Privacy, Security, and Tax Audits
While not called out explicitly in the Constitution, the "right to privacy" is a fairly well understood, and often debated construct. And while not specifically delineated as a "right", the framers of the Constitution understood that their ability to enumerate every right was not only limited, but that attempting to enumerate all rights was inadvisable. As such, and seeing they needed to get the job done of packaging together a set of assurances that the Federal government would not become another tyrant like the King of England, they concluded the Bill of Rights with two elegant and far reaching declarations. The Ninth Amendment declares:
And the tenth "piles on":
Clearly we have rights and powers not enumerated. The question of privacy as a right to be explicitly protected in the context of the Tax Audits of High Officials, is explored in this essay.
There is a reasonable concern that requiring high government officials to undergo tax audits will discourage some good persons who are interested in public service (but who may jealously guard their privacy) from engaging in public service. They may decline to serve if it means the loss of their privacy and the disclosure of their personal business to the public. Restoring tax accountability should not also include the loss of talented individuals willing to serve their county.
This valid concern is precisely why the Audit Congress petition calls for a summary disclosure of the result of tax audits. The idea of a complete 1040 form with all details being involuntarily disclosed to the public, puts into the public eye a great deal of information which does not advance the idea of increasing trust and transparency in government. An individual's charitable contributions, or the specific dividends paid from their investments does not move forward the trust and transparency question. It could however, support a number of distractions, a number of partisan or philosophically motivated attacks based upon how an individual chooses to invest or to whom they give charitable donations. Those issues, while perhaps having merit in their own right, are not central to determining that a person has paid their taxes.
While privacy is a concern in terms of making holding an office more onerous than it is worth, it is not privacy per se that is of primary concern in the publication of the summary findings of annual tax audits. It is the notion of achieving the desired effect, which is to restore a measure of trust in our government. Ideally this can be done with a minimum of intrusion into other issues which are beyond the scope of this initiative. There is no need, and no desired outcome to be served by probing into the "hows" and "whys" of the tax returns of our officials. Compliance only is the issue to be served in the present discussion.
This brings to light the important issue of confidentiality and protection of records at the federal level. The various departments, agencies, committees, etc. of our federal government have an uneven track record in keeping confidential information confidential. The problem can be broken into two pieces: First, the volitional and intentional “leaking” by employees or contractors of the federal government. Second is unintended exposure or theft due to shortcomings in various forms of electronic or physical security. The bottom line is that citizens who serve in high office do not sacrifice all of their privacy rights when they choose to serve their county. Adequate protections must be constructed to ensure that privileged and confidential information disclosed in a government official’s tax audit does not later appear on the front page of a newspaper.
A directly related issue is record retention methods and policies related to tax audits. If the financial records of a Senator (for example) are pulled together for the purpose of completing a tax compliance audit, what parts of those records remain after the audit is completed as evidence that the audit was conducted to a sufficient standard of effect? Should the record retention policies be any different than what are applied to any other citizen who must undergo a tax audit? Who should those maintain those records, for what time period, and for which legal purposes should they be opened or disclosed?
This discussion does not address specifically what information should be disclosed in a "summary" finding of a tax audit. Protecting the privacy of information not disclosed is a separate issue from deciding what information should be disclosed. What "summary" information should be disclosed after government officials undergo tax audits is the subject of a future essay.
These are serious and significant issues which need to be resolved as a policy to audit Congress and other officials for tax compliance is created. Audit Congress is confident that they can be resolved, and while not advocating a specific law or policy, does advocate that laws and be enacted to serve the people in the arena of tax compliance. Suffice to say, there are real issues regarding privacy, security, and disclosure associated with conducting tax audits, including the important issue of what should be disclosed as the result of the audit. These are precisely the topics that must be probed in depth by those who will craft legislation addressing addressing tax trust and transparency.
Peter Langlois
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And the tenth "piles on":
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Clearly we have rights and powers not enumerated. The question of privacy as a right to be explicitly protected in the context of the Tax Audits of High Officials, is explored in this essay.
There is a reasonable concern that requiring high government officials to undergo tax audits will discourage some good persons who are interested in public service (but who may jealously guard their privacy) from engaging in public service. They may decline to serve if it means the loss of their privacy and the disclosure of their personal business to the public. Restoring tax accountability should not also include the loss of talented individuals willing to serve their county.
This valid concern is precisely why the Audit Congress petition calls for a summary disclosure of the result of tax audits. The idea of a complete 1040 form with all details being involuntarily disclosed to the public, puts into the public eye a great deal of information which does not advance the idea of increasing trust and transparency in government. An individual's charitable contributions, or the specific dividends paid from their investments does not move forward the trust and transparency question. It could however, support a number of distractions, a number of partisan or philosophically motivated attacks based upon how an individual chooses to invest or to whom they give charitable donations. Those issues, while perhaps having merit in their own right, are not central to determining that a person has paid their taxes.
While privacy is a concern in terms of making holding an office more onerous than it is worth, it is not privacy per se that is of primary concern in the publication of the summary findings of annual tax audits. It is the notion of achieving the desired effect, which is to restore a measure of trust in our government. Ideally this can be done with a minimum of intrusion into other issues which are beyond the scope of this initiative. There is no need, and no desired outcome to be served by probing into the "hows" and "whys" of the tax returns of our officials. Compliance only is the issue to be served in the present discussion.
This brings to light the important issue of confidentiality and protection of records at the federal level. The various departments, agencies, committees, etc. of our federal government have an uneven track record in keeping confidential information confidential. The problem can be broken into two pieces: First, the volitional and intentional “leaking” by employees or contractors of the federal government. Second is unintended exposure or theft due to shortcomings in various forms of electronic or physical security. The bottom line is that citizens who serve in high office do not sacrifice all of their privacy rights when they choose to serve their county. Adequate protections must be constructed to ensure that privileged and confidential information disclosed in a government official’s tax audit does not later appear on the front page of a newspaper.
A directly related issue is record retention methods and policies related to tax audits. If the financial records of a Senator (for example) are pulled together for the purpose of completing a tax compliance audit, what parts of those records remain after the audit is completed as evidence that the audit was conducted to a sufficient standard of effect? Should the record retention policies be any different than what are applied to any other citizen who must undergo a tax audit? Who should those maintain those records, for what time period, and for which legal purposes should they be opened or disclosed?
This discussion does not address specifically what information should be disclosed in a "summary" finding of a tax audit. Protecting the privacy of information not disclosed is a separate issue from deciding what information should be disclosed. What "summary" information should be disclosed after government officials undergo tax audits is the subject of a future essay.
These are serious and significant issues which need to be resolved as a policy to audit Congress and other officials for tax compliance is created. Audit Congress is confident that they can be resolved, and while not advocating a specific law or policy, does advocate that laws and be enacted to serve the people in the arena of tax compliance. Suffice to say, there are real issues regarding privacy, security, and disclosure associated with conducting tax audits, including the important issue of what should be disclosed as the result of the audit. These are precisely the topics that must be probed in depth by those who will craft legislation addressing addressing tax trust and transparency.
Peter Langlois
Comments