
Whistleblower makes shocking IRS, insider trading allegations - uptown
https://nypost.com/2018/08/15/whistleblower-makes-shocking-irs-insider-trading-allegations/
======
tanderson92
From TFA:

> “Back in 2003-5 a memo was created within the IRS noting who was permitted
> to participate in ‘insider trading’,” says this whistleblower. “The memo
> noted that all IRS employees in the executive branch and those one step
> below (territory managers, etc.) were permitted to participate.”

This is not who decides what is 'permitted', which is of course within the
purview of the SEC. The piece states:

> Why didn’t I bring these allegations to the proper authorities to
> investigate? I did and was essentially told to get lost

No, the author went to the IRS Inspector General, which is very much not the
SEC. The SEC has a very popular (oversubscribed) whistleblower program which
awards millions to those who provide material information or tips relating to
such cases.

This article is, ahem, not credible.

~~~
Someone1234
> This article is, ahem, not credible.

It isn't "credible" because you don't like that the Whistleblower reported it
to their own agencies watchdog instead of another agency? I don't follow what
that has to do with the article's credibility at all...

~~~
tanderson92
It isn't credible because the IRS IG has nothing to do with securities law and
so they aren't the proper authorities. A simple read of their website shows it
exclusively has to do with proper application of internal revenue code.

~~~
oxide
Fair enough. I don't put a lot of stock in the SEC anyway, a 'who watches the
watchers' lack of ironclad faith in these regulatory agencies tends to afflict
me. That said, all credit to them when they do enforce.

------
d--b
Yes, sure... The most anti-tax journalist out there finds an anonymous
"whistle blower" to tarnish the IRS reputation.

> Why didn’t I bring these allegations to the proper authorities to
> investigate? I did and was essentially told to get lost

Right...

------
forapurpose
I dislike knee-jerk media criticism on HN (or anywhere), but in this case the
story is actually based on one anonymous source, whom the journalist has never
met, and on nothing else. Quality journalists corroborate anonymous tips with
multiple sources and documents. The journalist's own description of the
evidence:

> Just so you know, I spoke with this whistleblower a couple times by phone
> and he sounds credible. Plus I was able to confirm that he was with the IRS,
> in the position he says, during the time this was alleged to be happening.

Also, the NY Post is partisan conservative (which is fine, but important
context), part of Murdoch's News Corp last I knew, and a part of the
conservative partisan agenda is to discredit the IRS.

All of that doesn't make it wrong, but doesn't make it credible IMHO. I'll
wait to hear more.

EDIT: A few clarifications

~~~
DyslexicAtheist
me too. the majority of pple sharing this on twitter are far-right accounts
and the language is what you'd expect.

nypost hasn't exactly got a reputation for facts & credibility either:

 _> According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the Post was
rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news
outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44%
not credible to 39% credible)._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post#Criticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post#Criticism)

~~~
jandrese
I was about the comment that a single New York Post article (this is not the
Times!) is hardly a credible source. These guys are barely above the _National
Enquirer_ for fact checking.

------
matthewmcg
Is there any detail offered on why the IRS (and not, e.g., the SEC or the FTC)
would have advance knowledge of public company mergers? Typically, these are
announced when the merger agreement is signed and then any required approvals
are obtained before closing.

Tax filings are typically made after closing on the normal due dates.

~~~
JorgeGT
I think this is what the article addresses here:

 _" There’s something you need to understand. The IRS places its workers
permanently inside many companies where they continually receive privileged
information while doing audits."_

~~~
matthewmcg
Interesting. Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic about companies' internal
controls, but someone doing an audit should have access only to historical
information.

~~~
yayana
During the Clinton administration, grace periods were changed to reflect
improved technology for realtime accounting and payment.

The IRS now receives a considerable amount of realtime information and
payments relating to large transactions.

It would be a bit strange to try to keep onsite IRS agents in the dark about
something you will be reporting through the realtime system when the whole
point is to avoid unfavorable costs of (accidentally?) owing the IRS a large
sum for any amount of time.

------
rdtsc
> There’s something you need to understand. The IRS places its workers
> permanently inside many companies where they continually receive privileged
> information while doing audits. So there’s plenty of money-making tips to go
> around.

They audit companies and auditors are told to pass along any information they
find so IRS managers and friends can profit from it.

So then we have to ask how do they pick companies to audit? Would it be random
if they could stand to enrich themselves.

