Skip to content

Judicial Watch • JW v. IRS Lerner TIGTA Emails 01559 Cite 8

JW v. IRS Lerner TIGTA Emails 01559 Cite 8

JW v. IRS Lerner TIGTA Emails 01559 Cite 8

Page 1: JW v. IRS Lerner TIGTA Emails 01559 Cite 8

Category:IRS Scandal

Number of Pages:3

Date Created:July 14, 2015

Date Uploaded to the Library:July 28, 2015

Tags:019709, priorities, Determinations, processing, cincinnati, issues, Cindy, Cases, Holly, Sharon, Thursday, working, Lerner, Counsel, Group, thomas, david


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

From:
Fish David
Sent:
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 11:17
To:
Paz Holly
Subject:
FW: Priorities
Attachments:
Advocacy Orgs_Cincinnati.xls
From: Thomas Cindy
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 10:12
To: Lerner Lois
Cc: Fish David
Subject: RE: Priorities
For Determinations, there arent any significant volumes work that D.C. has pushed that are better suited
for EOT. had issues with certain types cases the past such set asides, voter registration, and
cases. However, weve worked through these issues.
(b)(3)6103
The backlog work involves advocacy organizations. about month ago, there were 161 these cases sitting idle
and probably have more now. The control dates for these cases back the end 2009 and all through
2010. Weve been waiting for .C. get guidance/reference document with lessons learned from the and cases they worked and coordinated with Judy Kindell and Counsel. Were getting calls from POAs wanting know
who has put the halt working these cases and threatening contact their Congressional offices. Just today,
instructed one managers get additional information letter out one these organizations --- nothing else
buy time didnt contact his Congressional Office. Soon, were going start getting TAOs from TAS declaratory
judgment cases filed ---- then, guess everyone will decide its time start moving the cases when have mounds
additional paperwork process along with the cases (adding even more work for do)
Another area wed like see finalized the guide sheets for Rev. Proc. 96-10 and integrated auxiliary cases. dont
have backlog these cases, but need these documents finalized order finalize our IRM that all the
Determinations employees have document where they can get procedural information for cases --- will save time
and will improve consistency casework/quality. Also related this, you sent email requiring that send cases
D.C. for review when org anization asking exempt from Form 990 filing requirements virtue Rev. Procs.
95-48, 96-10, and integrated auxiliary. the guidesheets can finalized, perhaps wouldnt need send these cases
any longer, which would save time for all involved.
Other than this, the group ruling cases and auto revocation cases/issues that were trying get through: Regarding the group ruling cases, spend lot clerical time completing research for each sub see they are
status 97. And, seems believe that should getting documents and checking the website for each sub, which
isnt how group ruling cases were ever intended worked. All group ruling cases are mandatory review and the group
working these cases were doing what required; otherwise, they couldnt get the cases closed. instructed the group
stop doing these things and follow Rev. Proc. 80-27, and advised that these issues would need elevated the
Acting Director, RA resolved. are checking see whether the subs are status and will continue until instructed otherwise. Regarding the auto revocation cases, were working through them and elevating new issues they come up.
Other
than cases with lien and/or assessment issues, not aware holding any cases waiting for guidance.
The real area concern Determinations (other than the advocacy cases) with our Processing Section.
They are
swamped with correspondence auto evocation issues; processing cases where organizations submitted $100 user
JW1559-019709
fee and dont meet the requirements such PFs, unincorporated organizations that incorporated somewhere along the
way, and others that have too much income meet the transitio nal rules under Notice 2011-43; completing IDRS
research for numerous cases determine whether the application from organization that was auto revoked; and,
preparing closing letters/documents for all cases Cincinnati now that specialists are TEDS and cant complete
this work (timing issue with TEDS and EDS); processing suspense cases; processing Accelerated Processing cases, etc. you need additional information, please let know.
From: Lerner Lois
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 7:13
To: Fish David Seto Michael Thomas Cindy Abner Donna Kindell Judith Light Sharon
Cc: Paz Holly
Subject: Priorities getting little nervous about the amount have our plate and how are handling.
know everyone working hard and juggling, but wondering whether the juggling
decisions are being made holistically enough. have only many resources and things
will probably get worse going forward. worry that decisions about how use the resources
are being made without all the information. couple things have come through press
accounts and practitioner comments that lead believe should making
prioritization decisions based ole, not our own stovepipes. Something that
may not seem important Cincinnati, may crucial DC. Similarly, may prioritizing
its work based what sitting when something sitting Cincinnati should the
focus work. And, both cases, the hold might really relate something sitting
Counsel that need move forward. get better handle this and help you with prioritizing, going need some reports
from you.
Judy and Sharon--a list all projects you are working on, including work that others are
doing and you are overseeing, well estimated timeframes for completion you have
them and any barriers completion.
Cindy and Donna--lists backlogs any specific type cases and wha contributing
the backlog--I.e.--are you waiting for assistance from are you focusing something
else that impacts your ability get this piece done. Also, are there kinds cases that
has pushed Cincinnati, but hindsight, may better suited
David/Mike--Holly left list cases that are Counsel. needs updated please that--David--I forwarded last night. also need list everything else have sent
Counsel and similar information the case list, such how long has been there and, you know, what might the hang up. Please include things formally Counsel, well
things weve asked for informall informal, can get who were dealing with. also
like some sense the inventory that doesnt fall within these categories that looks like
could problematic--might need Counsel category cases that isnt moving sure there will more, but this will give good start.
next Wednesday please. like the information COB
Lois Lerner
Director Exempt Organizations
JW1559-019710
JW1559-019711