a period of time? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t have that information. I would assume, 

however, that we ought to have a nomination—— 

Mr. BUCHANAN. I hope, because I think at the end of the day 

that leadership matters and getting the right culture, the right environment within the organization, the IRS, it needs incredible 

leadership and incredible integrity and we need to make sure that 

that person, not so much the acting one, but the permanent one, 

is the right person going forward. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MILLER. I very much agree, sir. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
75 

Chairman CAMP. Ms. Schwartz is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to ask 

questions. Let me just say a couple of things and then ask a question, and I will attempt to be brief. This is not an easy hearing for 

you or for us. 

We are outraged on behalf of the American people. That is number one. The American people deserve to be able to trust their government for fairness and lack of bias, and that was violated. And 

that violation is outrageous and unacceptable to us and I hope to 

you. 

And the fact that, number two, there need to be changes. It is 

already happening. Some changes you are making. But we need to 

be assured that those changes will be made. Things happen, investigations have to be done, and then changes have to be made to ensure the American people that we know that and we will not accept 

bias or discrimination in any way. I think that is clear to all of us. 

The second thing I will say is that this committee and Congress 

also has a responsibility to do this in our own questioning and our 

demand for accountability and transparency from you, from the administration, from everything that happened, to do it in a way that 

is not political either. I think we have to be very careful about that, 

and I would compel all of my colleagues to make sure that we also 

engage in this in a way that is clear and fair and nonpolitical. We 

all agree that something has to be done and we should do it. 

So my question though is really about sort of more broadly what 

is going on in the divisions that handle the applications for nonprofit status. I have heard in my own office that groups come to 

us that have applied for nonprofit status, mostly 501(c)(3), not 

(c)(4), which is the issue here, but the backlog is a year. They don’t 

understand why it takes so long. They don’t understand why—they 

are not clear about what is wrong with their application. They are 

not hearing back. And given some of the cuts that we have made, 

nonprofit groups in particular, the ones—the 501(c)(3) in particular, but really are looking to try and make up some of the gaps 

that are here, you know, to be able to raise money and charitable 

contributions and to make a difference in our communities. 

And I for one need to have better clarification about what the criteria is, why don’t they hear back, why those applications are taking longer than a year, if there are problems with them what kind 

of questions you legitimately can ask and ones you can’t and how 

we can move this process forward. And I think that we have every 

reason to ask those questions and get those kinds of answer also 

on behalf of our constituents. 

Again, it goes for all of the nonprofit organizations. If there are 

reasons to review an application in greater depth, and there may 

well be, certainly we have to understand that better and so do the 

people making those applications. They should not be in the dark 

about the criteria. They should not be in the dark about why it is 

sitting on somebody’s desk or receiving more review. 

So if you could clarify for us now, Mr. Miller, or give us some 

more information as we go forward about what that criteria is and 

what we can expect and what we can explain and how we can help 

you make sure that you are doing this right, and when they mess 

up, Mr. George, you are in there doing that investigation and getVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:09 Jul 09, 2016 Jkt 089457 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\89457.XXX 89457

ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
76 

ting those answers and correcting those and we can ensure the 

American people of the right process, the fairness of that process, 

the criteria that is being used, and a timely, appropriate responsive 

process to American taxpayers and certainly to nonprofit, hopeful 

nonprofit organizations. 

So I will give you a chance to answer that. It would be appreciated. 

Mr. MILLER. I think probably it is a big enough question that 

we will follow up in writing. But the process right now is, as I have 

mentioned, is that we have a limited number of people, 140 to 200, 

that work on the 70,000 applications that come in for tax exempt 

status. Most of those are 501(c)(3) organizations. 

Now, 501(c)(3) organizations get a number of tax benefits. They 

get deductibility of contributions. They get the ability in some instances to issue bonds. They get State tax exemptions, property tax 

exemptions, postal rate reductions. These are significant benefits in 

addition to just tax exemption and we have to look at them. We 

do. And many of them are small organizations that should go 

through very quickly, and some of them are large organizations 

that we need to take a look at, the largest hospital systems, the 

largest universities. There are some large organizations. 

Then you look at particular issues within them. And we will look 

for, is there inurement, is there private benefit, is there political 

activity going on. Because, again, (c)(3)s, no political activity is permissible. (C)(4)s, some, but not a primary amount of activities can 

be political in nature. Those are things that take time. We try to 

look. We try to move them along as fast as we can. We do not have 

enough people right now. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. So you feel you don’t have enough staff but you 

are clear about the criteria. This will be a continuing conversation. 

Chairman CAMP. I am afraid time has expired. 

Mr. Smith is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Miller, could you define political activity as it would relate 

to the agency and the applications? 

Mr. MILLER. Under the Internal Revenue Code political campaign activity has some definitional limits. You need a candidate. 

You need a candidate for public office. And that is sort of what you 

need for it to be a political campaign activity under 501(c)(3) and 

501(c)(4). A little different under 527 rules. 

Mr. SMITH. And was it the concern about political activity that 

led to the centralization organization of reviewing the applications? 

Mr. MILLER. I believe it was. It was the fact that we were seeing more applications indicating that they might be doing political 

activity. And it is an area that is very difficult for us. Is it education? Is it an issue ad? Is it actual campaign intervention? Those 

are very difficult for us to parse out. 

The decision was made to try to get them into one group and 

educate their people. How they started that process was one of the 

problems here. The other probable here, as I have mentioned, is 

the method of processing these cases was flawed, and I think that 

the TIGTA report and Mr. Russell’s report goes into great detail on 

the problems that we saw in terms of the lack of communication 

between pieces of the service, the letters that were going out that 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
77 

were overly broad and the complaints that we were getting rightfully from those who were given a remarkably little amount of time 

to explain an awful lot of stuff. 

Mr. SMITH. And how many employees at the IRS would you say 

would have been associated before the centralization and then after 

the centralization? 

Mr. MILLER. I am not sure of the question, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. The number of employees associated with the applications were greater in number before the centralization, is that accurate? 

Mr. MILLER. It might be. I don’t really know the answer to that. 

It might have been the same X number of people, but they were 

centralized versus spread out. 

Mr. SMITH. Now, it was mentioned earlier in testimony, in questions, that donor lists were requested by the IRS, is that accurate? 

Mr. MILLER. That is accurate. In some cases. 

Mr. SMITH. In some cases. 

Mr. MILLER. Not all these cases by any stretch of the imagination, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. And did the acquisition of those lists ever lead to 

additional—or did those lists trigger any further inquiries or new 

inquiries? 

Mr. MILLER. No. I believe what happened is when they hit the 

paper, we discussed it. We told people that—I will go back for a 

moment. Donors can be relevant, but they certainly shouldn’t be in 

every case. They shouldn’t be asked in every case. They can be relevant if a donor has a contract with the organization, if the donor 

is doing it for a political purpose, but to just ask for donors without 

a rationale shouldn’t be done. 

When we saw that it happened we asked that, you know, if they 

hadn’t sent then in, we reached out and said don’t send them in. 

If they had sent them in, we said we are not going to use these, 

and we didn’t. You will not find them used in any of these cases. 

There was something, I don’t know how many of these cases there 

were, maybe 30 or something like that is my understanding, I 

could be wrong on that, more than half of those were not Tea Party 

cases that got these donor list requests, by the way. But going 

back, it was overly broad. It was not necessary. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Miller. 

Mr. George, I will ask you the same question. In the cases where 

donor lists were requested, was it your finding that those lists perhaps triggered further inquiries? 

Mr. GEORGE. Well, I don’t have an answer to that aspect of 

your question, Mr. Smith. I do know that 27 donor lists were requested. 

Mr. SMITH. Twenty-seven donor lists were requested. 

Mr. GEORGE. Correct. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Miller, on the safeguards against bias I think 

the underlying concern of this entire situation is that bias was applied. Can you share whether there were safeguards in place that 

were not honored to try to prevent the bias before this situation 

came about? 

Mr. MILLER. So, obviously I don’t think, and, again whether it 

was bias or perception of bias will play out over time. Let me tell 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
78 

you that we have something on the exam side of the house that has 

worked remarkably well, and that is before anybody gets selected 

for examination by reason of political activity it goes through a 

committee. So no one person can do this. And that cuts down on 

the bias. We do a better job of precisely explaining why we are 

doing it. On the determ side, less so. So what we have done is elevated the issuance of the criteria to a higher level in the organization. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Mr. George? 

Mr. GEORGE. I would just point out, sir, of the 27, 13 were from 

Tea Party groups of the donor lists. 

Mr. SMITH. All right. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. Time has expired. 

Mr. Davis is recognized. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want 

to thank both of you gentleman for being here. 

Everybody that I have heard make a statement or comment, 

every reviewing body that has had an opinion, have suggested that 

obviously there was some behavior on the part of senior level IRS 

staff that was unwarranted, unacceptable, intolerable, and, of 

course, should never happen again. It is also clear that there have 

been management challenges such as such as who has the authority to do what relative to policy as well as operational procedures. 

Mr. George, let me ask you, when did you start the audit? 

Mr. GEORGE. Our audit, sir, began with a request from a congressional staff member in—I want to give you the exact date, sir, 

and I do have that here. March 1st of 2012 was when we were initially contacted by a Government Reform staff member, and our 

audit began in roughly May, or March rather, of 2012. We had 

meetings prior to that, but I would point to March of 2012. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Miller, when did you first learn of the audit or 

know about the audit? 

Mr. MILLER. Sometime in that same timeframe. It would have 

been in March when we certainly were aware that TIGTA was taking a look at this at some juncture at that time. 

Mr. DAVIS. So you knew that this was underway pretty much 

from the beginning? 

Mr. MILLER. I did. 

Mr. DAVIS. And did it ever occur perhaps to have certain kinds 

of conversations, interactions with whoever would be determined as 

your superiors? 

Mr. MILLER. I mean, I’m sure Mr. Shulman knew. I’m not sure 

that anybody above Mr. Shulman knew. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me ask you, Mr. George, during your investigation we’ve heard all kinds of allegations. As a matter of fact, some 

people have even been suggesting that a good thing to know is 

who’s going to be the next person to go to jail, who’s going to be 

indicted. 

During your investigation did you or was it reported to you by 

any of your investigators that there was any apparent criminal intent or activity on the part of these employees? 

Mr. GEORGE. Nothing out of the initial review of the audit to 

that effect, Mr. Davis, but there will be subsequent review on our 

part on this matter. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
79 

Mr. DAVIS. You know, after listening to all of the discussion and 

reading all of the information that I’ve read, I am not convinced 

that this is a great big political conspiracy. I would certainly admit 

that there has been some ineptitude, there has been some lack of 

serious management procedures used and adhered to. 

Let me ask both of you, since you’ve had considerable experience 

with the Internal Revenue Service, what would be your recommendations to the new Commissioner coming in? 

Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. There is no question that this has damaged the 

reputation of this organization and the new Commissioner needs to 

take steps to ensure that we have restored that trust that’s so essential. And that’s where he or she should take action. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. George. 

Mr. GEORGE. And I would point out, sir—and this is one of the 

recommendations that we make—training is necessary at all levels 

on a repeated basis of IRS staff, and especially in terms of the political season. You have a lot of turnover, especially at lower levels 

at the IRS, and people simply need to know and to be kept up informed—up to date rather—of the new regulations and requirements. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield 

back. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Schock is recognized. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me begin by saying that I am most concerned that the IRS 

attempt a week ago to clean up and apologize for abusing conservative organizations seeking tax-exempt status is really the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The IRS’ stellar reputation of being above 

partisan politics has been shattered by these revelations, and these 

revelations now seem to be far from complete. The IRS at first revealed that the words Tea Party, patriots, and a few other phrases 

triggered extra scrutiny. Since then, more and more revelations 

have come to light. 

Mr. Chairman, I have with me a 150-page document given to me 

by the Thomas More Society detailing a number of pro-life organizations throughout the country which in application to 501(c)3 status were given horrible instances of IRS abuse of power, political 

and religious bias, and a repression of their constitutional rights. 

I’m going to submit these documents detailing what these organizations went through to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax 

Administration, asking for a reply to this committee about the degree of abuse these organizations received during their application 

for tax-exempt status. 

[The information follows:] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
80 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.023.eps
81 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.024.eps
82 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.025.eps
83 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.026.eps
84 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.027.eps
85 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.028.eps
86 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.029.eps Insert 89457.030.eps Insert 89457.031.eps
87 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.032.eps
88 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.033.eps
89 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.034.eps
90 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.035.eps
91 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.036.eps
92 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.037.eps
93 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.038.eps
94 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.039.eps
95 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.040.eps
96 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.041.eps
97 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.042.eps
98 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.043.eps
99 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.044.eps
100 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.045.eps
101 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.046.eps
102 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.047.eps
103 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.048.eps
104 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.049.eps
105 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.050.eps
106 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.051.eps
107 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.052.eps
108 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.053.eps
109 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.054.eps
110 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.055.eps
111 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.056.eps
112 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.057.eps
113 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.058.eps
114 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.059.eps
115 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.060.eps
116 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.061.eps
117 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.062.eps
118 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.063.eps
119 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.064.eps
120 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.065.eps
121 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.066.eps
122 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.067.eps
123 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.068.eps
124 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.069.eps
125 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.070.eps
126 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.071.eps
127 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.072.eps
128 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.073.eps
129 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.074.eps
130 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.075.eps
131 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.076.eps
132 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.077.eps
133 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.078.eps
134 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.079.eps
135 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.080.eps
136 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.081.eps
137 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.082.eps
138 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.083.eps
139 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.084.eps
140 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.085.eps
141 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.086.eps
142 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.087.eps
143 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.088.eps
144 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.089.eps
145 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.090.eps
146 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.091.eps
147 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.092.eps
148 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.093.eps
149 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.094.eps
150 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.095.eps
151 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.096.eps
152 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.097.eps
153 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.098.eps
154 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.099.eps
155 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.100.eps
156 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.101.eps
157 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.102.eps
158 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.103.eps
159 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.104.eps
160 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.105.eps
161 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.106.eps
162 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.107.eps
163 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.108.eps
164 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.109.eps
165 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.110.eps
166 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.111.eps Insert 89457.112.eps
167 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.113.eps Insert 89457.114.eps
168 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.115.eps
169 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.116.eps
170 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.117.eps
171 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.118.eps
172 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.119.eps
173 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.120.eps
174 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.121.eps
175 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.122.eps
176 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.123.eps
177 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.124.eps
178 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.125.eps
179 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.126.eps
180 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.127.eps
181 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.128.eps
182 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.129.eps
183 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.130.eps
184 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.131.eps
185 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.132.eps
186 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.133.eps
187 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.134.eps
188 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.135.eps
189 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.136.eps
190 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.137.eps
191 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.138.eps
192 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.139.eps
193 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.140.eps
194 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.141.eps
195 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.142.eps
196 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.143.eps
197 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.144.eps
198 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.145.eps
199 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.146.eps
200 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.147.eps
201 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.148.eps
202 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.149.eps
203 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.150.eps
204 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.151.eps
205 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.152.eps
206 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.153.eps
207 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.154.eps
208 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.155.eps
209 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.156.eps
210 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.157.eps
211 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.158.eps
212 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.159.eps
213 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.160.eps
214 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.161.eps
215 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.162.eps
216 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.163.eps
217 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.164.eps
218 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.165.eps
219 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.166.eps
220 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.167.eps
221 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.168.eps
222 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.169.eps
223 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.170.eps
224 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.171.eps
225 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.172.eps Insert 89457.173.eps Insert 89457.174.eps
226 

Mr. SCHOCK. I would like to just highlight a few of those purported abuses and ask for your opinion on them. In a letter from 

the IRS Office of Exempt Organizations specialists in El Monte, 

California, specifically the Pacific Coast division—I would note this 

is not in the Cincinnati division—to the Christian Voices for Life 

of Fort Bend County in Sugar Land, Texas, dated March 31, 2011, 

that I have here with me today, they were asked specifically— 

again, this is a pro-life group—‘‘In your educational program do you 

do education on both sides of the issues in your programs?’’ 

Mr. Miller, your knowledge of the 501(c)3 application, is that an 

appropriate question to ask? 

Mr. MILLER. So I’m going to be honest and I’m not going to be 

able to speak to a specific development letter in a specific case. I 

don’t know that I can do that under 6103. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Okay. Let me ask you about another letter that 

was received by a pro-life group, this one in Iowa. Their question 

specifically asks from the IRS to the Coalition for Life of Iowa, 

quote, ‘‘Please detail the content of the members of your organization’s prayers.’’ 

Would that be an appropriate question to a 501(c)3 applicant, the 

content of one’s prayers? 

Mr. MILLER. It pains me to say I can’t speak to that one either. 

But that’s—— 

Mr. SCHOCK. You don’t know whether or not that would be an 

appropriate question to ask? 

Mr. MILLER. Speaking outside of this case, which I don’t know 

anything about, it would surprise me that that question was asked. 

Mr. SCHOCK. And finally, during another applicant’s conversation or back and forth, they were asked specifically, quote, ‘‘Please 

detail certain signs that may or may not be held up outside of a 

Planned Parenthood facility,’’ end quote. 

Would that be an appropriate follow-up to an applicant for 

501(c)3 application? 

Mr. MILLER. Again, I don’t know what the context would be. 

But, again, that doesn’t sound like the usual question. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Thank you. Well, hopefully, Mr. George and the 

Inspector General’s office can enlighten us. 

Mr. George, during your investigations are you aware of the 

three letters submitted by Senators Baucus, Schumer, and Durbin 

written to the IRS, specifically Mr. Shulman, asking them to give 

extra scrutiny to 501(c)4 applications? 

Mr. GEORGE. I am aware of it, but I don’t know the details, sir. 

Mr. SCHOCK. So in your investigation so far, in questioning employees of the IRS, did you ask them specifically whether or not 

these letters from sitting United States Senators influenced or impacted their decisions around these cases? 

Mr. GEORGE. I do not believe that was part of the inquiry, sir. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Will you ask those questions in the future? 

Mr. GEORGE. I will ask that, if appropriate. We will certainly 

do so, if appropriate. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I’m particularly troubled by some on this committee who seem to want to rationalize or justify the inappropriate 

behavior by the IRS in these cases by their disagreement with the 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
227 

Citizen United ruling of our Supreme Court. I think we all know 

that our Nation is a Nation of laws and we either abide by those 

laws or not, to our peril. And whether we agree with the Citizens 

United ruling or not should not be justification for this agency, 

which is charged with upholding the rule of law equitably for all 

people in all groups, regardless of party affiliation or motive. 

Specifically, Mr. Miller, I was troubled by your comment that you 

found this grouping—Mr. George, with the Inspector General’s office calls it targeting—to be inappropriate but not illegal. I’m wondering if you can give me examples of other targeting within the 

IRS that you’re aware of that would be inappropriate but not illegal. 

Mr. MILLER. So I probably, Congressman, should tell you that 

I don’t know—it’s my belief that what happened here wasn’t illegal, 

but I suppose there are some facts that might come out that would 

indicate otherwise. But it’s not my area. I don’t know. But it certainly was inappropriate, no question about that. I’m unaware—we 

have used listings elsewhere—— 

Mr. SCHOCK. Can you give me a few examples? 

Mr. MILLER. A credit counseling organization would be one of 

those that were used a name to pull those cases together to work 

in a consistent and fair manner. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Time is expired. 

Ms. Jenkins is recognized. 

Ms. JENKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, we’ve heard a lot of outrage, a lot of anger and disappointment. But I have to tell you, after sitting here for a couple 

hours, I’m sad and I’m sick to my stomach that Americans could 

be targeted by a government agency based on their political beliefs. 

Mr. Miller, in response to Congressman Nunes you mentioned 

that you had a discussion with Treasury—someone at Treasury— 

regarding the TIGTA report. I was just wondering if you could give 

us more details about when that conversation occurred and with 

whom. 

Mr. MILLER. So I don’t—I don’t know the precise date, but it 

would have been very recently after the report was done. And I 

think I think Mr. George can speak to when he indicated to some 

parts of Treasury as well. It might have been in the same timeframe. 

Ms. JENKINS. So would that have been the first time you had 

a discussion with someone from Treasury about this situation? 

Mr. MILLER. This situation being the listing and the treatment 

of these cases? 

Ms. JENKINS. Correct. 

Mr. MILLER. I think so. 

Ms. JENKINS. So out of all of the news reports that have come 

out in the last couple years there was never a discussion at IRS 

with Treasury about the situation until just recently? 

Mr. MILLER. You asked the question, was the TIGTA report? 

Yeah, the TIGTA report was described and discussed with them recently. I don’t believe the specifics were described or discussed with 

them earlier, but I don’t know that. They weren’t by me, I don’t 

think. 

Ms. JENKINS. Okay. Who was your conversation with? 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
228 

Mr. MILLER. I would have talked at some point to Mr. Patterson, the chief of staff, and subsequent to Mr. George’s discussion 

with Mr. Wolin, I spoke to Mr. Wolin. 

Ms. JENKINS. You spoke with whom? 

Mr. MILLER. Mr Wolin. 

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Wolin? 

Mr. MILLER. Wolin. 

Ms. JENKINS. And how did that conversation go? What did 

Treasury have to say? 

Mr. MILLER. We just talked through the troubling nature of the 

reports. I indicated that we had worked on fixing the problem. And 

that’s what we talked about. 

Ms. JENKINS. They didn’t give you any advice and counsel on 

how to move forward? 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

Ms. JENKINS. Okay. 

Mr. George, how often do you meet with Treasury leadership and 

IRS leadership regarding open audits? 

Mr. GEORGE. With IRS leadership, we meet monthly with the 

Commissioner or Acting Commissioner on a standing basis and 

then we’ll have communications as necessary. The Secretary holds 

a monthly meeting with bureau heads. And in conjunction with 

those meetings I meet monthly with the General Counsel of the Department of the Treasury, and then on an as-needed with the Deputy Secretary, Mr. Wolin. 

Ms. JENKINS. Okay. When did you first alert Treasury leadership and IRS leadership about this specific audit? 

Mr. GEORGE. I alerted Commissioner—then-Commissioner 

Shulman on May 30, 2012. I subsequently alerted the General 

Counsel of the Department of the Treasury on June 4. And subsequently—and I do not have the exact date—alerted the Deputy Secretary, Neal Wolin, about this matter. And then upon his assumption into the position, I mentioned it to Secretary Lew. 

Ms. JENKINS. Okay. So May 30 would have been the first time 

that Mr. Shulman would have known about the troubling allegation. 

Mr. GEORGE. From my perspective. I would assume that people 

within the Internal Revenue Service would have given him a 

heads-up about this troubling matter, but I can’t say that for certain. 

Ms. JENKINS. Okay. In your report you indicate that the decisions to target Americans based on political beliefs were made only 

within the IRS. How did you determine that? 

Mr. GEORGE. These were through interviews with IRS staffers 

both in Cincinnati, Ohio, as well as in Washington, D.C., at the 

headquarters of the Determinations Unit and the Exempt Organizations Unit. 

Ms. JENKINS. So did you interview Mr. Miller? 

Mr. GEORGE. We did not interview Mr. Miller. 

Ms. JENKINS. So how would you know—did you interview anyone at Treasury? 

Mr. GEORGE. We did not. And the reason for that is because at 

the time of our interviews we had no indication, because this was 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
229 

an ongoing matter, and we didn’t have any indication from those 

initial interviews that they were implicated in this matter. 

Ms. JENKINS. So had anyone given you any indication that you 

needed to visit with someone higher, you would have had the authority—— 

Mr. GEORGE. Most definitely. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Time has expired. 

Mr. Paulsen’s recognized. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There have been a lot of news reports this week that this has 

been a bad week for the President or a bad week for the administration. But I will just tell you, after hearing additional testimony 

this morning myself, that this is a bad week for America. That’s 

the bottom line. And when supposedly neutral actors in our government choose sides and the results end up being highly corrosive to 

our democracy, this is a violation, clearly, of the trust of the American people. 

Mr. George, your report indicated and you’ve testified that the 

IRS improperly requested donor lists from targeted organizations. 

Obviously, that’s a concern from the perspective of the pattern of 

behavior at the IRS based on the report from delays of applications 

and targeting and also the dissemination of confidential information. 

But let me ask you this. How long did the IRS, because you acknowledged this just earlier from 27 different organizations, how 

long did the IRS have in its possession these lists, these improper 

lists that they shouldn’t have had in their possession from 27 different organizations? 

Mr. GEORGE. Congressman, they did not indicate, and we did 

inquire the length of time that they maintained that information. 

But, again, they did acknowledge that once they realized they 

should not have collected it, they destroyed it. But I do not have 

a direct answer as to how long they held on to it. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Miller, do you know how long the improperly 

obtained lists were in the IRS’ possession? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t know. And, look, they were—the letters 

were bad. They were just way too broad. Should they have asked 

for them? Probably not. Was it bad intent or bad management? My 

guess and my understanding, bad management. When we found 

out about it we reached out to people who hadn’t sent them yet and 

we told them, don’t send them. We went to people had sent them 

and told them we are not going to use them unless we need to, and 

we didn’t. And at that point my understanding is that we did not 

use them in any of those cases and they are not being retained. 

They would have been destroyed in the ordinary course of our 

records retention rules. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. George, were you able to confirm that the 

lists were actually destroyed, and if so, how were you able to confirm that? 

Mr. GEORGE. It’s through the testimony—the interviews that 

were conducted by our auditors. Now, I have to admit that that 

was not done under oath, but we have to go by what we were told 

by the employees. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
230 

Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. George, do you have any idea how many donors were involved as a part of those lists? 

Mr. GEORGE. Again, 27 is my understanding of the lists of donors requested. So within the list, I’m not sure. But as I pointed 

out, 13 of the 27 were from Tea Party groups. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Okay. Mr. Miller, let me ask, is it an IRS practice to ask about a group’s relationship with a specific person who’s 

not a part of an organization that is applying for nonprofit status 

as a part of an application process? 

Mr. MILLER. So it can be, depending on the facts, based on is 

there a contractual relationship that could be an issue, is there 

undue influence going on in some fashion. For example, we would 

be looking at—we would be looking at private benefit. 

The one other thing, I want you to know that the donor lists, because I want to just make it clear, 13 were Tea Party, but I believe—my numbers are just a little different, two one way or another—but the Tea Party ones include 9/12 patriots. The listing 

folks were the minority of the people who got the donor questions. 

I just want to clarify the record there. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Sure. Mr. Miller, has the IRS ever asked a question of an individual, have they ever asked what’s your relationship 

with John Doe when they ask an organization that’s applying status? Is that a common practice? Have you asked that question? 

Mr. MILLER. I’m sorry. Can you rephrase that, sir? 

Mr. PAULSEN. Well, Mr. Tiberi was going down a line of questioning earlier about lengthy process of a questionnaire that was 

filed with an organization and the IRS had asked the question on 

number 26 of an individual: Provide details regarding your relationship with this individual. 

Is that a common practice? Does the IRS normally do that? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t know what we’re talking about there, and 

it’s on an individual case, and I really should not and cannot speak 

to an individual case, sir. I’m sorry. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Would it be safe to say that knowing that that’s 

probably inappropriate, would there be repercussions or some sort 

of discipline that might be followed up if that was determined to 

be appropriate on that type of a questionnaire—question? 

Mr. MILLER. It would depend on the context, again, and I don’t 

have the context, and why it was asked and was it a lack of controls and was it a mistake or was it something different than that. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Marchant is recognized. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Miller, let’s go back to the IRS planted 

question issue. When was Celia Roady told to ask the question? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t have, you know, exact knowledge on that. 

I did not do that. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Who told her to ask the question? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t know, actually. I’m not sure. It might have 

been Lois Lerner, but I really am not sure. 

Mr. MARCHANT. What did you tell her about the background of 

the issue? 

Mr. MILLER. What did I tell who? 

Mr. MARCHANT. Roady. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
231 

Mr. MILLER. I did not have any conversations with Celia. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Did anyone give her a copy, an advanced copy 

of the IG’s report? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t believe so. But, again—again, I did not 

have those conversations. But I would be shocked if that happened. 

Mr. MARCHANT. And how long did she know about the report 

before the committee knew? 

Mr. MILLER. Again, you’d have to ask the people who had the 

conversation. But, again, it would shock me if she knew anything 

before she had the conversation with whomever she had it with. 

Mr. MARCHANT. On March the 28th I wrote the Commissioner 

a letter that basically asked him whether local Tea Party groups 

in my district were being harassed or given lengthy questionnaires 

and were being discouraged from seeking tax-exempt status. That 

was March 28. On June the 22th I got a letter from Mr. Grant that 

basically gave me a lot of assurances that nothing like that was 

taking place and that nothing out of the ordinary was going on and 

that they were following just regular order. 

Then, following the timeline, shortly after my first letter—shortly 

before my first letter, Mr. Boustany asked in a hearing, an oversight hearing, if there was anything going on over at IRS about 

these applications. And he was told by Commissioner Shulman: I 

can give you assurances there is absolutely no targeting going on. 

Following that same timeline, on July the 25th, we had another 

Oversight Committee hearing in which Commissioner Miller and I 

had an extended conversation about this very subject. And that 

conversation is in this transcript. Anyone can get this on the Internet and can read the questions. But the questions were very specifically about Tea Party groups and their difficulties in getting 

their tax-exempt status, the lengthy conversations that they were 

having, the questionnaires that they were having to answer. 

Again, Mr. Miller, in that exchange that you and I had, I came 

away from that with I felt the assurances by you and your office 

that there were no extraordinary circumstances taking place and 

that this was just a backlog and there was nothing going on. 

Mr. Miller, was that your impression of the hearing that day? 

Mr. MILLER. No, sir. What I said there and what I understood 

your question to be was, again, we divide this world in two; there’s 

a question of the selection process and there’s a question of what 

was going on at the time of your question. At the time of your question what was out in the public domain and what I thought we 

were discussing was the letters, as you called the questionnaires. 

Those were the overbroad letters that have been referred to continuously here. 

Again, I stand by my answer there. There was not—I did talk 

about the fact that we had centralized, I believe—I have to take 

a look at it—but I was talking about the fact that we had fixed 

that problem. 

Mr. MARCHANT. But at that time—you knew by that time that 

there were lists being made, there were delineations, there was discrimination going on, and that there were steps being taken to try 

to correct it. But you knew that it was going on at that time. 

Mr. MILLER. We had corrected it. TIGTA was taking a look. At 

that time my assumption is TIGTA was going to be done with their 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
232 

report that summer. I was not going to go there because I did not 

have full possession of all the facts, sir. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Well, this is a list of questions that, in my 

case, my local Northeast Tarrant County Tea Party was sent, and 

it’s a list that most taxpayers would not answer and most taxpayers should not have to answer. But it asks some questions that 

should have never been asked: a printed copy of every page of your 

Web site, every tweet from your Twitter account, every—personal 

resumes from all your board members, copies of every flier you ever 

made and every flier any guest speaker ever handed out, explain 

your relationship with True the Vote, a copy of every single email 

ever sent by our group. 

This is a list that is overly burdensome, and, in my case, it has 

led to deep discouragement on these parties and has limited their 

ability to education the public. 

Can I find out, as a Member of Congress, the groups in my district that have applied for and either been denied or their application continues to be in suspension? 

Mr. MILLER. With Mr. Camp’s help you could, granting 6103 

authorities. But the application process, until it’s done, is 6103 information. And if it’s denied then there’s redacted versions going 

out. If it’s approved then everything becomes public. So within the 

constraints of 6103, which Mr. Camp can grant you the ability to 

see, that could happen. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Yield back. 

Chairman CAMP. The time has expired. 

Yes, I think there would be restrictions on my sharing that with 

Mr. Marchant, however. 

So Ms. Black is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to go back 

to what Mr. Paulsen said a few minutes ago, because as I sit here 

and listen to this testimony, having read the report and multiple 

sources of information that are now coming out, I’m going to tell 

you that the trust for the IRS, to begin with, was already shaky 

by the American people. I know whenever someone gets any piece 

of information from the IRS, it doesn’t feel very good and they’re 

not very confident, even before this happened, that they’re going to 

be treated fairly. But what has happened here in this testimony 

that we’re getting today is very disturbing. And I want to say what 

Mr. Price said. If I was sitting at home watching this on C–SPAN, 

I would probably be questioning again, there doesn’t seem to be 

clarity here, how can I trust. 

Let me go back to, as I’m listening to your testimony in your 

opening remarks, you referred to this as foolish mistakes. And then 

you acknowledged in the response to Mr. Rangel that there was 

abuse. So this is just more than foolish mistakes. This was abuse. 

And then you said to Mr. Ryan’s response that you felt that the applicants were dealt with fairly. And then you turned around and 

said, answering to Mr. Neal, that there was a litmus test that was 

a political activity. And you then said, Politics is always where we 

ask questions in these kinds of applications. 

I want to go to page number 6 on the report that does talk about 

the words that were used like Tea Party and patriots. Then, another point in time, issues including government spending, debt, 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
233 

taxes, public advocacy and lobbying to make America better. And 

I want to know, if you say that yes, there is a litmus test and that 

politics is always where we ask questions anytime there’s an application that seems to go there, can you give me some other words 

that would have been used beside what appears to me to be all conservative questions? Was there a progressive—that we should look 

for anything in the application, then, that says progressive? Was 

that anywhere? 

Mr. MILLER. So I think what—and I’ll refer to Mr. George’s 

statement, I believe his statement indicated what my understanding is, which is this was not the only thing that our folks 

were looking at as they scanned—— 

Mrs. BLACK. But you’re not answering my question. Was there 

anything in any of this criteria that was outside of what I’m seeing 

in this report that would have indicated to me that other than conservative groups who were applying for this status, that you had 

a word in there anywhere to say okay, the litmus test is this seems 

to be political, so we always look at political. Where’s the word 

‘‘progressive’’? 

Mr. MILLER. I’m not arguing that the list was bad and that the 

list was conservative-based. 

Mrs. BLACK. Excuse me, I’m going to reclaim my time on this, 

because then I would say it’s targeted. You can’t have that both 

ways. That’s targeting. And there’s 16 times in this report that 

says that there was targeting. So I believe that as you’re giving 

this testimony that you can’t have that both ways. 

Now there’s also ineffective management that is talked about in 

this report. Even if you get outside of this and say okay, there was 

no targeting, I want to know how a couple of employees that are 

considered low level could have done what was done here. Because 

this says to the American people that out of thousands of employees that you have at the IRS, there’s ineffective management there. 

Nobody’s watching this. If this was noted in 2010 and in 2013 we’re 

just now finding out about this, that certainly is ineffective management. Because there should have been somebody that was overlooking this that said this must stop and I’m going to come back 

in 30 days to make sure it is stopped. But it continued and it continued and now we’ve got 400 applications, some of them over 3 

years. 

This is more than ineptitude. This is more than just mismanagement. And I know my time is going to run out here. So Mr. George, 

I want to come to you, because you told Ms. Jenkins that you told 

the General Counsel of the Treasury on June 4. 

Mr. GEORGE. Correct. 

Mrs. BLACK. You cannot recall the exact date that you told the 

Deputy Secretary, Neal Wolin. Do you recall if it was soon after informing the General Counsel? Was it like a week, a month? 

Mr. GEORGE. I cannot give a timeframe but I can say that it 

was shortly thereafter. 

Mrs. BLACK. Could we get that date? Is that possible to get that 

date? 

Mr. GEORGE. You know, unfortunately, I don’t keep a date 

planner. But I’ll do my best, Ms. Black. If I have it, I’ll supply it 

to the committee. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
234 

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you very much. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Mr. Read is recognized. 

Sorry, time is expired. 

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Miller, Mr. George, we’ve sat here for quite some time and 

I will tell you that this is offensive. This is offensive to hear this 

testimony. What I’d like to do is—I know you’re disagreeing with 

the word ‘‘targeting,’’ Mr. Miller. I suggest the American people 

will make that determination. I’ll give this whole situation a name. 

It’s the IRS targeting-gate. I’ll put it right out there. And we’re 

going to get to the bottom of it. We’re going to keep on this until 

we’re done. 

As you sit here today, you were not fired from your job. And I 

can tell you, in my private experience you would’ve been fired on 

the spot. And all you were allowed to do is resign and retire. And 

now you come here and somehow try to say I did the honorable 

thing by falling on my sword. Nothing bad is going to happen to 

you. You’re going to get your full benefits. You’re going to get everything that is associated with your retirement as an IRS employee. 

Mr. MILLER. Nothing bad is happening to me, Congressman? 

Mr. REED. Financially. You’re allowed to retire. That’s the level 

of accountability in Washington, D.C. now. You came here on the 

taxpayer dollar today. You’re getting a paycheck for being here 

today, correct? 

Correct? 

Mr. MILLER. Correct. 

Mr. REED. I want to know who, what, where. And you know 

when my good colleague, my good friend from Michigan, Mr. Levin, 

started this, he said, We need to ask to who, what, where, and 

how. One question he didn’t put in his opening comment was why. 

And we have dodged and weaved this whole time for this entire 

hearing as to why this happened. And I don’t think we’re going to 

get an answer to it today. 

But Mr. George, I want to get to the bottom of your report. And 

I appreciate the work you have done. You referenced that there 

was gross mismanagement in regards to this situation. I want to 

know who you identified that had the responsibility to manage this 

situation. I want names, I want to know where they worked, when 

they worked, and what they did. 

Mr. GEORGE. Lois Lerner is the primary individual, who is located in Washington. Joseph Grant was her supervisor. He, too, 

was located in Washington. And located in Cincinnati there were 

a number of people; a director named Holly Paz, P–A–Z. She was 

the Acting Director for a significant period of time that this was 

occurring. And then there were various management technical unit 

managers and the like. I can supply a full listing of those names 

at your request. 

Mr. REED. That is my request, and I would formally request 

that. 

Mr. GEORGE. Mr. Reed, may I please beg your indulgence? I 

need to make something clear in response to both Mrs. Black and 

Mr. Paulsen. When I had my discussions with the Commissioner 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
235 

and with the Secretary and the General Counsel, it was not to inform them of the results of the audit. It was to inform them of the 

fact that we were conducting the audit. And I just want to make 

sure I was clear on that. 

Mr. REED. Let’s follow up on that. When you had the conversation with the Secretary, when exactly did that occur? 

Mr. GEORGE. That happened shortly after he took office. So it 

was after the policy had already been stopped and the issues had 

been, we hoped, resolved. 

Mr. REED. Mr. George, as a country lawyer from western New 

York, you made some comments in your testimony about the partisanship determination. You kept referencing something that I’ve 

seen many times in my legal career: at this time. That implies to 

me that there are additional investigations coming down the pipeline that potentially could uncover such information. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. GEORGE. That is an accurate statement, sir. 

Mr. REED. I will be eagerly awaiting those future investigations. 

And I applaud your work and I ask you to continue to do that 

work. 

Mr. Miller, I just want to understand exactly. As we just had 

identified by Mr. George numerous people in your organization that 

you had ultimate oversight for, his ability to identify those individuals, you didn’t identify those individuals in any type of management oversight when you became aware of this situation in May of 

2012 and reached out to those individuals? 

Mr. MILLER. I certainly was aware of my own management 

chain, yes, sir. 

Mr. REED. Okay. And so who in your management chain specifically did you talk to about this situation? 

Mr. MILLER. After May, you mean, of 2012? 

Mr. REED. After you became aware of it you said you talked to 

two people in your management chain. 

Mr. MILLER. I’m sure I talked to Joseph Grant. I probably 

talked to Lois as well. 

Mr. REED. Those two, that’s all you talked to. 

Mr. MILLER. I talked to the folks who went out and worked on 

the case. And I mentioned Nan Marks in that regard. 

Mr. REED. That was Nancy Marks who was in Cincinnati that 

you orally disciplined? 

Mr. MILLER. No, no, no. Nancy Marks is a senior technical adviser who led a team to take a look at this in Cincinnati. 

Mr. REED. And who was the employee again that you orally disciplined that you thought may have something to do with it? 

Mr. MILLER. I apologize. I don’t remember the name. We can 

give it to you. I’ll just have to give it to you after the hearing. 

Mr. REED. You said that person that was orally disciplined probably wasn’t involved in it but there was a potential other employee. 

Who was that other employee? 

Mr. MILLER. Let me go back because there were two employees, 

one of whom was reassigned, one of whom I asked to be orally 

counseled. The one that was to be orally counseled, they have even 

informed me may not have been the right person. They pulled all 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
236 

the managers in to talk to them in lieu of an individual that they 

didn’t know which one was which. 

Mr. REED. Do you have those names? 

Mr. MILLER. I’ll have to send them to you, sir. 

Mr. REED. I formally request for the record those names. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. Mr. Young is recognized. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Miller, I want to know why all of this happened. You and Ms. Lerner have said over the past week that IRS 

officials started targeting Americans for their political beliefs in 

March of 2010. That was after observing a surge in applications for 

status as 501(c)4. So it’s your rationale. To support this claim, you 

both cited an increase from about 1,500 applications in 2010 to 

nearly 3,500 in 2012. But data contained in the IG audit says the 

targeting began in March 2010, before this uptick. In fact, the 

audit also says on page 3 that the number of 501(c)4 applications 

for all of 2010 was actually less than in 2009. 

Mr. Miller, you’ve said here today that you accept the IG report’s 

finding of fact. 

Mr. MILLER. Uh-huh. 

Mr. YOUNG. How do you reconcile the facts I’ve just laid out 

showing no uptick in 501(c)4 applications with your stated motivation for targeting conservative groups? 

Mr. MILLER. So I’ll have to go back and look at the numbers, 

sir, but I think there was an uptick. And whether it was 2008—— 

Mr. YOUNG. You’ve already indicated here, sir, that you agreed 

with the findings of fact in the IG report. It says there was no uptick. How do you reconcile the two? 

Mr. MILLER. I’ve got to look at the numbers, sir. I can’t speak 

to that. 

Mr. YOUNG. So you don’t agree with the IG report? 

Mr. MILLER. I would have to look at the IG report on that. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Miller, in June of 2011 Ms. Lerner learned 

about the practice of targeting conservative groups for compelled 

disclosure of donor lists and other information. She learned that 

was going on for more than a year, whereupon she claims she attempted to put a stop to it. Yet I have a letter here bearing Ms. 

Lerner’s name. It’s dated March 16, 2012. In that letter she directs 

a conservative Indiana group to comply with a previously sent inappropriate information request under penalty of perjury. I have 

that request here. 

So one year after she said she stopped this practice, Ms. Lerner 

sent a letter demanding the group fulfill a request she had already 

determined to be inappropriate, a request that included a demand 

for donor information. 

This strikes me as peculiar, to say the least. And it seems to contradict claims that somebody at the IRS tried to stop the harassment in 2011. 

Further, this Indiana group had their 501(c)(4) status denied on 

February 18, 2013. But 4 days later, on February 22, 2013, their 

501(c)(4) request was granted, even though they never provided the 

required information. 

So after seeing these actions and an approval of an application 

that looks a lot to me like someone was covering their tracks over 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
237 

that 4-day period, how can I assure my constituents that employees 

of the IRS aren’t targeting conservative groups they disagree with? 

Mr. MILLER. Let me put this in sort of time order because, 

again, there’s some fundamental mashing of issues. There are two 

issues here. One is the list issue, which began about the time you 

say it did, I believe, and one is how we processed the cases. The 

donor list letter—and I’m not speaking because I don’t know that 

case—but the donor list letter issue occurred much later in time. 

It actually occurred I believe—and I will have to go back and check 

this—but I believe it occurred after Lois had stepped in and 

stopped the listing, the first issue. 

The development of those cases was still problematic. We had not 

gotten to the bottom of that. And that’s why that would’ve been the 

case. I don’t have an answer for you on the last piece of that. 

Mr. YOUNG. Wait a second here. She said she had resolved this 

situation. She said she had stopped the targeting of conservative 

groups. A year later, she demands a group fulfill a request for the 

inappropriate information. I don’t believe you’ve addressed that 

issue, sir. You’ve got 30 seconds left to do so. 

Mr. MILLER. I apologize. First, you should know while her signature is on there, her signature is on 70,000 applications. So let’s 

not personalize this one to Ms. Lerner. Secondly, and probably 

more importantly—I mean, I think that, again, my understanding 

and what I think Mr. George has said is that in 2011, June or July, 

whatever it was, she handled and fixed the list issue. The cases 

were still in development. The cases needed to be in development. 

There were issues. We just did a remarkably bad time of it. 

Mr. YOUNG. All right, sir. It’s just curious, I’ll reiterate, a denial 

on February 18, 2013 and then a granting 4 days later. It does look 

a bit fishy there. We have to clarify that. 

Chairman CAMP. The time has expired. You’ll have to respond 

in writing. 

Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. George, you have 

been on the job since November of 2004, is that correct, in your 

current position? 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes, 2004. 

Mr. KELLY. Anything rise to this level before? 

Mr. GEORGE. No, nothing. 

Mr. KELLY. Can I ask you, why did it take so long from the first 

time we knew that this was happening until you got the report 

done? The President said just the other day—I think it was yesterday—that he just got a look at the report and that’s the first time 

he knew anything about it, other than reading it in the papers, I 

guess. 

Mr. GEORGE. Are you asking—— 

Mr. KELLY. Have you ever seen anything of that magnitude before. It’s never come up before. 

Mr. GEORGE. No, it has not. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you. Mr. Miller, now you’ve been on the job 

for quite some years. But the current job you’re in is from November 9, 2012. Is that right? So you just took over as Acting Commissioner. 

Mr. MILLER. In November of ’12, yes. I have both jobs. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
238 

Mr. KELLY. But before that, one of your jobs, you were the Commissioner of Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division. So you 

actually were in the job that we’re questioning now that group of 

what was happening there. So would you have been in Cincinnati? 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

Mr. KELLY. You were never in Cincinnati. 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

Mr. KELLY. So is Cincinnati some outpost? 

Mr. MILLER. So, obviously, the IRS is a nationwide organization. 

Mr. KELLY. No, I understand that. And I want to tell you, listen, believe me, if you think it’s uncomfortable sitting over there, 

you ought to be a private individual when the IRS is across from 

you questioning. So I’ve got to tell you, it’s uncomfortable for everybody. 

But my question more specifically is: So how did Cincinnati get 

to where they are? How did they develop that strategy and how did 

they know to go after these certain groups? How did they target 

those folks? A couple of rookies just showed up and didn’t really 

know what they were doing? 

Mr. MILLER. Again, I would point to the TIGTA report on what 

happened. 

Mr. KELLY. No, I understand that. I understand that. But I’m 

hearing—it’s always these are low-level people that pushed the 

wrong button. 

Now when Cincinnati can’t figure out, who do they confer with? 

Who’s their counsel when they’re looking at these tax exempt entities. Does it come back here to D.C.? Yes or no, does it come back 

to D.C.? 

Mr. MILLER. Yeah. 

Mr. KELLY. Okay. All right. So D.C. and Cincinnati would be 

pretty well connected in understanding what’s going on. So this 

doesn’t come as a great shock to anybody. In fact, I would say it 

doesn’t come as a shock. You know what it does to the American 

people? It really establishes what they’ve feared so often. I have a 

grandson who’s afraid to get out of bed at night because he thinks 

somebody under the bed is going to grab him. And I think most 

Americans feel that way about the IRS. You get a letter from you 

folks, or a phone call, it’s with terror that you look at it. And now 

this kind of reconfirms that, You know what? They can do almost 

anything they want to anybody they want any time they want. 

This is very chilling for the American people. I know that you’re 

resigning. You’re walking away from it. But this is not going to go 

away. This is a Pandora’s Box that has been open. And I don’t 

think we can get the lid back on it. And I don’t believe that the 

White House just found out about this in the news report because 

he happened to grab a TV shot or just read Mr. George’s report and 

said, You know what? Anybody hear about this before? I’m just getting a first look at this. Shouldn’t somebody be responsible? I’m 

thinking maybe Treasury falls in there. I’m not sure how we understand how that organizational chart works. 

But I am really concerned. Now I’ve got to tell you, where you’re 

sitting, you should be outraged. But you’re not. The American people should be outraged. And they are. And this committee, this has 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
239 

nothing to do with political parties. This has to do with highly targeted groups. This reconfirms everything that the American public 

believes. This is a huge blow to the faith and trust that the American people have in their government. Is there any limit to the 

scope of where you folks can go? Is there anything at all? Is there 

anywhere that we can ask you? Is there any question that you 

shouldn’t have asked? My goodness, how much money do you have 

in your wallet, who do you get emails from, whose sign do you put 

up in your front yard? This is a tax question? And you don’t think 

that’s intimidating? It’s sure as hell intimidating. And I don’t know 

that I got any answers from you today and I don’t know that— 

what Mr. George has done is great work, but you know what? 

There’s a heck of a lot more that has to come out in this. And anybody to sit here today and listen to what you have to say, I am 

more concerned today than I was before. And the fact that you all 

can do just about anything you want to anybody. You know, you 

can put anybody out of business that you want any time you want. 

And I got to tell you, you talked about you’re a horribly run organization. If you’re on the other side of the fence, you’re not given that 

excuse. And when the IRS comes in to you, you’re not allowed to 

be shoddy, you’re not allowed to be run horribly, you’re not allowed 

to make mistakes. You’re not allowed to do one damn thing that 

doesn’t come in compliance. If you do, you’re held responsible right 

then. I just think the American people have seen what’s going on 

right now in their government. This is absolutely an overreach and 

this is outrage for all America. 

I yield back. 

Chairman CAMP. Mr. Griffin is recognized for 5 minutes. 

The committee will come to order. 

We will have order in the committee. Mr. Griffin is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to make a couple of comments first. The surge in these groups that are the subject of this hearing is not related to a Supreme Court case, if there 

was a surge at all. It’s related to the nonsense in Washington. 

That’s why people were getting engaged. In fact, the Supreme 

Court case that has been so much discussed here has no bearing 

on these groups, ultimately. That’s ridiculous. What this hearing 

has demonstrated for me is that our most expansive Federal powers are given to our most intrusive agency. And then you add on 

top of that incompetence or whatever else we have and it’s a disaster. 

My colleague here talks about asking people how much money 

they’ve got in their wallet. I got a text last night at dinner from 

a friend of mine who’s a supporter in Arkansas, in Little Rock. He’s 

being audited. Yesterday morning he had to meet with the IRS. He 

was outraged. He sent me a text. He said, They asked me how 

much cash do you carry in your wallet? How much cash does your 

wife carry in her wallet? Do you use the Internet? 

You know, I don’t care what rules are written down or not written down. These people ought to have enough common sense to 

know that this is just stupid to ask this kind of stuff. And if they 

don’t know that on their own, without something written in a regulation, they ought to quit or be fired. It is craziness. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
240 

Now I’ve known you for a long time, Joe, and I’ve looked at your 

investigation. I appreciate the work you’ve done. It is really an 

audit, let’s be clear to the press. This is not an investigation. You 

did not request emails, you did not do what you would do in an investigation. There’s a reason you don’t know who came up with 

this. You didn’t investigate that. You might be now. Are you? 

Mr. GEORGE. I’m not in a position, sir, to discuss whether or 

not—— 

Mr. GRIFFIN. That means you are. Okay. So the bottom line is 

for those looking, this is an audit. And it’s helpful. But it’s the tip 

of the iceberg. It’s the tip of the iceberg. It’s looking at metrics at 

interviewing some folks. 

We worked together years ago up here on the Hill, right in the 

building next to us, and we know how important emails are. And 

I trust that you’re going to get to the bottom of the emails. 

Let me just mention real quickly, if you want to know where a 

lot of this comes from, look at Senator Levin’s letter. Senator Levin 

specifically mentioned a bunch of the groups that you all targeted. 

The other Senators made the points, but they didn’t mention specific groups. It was Senator Levin’s letter, to some extent. You all 

were doing what Democrat Senators were asking. A lot of the press 

here ought to go to the Senate when you’re done and ask them 

some questions. 

Now with regard to Sarah Hall Ingram, you may have been confused as to when she worked there, but she was there from 2009 

to 2012. You said you had horrendous customer service. And what 

happened to her? She got $100,000 in bonuses and she was promoted. Wow. Incredible. 

You said the buck stops with you. Well, it stopped with her before that. She was directly in charge of these rules of this targeting. What did she get? Bonuses and moved to a job. You know 

what her job is now? She’s coordinating Section 1414 of 

ObamaCare? What is that? That’s the provision that says that 

there’s an exemption or an exception to disclosure of tax information. What is that? That means the Treasury can share your tax 

information with HHS for the purposes of implementing 

ObamaCare to see whether you have got a really expensive health 

care plan or what have you. It’s right there in Section 1414. 

So she provided horrendous customer service under her watch 

and now she’s going to do the same implementing ObamaCare. 

Swell. This is a perfect example of why we need tax reform. If you 

want to diminish and limit the power of the IRS, you’ve got to reduce the complexity of the Tax Code and take them out of it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. Mr. Renacci is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. RENACCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentleman, as a CPA 

who’s represented many taxpayers in the last three decades, I’m 

really appalled. I’m really appalled that the agency was able to 

take these actions. 

Mr. George, you made a comment, you said that these actions, 

even though they were contrary to the Treasury policy at the IRS, 

it was not illegal but inappropriate. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
241 

Mr. Miller, if a taxpayer was in front of your agency and they 

did something that was contrary to Treasury policy, would that be 

illegal or inappropriate? 

Mr. MILLER. If they did something contrary, no. 

Mr. RENACCI. Treasury policy on their tax return. 

Mr. MILLER. No. We’d be auditing them. 

Mr. RENACCI. I know you’d be auditing them. But I’ve seen 

your agency bring people to tears because you say it’s inappropriate. It’s just amazing the way you’re answering some of these 

questions. You answered a question to Mr. Roskam, and you said, 

I don’t know. If an American taxpayer said to you in an audit, I 

don’t know the answer, what would your agency do to that person? 

Mr. MILLER. We would work with them. 

Mr. RENACCI. I’ve seen what you’ve done to them when they 

say they don’t know. That’s the problem. That’s what the problem 

here is. 

Mr. Miller, you talked about at some point in time you said these 

were serious infractions. You said you were outraged. When were 

you outraged? When did you first learn of this and when did you 

become outraged? 

Mr. MILLER. May 3 of 2012. 

Mr. RENACCI. So May 3 of 2012 you became outraged. You testified in front of this committee on July of 2012. Why weren’t you 

outraged then? 

Mr. MILLER. I was answering the questions that I was asked, 

sir, and I knew that TIGTA had this under its viewing and that 

this was going to come out. 

Mr. RENACCI. But you were outraged a couple months before. 

You didn’t let Congress know of your outrage at that point in time. 

Mr. MILLER. At that point in time I fixed the problem. 

Mr. RENACCI. You fixed the problem. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to offer in the record a statement from one 

of my constituents, the Ohio Christian Alliance. 

Chairman CAMP. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of the Ohio Christian Alliance follows:] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
242 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.175.eps
243 

f 

Mr. RENACCI. The Ohio Christian Alliance is one of those organizations. They were applying for a (c)3, an educational trust. They 

are advocating life, faith, and freedom. What was the IRS concerned about? What were they scared about when it comes to life, 

faith and freedom? 

Mr. MILLER. Sir, I can’t speak to an individual case. I have no 

knowledge of it. 

Mr. RENACCI. I’m just using an example. Life, faith, and freedom, that’s something that the IRS would pull an application for? 

Actually, it took over 13 months. The timeline on this, they filed 

in February of 2011. In March they were told they would have an 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.176.eps
244 

answer in 90 days. In December, they got a letter that said they 

had 2 weeks to respond to it or their application would be denied. 

And then they responded. 

By the way, some of the questions—you talked about what are 

some of the questions. They list here: Is your organization—were 

the actions of the organization against anti-Christian bigotry more 

accurately classified as education in nature? Is your organization 

engaged in such activity? 

Are some of those questions appropriate? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t know because it is a specific case. But I will 

say one of our difficult areas is determining what’s politics and 

what’s education. It’s a very difficult line. 

Mr. RENACCI. I don’t think anything in this application leaned 

toward politics. It leaned toward, as I said, life, faith and freedom. 

Mr. Miller, I understand that after the Presidential election the 

IRS approved dozens of applications from conservative groups. Why 

was there such a large approval after the election? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t have that information. My information is 

that in May I asked that the cases be grouped in a fashion that 

we move them quickly through and try to fix the process problems 

we had. There were a number of applications from tea parties and 

others that were approved at that time. And we pushed hard. 

Mr. RENACCI. Was the process changed post-election? 

Mr. MILLER. Not that I’m aware of. 

Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you, Mr. Renacci. 

That brings this hearing to an end. But I promise the American 

people this investigation has just begun. 

Hearing adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the Record follow:] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
245 

The Honorable Sam Johnson 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.177.eps
246 

The Honorable Richard Hudson 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.178.eps
247 

National Organization for Marriage 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.288.eps
248 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.289.eps
249 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.290.eps
250 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.291.eps
251 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.292.eps
252 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.293.eps
253 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.294.eps
254 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.295.eps
255 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.296.eps
256 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.297.eps
257 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.298.eps
258 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.299.eps
259 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.300.eps
260 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.301.eps
261 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.302.eps
262 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.303.eps
263 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.304.eps
264 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.305.eps
265 

Bruce Jones 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.179.eps
266 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.180.eps
267 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.181.eps
268 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.182.eps
269 

ACLU 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.183.eps
270 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.184.eps
271 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.185.eps
272 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.186.eps
273 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.187.eps
274 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.188.eps
275 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.189.eps
276 

Constitution Project 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.190.eps
277 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.191.eps
278 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.192.eps
279 

Alvin Brown 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.193.eps
280 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.194.eps
281 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.195.eps
282 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.196.eps
283 

Kenneth H. Ryesky 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.197.eps
284 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.198.eps
285 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.199.eps
286 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.200.eps
287 

Common Cause 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.201.eps
288 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.202.eps
289 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.203.eps
290 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.204.eps
291 

Richmond Tea Party 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.205.eps
292 

Mike Duda 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.206.eps
293 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.207.eps
294 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.208.eps
295 

Center for Competitive Politics 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.209.eps
296 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.210.eps
297 

Romeo Area Tea Party 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.306.eps
298 

ActRight Legal Foundation 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.211.eps
299 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.212.eps
300 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.213.eps
301 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.214.eps
302 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.215.eps
303 

ACLJ 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.216.eps
304 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.217.eps
305 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.218.eps
306 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.219.eps
307 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.220.eps
308 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.221.eps
309 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.222.eps
310 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.223.eps
311 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.224.eps
312 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.225.eps
313 

Cape 912 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.226.eps
314 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.227.eps
315 

SWFL 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.228.eps
316 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.229.eps
317 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.230.eps
318 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.231.eps
319 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.232.eps
320 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.233.eps
321 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.234.eps
322 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.235.eps
323 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.236.eps
324 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.237.eps
325 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.238.eps
326 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.239.eps
327 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.240.eps
328 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.241.eps
329 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.242.eps
330 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.243.eps
331 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.244.eps
332 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.245.eps
333 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.246.eps
334 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.247.eps
335 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.248.eps
336 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.249.eps
337 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.250.eps
338 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.251.eps
339 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.252.eps
340 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.253.eps
341 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.254.eps
342 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.255.eps
343 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.256.eps
344 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.257.eps
345 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.258.eps
346 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.259.eps
347 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.260.eps
348 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.261.eps
349 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.262.eps
350 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.263.eps
351 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.264.eps
352 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.265.eps
353 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.266.eps
354 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.267.eps
355 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.268.eps
356 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.269.eps
357 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.270.eps
358 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.271.eps
359 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.272.eps
360 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.273.eps
361 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.274.eps
362 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.275.eps
363 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.276.eps
364 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.277.eps
365 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.278.eps
366 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.279.eps
367 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.280.eps
368 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.281.eps
369 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.282.eps
370 

Æ 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGSInsert 89457.283.eps