1:13-cv-01225 #74

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

The NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR
MARRIAGE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Defendant.

Civ. No. 13-cv-1225-J CC/IDD

PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT LIST IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs
Exhibit
Number
(PEX)

Description

1

Response to NOMs Privacy Act Request (NOM-001131-NOM-001132)

2

Excerpts from Deposition of Chris Cheippa (March 11, 2014)

3

Excerpts of Report of Investigation of Treasury Inspection General for Tax
Administration

4

Notice of Deposition of Defendant United States of America, Internal Revenue
Service

5

Excerpts from Deposition of David Hamilton (March 11, 2014)

6

Excerpts from Deposition of Sherry Whitaker (March 11, 2014)

7

Excerpts of emails of IRS agents and officials

8

Excerpts from Deposition of Wendy Peters (J anuary 29, 2014)

9

Excerpts of Internal Revenue Manuals

10

Excerpts from Deposition of David Hamilton (J anuary 29, 2014)
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 74 Filed 05/13/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 1118
2

11

GOV-PROD-0002167-0002169 (Emails between Wendy Peters and Peggy Riley)

12

Excerpts from Deposition of Fred Karger (March 12, 2014)

13

Correspondence between NOM and California Fair Political Practices Commission

14

Excerpts from Deposition of Brian Brown (March 14, 2014)

15

Excerpts from Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants First Set of Discovery Requests
(J anuary 21, 2014)

16

GOV-PROD-0000220-0000221 (Statistics of Income/Exempt Organizations
Imaging Flow Charts)

17

IRS Memorandum: Submission Processing Programs Review of the EO RAVIS
Photocopy Process

18

IRS Response to NOMs FOIA Request (August 6, 2013)

Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 74 Filed 05/13/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 1119
NOM-01131
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
INSPECTOR GENERAL
FOR TAX
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Brian S. Brown, President
Dr. John C. Eastman, Chairman
National Organization for Marriage
C/0 ActRight Legal Foundation
209 West Main Street
Plainfield, Indiana 46168
Dear Mr. Brown and Dr. Eastman:
May 3, 2013
This is in response to your Privacy Act request, dated April15, 2013, seeking access to
records maintained by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA).
The TIGTA Disclosure Branch received your request on April18, 2013. Specifically,
you are requesting that TIGTA provide the following information, including any records
related to or supporting the same information:
1. Whether the investigation of Complaint No. 63-1204-0051-C is open or closed.
2. Whether the allegations made in Complaint No. 63-1204-0051-C, including the
allegations made in the April11 , 2012 letter from the Requestors to TIGTA, were
substantiated or were not substantiated.
3. If the subject(s) of Complaint No. 63-1204-0051-C has/have exhausted all
reasonable appeals, any action taken by TIGTA, or any other agency, as a result
of Complaint No. 63-1204-0051-C.
You have requested that TIGTA disclose this information pursuant to a routine use in
TIGTA' s System of Records Notice under the Privacy Act. However, in addition to the
Privacy Act, the release of TIGTA Title 26 (I.R.C.) investigative records, if any, is also
governed by the confidentiality provisions of I.R.C. 6103. Specially, records compiled
pursuant to a Title 26 investigation, including even the fact of an investigation, are the
protected return information of the subject(s) of the investigation. Your complaint (#63-
1204-0051-C) concerned allegations of an unauthorized disclosure of return information
by a third party, which is an allegation of a potential violation of I.R.C. 7213.
Therefore, pursuant to I.R.C. 6103, TIGTA can neither admit nor deny the existence of
any records responsive to your current request.
Plaintiff's Exhibt 1 - Page 1
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 74-1 Filed 05/13/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 1120
NOM-01132
2
Moreover, we note that this request asks for information which was encompassed in
previous FOIA requests you made to TIGTA.
1
A review ofTIGTA Disclosure Branch
indices revealed you previously submitted FOIA requests (case numbers #2012-FOI-
00205 and 2012-FOI-00232) to TIGTA on August 9, and September 21, 2012,
respectively, seeking information that encompasses items 1-3 of your current request.
Furthermore, you appealed TIGTA's initial decisions (2012-APP-00025 and 2013-APP-
00004) on September 21, and December 3, 2012, respectively. Your requests and
subsequent appeals for this information have been addressed by TIGTA previously and
a copy of each decision is enclosed for your reference.
We have enclosed an Information Sheet that explains your administrative appeal rights.
You may appeal this decision within thirty-five (35) days from the date of this letter.
Your appeal must be in writing and signed by you. You should address the envelope as
follows:
Freedom of Information Act Appeal
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
Office of Chief Counsel
City Center Building
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 469
Washington, DC 20005
No fees were assessed in the processing of this request because the cost incurred was
less than $25.00, the threshold set by Treasury' s FOIA regulation.
If you have any questions, please contact Government Information Specialist Monica
Frye at (202) 622-2738 and refer to case number 2013-FOI-00144.
Enclosures
Sincerely,
r m ~ ~ Z
Monica Frye
(for) Amy P. Jones
Disclosure Officer
1
Because it is TIGTA policy to process requests for information under the statute that provides the
greatest access to the requested records, we processed your prior requests under the FOIA.
1
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
3 Alexandria Division
4 -o0o-
5
6 THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR)
MARRIAGE, INC., )
7 ) Civil No. 13-1225-JCC-IDD
Plaintiff, )
8 )
v. )
9 )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
10 )
Defendant. )
11 _____________________________)
12
13 CONFIDENTIAL
14 30(b)(6) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION, VOLUME I
WITNESS: CHRIS CHIEPPA
15 Taken on Tuesday, March 11, 2014
at 8:10 a.m.
16
CITY CENTER BUILDING
17 2484 Washington Boulevard
Ogden, Utah 84401
18
19
20 REPORTED BY: Michelle Mallonee, RPR, CSR
21 ATKINSON-BAKER COURT REPORTERS
500 N. Brand Blvd., Third Floor
22 Glendale, CA 91203
(818) 551-7300
23 www.depo.com
24 FILE #A8027FA
25
2
1 APPEARANCES
2
3 FOR PLAINTIFF:
4 WILLIAM E. DAVIS, ESQ.
FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP
5 Two South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1900
Miami, Florida 33131
6 Telephone: (305) 482-8404
Email: wdavis@foley.com
7
8 JASON TORCHINSKY, ESQ.
SHAWN SHEEHY, ESQ.
9 HOLTMAN VOGEL JOSEFIAK, PLLC
45 North Hill Drive, Suite 100
10 Warrenton, Virginia 20186
Telephone: (540) 341-8808
11 Email: jtorchinsky@hvjlaw.com
ssheehy@hvjlaw.com
12
KAYLAN L. PHILLIPS, ESQ.
13 ACT RIGHT LEGAL FOUNDATION
14 Plainfield, Indiana 46168
Telephone: (317) 203-5599
15 Email: kphillips@actrightlegal.org
16
17 FOR DEFENDANT:
18 BENJAMIN L. TOMPKINS, ESQ.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, TAX DIVISION
19 P.O. Box 14198
20 Telephone: (202) 514-5885
Email: benjamin.l.tompkins@usdoj.gov
21
22 PHILIP M SCHREIBER, ESQ.
23 P.O. Box 14198
24 Telephone: (202) 514-6069
Email: philip.m.schreiber@usdoj.gov
25
3
1 FOR THE IRS:
2 ALAN S. KLINE, ESQ.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL
3 One Newark Center, Suite 1500
Newark, New Jersey 07102
4 Telephone: (609) 575-4531
5
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, TREASURY INSPECTOR
6 GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION:
7 BRADY J. KIEHM, ESQ.
OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL
8 1401 H Street, NW, Suite 469
Washington, D.C. 20005
9 Telephone: (202)927-7052
Email: Brady.Kiehm@tigta.treas.gov
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
1 Q. And how does it come about that you get assigned 08:19:12
2 an investigation? How does that work? 08:19:17
3 A. My supervisor makes the assignment to me. 08:19:19
4 Q. That's the gentleman in Denver? 08:19:22
5 A. Yes. Mr. Glosini. 08:19:23
6 Q. Now, you've been designated as, what we call, a 08:19:31
7 30(b)(6) representative for this deposition here today. 08:19:34
8 Have you had an opportunity to review the Notice 08:19:41
9 of Taking Deposition that has been filed -- 08:19:43
10 A. Yes. 08:19:46
11 Q. -- with respect to today's deposition? 08:19:46
12 (Exhibit-40 was marked for identification.) 08:20:01
13 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) I've marked the Notice of 08:20:04
14 Taking Deposition as Exhibit 40. Have you seen that 08:20:04
15 document before, sir? 08:20:13
16 A. Give me a moment to review it and make sure it's 08:20:15
17 the same document that I ... 08:20:20
18 Yes, I have. 08:20:21
19 Q. Have you -- starting on page 3 of that document, 08:20:31
20 there are a list of topics for this deposition. Have you 08:20:38
21 reviewed the list of topics? 08:20:43
22 A. I have. 08:20:46
23 Q. We are told that you are designated to testify 08:20:47
24 with regard to the following topics, and I'd like to go 08:20:52
25 through them slowly with you, just to get affirmation 08:20:56
13
1 that that's the case. 08:21:00
2 First of all, Topic 15? 08:21:01
3 A. Yes. 08:21:05
4 Q. Sixteen? 08:21:05
5 A. Yes. 08:21:07
6 Q. Twenty-three? 08:21:08
7 A. Yes. 08:21:13
8 Q. Twenty-five? 08:21:16
9 A. Yes. 08:21:17
10 Q. Twenty-nine. 08:21:17
11 A. Yes. 08:21:20
12 Q. Thirty? 08:21:21
13 A. Yes. 08:21:23
14 Q. Thirty-one? 08:21:23
15 A. Yes. 08:21:26
16 Q. Thirty-two? 08:21:27
17 A. Yes. 08:21:30
18 Q. Thirty-three? 08:21:31
19 A. Yes. 08:21:34
20 Q. And 35? 08:21:35
21 MR. TOMPKINS: I'll just state for the record 08:21:37
22 the designations were subject to our objections in the 08:21:38
23 February 21, 2013 letter that we sent to the plaintiff. 08:21:42
24 And also there was some overlap, as we detailed, with 08:21:48
25 regards to some of those topics with other -- 08:21:50
14
1 MR. DAVIS: I understand. 08:21:53
2 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) But these are the general 08:21:53
3 topics, subject to counsel's caveat, that you've been 08:21:54
4 designated to testify to. Is that correct? 08:21:58
5 A. Yes. 08:22:00
6 Q. What have you done to prepare for your testimony 08:22:01
7 today? 08:22:04
8 A. I've reviewed this document. I've gone back and 08:22:05
9 reviewed my completed Report of Investigation to help 08:22:08
10 refresh my memory and any associated note and/or document 08:22:10
11 that I could locate that was related to that effort. 08:22:15
12 Q. Other than any conversations that you may have 08:22:22
13 had with counsel, did you interview any individuals or 08:22:24
14 consult with any individuals who are not attorneys in 08:22:28
15 preparation for your deposition here today? 08:22:33
16 A. I didn't interview or -- I suppose "consult" 08:22:35
17 could be the proper term. I discussed it with my 08:22:40
18 district supervisor, Jeffery Glosini. 08:22:42
19 Q. And what did you discuss with him? 08:22:47
20 A. Well, I made sure that he was aware that this 08:22:49
21 was ongoing and that I needed time to prepare myself and 08:22:51
22 then I would be here today. And I discussed the 08:22:54
23 preparatory meetings held with these gentlemen. 08:22:58
24 Q. Those are your counsel? 08:23:03
25 A. Yes. 08:23:04
15
1 Q. About how long did you spend preparing for your 08:23:06
2 deposition here today? 08:23:10
3 A. Oh, I'd say I have a total of five hours 08:23:11
4 preparing. 08:23:19
5 Q. Was most of that spent in reviewing your Report 08:23:20
6 of Examination -- or of Investigation? 08:23:24
7 A. Yeah, for -- and/or meeting with counsel. 08:23:26
8 Q. Let's talk very specifically here in terms of 08:23:31
9 the investigation which you conducted, which affected -- 08:23:34
10 or related to the National Organization for Marriage. 08:23:39
11 How did it first come to your attention that you 08:23:43
12 would be involved in such an investigation? 08:23:48
13 A. My supervisor advised me that it had been 08:23:51
14 assigned to me. 08:23:53
15 Q. And what did your supervisor advise you as to 08:23:54
16 the reason for the investigation? 08:23:59
17 A. I don't recall him doing so. 08:24:02
18 Q. What did you do to ascertain what the reason for 08:24:06
19 investigation would have been? 08:24:08
20 A. I reviewed all of the information that was 08:24:11
21 provided, to my knowledge, by the complainant and/or any 08:24:13
22 information that had been gathered by other special 08:24:19
23 agents before it was assigned to me. 08:24:22
24 Q. Who was the complainant? 08:24:24
25 A. I believe it was the National Organization for 08:24:26
26
1 investigator? 08:39:07
2 A. No. I don't provide conclusions. I simply 08:39:08
3 document the evidence that was identified that's related 08:39:12
4 to the allegation. 08:39:14
5 Q. The very first sentence of the investigative 08:39:18
6 synopsis says that, "On April 13, 2012, Treasury 08:39:24
7 Inspector General for Tax Administration received a 08:39:27
8 letter from the National Organization of Marriage." And 08:39:30
9 it goes on to recite some information. 08:39:37
10 To your knowledge, is that the letter which 08:39:39
11 triggered the investigation? 08:39:42
12 A. Yes. 08:39:44
13 Q. If you go to the second page, at the top it 08:39:51
14 says, "Results of Inspector General's subpoenas revealed 08:39:53
15 that NOM's 2008 tax return was uploaded on March 30, 08:39:57
16 2012, and later" -- and I've got a blank here. 08:40:03
17 Could you read what it says there in yours? 08:40:09
18 A. I can't. My belief is the word is "deleted." 08:40:12
19 Q. "Later deleted from SCRIBD account registered to 08:40:15
20 NOMEXPOSED." 08:40:21
21 Do you recall how it was that you were able to 08:40:24
22 ascertain that the NOM 2008 tax return was uploaded on 08:40:29
23 March 30, 2012, as described here? 08:40:36
24 A. I would have relied upon the returned 08:40:38
25 information from the SCRIBD in response to the Inspector 08:40:43
31
1 the operations of the RAIVS. 08:46:59
2 Q. Were you able to ascertain that in January of 08:47:01
3 2011, RAIVS clerks had access to unredacted Exempt 08:47:04
4 Organization return information? 08:47:17
5 A. I believe that's accurate. 08:47:18
6 Q. Were they -- were the RAIVS clerks -- did the 08:47:20
7 RAIVS clerks also have access to redacted Exempt 08:47:24
8 Organization return information? 08:47:31
9 A. Yes, I believe that's accurate as well. As it 08:47:32
10 was described to me, the SEIN offered those two choices 08:47:36
11 to the IRS employees who accessed that system. They 08:47:41
12 could either select a redacted version of the return or 08:47:45
13 the unredacted. 08:47:50
14 Q. What were you able to ascertain in your 08:48:03
15 investigation as to how a RAIVS clerk, such as Wendy 08:48:06
16 Peters, would mechanically access unredacted return 08:48:13
17 information in SEIN? 08:48:20
18 A. I was told they have an IRS SEIN desktop 08:48:23
19 computer that's assigned to them. And they have access 08:48:27
20 to that computer with a password. Once they get access 08:48:30
21 to that, they also can get onto the IRS's internet 08:48:36
22 site -- or web. They also have another password for 08:48:39
23 that. 08:48:44
24 At that point, the SEIN is an application that's 08:48:45
25 available to them in order to complete their assignments. 08:48:48
43
1 A. I don't recall that. 09:04:47
2 Q. Do you -- at any time during the course of your 09:04:49
3 investigation, were you able to ascertain whether or not 09:04:52
4 the unredacted return information was printed with 09:04:58
5 respect to the two 2008 returns? 09:05:03
6 A. The one that was disclosed, yes. 09:05:08
7 Q. And were you able to ascertain whether or not 09:05:10
8 the 2007 return was disclosed? 09:05:13
9 A. We searched, but we were unable to provide or 09:05:17
10 locate evidence that that had occurred -- and the other 09:05:19
11 2008 as well. We found no evidence that that had 09:05:23
12 occurred. 09:05:25
13 Q. And what evidence were you relying on to 09:05:26
14 ascertain that the one 2008 unredacted return had been 09:05:29
15 disclosed? 09:05:34
16 A. Well, the information provided by the 09:05:35
17 complainer, of course. And it had the SEIN number 09:05:37
18 diagonally imprinted upon it. That went back through 09:05:42
19 SEIN information. The SEIN audit trail showed that 09:05:47
20 Peters was the employee who had -- who had accessed it. 09:05:50
21 This print log showed that she was the employee who 09:05:53
22 printed it. 09:05:57
23 We then went further and identified the printer 09:05:57
24 itself through help from the IRS informations technology 09:06:02
25 people and verified that it was a printer assigned to the 09:06:06
49
1 that type error. 09:13:50
2 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Did -- in your course of your 09:13:52
3 interviews with Wendy Peters, did she discuss with you 09:13:54
4 her peer review process, a process where her peers would 09:13:58
5 review her work? 09:14:03
6 A. I don't recall her doing so. I do recall that 09:14:05
7 topic coming up in relation to interviews, and most 09:14:10
8 likely Johanson, the supervisor. 09:14:15
9 There was another RAIVS employee retiree. I 09:14:19
10 believe her last name was Andrews, something to that 09:14:24
11 effect. She had trained Peters. And she talked about, I 09:14:28
12 believe -- again, that was a collateral interview. I 09:14:32
13 didn't conduct it. I didn't have personal knowledge of 09:14:36
14 what she stated. But I relied upon the memorandum that 09:14:39
15 the special agent created. And I believe she spoke about 09:14:41
16 that review process, where peers would review -- 09:14:45
17 especially if they were in an OJI situation, an 09:14:48
18 on-the-job instructor situation. 09:14:55
19 Q. In any of your interviews with Wendy Peters 09:15:04
20 during the course of this investigation, did she ever 09:15:09
21 indicate that she had been peer reviewed with regard to 09:15:14
22 the disclosure of the NOM return information? 09:15:18
23 A. No, I don't recall that. 09:15:22
24 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection. Foundation. 09:15:24
25 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Let's go to Government 09:15:38
50
1 Production 26 and 27. 09:15:40
2 A. Okay. I am at Document 26. 09:15:54
3 Q. And this is a Memorandum of Interview Activity 09:15:56
4 of Ben Aaron Johanson, April 13, 2012, correct? 09:16:00
5 A. Yes. 09:16:06
6 Q. And this would have been an interview conducted 09:16:08
7 by Preston Lamb and Pamela Combe prior to your getting 09:16:11
8 involved in the investigation, correct? 09:16:15
9 A. Yes. 09:16:17
10 Q. Have you reviewed this Memorandum of Interview 09:16:20
11 or Activity before? 09:16:23
12 A. I have. 09:16:24
13 Q. And did you utilize this Memorandum of Interview 09:16:27
14 or Activity in putting together the synopsis of 09:16:31
15 investigation that we've been going through? 09:16:35
16 A. Yes. 09:16:36
17 Q. On the first page, page 26, second full 09:16:49
18 paragraph down, last sentence. It says, "He cannot 09:16:56
19 verify if there was a Form 4506-A or a request letter 09:17:00
20 submitted because they destroy that information after 45 09:17:05
21 days." 09:17:09
22 During the course of your investigation, have 09:17:09
23 you ever been able to ascertain with any degree of 09:17:11
24 certainty as to whether or not a 4506-A letter was 09:17:16
25 submitted for the NOM return information in question? 09:17:19
52
1 their" -- strike that. 09:19:11
2 Starting with the paragraph, it says, "When the 09:19:13
3 RAIVS unit receives a request for tax information, they 09:19:16
4 can authorize it to be mailed and printed from 09:19:19
5 Correspondence Production Services (CPS) site, (formerly 09:19:21
6 known as National Print site) in the Ogden campus." 09:19:26
7 Did you see that when you reviewed this 09:19:32
8 memorandum? 09:19:36
9 A. Yes. 09:19:36
10 Q. What did you understand that to mean? 09:19:36
11 A. That the RAIVS generates documentation to 09:19:39
12 respond that it can be printed at the CPS -- 09:19:42
13 correspondence. So it would be the correspondence 09:19:45
14 itself, the 3983 letter that you mentioned before. 09:19:48
15 I think they also have an opportunity to produce 09:19:53
16 a different response letter. If the language of the 09:19:56
17 3983C isn't in keeping with the situation, they can print 09:20:00
18 what they refer to as a local letter. I don't believe 09:20:05
19 that gets printed down in CPS, though. I think that's 09:20:08
20 printed right there in the RAIVS unit. 09:20:12
21 Q. Well, if you go on in this paragraph, it goes on 09:20:15
22 to say, "When their organization receives a request for 09:20:17
23 Form 990 with Schedule B information, they have to print 09:20:21
24 the information themselves and manually redact the 09:20:26
25 Schedule B information by cutting out the names of the 09:20:30
53
1 donors." 09:20:33
2 Did you understand that to mean that the RAIVS 09:20:34
3 unit would be doing that? 09:20:36
4 A. Yes. 09:20:40
5 Q. It goes on to say, though, "A RAIVS employee 09:20:41
6 could make the wrong keystrokes on their computer, making 09:20:46
7 it possible for the employee to inadvertently authorize 09:20:49
8 Form 990 and Schedule B information to be printed in the 09:20:52
9 CPS site without being redacted and without the employee 09:20:56
10 realizing that they had authorized it." 09:21:00
11 Were you aware that the actual printing of the 09:21:05
12 Schedule B information could occur in the CPS site during 09:21:08
13 the course of your investigation? 09:21:13
14 A. That -- yeah. This is refreshing my 09:21:15
15 recollection. It appears it can be. 09:21:17
16 Q. And did you conduct any investigation to 09:21:20
17 ascertain whether or not it was? 09:21:24
18 A. We asked CPS if they had records to identify if 09:21:26
19 they'd printed a 3983C or anything that regarded a 09:21:31
20 request from an employee. And they didn't. 09:21:38
21 Q. Well, this seems to suggest that the actual 09:21:40
22 Schedule B information could be printed at the CPS site. 09:21:44
23 A. Yes. 09:21:47
24 Q. Did you understand that to be the case during 09:21:48
25 the course of your investigation? 09:21:50
54
1 A. I'm sure I did at one point or another during 09:21:52
2 the course of the investigation. And it's a good -- it's 09:21:55
3 a good refreshment of my recollection at this point 09:21:56
4 because, clearly, I wasn't recalling it in that fashion. 09:22:00
5 Q. So the RAIVS clerk, through administering a 09:22:04
6 computer keystroke, could cause that printing to take 09:22:12
7 place in CPS. Is that correct? 09:22:16
8 A. Yes. Based on the information that was 09:22:18
9 provided. 09:22:20
10 Q. And then Mr. Johanson goes on to say in the next 09:22:34
11 paragraph, "He does not (sic) believe it is possible that 09:22:39
12 she accidentally caused the unredacted information to be 09:22:42
13 printed and sent from the CPS site because she could have 09:22:46
14 done that by accidentally making wrong keystrokes on her 09:22:49
15 computer." 09:22:53
16 Did you discuss with during the course of any 09:22:56
17 interview of Wendy Peters whether or not she engaged in 09:22:58
18 such activity? 09:23:02
19 MR. TOMPKINS: I'll object -- or just state for 09:23:03
20 the record it was two paragraphs down. 09:23:05
21 MR. DAVIS: All right. 09:23:08
22 THE WITNESS: When we interviewed Peters, we 09:23:14
23 asked her to identify her normal procedure as she was 09:23:16
24 completing these requests and accessing the information 09:23:21
25 and/or providing it to the requestor. And she stated 09:23:25
56
1 that TIGTA report. 09:25:21
2 MR. DAVIS: Got it. 09:25:24
3 THE WITNESS: I am at 1881. 09:25:24
4 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) And can you tell me what 09:25:27
5 document 1881 is or part of? 09:25:30
6 A. Just a moment. I'll take a look and -- 09:25:35
7 Q. I think it starts -- 09:25:38
8 A. Oh, it's a -- it's a -- 09:25:39
9 Q. It starts at 1859, I believe. 09:25:39
10 A. It's a portion of a document that was created in 09:25:43
11 order to keep TIGTA management appraised of the status of 09:25:48
12 the investigation. It's titled, "Office of Investigation 09:25:54
13 Briefing Document." Begins at page 1859. 09:25:57
14 Q. And is this document prepared all at once, or is 09:26:01
15 it prepared as the investigation proceeds? 09:26:06
16 A. As the investigation proceeded, yes. 09:26:08
17 Q. And what is done with this document? 09:26:11
18 A. It's provided to TIGTA management so they, 09:26:13
19 again, can have a status as to the investigation and its, 09:26:16
20 I guess, its progress. 09:26:22
21 Q. Okay. Now going back to 1881. The second 09:26:26
22 bullet point provides, "IDRS audit trails shows Peters 09:26:31
23 made 218 accesses to NOM's tax account on various dates 09:26:36
24 in 2011, and 9 IDRS accesses to NOM's tax account in 09:26:41
25 2012." 09:26:49
57
1 Does that refresh your recollection as to the 09:26:49
2 number of accesses that the investigation revealed? 09:26:51
3 A. Yes. 09:26:56
4 Q. Now, going back to those accesses. What was 09:26:56
5 done to ascertain whether or not those accesses were 09:27:02
6 appropriate for her job? 09:27:08
7 A. Well, again, I think we've already discussed 09:27:11
8 this. But it was mentioned with RAIVS management, with 09:27:14
9 Johanson. I don't know that he was given the exact 09:27:21
10 number. But I know that it was discussed with him, the 09:27:24
11 access activity. And he indicated that he believed it 09:27:27
12 was in keeping with her assignments. 09:27:30
13 Then TIGTA's Strategic Data Services Group 09:27:33
14 conducted their own analysis. And their conclusion is 09:27:36
15 they didn't see anything questionable. 09:27:40
16 Q. And they looked at that by analyzing the command 09:27:43
17 codes that were used associated with the accesses? 09:27:49
18 A. Yes. 09:27:52
19 Q. And what I'm trying to get an understanding, in 09:27:54
20 the course of your investigation, it appears that -- or 09:27:56
21 your report suggests that her accesses were considered to 09:28:06
22 be appropriate, correct? 09:28:09
23 A. I don't believe it offers that conclusion. I 09:28:13
24 would hope that, you know, an educated reader would come 09:28:15
25 to a logical conclusion. I don't think we state that in 09:28:20
58
1 there. I think what we would state is something to the 09:28:24
2 effect that SDS didn't find any questionable activity. 09:28:26
3 Or they deemed that the activity was in keeping with the 09:28:30
4 normal pattern that Peters would complete as she 09:28:33
5 addressed her assignments. 09:28:38
6 Q. And I guess in the process of the investigation, 09:28:40
7 then you do, indeed, look at the command codes that she 09:28:42
8 utilized. Is that correct? 09:28:47
9 A. The SDS did. 09:28:48
10 Q. Okay. And do those command codes, to your 09:28:50
11 knowledge, restrict the access that a RAIVS clerk would 09:28:55
12 have in even taking a look at the unredacted donor lists 09:29:04
13 in returns? 09:29:11
14 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection. Misstates the 09:29:12
15 evidence. 09:29:13
16 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) You can answer if you 09:29:22
17 understand the question. I'll rephrase the question. 09:29:23
18 A. Can you please rephrase it? 09:29:25
19 Q. Sure. 09:29:28
20 A. Thank you. 09:29:28
21 Q. A RAIVS clerk enters a command code. 09:29:28
22 A. Yes. 09:29:32
23 Q. What kind of command codes do you -- can you 09:29:32
24 recall that a RAIVS clerk would use in accessing return 09:29:35
25 information? 09:29:39
61
1 Q. Go to Government 30, which is the interview of a 09:41:48
2 lady by the name of Shirleen Anderson, dated April 17, 09:41:56
3 2012. And this interview was apparently conducted by 09:42:01
4 you. Is that correct? 09:42:06
5 A. Yes. 09:42:07
6 Q. And who is Shirleen Anderson -- 09:42:07
7 A. It was an IRS -- 09:42:12
8 Q. -- or was at that time? 09:42:11
9 A. -- IRS employee assigned as a supervisory clerk 09:42:13
10 to the quality review function that would review the 09:42:17
11 SEINs information. 09:42:24
12 Q. In the first paragraph, starting, "Anderson 09:42:27
13 supervised the -- supervises the Ogden Accounting 09:42:35
14 Operations Quality Review unit." 09:42:38
15 Down, the next sentence says, "Her office 09:42:41
16 reviews a sample of each Exempt Organization request 09:42:44
17 processed by the RAIVS unit in order to determine if the 09:42:47
18 necessary redactions had been made." 09:42:51
19 So you were able to ascertain that part of the 09:42:53
20 quality review function was to ascertain whether 09:42:56
21 necessary redactions had been made. Is that correct? 09:42:59
22 A. Yes. 09:43:03
23 Q. It goes on to say, "They specifically focus on 09:43:03
24 redactions of E&O return Schedule B to ensure there was 09:43:06
25 no improper disclosure of contributor identification 09:43:11
62
1 information. She estimates -- estimated that QR reviews 09:43:16
2 approximately two EO RAIVS cases per week." 09:43:20
3 That would come out to a little over 104 a year, 09:43:27
4 correct? 09:43:32
5 A. Yes. 09:43:33
6 Q. And Wendy Peters was processing between 100 and 09:43:34
7 300 a week. Is that correct? 09:43:38
8 A. That's what we were told, yes. 09:43:42
9 Q. So it's a very, very small percentage of the 09:43:44
10 QR -- or of the EO information that's being actually 09:43:49
11 reviewed by QR. Is that correct? 09:43:53
12 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection to form. 09:43:59
13 THE WITNESS: Can you please restate? 09:44:02
14 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Sure. The 100 roughly -- if 09:44:05
15 she is doing between 100 and 300 of these requests a 09:44:09
16 week, that could go anywhere from 5200 to 15,000 a year, 09:44:15
17 correct? 09:44:23
18 A. Yes. 09:44:24
19 Q. And according to Shirleen Anderson, they're 09:44:24
20 reviewing approximately 104 of those per year, correct? 09:44:28
21 A. Yes. 09:44:32
22 Q. So would you agree with me that that's a rather 09:44:33
23 small percentage for quality review? 09:44:35
24 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection to the form. 09:44:37
25 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure, not ever having been 09:44:38
84
1 that correct? 10:31:01
2 A. I believe so. 10:31:01
3 Q. Now, in the course of the investigation which 10:31:28
4 you conducted, were you able to locate any Form 3983C 10:31:30
5 letters that would have transmitted NOM's return 10:31:39
6 information to Mr. Meisel? 10:31:45
7 A. No. 10:31:47
8 Q. And why -- do you know why you were unable to do 10:31:48
9 that? 10:31:52
10 A. We were advised that there was no -- the IRS did 10:31:53
11 not retain record of that, of that document, the creation 10:31:59
12 of it. And we couldn't identify a manner in which it 10:32:02
13 could be re-created. Additionally, a copy of the 10:32:06
14 document was never furnished to our office. We never 10:32:10
15 found access to it. 10:32:14
16 Q. Did you, during the course of the investigation, 10:32:15
17 make any inquiry into what the IRS document retention 10:32:18
18 policy was with regard to Forms 3983Cs? 10:32:22
19 A. Yes. I believe they said that they didn't 10:32:28
20 retain those. 10:32:31
21 Q. And did you, during the course of your 10:32:32
22 investigation, make inquiry as to the IRS's document 10:32:35
23 retention policy with regard to Form 4506-As? 10:32:39
24 A. Yes. They told us that they were retained for 10:32:45
25 45 days at that time. 10:32:50
93
1 CERTIFICATE
2
State of Utah )
3 ss.
County of Salt Lake )
4
5
6 I hereby certify that the witness in the
foregoing proceeding was duly sworn to testify to the
7 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the
within-entitled cause; 10:47:34
8
That said deposition was taken at the time
9 and place herein named;
10 That the deposition is a true record of the
witness' testimony; 10:47:34
11
That the testimony of said witness was
12 reported by me in stenotype and thereafter transcribed
into typewritten form; 10:47:34
13
I further certify that I am not of kin or
14 otherwise associated with any of the parties of said
cause of action, and that I am not interested in the
15 event thereof.
16
17
18
19
________________________________
20 Michelle Mallonee, RPR, CSR
Utah CSR #267114-7801 10:47:34
21 Expires May 31, 2014
22
23
24
25
f!
'I .
I
f
---- ---
Tille (Name and address):
PETERS WENDY J.
(
RE ORT OF TION
Type of Investigation:
2
INVESTIGATION
Type of Report:
cgj Final
0 Supplemental
[2J Employee D Non-employee 0 Former Employee
Date of Birth:
OGDEN,UT
Date Ent ered on Duty: Position and Grade:
2/6/2006 CLERK GS-4
Division and ottice: W&l SERVICE CENTERS\ OGDEN
SUBMISSION PROCESSING
Period of Investigation: April 13, 2012 through September 25, 2012
Potential Violation(s):
UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE
UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO TAX RETURN INFORMATION
INVESTIGATIVE SYNOPSIS
On April 13, 2012, the Treasuty lhspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) received a letter
from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM} wherein they a.lleged that private information from
their 2008 Form990, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax, and Schedule B, .Schedule of
Contributors, may have been improperly disclosed by the Internal Service (IRS). The NOM
advised that the disclosure resulted in the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the Huffington Post and
other organizations publishing the NOM's private tax information for public review.
An interview of the NOM President revealed that the disclosed copy of their return displayed what he .
believedto be IRS markings, including a nine-digit number. The NOM had no-record of requesting or
receiving their 2008 return from the IRS, and this led the NOM to conclude that the IRS provided their
return to a third party requestor. The NOM advised that an electronic versjon of the return, along with
the IRS markings, had been posted to SCRIBD lnc. , a digital document repository company.
Distribution No, Case Number: Signature of Sp.ecial Agent Making Report:
63-1204-0019-1
(\1, ' (9.
Inspector General for Tax Administration
1
Chris Chieppa : y.-....... ''-1\'>
---
Internal Revenue Service
1
Signature of Person Examining Repot1:
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Preston C. Lamb
Other (Specify):
Title: Ottice(Cily):
Assistant Special
ASAC, Denver
Division OHice: Date of Report:
SAC, Denver Field Division OCT 1 0 2012
. ' .
TIGTA Form 01 2028R (Rev 04/2007) Treasury Inspector General lor Tax Admnusttahon
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. ANY REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OR FURTHER DISSEMINATION OF THIS
DOCUMENT OR INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN SHOULD BE REFERRED TO HEADQUARTERS, TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR
TAX ADMINISTRATION.
CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY CONFIDENTIALITY N.O.M. v. United States, 13-1225 (E.D. Va.)

Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 - Page 1
Results of Inspector General bpoenas revealed that the NOM's 18 tax return was uploaded on
March 30, 2012, and later dE: ..... ,ed, from a SCRIBD account registereJ to NOMEXPOSED. The
account ovvner utilized an Internet Protocol (IP) address that had been leased to the HRC.
When interviewed, Internet Blogger JEREMY HOOPER said that he established the SCRIBD
NOM EXPOSED account at the direction of HRC employee KEVIN NIX. He provided NIX with the
account na rne and password, and he has no knowledge whether NIX distributed that information to
others. HOOPER did not post the NOM's 2008 Form 990 to the SCRIBD account, and he was not
pri vy to wh o posted the Form 990 or who may have deleted it.
Interviews of IRS employees and reviews of IRS records revealed that the nine-digit number
displayed on the disclosed return was a unique identifier that was systemically generated on January
21, 2011, w hen IRS employee WENDY J. PETERS printed the NOM's 2008 return.
Interviews of IRS employees revealed that all requests for Exempt Organization (EO) return
information are processed in Ogden, Utah .bY Return and Income Services (RAIVS)
unit, and PETERS processes the majority of those requests. The interviews revealed that PETERS
had the ability to print unredacted vets ions of the NOM' s return, but she would have been responsible
to redact the donor's identifying information before releasing it to a third party requestor. IRS policy
authorizes the destruction of requests for EO return information after 45 days, so any request
regarding the NOM's tax information would have been properly destroyed.
When interviewed, PETERS verified that she processes the majority of incoming EO requests. She
did not recall processing a request regarding the NOM. She knew that EO Schedule B documents
must be redacted of all donor identifying information prior to it being provided to a requestor. She
acknowledged that she could have made a mistake by providing donor identification information, but
she doubted that she did so because she is careful to ensure the accuracy of her work. PETERS
denied intentionally disclosing the restricted tax information.
Huffington Post author SAM STEI N and NIX declined to be interviewed, but NIX's attorney advised
that his client received the NOM's tax information f rom MATIHEW S. MEISEL.
A TIGTA Intelligence Analyst Report (IAR) revealed that an article titled "Out of the Closet, Into the
Boardroom," from the Yale Herald, dated November 5, 2010, identified MEISEL as a senior associate
consultant at Bain and Company. According to the article, MEISEL is a member of the Bain Gay and
Lesbian Association for Diversity (BGLAD). B;:;LAD's mission is to support the recruitment and
retention of talented gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender colleagues at Bain and at the
Bridgespan Group, their sister nonprofit consulting firm. Attempts were made to interview MEISEL
regarding NOM's tax information; however, he declined to be intervi ewed.
A review of PETERS' IRS e-mail history revealed that she sent an e-mai l to an IRS Media Relati ons
Specialist on January 19, 2011 , where PETERS questioned MEISEL's status as a member of the
Case Title: Case Number:
PETERS, WENDY J. 63-1204-0019-1
TIGTA Form 012028R (Rev. 04/2007) Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
. Page 2
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
THIS DOCUMENT IS f'ROVIDEO FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. ANY REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OR FURTHER DISSEMINATION OF THIS
DOCUMENT OR INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN SHOULD BE REFERRED TO HEADQUARTERS, TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR
TAX ADMINISTRATION.
CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER- N.O.M. v. United States, 13-1225 (E.D. Va.)
GOV-PROD-0000002
.-------------- - -------------- --"!
MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW
OR ACTIVITY
Type of Activity:
0 Personal Interview
D Telephone Intervi ew
0 Records Review

Activity or Interview of:
Review and Analysis of a National Organization
for Marriage's Tax Year 2008 Internal Revenue
Service Form 990, Schedule 8- Schedule of
Contributors
Date and Time:
April 17, 2012
Conducted by:
Asst. Special Agent in Charge Michael J.
Wallenhorst
Location of Interview/Activity:
TIGTA- Office of Investigations
Strategic Data Services
Cincinnati; Ohio
- ----------- --- -
Subject Matter/Remarks
A review and analysis was conducted by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
(TIGTA), Strategic Data Services (SDS), regarding an allegation from the National Organization for
Marriage (NOM) that private information from their 2008 Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt
From Income Tax, and Schedule 8, Schedule of Contributors, may have been improperly disclosed
by the Internal Revenue Service. The review and analysis revealed the following information:
The NOM letter and an official from the NOM reported that the Schedule B contained original
IRs information that "has been obscured" through the use of a redaction tool. However, both
the letter and the NOM official claimed that by removing the layer of protection covering the
obscured information, they were able to see what they believed to be IRS information on the
original document. The IRS information that had been obscured across the top of the page of
the Schedule 8 read, "THIS IS A COPY OF A LIVE RETURN FROM SMIPS. OFFICAL USE
ONLY" and stamped diagonally across the middle of the page was the number "100560209."
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration Strategic Data Services (SDS) verified
the NOM's claim t hat it was possible to "lift" the redaction methods used on the Schedule Bin
question, revealing the IRS information noted above. SDS employees utilized an Adobe
Acrobat program to successfully do so, thus confirming what was reported by the NOM_
Case Number: Case Title:
63-1204-0019-1 PETERS, WENDY J.
TIGTA Form 01 2028-M (Rev. 0512002) Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
GOV-PROD-0000023
OR ACTIVITY
Type of Activity:
0 Personal interview
lnlerview
0 Records Review
0 Other
Conference Call Participants
SHERRY WHITAKER, Supervisory Program
Analyst (TEGE)
PRESTON LAMB, ASAC Ogden, UT
STACY FISHER, Program Analyst, UT
MIKE SCHWARBERG, Manager- SDS
JAMES AVERY, Manager - SDS
JEFF WILLIAMS, Assistant Director - SOS
CHARLES RECKERS, Forensic Data Analyst-
SDS
Date and Time:
April13, 2012; 1:30 EDT
Conducted by:
ASAC Mike Schwarberg
Location of Interview/ Activity:
Conference Call, 801-620-5045
A conference call was conducted regarding an allegation from the National Organization for Marriage
(NOM) that private information from their 2008 Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt From
Income Tax, and Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors, may have been improperly disclosed by the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The call resulted in the following:
IRS supervisor SHERRY WHITAKER began the call by briefing employees from the Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) on the amount of work that she has been
performing regarding the possible disclosure of Schedule B data from the NOM's 2008 Form
990.
WHITAKER started her involvement on April 5, 2012 after receiving an e-mail from IRS
employee BOBBIE ZARIN, Public Affairs Officer. ZARIN had received an e-mail from IRS
employee CHRISTINE D'AMICO, Legislative Affairs, Legislation & Reports Branch, regarding a
disGiosure of the NOM's tax data.
Forms 990 received in the Ogden Service Center are scanned on a system called SEIN
of Income Exempt Organizations Return Image Network). The SEIN has two parts,
a redacted section for public dissemination of Form 990 data and an unredacted section for
internal use.
The work she had performed to date has indicated that the appropriate pages of the NOM's
2008 return were scanned into the system. She is currently working with IRS employee
ROBERT BLACKWELL, Supervisory Information Technology Specialist, Data Management, to
obtain the audit trail of accesses to the SEI N system. WHITAKER added that they are
Case Number: Case Tiile:
63-1204-0019-1 PETERS, WENDY J.
-- -. -- .... ]
Treasury Inspector General -ior.fax Administration TlGlA Form 01 2028M (Rev. 05/2002}
PAge ._ . .J:;f_
GOV-PROD-0000024
MEMORANDUf )F INTERVIEW OR ACTIVIT( sheet)
researching the numbe1 :;tamped on the front of the Form which may be an employee
number.
WHITAKER further added that Ogden Service Center management has looked at the SEIN
data and agreed that proper scanning procedures were followed.
WHITAKER stated that in December 2011, a Form 4506-A, Request for Public Inspection or
Copy of Exempt or Political Organization was received requesting a copy of the 2008 Form
990 return for the NOM. This request was received by the RAIVS (Returns and Income
Verification System) unit.
The RAIVS unit has access to both the redacted and unredacted sections of the SEIN system.
The procedures for obtaining return copies is to check SEIN first and to only request paper
copies from files if they are not available from the SEIN.
The points of contact in RAIVS are IRS employee STACY A. FISHER, Management and
Program Analyst, and IRS employee BEN A. JOHANSON, Supervisory Clerk.
During the call, WHITAKER received updated information regarding the stamped number on
the disclosed return. The number identified the employee who requested the return. For the
cited number, the associated IRS employee is WENDY J. PETERS (SEID ZKNLB). The .SEIN
audit trail showed that PETERS accessed the NOM's 2008 990 return on the SEIN on January
21, 2011. PETERS' manager is JOHANSON.
This SEI N audit trail was obtained by IRS employee DAVID HAMILTON, Information
Technology Specialist, and forwarded to WHITAKER by IRS employee
Supervisory Information Technology Specialist, Data Management.
STACY FISHER added that besides the accesses that she and her associates have performed
in April 2012, no other IRS employees have accessed the NOM's 2008 account on the SEJN.
WHITAKER stated that she does not know whet her PETERS accessed the redacted or
unredacted section of the SEIN. In addition, she will be following up with FISHER and/or
JOHANSON to confirm that the Form 4506-A received date was not December 2010, as
opposed to December 201 1.
Regarding the SMIPS notation on the bottom of the disclosed return, she stated that this is
added when Forms 990 are electronically filed or when scanned paper copies are printed. She
did not know what the acronym of SMIPS stood for.
Finally, WHITAKER stated that PETERS may have received the 4506 and incorrectly issued
the unredacted copy, or PETERS may have performed this research/action on her own.
Case Number:
63-1204-0019-1
Case Title:
PETERS, WENDY J.
. . .
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration TIGTA Form 01 2026-M (Rev. 05/2002)
CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER- N.O.M. v. States, 13-1225 (E.D. Va.)
GOV-PROD-0000025
Type of Activity:
IZJ Personal Interview
0 Telephone Interview
0 Records Review
0 Other

----- - - -------
OR ACTIVITY
Date and Time:
Apri1 13, 2012; 1:45 p.m.
Conducted by:
BEN AARON JOHANSON
Supervisory Clerk Ogden Submissions
Processing Center
Asst. Special Agent in Charge Preston C. Lamb
Special Agent Pamela Combe
(801) 620-7386
Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration
Ogden, Utah
------:- -- ---- - - ------- -
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Supervisory Clerk AARON JOHANSON was interviewed regardi ng an
allegation from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) that private information from their 2008
Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax, and Schedule B, Schedule of
Contributors, may have been improperly disclosed by the IRS. JOHANSON provided the following
information during the interview:
Individuals and organizations have a right to request certain tax information regarding exempt
organizations (EO) by maki ng a formal request for the information to the IRS. Normally those
requests are made by the requester completing a Form 4506-A, Request for Public Inspection or
Copy of Exempt or Political Organization, and submitting it to his area, the Return and Inventory
Verification Services (RAIVS). The IRS will also accept a request from an organization if it is on
the organization's letterhead and it includes all of the in-formation that is required on the Form
4506-A. .
He had previously been questioned by IRS personnel regard_ing this issue, so he had completed
some research regarding the matter. As he recalls, his research led him to conclude that IRS
RAIVS Clerk WENDY J .PETERS had likely received a request for tax information regarding the .
NOM in or about January 2011, although he believes it could have been in or about December
.2010. He believes PETERS received a request because his research showed that PETERS had
assigned the case to herself on the Statistics of Income Exempt Organizations Return Image
Network (SEIN). He cannot verify if there was a Form 4506-A or a request letter submitted
because they destroy that information after 45 days.
Until approximately Apri l 2011, when a request for tax information regarding an EO was made,
they would send the requestor a copy of the Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt From
Income Tax, and a redacted copy of the Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors, even if the
63-1204-0019-1 PETERS, WENDY J.
TIGTA Form 0 1 2026-M (Rev. 05/2002)
]

CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER- N.O.M. v. United States, 13-1225 (E.D. Va.)
GOV-PROD-0000026
MEMORANDun )F INTERVIEW OR ACTIVITY '.ontinuation sheet)
Schedule 8 was not requested. The redacted copy 'Nould show the amount of the contribution,-
but it would not show any information regarding the identity of the contributor. Since April 2011,
they only send the Schedule B information if it is specifically requested.
When the RAIVS unit receives a request for tax information, they can authorize it to be mailed
and printed from the Correspondence Production Services (CPS) site (formerly known as
National Print site) in the Ogden Campus. When their organization receives a request for Form
990 with Schedule 8 information, they have to print the information themselves and manually
redact the Schedule 8 information by cutting out the names of the donors. A RAIVS employee
could make the wrong keystrokes on their computer, making it possible for the employee to
inadvertently authorize the Form 990 and Schedule 8 information to be printed in the CPS site
without it being redacted and without the employee realizing that they had authorized it.
Their office receives approximately 100 to 300 requests for Form 990 information on a weekly
basis. They have four clerks who are assigned to complete those requests, but PETERS
completes about 90 percent of the EO work because she is good at processing the requests.
JOHANSON said it is possible that PETERS made an error in processing the request and sent a
copy of the unredacted information to the requestor, but he would be surprised because PETERS
is normally so conscientious about her work. He does believe it is possible that she accidently
caused the unredacted information to be printed and sent from the CPS site because she could
have done that by accidently making the wrong keystrokes on her computer.
JOHANSON does not know how the number that appears on the face of the Schedule 8 gets
printed on it. He believes it is possible that the number is printed on the document when the
documen.t is sent from the CPS site. He is sure it is not something that is added by his
organization.
JOHANSON does not think it is unusual that PETERS made so many Integrated Data Retrieval
System (I DRS) accesses to the NOM's tax account in 2011 and 2012 because every request for
information that she received regarding thatorganization would require her to make I DRS
accesses. Some organizations receive a large amount of requests because a segment of the
population is interested in them for a variety of reasons. He reviewed the !DRS audit trai ls that
PETERS made to the NOM's tax account and verified that her command code usage was
consistent.with the type of work she performs. Again, because PETERS completes the majority
of those types of requests, it is not unusual that she would be assigned to respond to multiple
information requests regarding the same entity.
He does not believe that PETERS has a political agenda that would have motivated her to make
an unauthorized disclosure of the NOM's information. He does not know if she has an affiliation
to the Democratic or Republican parties or if she has a position for or against legalization of gay
marriage because she does not discuss politics in the workplace.
Case Number: Case-Title:
------------ ------ - -- -----,
63-1204-0019-1 PETERS, WENDY J.
"> Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration -Investigations
Pr. 1ge# ~ .
GOV-PROD-0000027
____ , ..
- -
.. ..
--- - -
OR ACTIVITY
Type of Activity: Date and Time:
l'8J Personal Interview
0 Records Review
April17, 2012; 11:30a.m.
0 Other
Activity or Interview of: Conducted by:
SHIRLEEN ANDERSON
Supervisory Clerk
Special Agent Chris Chieppa
Quality Review
Accounting Operations
Ogden Submissions Processing
(801) 620-7338
Administration
Ogden, Utah
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Supervisory Clerk SHIRLEEN ANDERSON was interiliewed
regarding an allegation from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) that pri vate information
from their 2008 Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax, and Schedule B,
Schedule of Contributors, may have been improperly disclosed by the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS). ANDERSON provided the following information during the interview:
ANDERSON supervises the Ogden Accounting Operations Quality Review (OR) unit, which
reviews completed work from the Ogden Return and Income Verification Services (RAIVS) unit
to identify if errors are being made. Her office reviews a sample of each exempt organization
(EO) request processed by the RAIVS unit in order to determine if the necessary redactions
had been made. They specifically focus on redactions of EO return Schedules B to ensure
there was no improper disclosure of contributor identification information. She estimated that
QR reviews approximately two EO RAIVS cases per week.
She said that identified errors are documented and are reported back to the RAIVS unit. OR
maintains that documentation for a one year. time period. She does not recall her office
detecting instances when EO Schedule B information was not correctly redacted.
She reviewed her records and discovered that her office had no history of detecting EO related
errors regarding IRS employee WENDY J. PETERS. Her records revealed that from October
1, 201 0 through April 14, 2012, her office reviewed 90 assignments which had been processed
by PETERS without detecting an error.
63-1204-0019-1 PETERS, WENDY J.
TIGTA Form 0 1 2028-M (Rev. 0512002) - - - - .. - - - --Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration

. ,, __:,...,l__
GOV-PROD-0000030
OR ACTIVI TY
-
Records Review
Apri117, 2012
0 Other
Review of the Internal Revenue Service Statistics Special Agent Chris A. Chieppa
of Income Exempt Organizations Return Image
Net System Audit Trail Records
Administration
Ogden, Utah
A review of the l11ternal Revenue Service (IRS) Statistics of Income Exempt Organizations Return
Image System (SEIN) audit trail records was conducted regarding an allegation from the Nat ional
Organization for Marriage (NOM) that private information from their 2008 Form 990, Return of
Organization Exempt From Income Tax, and Schedule 8, Schedule of Contributors, may have been
improperly disclosed by the IRS. The audit 'trail revealed. the following information:
IRS employees made 60 accesses through the SEIN to the NOM's records between the dates of
July 16, 2009 and April13, 2012.
On January 21, 2011, the IRS employee assigned user name ZKNLB accessed the NOM's 2008
Exempt Organization (EO) tax return documents and the NOM's 2007 990 taxTeturn document
through the SEIN. That employee's actions nine digit SEIN document numbers for
each return. SEI N Number 100560209 was generated regarding one of the 2008 returns, .
100560208 was generated regarding the other 2008 return, and 100560207 was generated
regarding the 2007 return.
Attachment: SEIN Audit Trail Records
H ..........
TIGTA Form 0 1 2028-M (Rev. 0512002) Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration

CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER- N.O.M. v. United States, 13-1225 (E.D. Va. )
GOV-PROD-0000037
()
0
z
11
0
m
z
-1
5>
r
I
(/)
c
lD
c....
m
()
-1
-1
0
g
(/)
()
..
m
::u
-<
()
0
z
11
0
m
z
-1
5>
r

0
::u
0
m
::u
z
9

c
:J
it
a.
(/)
iii
ro
(/)
G) ......
0 <f
-;:: ......
"U IV
::u
0 ,..-...
o m
b 0
0
g
0
(.,)
co
EIN 1TAX YEAF TYPE CODE! RETURN; I( SUB .. :NC ACCESS;.;USER ACCESS. TIME' ... .. :; ACCESS. CODE
2602404981200812 9900 j 7,616,915 1 DQJFB 04/13/2012 11:25:33 100,756,758
260240498!200812 9900 l 6,792,240 1 OQJFB 04/13/2012 11:25:15 100,756,757
260240498 201012 9900 9,182,042 . 1 DQJFB 04/13/2012 11:10:14 100,756,742
126024049e 200912 9900 8,036,886 1 OQJFB 04/13/201211:09:17 100,756,739
260240498 200912 8,035,886 1 OQJFB 04/13/2012 11:04:54 100,756,735
260240498 200812 9900 6,792 .. 240 . . 1 OQJFB 04/13i2012 10:57:44 1D0,756,731
260240498 200812 9900 7,616,915 1 DQJFB 04/13/2012 10:49:07 100,756,727
260240498 200812 9900 6,792,240 1 OQJFB 04/1312012 10:45:22 100,756,726
260240498 200812 9900 6,792,240 1 82GFB 04/13/201210:41:32 100,756,724
260240498 200812 9900 6,792,240 1 82GFB 04/13/201210:41:19 100,756,723
260240498 2.00812 9900 7,616,915 1 82GFB 04/13/2012 10:40:09 100,756,722
260240498 200812 9900 7,616,915 1 82GFB 04/13/2012 10:39:29 100,756,721
260240498 200812 9900 6,792,240 1 82GFB 04/13/2012 10:38:44 100,756,720
260240498 200812 9900 6,792,240 1 82GFB 04/13/2012 10:37:24 100,756,714
260240498 200812 9900 6,792,240 1 DOJFB .. 04/13/2012 10:34:26 100,756,713
.260240498 200812 9900 $,792,240 1 DQJFB 04/13/2012 10:23:12 100,756,704
260240498 200812 9900 6,792,240 1 DQJFB 04/13/2012 10:20:32 100,756,703
260240498 200812 9900 6,792,240 1 DQJFB 04/13/2012 10:20:07 1.00,756,702
260240498 200812 9900 6,792,2401 1 T5CFB 04/05/2012 16:36:22 100,754,285
260240498 200812 9900 7,616,915 1 T5CFB 04/05/2012 16:35:09 100,754,284
260240498 200812 9900 7,616,915! 1 T5CFB 04/05/2012 16:33:50 100,754,283
260240498 200812 9900 6,792,240 1 TSCFB 04/05/2012 16:32:06 100,754,282
260240498 200812 9900 7,616,915' 1 JLJFB 04/05/2012 16:06:45 100,754,279
200812 9900 7,616,915 1 6DJLB 04/05/2012 14:43:02 100,754,269
260240498 200912 9900 8,036,886 1 7JBBB 03/28/201213:29:23 100,750,910
260240498 200912 9900 8,036.886 1 7JMDB 02/02/2012 14:49:20 100,727,451
260240498 201012 9900 9,182,042 1 8PJFB 01/10/2012 15:17:56 100,715,564
rz60240498 201012 9900 9,182,042 1 8PJFB 01/10/2012 15:16:04 100,715,563
260240498 200912 9900 8,036,886 1 KM6MB 11/2812011 10:53:03 100,700,652
260240498 200712 9900 6,647,271 1 WMYLB 11101/2011 07:07:33 100,690,209
260240498 200912 9900 8 036 886 1 ZKNLB
08/3012011 10:57:28 100,663,494
260240498200912 9900 8,036,886 1 ZKNLB 08/30/201110:57:22 100,663,493
. 260240498 200912 9900 8,036, 886 1 4RZLB 08/23/2011 10:12:39 100,660,71 1
250240498 200912 9900 8,036,886 1 ZKNLB 03/04/2011 08:41:49 100,582,702
2G02Ll0498 200712 9900 6.647,271 1 ZKNLB 03/0412011 08:09:37 100,582,662
200912 9900 8,036,886 1 ZKNLB 01/2612011 06:10:59 100,562,440
()
0
z
11
r::2:::-6::::02:::-4:-::0:-:-4-::-:9S::r2:::-:0::-::0:-:c8-:-12:::--........-:9:-:::9..,-00-::----.---:7:::-,-::-61-:-:6:-, 9"""'1c-::5.,.--------:1-r:Z:::-K-:-:N-:-:L-=B----:----. 01/21/20 11 07: 12: 12
26024049E 200812 9900 6,792,240 1 ZKNLB 01/21/2011 07:11:45
5> 260240498 200712 9900 6,647,271 1 ZKNLB 01/21/2011 07:11:00
!260240498 200812 9900 6,792,240 1 4RZLB 07/29/2010 13:37:35
260240498 200712 9900 6,647,271 1 4RZLB 07/29/2010 13:37:10
260240498 200812 9900 6,792,240 1 JWCFB 04/23/2010 13:35:44
26024049c 200712 9900 6,647,271 1 JWCFB 04/23/2010 13:34:51
--1 260240491: 200812 9900 6,792,240 1 4RZLB 04/15/2010 09:22:35
-I 26024049c 200712 9900 6,647,271 1 4RZLB 04/15/2010 09:22:03
g 260240498 200812 9900 6,792,240 1 W7DFB 10/14/2009 13:14:30
(/) '?"'"'':?40498 200712 !9900 6,647,271 1 W7DFB. 10/14/200913:12:26
8 t: .!40498 200712 9900 6,647,271 1 W7DFB 10/07/2009 11:12:30
1260240498 200712 9900 6,647,271 1 W7DFB 10/07/2009 11:06:54
::u \260240491: 200812 9900 6,792,240 1 W7DFB 10/07/2009 11:01:25
260240498 200712 9900 6,647,271 1 W7DFB 10/07/2009 10:59:55
0 ,260240498 200712 9900 6,647,271 1 W7DFB 10/07/2009 10:58:35
260240498 200712 9900 6,647,271 1 6DJLB 10/02/2009 13:52:30
o 260240498 200812 9900 6,792,240 1 6DJLB 10/02/2009 13:27:00
260240498 200812 9900 6,792,240 1 W7DFB 10/01/200913:58:03
260240498 200712 9900 6,647,271 1 DMLMB 09/29/2009 22:40:24
r 260240498 200812 9900 6,792,240 1 DMLMB 09/29/2009 22:39:52
260240498 200712 9900 6,647,271 1 DMLMB 09/29/2009 22:38:30
0 260240498 200712 9900 6,647,271 1 W7DFB 09/15/2009 14:07:31
'260240498 200712 9900 6,647,271 1 W7DF6 07/16/2009 13:23:45
m
::u
z
9

c
:J
it
a.
(/)
iii
ro
(/)
G) ......
0 <f
-;:: ......
"U 1\.)
::u
0 ,..-...
o m
b 0
0
g
0
(.,)
(!)
100,560,209
100,560,208
100,560,207
100,477,652
100,4i7,651
100,435,675
100,435,674
100,432,141
100,432,140
100,348,355
100,348,352
100,345,387
100,345,382
100,345,371
100,345,366
100,345,365
100,343,414
100,343,400
100,342,994
100,341,915
100,341,913
100,341,912
100,334,583
100,308,992
--- -. ------ - - - - ---
(
OR ACTIVITY
-=.-
Personal Interview
0 Records Review
April 26, 2012; 8:30 a.m.
0 Other
DAVID HAMILTON Special Agent Chris A. Chieppa
Information Technology Specialist
Research Analysis and Statistics
- - -
---
Data Management Division Location of Interview/Activity:
SOl DMD Offices
(801) 620-6230
Main IRS Building
Ogden, Utah
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employee DAVID-HAMILTON was interviewed regarding an
Contributors, may have been improperly disclosed by the IRS. He provided the following information:
HAMI L TON is assigned to t he Statistics of Income (SOl) Data Management Division (DMD) as
a system administrator/programmer regarding the Statistics of Income Exempt Organizations
Return Image Network (SEIN). The SEIN is partitioned into two sections, a redacted section
for public dissemination of Form 990 data and an unredacted section for private dissemination
and internal IRS use.
He is aware of the NOM's allegation of an improper IRS disclosure of their unredacted 2008
Schedule B information. He previously ran a SEIN audit trai l, which he provided to Tax
Exempt Government Exempt (TEGE) Program Manager SHERRY WHITAKER. He recalled
that the audit trail revealed an access made by IRS employee WENDY J. PETERS to the
NOM's 2008 tax return information. He said that access generated unique nine digit SEIN
tracking number 100560209 to the Form 990 and to its attachments. That number will not
appear on any other SElN document, and it only appeared diagonally when a SEIN document
was printed or was saved to a SEIN user's computer desktop. It appeared horizontally if the
SEIN document was only viewed. He did not believe the SEIN tracking number could be
removed and that it always printed diagonally on the return and on its attachments. He
recalled the audit trail also revealed that PETERS had accessed a different version of the
NOM's 2008 tax return along with the NOM's 2007 tax return. Each of those documents would
have generated a different unique nine digit SEIN tracking number.
He accessed the SOIWORLD server event log which revealed that on January 21, 2011, the
employee assigned Standard Employee Identification Number (SEID) ZKNLB generated three
Case N'-u,-,nb-e,- : --:--- ----r--o::c-as-e =ri,.,-tle: __ _ _ --- --- - - - ----
. 63-1204-0019-1 PETERS, WENDY J.
T!GTA Form 0 1 2028-M (Rev. 05/2002} Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
GOV-PROD-0000042
- -- --- MEMORANDur:. ,FTN-fERVIEWOR ACTIVIT\ sheet)
SEIN print jobs resulting in the printing of both of the NOM's 2008 returns and of their 2007
return. That SEID number is assigned to WENDY J. PETERS. The first SEIN document was
17 pages long, the second SEIN document was 32 pages long, and the third SEIN document
was 37 pages long. HAMIL TON accessed the SEIN and viewed the NOM's tax returns (2008,
2008 and 2007) and found that the page counts matched the page counts of the three SEIN
print jobs initiated by PETERS.
He explained that the SOIWORLD server handled routing of all SEIN print jobs to the SEIN
user's default printer. In t his case, the print jobs were sent to printer odnOO 1 p2231601 , which
would likely be in the Ogden RAIVS unit.
He concluded that on January 21, 2011, PETERS accessed and printed three of the NOM's
tax returns, including the 2008 return which displayed SEIN tracking number 100560209.
Attachments: SOIWORLD server event logs
_________ J. -- - --- _ _ __ _]
TIGTA Forrn 01 2028-M {Rev. 05/2002} Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration - Investigations
CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO ORDER- N.O.M. v. United States, 13-1225 (E.D. Va.)
GOV-PROD-0000043
()
0
z
11
0
m
z
-1
5>
r
(/)
c
lD
c....
m
()
-1
-1
0
g
(/)
()
1.1
m
::U<O
-<ro
() :t""
0 .t'
zl

Z j
-1
5>
r

0
::u
0
m
::u
z
9

:<
c
:J
it
a.
(/)
iii
ro
(/)
Apr 26, 2012 08:51 AM
' .
,.
;. ..
.,.
.. :
: :i}2J/2Q1l:: . :
.::
. . rrrr!e:
. ::
,/ .. ..
. ..
. . ... ..:::. '
. .. .
.
. ....
. .. . . . . . -
. ... . ,. "
. .. ..
. :.
H:': .'_ ::: f _:+_: J
.
:, ; Npne .. : .
. ... .
EventlQi , 10::
. ; ..
.: .
..
.. , '
... :
..
()
0
z
11
0
m
z
-1
5>
r
(/)
c
lD
c....
m
()
-1
-1
0
g
(/)
()
0
l."i
::u ru
-<;a
()ID
0
Z!

ml
Zl
::!I
)>
r

0
::u
0
m
::u
z
9

:<
c
:J
it
a.
(/)
iii
ro
(/)
G) ......
0 <f
-;:: ......
"U IV
::u
0 ........
o m
b 0
0
g
0

c.n
,_..Thursday, Apr 26. 2012 08: 51 AM
:1J29j
l
. . . ..., .
l
. , .. :

_ , Og_l:e: : .. .:;)l;?l(!i!9U:::-: .=_.= . ,:.: .
"' .. Time: .,, : .'
' : : :
:.
, ....
l
I
: Infoifr)atioi} .".
<:, ;
.... .
Event ID: ,.-: 1'0 .
....
. ';, .. . , .
: .. . ;Print.
':. :-:: . . ; .. .: .. :
!J.ser: :-
. . , . ': ' . ..
. ' '
} . .
, .. ._, .: .
: .. :' : . . . ': .. . ; .... .:": . .
.. . .
: : .. ....
. : . ..
I
I
l
l
.. :.:
..
<
. ..
:' : : : ; "' '
. . -: :: .. :_.: .. -:. :: . :. :
. :
: .. ..
' .. .
: .. : . t
: ... ... :.: . ,
... . ..
. .
.. .
. < .: ..
: .. ,
....
' .. ..
... ..
.. : . .
. ;. .
. . . .
. : I .
. ...:::..J
' . :-:
: ..
. ... .... .. ,n .. ce'l . t . . --- '
. .! . . ,, . ,6>:.:1;
',
. ...
.. _.'""' . :.' .
I
H
t
I
!
I
1
I
II
II
' "'
()
0
z
,
0
m
z
-l
5>
r
en
c
(D
(_
m
()
-l
-l
0
Q
en
()
0
<
m
lJ
:::u

-<
""" () {<)
0

z

,
a
m
z
-l
5>
r

0
:::u
0
m
:::u
z
9
:s::

c
::J
it
a.
en
Qj
ro
-(/)
G)
......
0
(J.)
<
I
......
I
N
-u
N
:::u 01
0
m
0
I
b 0
0
0
<
0
!
0

m
Thursday, Apr 26. 2012 08:52 AM
--- ..... .
r
Event [D:
.'
.:
. -:
. . .
. . .
. rime: ... . a: 13:43
'. ....
.
. .
. . . . .
10
".
.
.. .
. .. ..
. . : .
. _:-.. .:.:. oK .: <" f .: c:ancel
.,. l
:_ - _j
. ... . _ __.:-..:...._:.__ _____ _
--....
Type of Activi ty
0 Personal l nterview
0 Records Review
0 Other
WENDY J. PETERS
Clerk
Ogden RAIVS
Submissions Processing
--- ------ --------- - .
OR ACTIVITY
Date and Tirne:
April19, 2012; 1:00 p.m.
Conducted by:
Special Agent Chri s A. Chieppa
Wage and Investment Service Centers
Administration
(801) 620-6413
Ogden, Utah
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employee WENDY J. PETERS was interviewed regarding an
Contributors, may have been improperly disclosed by the IRS. Prior to the interview, she was
provided with a copy of Form 811 1, Employee Notification Regarding Union Representation, which
she read, signed, and dated. Union Representative VICKI GIBSON was admitted into the interview.
PETERS was read a copy of Form 5230, Advisement of Rights (Non-Custodial), which she read,
signed, and datei:L She chose to answer questions and was placed under oath. Union
Representative GIBSON declined to remain for the interview. PETERS provided the following
information:
She has been assigned as a Clerk in the Ogden Return and Income Verification Services
(RAIVS) unit for the past three years, and she has been an IRS employee since February
2006. The RAIVS unit processes requests for tax return, tax transcript, and income verification
information. She has processed all types of RAIVS requests, but she specializes in processing
incoming Forms 4506-A, Request for Public Inspection or Copy of Exempt or Political
Organization IRS Form. She processes the majority of the RAIVS unit's Form 4506-A
requests.
She utilizes the Statistics of Income Exempt Organizations Return Image Network (SEIN) to
obtain copies of exempt organization (EO) tax returns, the Integrated Data Retrieval System
(IDRS) to conduct related research, and the Integrated Automated Technologies (!AT) to
generate Forms 3983-C, EO Photocopy Request Response Letters.
PETERS explained that Form 4506-A responses are sent to requestors, along with an
attached 3983-C Letter or local letter (13873LO). Processing of the 3983-C Letters is done
through the I DRS, and they are dated seven working days out because it takes seven to ten
---------------------.
--:::-----:-- j
GOV-PROD-0000049
)f INTERVIEW OR ACTIVIT" . sheet)
- - -- days for the 3983-C Tener to be .. printed and matched up with the correct Form 990
information. The letter and tax information is then mailed by the Correspondence Production
Services area. A local letter can be processed by a RAIVS empl oyee when the language
provided by the 3983-C Letter does not fit a specific request.
PETERS said that requested Forms 990 often include an attached Schedule B. The Schedule
8 is redacted in the SEI N imaging process and is not provided unless a requestor specifically
requests a copy. In that case, she was trained to print an unredacted copy, which she must
then manually redact to remove all contributor identity information. She can either cut out that
information, or she can place tape over the information and copy the Schedule 8, thereby
removing the information. She was well trained by former (retired) Clerk MARYLOU
ANDREWS.
PETERS did not specifically recall processing a Form 4506-A request for the NOM's
information, but she did recall seeing the word "marriage" on some requests. She said that if
the SEI N revealed that she accessed and printed the NOM's 2008 tax return incl uding SEIN
number 100560209, then she must have done so . . She said that if the IDRS revealed that she
processed a 3983-C Letter ten days later, then she must have done so. She does not know of
any reason that she would send an unredacted copy of NOM's Schedule 8 to anyone. She
agreed that she could have made a mistake by sending out unredacted EO return information,
but she does not think that it is likely because she is so meticulous about the way she
processes EO requests. She has never been advised of errors that she made regarding EO.
requests, especially regarding redactions.
Some or all of the completed Forms work is reviewed by their Quality Review (QR)
area, which typically takes a day or two. To her knowl edge, QR has never identified a
redaction error associated with any of her completed assignments. The tax documents are
then sent to the Correspondence Production Services (CPS) area where they are matched
with related 3983-C Letter and mailed to the requestor.
To her knowledge, she has never sent an unredacted schedule B from the SEI N under any
circumstances, so she has no idea how the NOM's 2008 information was released.
The RAIVS unit does receive Form 4506-A requests over their facsimile machine, but she only
recalled one occasion when she provided the results to a requester by facsimi le. She does not
believe that that occasion regarded the NOM. She believes the Forms 4506-A are retained for
45 days after processing is competed, after which time they are shredded. She does not
believe that the 3983-C Letters or the local letters are saved or retained in any way. She does
not know of any way to regenerate the 3983-C Letter or to identify where the NOM's 2008
return was sent.
She has not been asked by anyone to improperly access or provide the NOM's tax information.
She would never intentionally subvert the IRS' policies or procedures regarding releasing EO
tax reii.Jrn information. She did not intentionally make an unauthorized disclosure of the NOM's
tax return information.
The interview notes were reviewed with PETERS, who agreed they were accurate. She declined to
provide an affidavit.
Case Number: I Case Tille:
63-1204-0019-1 . PETERS, WENDY J.
----- . -
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administrat ion- Investigations TI Gl'A Form 0 1 2028M (Rev. 05/2002)
P
... , .iO
.r"' 0
. ----
GOV-PROD-0000050
Type of Activity:
Interview
0 Records Review
0 Other
MARYLOU ANDREWS
.J
OR ACTIVITY
Date and Time:
April24, 2012; 5:30p.m.
Conducted by:
Former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employee MARYLOU ANDREWS was interviewed regarding
an allegation from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) that private information from their
2008 Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax, and Schedule B, Schedule of
Contributors, may have been improperly disclosed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
ANDREWS provided the following information:
. .
ANDREWS worked in the IRS Exempt Organization (EO) area of the Return and Income
Verification Services (RAIVS) unit from 1995 until she ret ired on March 1, 2010. She trained
IRS employee WENDY J. PETERS and another employee (name unknown) to work in the EO
area of RAIVS.
She trained PETERS to prepare a Jetter for every Form 4506-A, Request for Public Inspection
or Copy of Exempt or Political Organization IRS Form, that they processed. ANDREWS saw
many changes in the letters and methods to send them during her career. They used to
physically check the boxes on the ltetters and "stuff" their own envelopes with the letter and
return. By the time she reti red, the letters and returns were "matched and mailed" by the
National Pri nt area.
She trained PETERS to always print the entire unredacted EO return and redact it herself,
saying that she did not trust the Statistics of Income (SOl) Imaging unit to redact properly. She
initially taught PETERS to remove both the names and the contri bution amounts of the donors
listed on the Schedule B, but they were later told to allow the dollar amounts to be disclosed.
If they received a Form 4506, Requests for Tax Return or a Form 4506-A, Request for Public
Inspection or Copy of Exempt or Political Organization IRS Form, from the president of an
organization who wanted a copy of their own organization's return, they would work it as if
there was money attached to the request. This did not happen often, but the feeling in the
Case Number: Case Tille:
63-1204-0019-1 PETERS, WENDY J.
TIGTA Form 01 2028M (Hev. 05/2002} Treasury lnspeclor General for Tax Adminis\Ia.tion
Pc;ae t:. 54
';1 ..
GOV-PROD-0000054
. MEMORANDU( .JF ACTIYIT' - she_e_;_ t)_
RAIVS unit at the time was, "You catch 'em, you clean 'em." She and PETERS would place
this Form 4506-A on "the money wall" along with the Forms 4506 that had come in with money
attached. These documents would eventually be boxed up and sent to the IRS Files unit.
She thought that there could be an explanation why an employee would access the Integrated
Data Retrieval System (I DRS) when the IRS had not received a Form 4506-A. She explained
that all RAIVS employees took turns answering the phones, and if a requester called and
asked for the status of their request, whoever took that call would check I DRS to see if the
request had been received .
. ANDREWS somewhat recognized the entity name of the "National Organization for Marriage."
She recalled the word "marriage" being in some requests that she processed. She never really
read everything on the Forms 4506-A, she just looked at the information needed to complete
her work.
She recalled that media requests often came in on letterhead. Those requests were treated as
. priority. It was common to get many requests for the same organization. She commented that
if one newspaper wanted the information, they all did.
A of their work was checked by the Quality Review (QR) unit, and she did not
recall them ever finding an instance where she or PETERS failed to redact contributor
identifying information. She had seen contributor names accidently get loaded onto DVOs.
Sh'e explained that the Imaging unit occasionally missed redacting contributor names listed on
other attachments that the taxpayer included with the return.
When asked how she thought a disclosure could have happened, she thought that someone
could have received a copy of the return directly from the organization. She explained that
Exempt Organizations are bound by law to provide copies of the last three years of returns to
anyone who requests them. She said that it would be up to the organization to choose what
information to redact.
She would be surprised if PETERS had made a mistake and allowed contributor information t o
be sent to a third party. She and PETERS would always check and recheck the returns before
sending them. She added that PETERS was a very good employee and a conscientious
worker. She did not think that PETERS had any strong political beliefs, and she never heard
PETERS speak about politics.

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration -I nvestigations TIGTA Form 01 202a::ivJ (Rev. 05/2002)
Pc:4ge ft._ t,?. b _
GOV-PROD-0000055
I
----
MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIE:W
OR ACTIVITY
-- - - ---- ---- ---- '-::::--
Type of Activi ty: Date and Time:
(g) Records Review
May 23, 2012
0 Other
Review of E-mail and Hard Drive Content Data
as Provided by the Forensics Data
Chris A. Chieppa
Services Regarding Internal Revenue Service
Employee WENDY J. PETERS
l
Administration
Ogden, Utah
A review was conducted of e-mail and hard drive data extracts as provided by the Treasury Inspector
General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), Forensics Data Services (FDS) Division regarding Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) employee WENDY .J. PETERS. This activity was conducted in order to
address an allegation from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) that private information
from their 2008 Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax, and Schedule 8,
Schedule of Contributors, may have been improperly disclosed by the IRS. The review revealed the
following information:
The e-mail review revealed one relevant e-mail message chain between PETERS and IRS
Media Relations Specialist PEGGY E. RILEY that began on January 19, 2011 and concluded
on March 4, 2011 .
PETERS initiated the chain of e-mail messages on January 19, 2011 , when PETERS advised
that her message regards a MATTHEWS. MEISEL of Somerville, Massachusetts. PETERS
said that MEISEL had checked the media box and stated the reason for his request was for .
analysis related to a personal blog. PETERS told .RILEY that she would let her the
decision for "yay or nay."
PETERS sent another e-mail to RILEY on January 24, 2011, advising that PETERS was still
holdin} a request from MATTHEW S. MEISEL of Somerville, Massachusetts. PETERS
re.minded RILEY that MEISEL had stated he was media. PETERS asked RILEY if she had
verified this.
PETERS sent another e-mail message to RILEY on February 28, 2011, when PETERS
reminded RILEY that she had a request from MATTHEWS. MEISEL of Somerville,
Massachusetts. PETERS reminded RILEY that MEISEL had checked the media box, but he
did not state any media connection. He claimed it was personal research for a personal blog.
Case Number:
63-1204-0019-1
J. -- --- -
'-=r;:-.!G:::::; T:"TA-;:- Fo-rm-:-O"'I-;;:20;:;:;2:::-0--;-;-M"'(R:-ev-. General for Tax7i.drninistration
:ft Stf__
GOV-PROD-0000084
----MEMORANDUfl:' )F INTERVIEW OR ACT(\JiTY. -ontinuation s-heet)
PETERS said that listed his phone number as (412) PETERS said that
she needed to hear from RI LEY.
PETERS sent another e-mail message to RILEY on March 4, 2011, wherein PETERS asked if
RILEY had an update on this matter. PETERS said that if "he" was a member of the media,
she needed to "get this done" before her deadline. PETERS said if not, I need to le.t "him"
know that "he" is not a member of the media.
RILEY sent an e-mail message to PETERS on March 4, 2011, wherein RILEY said that "he" is .
not a member of the media. RILEY added that it was just a personal blog.
Review of the hard drive contents revealed no information related to this investigation.
Attachments: E-mail message chain between PETERS and RILEY
C(lse Number: Case Title:
63-1204-0019-1 PETERS, WENDY J.
TIGTA Form 01 2028-M (Rev. 05/2002} Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration- Investigations
GOV-PROD-0000085
From: Peters Wendy J
To: Riley Pegg'( E
Subject: media
Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 9:39:00
J{e{{o 'Pegfr:J-
I tfwugfit I cfo fo[(ow with an emai[ to you regarcfing
tfie yfione message I [eft you yestercfay.
Tfiis was in regardS to a :Matthew :Meise[ of Sontervi[[e, Jvl.Jl.
J-fe cfi,ecked tfie media 6ox an states the Yeason for tfie
request is to 13e ana[yzec{ for yersona[ E[og.
The G{og issue is 6ecoming 1noye yrevai(ent. 1 fiave fiaa to
e{eJJate a few Yequests witli tfds situation. Jvlattliew did-not
refer to any yu6Cications or ties to any 1nedia source. I wi[[ [et
you.make tfie aecision for a yay or nay.
joT youT fie ty, as_ a(ways :)
'WencCy 'Peters
'RJUVS/.E 0 I Jv/.'E'D I .:A
801.-620-6413'
6a111.-2:3oy1n JvlST
GOV-PROD-0000086
To: Riley Peggy E
Subject: RE: media
Dat e: Wednesday, Janvary 19, 2011 9:56:00 AM
No great fiurry 'Peggy. tfianfis-
Wenay 'Peteys
'RJVVS/'EO/ Jvl EV I .Jl
Boz-620-64.13
6am-2:3o_p1n 2v1ST
------.- -----------..
From: Riley Peggy E
Sent: Wednesday, January. l9, 2011 8:54AM
To: Peters Wendy J
Subj ect: RE: media
Wendy I am checking on thi s and will get back to you shortly.
Thanks.
Peggy
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10:39 AM
To: Riley Peggy E
Subject: media
J{e{[o
I tfiougfit I wou[c{ ao jo([ow u_p witli an emai{ to you r egarding
tlie ylione.ni essage I [eft you yest eraay.
Tfiis was in regard's t o a .'Mattfi-ew Jvleise[ of Somervi{/, Jvl.Jt.
J-{e cfiecfiec{ t fie ntedia 6ox ana states tfie 'reason for tfie
request is to Ge ana{y zea f or _persona{ 6{og.
'lfie fJ {og issue is 6eco1ning more _prevai{e'J?-t. I fiave hac{ to
e{ev ate a few requests witfi tfiis situation. :Mattfiew cfic{ not .
refer to any yu6fications or ties to an y rned1a source. I w'i{{ {et
you make tfie aecision for a yay or nay.
'Tfianfis f or your fie[p, as a[ways :)
vVenay /Peters
GOV-PROD-0000087
'RJ-11YS/E 0/ Jvl'E'D l.Jl.
8 0 ]- 6 2 0-6413
6aYn--2:3oy1n :MS'T'
Page (f. 53: g _
GOV-PROD-0000088
To: Bt)ey PeqgyE
Subject:
Date: 1-londay, January 24, 2011 7:'17:00
(jooa JVlorning
I am sti{{ fio{aing tfie request front Jt.1.attfiew :Jv1eise{
Somervi({e JvLJ\. stating fie is mecfia. J{a.v e yoti fiacf a chance to
v erify tfiisfor me yet ?
Tfian fis-
1Venc{y Peters
'R..AIYS/'FO I :M 'EVI.Jl
80.1-620-6413
:MST
Page# ({9
GOV-PROD-0000089
(
To: E
Subject: MEDIA
Date: Monday, February 28, 2011 11:24:00 AM
J{e{(o Peggy-
! fiave a request from a Jvlattliew S Jvleise( of Sornervi({e, MA.
:J-{e aia cfiecli tfie nwdia Gox. J{e cCia not state any rneciia
connection otfier tlian yersonarreseaYcfi for yersona( 6{og. J{is
yfione number is [istea tliougli. It is 412-952-86'42. I just neea to
liear it from you, of yea or nay.
Tfiank you so for your ti1ne, again.
'WencCy Peters
R..AIYS/'EO I Jvl 'E'D I .A.

6am-2:3oym JvlST

GOV-PROD-0000090
From: Peters wendy J
To: 811ey Peggy E
Subject: FW:
Date: Wednesday, 02, 2011 7:34:00 AM
------------
:Hi and (joocf :Morning to you!
I was just vvonaering if you nave fiac( a 11'W1nent to cfiecfi on
'Verification for tfiis request.
tfianks-
11lencfy 'Peters
/'EO /:M 'E'D I .J-1
801-620-6413
6mn-2:3oyn-t Jvi.ST
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 10:25 AM
To: Riley Peggy E
Subject: MEDIA
J{e{{o
I fiave a reqiLest from a Jvtattfievv 5 Jvleise{ of Somervi((e, Jvl.A.
J{e die{ cfiecfi tlie media Gox. Jfe die{ not state any metiia
. connection otlier tlian yersona( researcfi for yersona{ &Cog. J-fis
ylione numGer is {istedtfiougfi. It is 412-952-8642. I just need' to
fiear it from you of yea or n,ay.
Tfianfi you so mucli for your time, again.
'WencCy 'Peters
'IUUY!::j/ 'EO I :M. 'ED I .Jt
801-620-6413 '
6ant-2:3oy1n ,1vlST
#. 91 ... ,
GOV-PROD-0000091
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Peters Wen(ly J
Riley Peggy E
RE: IV\EDIA
Wednesday, March 02, 2011 8:06:00 AM
~
'lfiank y ~ t :)
)Vendy TeteYs
1ZAIVS/'EO I ]lttEV I .J.\.
801-620-6413 .
6a1n-2:3oynt :fi.1S''l
From: Riley Peggy E
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 7:02AM
To: Peters Wendy J
Subject: Re: MEDIA
Sorry, I will check on it.
Sent using BlackBerry
To: Riley Peggy E
Sent: Wed Mar 02 08:34:47 2011
Subject: FW: MEDIA
J-fi ana (jooa M orning to you!
I 1vas j ust woncCering if you fia'Ve fiac{ a ntoment to cfieck. on
'Verification for tfiis request.
tfian f.s -
Wenay Peter s
R.JlfVS/'EO/:M E:D I.Jl
801-620-6413
6a1n-2:3oym :MST
--- - --------------- ------
From: Peters Wendy J .
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 10:25 AM
To: Riley Peggy E
Subject: MEDIA .
Page#_id__,
GOV-PROD-0000092
J{e{{o Peggy-
! h.ave a request from a J.1atthew S :Meise{ of S01neyvi{(e, JVl.JL
J{e cCia ch.eck tfie rnecCia Gox. J-(e dla not state any mecfia
connect ion other tlian persona( research for yersonai G{og. J-{is
phone nu?nbe:v is fistecf tfio-ugh. It is 412-952-8642. I just neer to
fiear it from you of yea or nay.
Tfian!e you so m.ucfi for your ti1ne, again.
ltVenay :Peters
'RJtfVS/'E 0 I :Jvl 'ED I .:A
. 801-620-6413
JvtS'T
Page # _ _i-2.._
GOV-PROD-0000093
f rom: Peters Wendy J
To:
Subj ect: FW: MEDIA
Date: Friday, March 04, 2011 7:33:00 AM
-------- ----------- -------------------
:J(ayyy ]'riaayll
.Any uyaates? I aon't want to Ee a _pest to you. If fz.e is m.edla I
nee to get tliis aone Gefore my aeaaCine. If not, I neea to (et
liim know fie is not media for future requests.
'lfianks-
1'\fen.c{y Pet ers
'R.:AIVS/'EO/ Jvl TD I A
8o.z-62o6413
6mn-2:3o_pnt :MST
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 7:06 Af'-'1
To: Riley Peggy E
Subject: RE: MEDIA
Tfiank you :)
)\lencf y Peters
:R:AfVS/TO I Jvl'E:D I .Jl
8 0 .1-62 0 64.13
6am-2:3o_pnt .'MST
From: Riley Peggy E
Sent: Wednesday, !"larch 02, 2011 7:02 AM
To: Peters Wendy J
Subject: Re: MEDIA
To: Riley Peggy E
Sent: Wed t-1ar 02 08:34:47 2011
Subj ect: FW: MEDIA
#: a ,r
..-.:L-T--..
GOV-PROD-0000094
Jfi and (iood Jvtorning to you!
I -was just 1vondering if you have fiac{ a 1n01nent to check on
11erijication for tfiis request.
tlianfis-
VVenay 'Peters
1UlfVS/'EO I :M:EVI Jl.
8o1-62o-64I3
JvlSI
Sent: Monday, February 28
1
2011 10:25 AM
To: Riley Peggy E
Subj ect: MEDIA
J-fe[{o Peggy-
] fiave a request from, a .7vlattfiew S JVLeise{ of Somervi[{e> Jvt.Jt.
J-fe cfic{ cfiecfi tlie rnedla Gox. J-fe die{ not state any media
connect ion other tfian yersona[ research for yersona{ ECog.- J{is
yfione numEer is fistecC tfiougfi. It is 412-952-8642. 1 Just nee a to
liear it from you of yea or nay.
Ifuinli you so mucli for youy time, again.
Wen,ay 'Peters
R:AIVS/:0 I JWE'D I :A

6mn-2:30p1n JvtST
GOV-PROD-0000095
From: Peters Wendy j
To: Riley pegoy E
Subject: RE: MEDIA
Date: Friday, March 2011 8:21:00 AM
------------ ------ --
'iliank you Peggy. I ao ayyreciate it:)
VVency Peters
:JUfVSI'l'O I :M'EVIA
8o.z-620-64z3
6am-2:3oynL JvlS'i
From: Riley Peggy E
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 7:10AM
To: Peters Wendy J
Subject: RE: MEDIA
Wendy - he is not media, it is just a personal b!og.
Thanks,
Peggy
From: Peters.wendy J
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 8:33 AM
To: Riley Peggy E
Subject: FW: MEDIA
Jfayyy :frirfay !!
--------- - ----- ------
.JI.ny uyaates? I aon't want to Ge a yest to you. If lie is media I
nee a to get tfiis dOne Gefore my aeadune. If not, I n eea t o {et
fiint k-now fie is not ntecfia for future requests . .
'1/ianfis-
wenay 'PeteYs
J{:AfVSI'EO I :M r.ED I .J.l .
Bcn-620-6413
6a1n-2:3oym :MS'i
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 7:06AM
To: Riley Peggy E

GOV-PROD-0000096
Subject: RE: MEDIA
Tlian/i you:)
'"'Wen,dy Peters
/:M'E1J 1 .JL
8 o 1-62 o-6413
6mn-2:3oyn1. Jvl.ST
From: Riley Peggy E
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 201.1 7:02 AM
To: Peters Wendy J
Subject: Re: MEDIA
To: Riley Peggy E
Sent: Wed Mar 02 08:34:47 2011
SUbject; FW: MEDIA
:J{i anr (iood :Morning to you!
I was just woncfering if you fia-ve fiac[ a moment to cfiecte on
verification for tfiis request.
tliantes-
!tVend"y J>eters
.Jl
Bcn-620-6413
MS'l
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 10:25 Atv1
To: Riley Peggy E
Subject : MEDIA
Jfe{(o Peggy-
! liave a request from a Jvt.attliew 5 :Jvleise{ of Sornervi((e, Jvt.Jl.
Pagc-3 #. q7
GOV-PROD-0000097
J{e die{ cliecfi the meia ?ox. :He cfic( not state any ntedia
connection ot fier t lian _peYsonct( resea-rcli Joy peysona[ ?[og. J{is
yfwne n:u-rnGer is [istea though. It is 412-952-8642. I fust nee to
hear it from you of yea or nay.
Thank you so n1-ucfz.jor your time, again.
Wendy Peters
R.JlfVS/EO /:MEVIJ.l
801-620-6413
6a1n-2:3oym :M5'T
~ g e #__if _
GOV-PROD-0000098
ti i 9- d c
o o I
C.JLK' i4y W7
-c [. .
.. - mlw""Y5 &L ( ce_.i{e r--.
ttS: . ;-+ r,'J ,;[) . yM,
)'-LOVV\,
. 'W.--r- lc .
\..z _ <1AA '-? Ue.. k; tl\ t x s t)... CL e..
: L 0-eJLe_ r
=c::--L 'fa./ JP v-.A-t t, +
. : LJa- s . :J' t.Z_ b s:c.rJ f t) .cJ
.: k st:=::c-N.
uo. ll. 1'7 v..tvy
1

Le. . 'No '1- 0
. L C/VVt IS__o<
PJo 0--v <[,
1
f'..V V-t Y\.
. ,
. l .:p_v pap
Luo r
5
? / ;w ct
f0v_)_) .... '!
, ':(51? ce. ' Cy ( s f v<-Q. f'l
(:9--'.A
...
CONFIDENTIAL- SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
N.O.M. v. United States, 13-1225 (ED. Va.)
GOV-PROD-0001779
OR ACTIVITY
Type of Activity:
D Personal Interview
D Telephone Interview
Records Review
D Other
Review of Integrated Data Retrieval System
Records
Date and Time:
Apri116, 2012
Conducted by:
Special Agent Chris A. Chieppa
Treasury I. G. for Tax Administration
1160 W. 1200 S.
Ogden, Utah
SubJect Matter/Remarks
A review of the Integrated Data Retrieval System (I DRS) audit trail records regarding the National
Organization for Marriage (NOM) revealed the following information:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employee WENDY J. PETERS made 227 accesses to the NOM's
tax account between the dates of January 19, 2011 and January 26, 2012.
63-1204-0019-1 PETERS, WENDY J.
TIGTA Form 01 2028-M (Rev. 05/2002) Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
N.O.M. v. United States, 13-1225 (E.D. Va.)
GOV-PROD-0001808
(
OR ACTIVITY
Type of Activity:
IS] Personal Interview
D Records Review
0 Other
SUSAN G. JULIAN
Clerk
Ogden RAIVS
(801) 620-6381
Date and Time:
Apri123, 2012; 9:30a.m.
Conducted by:
Special Agent Chris A Chieppa
Administration
Ogden, Utah
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employee SUSAN G. JULIAN was interviewed regarding an
Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax; and Schedule B, Schedule of
Contributors, may have been improperly disclosed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). She
provided the following information:
. JULIAN is assigned as a clerk in the Ogden Returns and Income Verification Services (RAIVS)
area where she processes requests for release of tax information. She backs-up IRS
employee WENDY PETERS regarding Forms 4506-A Requests for Public Inspection or Copy
of Exempt or Political Organization, for public Exempt Organization (EO) tax return information.
The Forms 4506-A are received in the RAIVS area through the mail or by facsimile. She
processes approximately 5-10% of incoming Form 4506-A requests and PETERS processes
the remainder.
She utilizes the Statistics of Income Exempt Organizations Return Image Network (SEIN) to
obtain Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax prints. She utilizes the
Integrated Data Retrieval System (I DRS) to conduct related research. Related Schedule b
documents are not disclosed unless a Form 4506-A specifically asks for that information. In
those cases they will print an un-redacted copy of the requested return and will manually
redact the donor identity information.
She utilizes the Integrated Automated Technologies (IAT) to generate 3983-C Letters which
are sent to each requestor along with the requested information. The 3983-C letters are dated
seven working days out in order to allow for processing time and are printed in the Ogden
Correspondence Production Site (CPS) area before they are mailed out. There are times
63-1204-0019-1 PETERS, WENDY J.
TIGTA Form OJ 2028-M (Rev. 05/2002) Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
GOV-PROD-0001822
( (
~
MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW OR ACTIVITY (continuation sheet)
when the language available for the 3983-C letters does not suit a request, and she generates
a local letter. Local letters are printed in the RAIVS unit and are mailed from the RAIVS unit.
All of the Forms 4506-A replies are provided to the Accounting Division Quality Review area
before they are authorized for mailing. She does not know how much of those replies are
actually reviewed. To her knowledge she has never sent out un-redacted Schedule 8
information regarding a Form 4506-A request.
She did not specifically recall receiving or processing a 4506-A request for the NOM's
information. She felt that human error could explain how un-redacted information could have
mistakenly been sent out. She described PETERS as careful accurate and thorough. She
would be surprised if PETERS had accidentally sent out an un-redacted Schedule B.
She believes the Form 4506-A are retained for 45 days before they are destroyed. She does
not believe the 3983-C Letters or the local letters are saved or retained in any way.
She has not been asked by anyone to improperly access or provide the NOM's tax information.
She would never intentionally subvert the IRS' policies or procedures regarding EO tax return
disclosures
Attachment: Form 9142
63-1204-0019-1 PETERS, WENDY J.
TIGTA Form 01 2028-M (Rev. 05/2002) Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration- Investigations
GOV-PROD-0001823
Forms 7560 were forwarded to the ECID DFS requesting a review of WENDY
PETERS' IRS email records, and a review of the hard drive from PETERS'
assigned IRS desktop computer.
The hard drive from the IRS desktop computer assigned to PETERS was seized
and placed into evidence.
The WFD advised they were contacted by the attorney for the representative
. from the HRC. They have agreed to meet with the TIGTA on April, 30, 2012.
Efforts are being made to re-contact the author of the Huffington Post article to
determine if he is wilting to be interviewed.
The SDS ran audit trails revealing that RAlVS Clerks PETERS, JULIAN, and
former Clerk ANDREWS had not accessed the I DRS tax account of-
I DRS records reviews revealed that from 2009 through present, RAIVS Clerks
have processed fourteen 3983-C letters regarding the NOM. The Clerks were
identified as PETERS, JOSEPH, and former Clerk ANDREWS.
April 24. 2012 -
IRS RAVIS Clerk JULIAN said that she backs-up Clerk PETERS with the
processing of Forms 4506-A requests for Exempt Organization tax return
information. She generates 3983-C Letters which are sent to the requestor along
with the requested information. For every processed 4506-A, she prepares a
letter (3983-C or locally prepared) that is forwarded to the requestor. Schedules
Bare redacted regarding all donor identity information. Some or all of the Forms
4506-A replies are reviewed by their quality review unit before they are sent to
the requestor. To her knowledge she has never sent an un-redacted Schedule B
from the SEIN under any circumstances. She does not recail processing a
request regarding the NOM's information. If an un-redacted Schedule B was
provided from a 4506-A request, then an IRS employee or system made a
mistake. She would be surprised if PETERS made this mistake because she
described PETERS as very thorough and knowledgeable.
The WFD advised that the author of the Huffington Post article postponed his
interview citing his need to obtain legal advice. The representative from the HRC
has not determined if he is willing to meet with the TIGTA as he is also seeking
legal advice.
The SDS ran audit trails revealing that on April 6, 2012, RAlVS Clerk JULIAN
accessed the NOM 6 times, using research command codes. Also betvveen the
days of July 16, 2009, to October 14, 2009, former RAIVS Clerk ANDREWS
accessed the NOM 154 times.
II
The ECID advised that the completed IAR was unable to find any connection
GOV-PROD-0001875
IRS manager SHERRY WHITAKER advised that Forms 990 and Schedules B
are scanned into the SEIN, and the SEIN contains both redacted and un-
redacted copies. The diagonally stamped number on the front of the NOM Form
990 and Schedule B is an IRSE number that is assigned to IRSE WENDY
PETERS, who works in the RAIVS area in Ogden. The GUIDESTAR website
does not contain the unredacted NOM information.
I DRS audit trails showed PETERS made 218 accesses to the NOM's tax account
on various dates in 2011 and nine IDRS access to the NOM's tax account in
2012.
IRS manager AARON JOHANSON advised that his organization responds to
Form 4506-A requests. IRSE PETERS processes most of the Form 4506-A
requests. JOHNANSON speculated that PETERS could have inadvertently
caused an unredacted version of the information to be sent to the requestor and
he did not think the number of I DRS accesses to the NOM's tax account was
unusual. His operation does not maintain any records regarding information
requests past 45 days.
NOM Chairman JOHN EASTMAN was interviewed and maintained that NOM
believes the release of the tax information was made by the IRS.
PARIS, I MIS and ALERTS were researched and showed that PETERS has
never been investigated by TIGTA regarding misconduct and that PETERS has
never been disciplined by the IRS for employee misconduct.
GOV-PROD-0001881
OR ACTIVITY
Type of Activity:
Interview
0 Records Review
D Other
JODIE MIKESELL
Supervisory Clerk
Statistics or Income Operation
(801) 620-6567
Date and Time:
May 1, 2012 9:30a.m.
Conducted by:
Special Agent Chris Chieppa
Administration
Ogden, Utah
SubJect Matter/Remarks
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Supervisory Clerk JODIE MIKESELL was interviewed regarding an
allegation that IRS employee WENDY J. PETERS made an unauthorized disclosure by improperly
releasing tax information related to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). MIKESELL
provided the following information during the interview:
MIKESELL said that her area images incoming exempt organization (EO) tax return
documents to the Statistics of Income Exempt Organizations Return Image Net (SEIN). They
image an un-redacted image which they then edit per IRM (3.20.12.2.3) procedures to redact
the necessary portions of those returns. They then save a redacted version to the SEIN, which
always includes redaction of the full schedule B document. They complete a 100% review of
the imaging redactions prior to saving the second version to the SEIN.
They do not receive documents which display the nine digit SEIN tracking number, since those
numbers are placed on the return documents after imaging has already occurred. They do not
disclose tax return documents to anyone.
The EO returns are then forwarded through the submissions processing pipeline which results
in updates being made to the Integrated Data Retrieval System (I DRS) and eventually to the
returns being provided to the Ogden files organization for retention.
63-1204-0019-1 PETERS, WENDY J.
TIGTA Form 01 2028-M (Rev. 05/2002) Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
GOV-PROD-0001836
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

The NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR
MARRIAGE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Defendant.

Civ. No. 13-cv-1225-J CC/IDD

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT,
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Please take notice that counsel for the Plaintiff, the National Organization for Marriage,
Inc. (NOM) will take the deposition by oral testimony of Defendant, the United States of
America (United States) on March 11, 2014, beginning at 9:00 a.m. The deposition will be
conducted at 3000 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007, or other location hereafter
designated by the undersigned counsel. The deposition will be conducted pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Pursuant to that Rule, the United States shall designate one or more officers,
directors, managing agents, or other persons to testify on its behalf, who must have knowledge
and be prepared to testify regarding the topics identified below. Should more than one person
have the relevant knowledge for the United States, all such persons should be designated and
appear for the deposition. The deposition will be recorded stenographically and by videotaped
and audio means, and it will continue from day-to-day until completed.
Scope of Deposition

A. All terms shall be construed to encompass as broad a range of information as
permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2

B. You, your, or yourself, means the United States and its agents, attorneys,
consultants, representatives, and all other persons acting or purporting to act on its behalf.
C. The term Answer means your Answer to the Verified Complaint in National
Organization for Marriage, Inc. v. United States of America, Internal Revenue Service, 13-cv-
1225-J CC/IDD, filed on December 2, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.
D. The term communication means every manner or means of statement, utterance,
notation, disclaimer, transfer or exchange of information of any nature whatsoever, by or to
whomever, whether oral or written or face-to-face, by telephone, mail, personal delivery or
otherwise, including but not limited to letters, correspondence, electronic mail, conversation,
memoranda, dialogue, discussions, meetings, interviews, consultations, agreements and other
understandings.
E. The terms relate to and relating to mean in any way directly or indirectly, in
whole or in part, regarding constituting, concerning, about, pertaining to, referring to, reflecting,
considering, underlying, modifying, amending, confirming, mentioning, endorsing, evidencing,
summarizing, memorializing, describing, discussing, analyzing, evaluating, representing,
supporting, qualifying, terminating, revoking, canceling, or negating.
F. The term associated with the United States includes, but is not limited to, full-
time and part-time employees, paid and unpaid interns, independent contractors, agents, and all
other individuals or entities affiliated with the United States.
G. The terms return and return information have the same meaning as they have
in 26 U.S.C. 6103.
3

H. The words or and and shall be read to ask for the broader of the conjunctive
or the disjunctive for a particular request or interrogatory and shall not be interpreted to limit the
scope of a request. The use of a verb in any tense shall be construed as the use of the verb in all
other tenses and the singular form shall be deemed to include the plural, and vice-versa. The
singular form of any noun shall be deemed to include the plural, and vice-versa.
I. All means any and all; and any means any and all.
J . Including means including but not limited to.
Topics

In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), the person(s) you designate to provide
testimony shall be authorized and prepared to testify on your behalf regarding the following
matters:
General Policies, Procedures and Protocols Governing Access and Inspection of
Confidential Taxpayer Information:

1. Knowledge about the specific tax administration purpose(s) which generally
authorize IRS employees and/or officials to access taxpayer information.

2. Knowledge about the specific tax administration purposes which authorize Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) employees and/or officials to access the non-public return
information of tax-exempt organizations, including the purposes for which such
information is inspected and the classification(s) of employees authorized to access
the non-public return information of exempt organizations.

3. Knowledge about the specific tax administration use of the non-public return
information of tax-exempt organizations.

4. Knowledge of referral to IRS audit division of donors identified on the Schedule B of
exempt organizations and whether audits of donors are or have been generated
through inspection of and access to non-public Schedule B donor information of
exempt organizations.

5. Knowledge of the written policies, procedures, and protocols related to random
internal IRS security audits to ensure compliance with IRS policies and procedures
regarding IRS employees access to, inspection and use of non-public return
information of tax-exempt organizations.
4

6. Knowledge about the IRSs current system, policy and/or process for retaining Form
4506-A or 3983-C Letters.

7. Knowledge about the IRSs current system, policy and/or process for access to and/or
printing of an unredacted Form 990 Schedule B by a Return and Income Verification
Services (RAIVS) clerk and describe any changes to that system, policy, and/or
process that occurred on or after March 2011, including the reason for a given
change.

8. Knowledge of any changes to the system, policy, and/or process referenced in #5, 6,
and 7 above that occurred on or after March 2011, including the reason for a given
change.

9. Knowledge about the IRSs current system, policy and/or process for access to and/or
printing of an unredacted Form 990 Schedule B by a Return and Income Verification
Services (RAIVS) clerk and describe any changes to that system, policy, and/or
process that occurred on or after March 2011, including the reason for a given
change. What written standards and protocols - and the training materials regarding
same - with respect to what IRS employees are taught re their ability to access
confidential donor information.

10. Knowledge of the written standards exist for IRS management employees to access
and inspect confidential taxpayer information and the tax administration purposes for
each category and specific job classification.

11. Knowledge of the written policies / protocols and security standards and training
provided to IRS employees regarding the inspection of confidential taxpayer
information.

12. Knowledge of the general understanding imparted to IRS management employees of
their authority to access non-public donor information of exempt organizations.

13. Knowledge of the number of exempt organization non-public donor information
accessed by Lois Lerner between 2000 and 2013.

14. Knowledge of the number of disciplinary proceedings initiated involving IRS
employees or contractors for unauthorized inspection or release of confidential
taxpayer information from 2004 through the present, divided into two categories: 1)
unauthorized inspections or disclosure of confidential donor information of exempt
organizations and 2) unauthorized inspection or disclosure of confidential taxpayer
information of all other taxpayers.

5

Knowledge about Inspection and Release of NOM Confidential, Non-Public Taxpayer
Information:

15. The allegations, alleged facts, and claims and/or contentions in your Answer.

16. Your responses and the factual bases of your objections to Plaintiffs discovery
requests in the above-captioned case, including requests for admission, requests for
production of documents, and interrogatories.

17. Knowledge about the tax administration authority of every IRS official identified on
GOV-PROD-0000038-39 who accessed NOMs taxpayer information, the tax
administration purpose of each IRS employee to access or inspect NOMs non-public
taxpayer information, the authorization needed for such individuals to access NOMs
return information and the use of the information obtained from such inspection.

18. Knowledge about each individual IRS employee or contractor who accessed, printed,
or received a copy of Plaintiffs non-public return information, including its
unredacted Schedule B through the Statistics of Income Exempt Organizations Return
Image Network (SEIN) or otherwise from tax years 2007, 2008, and 2009, provide
the individuals name, employee code, title, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers
(both official and personal, and include the service provider/carrier for the latter), date
of access or receipt, whether the individual accessed the restricted or unrestricted
Schedule B, and an explanation of the specific authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C 6103
and/or the particular tax administration purpose(s) relied upon to authorize the access
or receipt by the IRS employee or contractor of NOMs confidential non-public return
information.

19. Knowledge about the IRSs system for scanning, storing, and accessing return
information, including SEIN, from April 15, 2008 to the present, including
knowledge about each individual who had access to NOMs unredacted Schedule B
from tax years 2007, 2008, or 2009.

20. Knowledge about each individual who had access to NOMs unredacted Schedule B
without leaving an audit trail in SEIN and what standards and protocols apply to such
access.

21. Knowledge of whether the NOM Schedule B donor information was used by the IRS
at any time for purposes related to audits of taxpayers whose contributions were
disclosed to the IRS on the NOM schedule B.

22. Knowledge about the origin and significance of the words This is a copy of a live
return from SMIPS that is located on the top of Plaintiffs 2008 Schedule B (see,
e.g., GOV-PROD 0000016), including when the words were added to the document,
by whom they were added, whether the words are only visible on the printed
document, and the significance and/or meaning of the words.

6

23. The disclosure(s) of NOMs return and/or return information to Matthew S. Meisel,
including the disclosure on or around March 14, 2011.

24. Knowledge of Mr. Meisels promising conduit that may have been involved in the
unauthorized disclosure(s). See Meisel-0013.

25. How such disclosure(s) occurred, including the confidentiality procedures in place at
the time and supervision of IRS employees.

26. Knowledge about the alteration, redaction or modification of NOMs tax documents.

27. Knowledge about the supervision and training of Wendy Peters, including
supervision and training of Ms. Peters regarding access to return information.

28. Knowledge of Sherry Whitakers supervision of others, training of those employees
under her, and knowledge of rules, procedures, and policies related to public
disclosure. Similarly, knowledge about the supervisors of Sherry Whittaker
involvement in the supervision and training process related to public disclosure.

29. The relationship between those associated with the United States and any outside
individuals or organizations who are known to have printed and/or published NOMs
tax documents that were disclosed, including Mr. Meisel and the Human Rights
Campaign.

30. Communications between the Government and any outside individuals or
organizations, including Mr. Meisel and the Human Rights Campaign, regarding
NOMs return information.

31. The Governments post-disclosure measures, including the steps taken to identify and
investigate the disclosure.

32. Knowledge about the Governments assertion that one unauthorized disclosure took
place, including the assertion that the 2007 990 that was sent to Mr. Meisel along
with the 2008 990 was properly redacted.

33. Knowledge about the Governments assertion that all inspections of NOMs tax
return information were authorized.

34. Knowledge of the United States decision whether or not to prosecute those
individuals responsible for the unauthorized disclosure, including the responsible IRS
employee(s), Mr. Meisel, the Human Rights Campaign, the Huffington Post, or Fred
Karger.

35. Testify to authenticity and content of documents produced by the Government in The
National Organization for Marriage, Inc. v. United States of America, Internal
Revenue Service, 13-cv-1225 (E.D. Va.).
7

Dated February 12, 2014

J ason Torchinsky (Va. 47481)
Shawn Sheehy (Va. 82630)
Holtzman, Vogel, J osefiak, PLLC
Warrenton, VA 20186
(540) 341-8808 (telephone)
(540) 341-8809 (fax)
jtorchinsky@hvjlaw.com
ssheehy@hvjlaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiff

J ohn C. Eastman (Cal. 193726)*
Anthony T. Caso (Cal. 88561)*
Center for Constitutional J urisprudence
c/o Chapman University School of Law
One University Drive
Orange, CA 92866
(877) 855-3330 x2 (telephone)
(714) 844-4817 (fax)
jeastman@chapman.edu
caso@chapman.edu

______________________
Cleta Mitchell, of counsel
(D.C. 433386)*
William E. Davis, of counsel
(D.C. 280057)*
Mathew D. Gutierrez, of counsel
(Fla. 0094014)*
Kaylan L. Phillips (Ind. 30405-84)*
Noel H. J ohnson (Wisc. 1068004)*
ACTRIGHT LEGAL FOUNDATION
Plainfield, IN 46168
(317) 203-5599 (telephone)
(888) 815-5641 (fax)
cmitchell@foley.com
wdavis@foley.com
mgutierrez@foley.com
kphillips@actrightlegal.org
njohnson@actrightlegal.org

* Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on February 12, 2014, I served the foregoing Notice of
Deposition of Defendant the United States of America on counsel of record by email and U.S.
mail:

Christopher D. Belen
US Department of J ustice - Tax Division
PO Box 227
Ben Franklin Station
Christopher.D.Belen@usdoj.gov

David Moskowitz
U.S. Attorneys Office
2100 J amieson Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22314
david.moskowitz@usdoj.gov

________________________
Kaylan L. Phillips (Ind. 30405-84)
ACTRIGHT LEGAL FOUNDATION
Plainfield, IN 46168
kphillips@actrightlegal.org

1
4 -o0o-
5
MARRIAGE, INC., )
Plaintiff, )
8 )
v. )
9 )
10 )
Defendant. )
11 _____________________________)
12
13 30(b)(6) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION, VOLUME II
14 WITNESS: DAVID HAMILTON
16 at 10:57 a.m.
17
Ogden, Utah 84401
19
20
REPORTED BY: Michelle Mallonee, RPR, CSR
21
ATKINSON-BAKER COURT REPORTERS
22 500 N. Brand Blvd., Third Floor
Glendale, CA 91203
23 (818) 551-7300
www.depo.com
24
FILE #A8027FA
25
2
1 APPEARANCES
2
3 FOR PLAINTIFF:
6 Telephone: (305) 482-8404
7
SHAWN SHEEHY, ESQ.
Telephone: (540) 341-8808
ssheehy@hvjlaw.com
12
Telephone: (317) 203-5599
16
17 FOR DEFENDANT:
19 P.O. Box 14198
20 Telephone: (202) 514-5885
21
23 P.O. Box 14198
24 Telephone: (202) 514-6069
25
3
1 FOR THE IRS:
4 Telephone: (609) 575-4531
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 - - - 10:48:39
3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're on record. This is a 10:57:51
4 continuation of the 30(b)(6). The time is 10:57. 10:57:52
5 MR. DAVIS: Swear the witness, please. 10:57:57
6 THE REPORTER: You do solemnly swear the 10:57:58
7 testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the 10:57:58
8 whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God? 10:57:58
9 THE WITNESS: I do. 10:58:05
10 DAVID HAMILTON, 10:58:05
11 having been first duly sworn, 10:58:05
12 was examined and testified as follows: 10:58:05
13 EXAMINATION 10:58:05
14 BY MR. DAVIS: 10:58:06
15 Q. Mr. Hamilton, we've met before. 10:58:07
16 A. Yes. 10:58:09
17 Q. Could you tell me your current affiliation with 10:58:14
18 the IRS? 10:58:16
19 MR. SCHREIBER: One second. His mic isn't 10:58:18
20 attached. 10:58:21
21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: His mic is on the table. 10:58:23
22 THE WITNESS: Is it this? 10:58:27
23 MR. SCHREIBER: Yeah. And just state your name 10:58:28
24 for the record, please, David. 10:58:29
25 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Yeah. State your name for the 10:58:29
7
1 record. 10:58:31
2 A. David Kent Hamilton. 10:58:32
3 Q. And what is your current affiliation with the 10:58:33
4 IRS? 10:58:36
5 A. I'm a computer systems administrator for the 10:58:36
6 Statistics of Income division. 10:58:39
7 Q. Are you aware that you have been designated as 10:58:41
8 what we call a 30(b)(6) witness -- 10:58:44
9 A. Yes. 10:58:46
10 Q. -- in this case? 10:58:47
11 Let me show you what we've previously marked as 10:58:49
12 Exhibit 40, which is a copy of the Notice of Deposition 10:58:51
13 of the United States of America. 10:58:57
14 Have you seen this before? 10:59:00
15 A. Have I seen this before? Yes. 10:59:08
16 Q. And directing your attention to page 3 and the 10:59:11
17 following pages, there are a number of topics that have 10:59:19
18 been set forth in this document for the subject matter of 10:59:23
19 the deposition. And you've been designated as the 10:59:27
20 witness to testify on behalf of certain of the topics. 10:59:30
21 And what I'd like to do is go through with you the ones 10:59:33
22 that I understand you were designated for. And you can 10:59:38
23 tell me if that's, in fact, the case. 10:59:40
24 A. Okay. 10:59:43
25 Q. I understand that you've been designated for 10:59:43
8
1 Topic No. 5. Is that correct? 10:59:46
2 A. Yes. 10:59:52
3 Q. Topic No. 8? 10:59:53
4 A. Let's see. Yes. 11:00:04
5 Q. Topic No. 9? 11:00:06
6 A. Yes. 11:00:14
7 Q. Topic 15? 11:00:15
8 A. Yes. 11:00:17
9 Q. Topic 16? 11:00:19
10 A. Yes. 11:00:23
11 Q. Topic 17? 11:00:24
12 A. Yes. 11:00:32
13 Q. Topic 18? 11:00:33
14 A. Yes. 11:00:35
15 Q. Topic 19? 11:00:37
16 A. Yes. 11:00:39
17 Q. Topic 20? 11:00:40
18 A. Yes. 11:00:44
19 Q. Topic 22? 11:00:45
20 A. Yes. 11:00:48
21 Q. Topic 23? 11:00:49
22 A. "And/or" -- okay. Yes. 11:00:50
23 Q. Topic 26? 11:01:02
24 A. Yes. 11:01:07
25 Q. And Topic 35? 11:01:08
9
1 A. Yes. 11:01:12
2 Q. What have you done, sir, to prepare yourself for 11:01:15
3 testifying on those topics here today? 11:01:19
4 A. Well, I reviewed my records as far as the 11:01:23
5 investigation into the disclosure. And I met with 11:01:27
6 attorneys, too. 11:01:34
7 Q. Other than meeting with attorneys, did you meet 11:01:36
8 with anyone else to prepare yourself for this deposition 11:01:37
9 today? 11:01:41
10 A. I checked my facts on one issue there I was a 11:01:43
11 little bit unclear on with a fellow system administrator 11:01:49
12 in SOI. 11:01:54
13 Q. What were the facts that you checked, and who 11:01:55
14 was the administrator? 11:01:57
15 A. The administrator was Allison Child. And I was 11:01:58
16 checking to see how our On-Line SEIN system handled 11:02:03
17 users' printers, whether they had a choice of printing to 11:02:11
18 any printer that they had access to or whether they were 11:02:17
19 restricted to one printer. 11:02:21
20 Q. And what did you learn by virtue of that 11:02:23
21 consultation? 11:02:25
22 A. That we -- that On-Line SEIN users can only 11:02:26
23 print to their default printer. 11:02:30
24 Q. And that was the case in January of 2011? 11:02:33
25 A. Yes. 11:02:36
10
1 MR. TOMPKINS: I'll just state for the record 11:02:39
2 similar to what I'd said before, their testimony is 11:02:41
3 subject to our February 21, 2014 objections. 11:02:44
4 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) What documents, if any, did you 11:02:53
5 review in preparation for your testimony here today? 11:02:56
6 A. I looked at some of my emails. I looked at some 11:02:59
7 of the research I had done while investigating the 11:03:06
8 disclosure. Some spreadsheets. I looked at my previous 11:03:10
9 testimony. 11:03:15
10 Q. Let me direct your attention to Topic 17. This 11:03:22
11 relates to, "Knowledge about the tax administration 11:03:39
12 authority of every IRS official identified on Government 11:03:41
13 Production 38 and 39 who accessed NOM's taxpayer 11:03:46
14 information." 11:03:55
15 What did you do in preparation to respond to 11:03:56
16 that topic? 11:03:58
17 MR. TOMPKINS: And I'll just reiterate our 11:03:59
18 objection that he's not here to provide legal 11:04:02
19 interpretation of the tax administration authority. 11:04:04
20 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) What did you understand that 11:04:10
21 topic to mean? 11:04:13
22 A. I understood that it referred to the list of 11:04:15
23 On-Line SEIN users who accessed the NOM tax return. 11:04:19
24 Q. And what did you understand "tax administration 11:04:30
25 authority" to mean? 11:04:36
11
1 A. I thought it referred to the -- 11:04:37
2 MR. TOMPKINS: I'll just reiterate our 11:04:40
3 objection. 11:04:42
4 THE WITNESS: Continue to answer? 11:04:44
5 MR. SCHREIBER: Yeah. 11:04:45
6 THE WITNESS: That it referred to purpose behind 11:04:46
7 each user's reason for accessing the return. 11:04:54
8 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Okay. And what did you do to 11:04:57
9 inform yourself as to the purpose behind each user's 11:05:00
10 access with regard to Production No. 38 and 39? 11:05:05
11 A. I didn't do anything. 11:05:10
12 Q. Were you able to ascertain the purpose for the 11:05:14
13 access of the users that were identified in Government 38 11:05:19
14 and 39? 11:05:23
15 A. No. 11:05:24
16 Q. Let's go to Topic 20. It relates to, "Knowledge 11:05:50
17 about each individual who had access to NOM's unredacted 11:05:55
18 Schedule B without leaving an audit trail in SEIN and 11:06:01
19 what standards and protocols apply to such access." 11:06:06
20 Did you do anything to prepare yourself to be 11:06:11
21 responsive to Topic 20? 11:06:13
22 A. Well, I know who the individuals are. 11:06:16
23 Q. And who are the individuals who would have had 11:06:23
24 access to NOM's unredacted Schedule B in the time period 11:06:27
25 of 2011 and 2012? 11:06:34
15
1 knowledge as to what RAIVS employees had access to 11:13:10
2 unredacted OL-SEIN return information? 11:13:16
3 A. As to her level of knowledge? 11:13:24
4 Q. Yeah. 11:13:27
5 A. Well, I've worked with Sherry for quite a while, 11:13:28
6 so I knew that she was aware of what the RAIVS clerks do. 11:13:31
7 Q. Do you know if she was aware that RAIVS clerks 11:13:41
8 had access to both the redacted and the unredacted side 11:13:45
9 of OL-SEIN? 11:13:48
10 A. I don't know if she knew that. 11:13:50
11 Q. Well, let's look at your response on April 16, 11:13:54
12 2012. You say to her, "All On-Line SEIN users, whether 11:13:57
13 RAIVS or not, get the unredacted images by default. 11:14:05
14 RAIVS employees get the option to see the redacted 11:14:11
15 images." 11:14:14
16 Why did you tell her on April 16, 2012, that 11:14:17
17 RAIVS users could see both unredacted and redacted 11:14:23
18 images? 11:14:29
19 A. Because at that time, that was the case -- that 11:14:30
20 was the case. 11:14:32
21 Q. Did you think that she was asking you as to 11:14:35
22 whether or not it was the case? 11:14:37
23 A. She might have been. 11:14:47
24 Q. Now, you say, "All On-Line SEIN users, whether 11:14:51
25 in RAIVS or not." You're making a distinction there. 11:14:54
16
1 What distinction are you making? 11:14:57
2 A. We have quite a few users. And the RAIVS users 11:14:59
3 are just a very small segment of the total population of 11:15:03
4 users. 11:15:07
5 Q. What is the universe of On-Line SEIN users? 11:15:07
6 A. It's approximately -- 11:15:11
7 Q. And until I tell you differently, my questions 11:15:13
8 are all geared to the 2011-2012 time period, okay? 11:15:15
9 A. There were between three and four -- 300 and 350 11:15:21
10 users at that time. 11:15:27
11 Q. Were there different categories of users? 11:15:28
12 A. Yes. 11:15:31
13 Q. Can you give me a general description of the 11:15:32
14 categories of users? 11:15:35
15 A. Well, there were the RAIVS users. And then 11:15:36
16 there were administrative users, managerial users. Like, 11:15:39
17 I was an administrative-type user, and Sherry and others 11:15:48
18 were managerial-type users. But the vast majority were 11:15:52
19 TEGE users, who used the On-Line SEIN -- or On-Line SEIN 11:15:59
20 application to do their tax examining work. 11:16:04
21 Q. "TEGE" means "Tax Exempt Government Entity"? 11:16:08
22 A. Yes. 11:16:13
23 Q. And where are those users located? 11:16:13
24 A. They are all across the country. 11:16:18
25 Q. And when you say their tax examination work, 11:16:22
17
1 what do you mean? 11:16:25
2 A. I mean whatever they need -- whatever they do to 11:16:27
3 examine tax exempt government entity tax returns. 11:16:33
4 Q. In 2011-2012, what position did Sherry Whitaker 11:16:39
5 occupy within the IRS? 11:16:47
6 A. She was -- she worked for TEGE. I don't know 11:16:49
7 what her title was. But she was my contact when I had to 11:16:55
8 talk to TEGE. 11:17:05
9 Q. You didn't report to Sherry Whitaker, did you? 11:17:13
10 A. No. 11:17:16
11 Q. And she didn't report to you -- 11:17:16
12 A. Right. 11:17:19
13 Q. -- did she? 11:17:19
14 A. No. 11:17:20
15 Q. Okay. Did Sherry Whitaker, during this time 11:17:21
16 period I'm talking about, have any supervisory 11:17:24
17 responsibility over the RAIVS clerks? 11:17:28
18 A. I don't know that. I don't know. 11:17:31
19 Q. Do you know if Sherry Whitaker had any 11:17:39
20 responsibility in establishing policies and procedures as 11:17:48
21 to who could have access to On-Line SEIN? 11:17:54
22 A. She -- I believe she did. In the approval 11:18:05
23 process that employees go through to get access, she was 11:18:10
24 one of the people who signed off on allowing or 11:18:14
25 disallowing access to the On-Line SEIN system. 11:18:18
26
1 marked as Exhibit 45, purporting to be an email from 11:33:21
2 yourself on March the 8th, 2011, to someone by the name 11:33:34
3 of Robert M. Blackwell. 11:33:39
4 Did you send this email to Mr. Blackwell on or 11:33:42
5 about that date? 11:33:45
6 A. Yes. 11:33:47
7 Q. And Mr. Blackwell had previously asked you, 11:33:48
8 "What is the reason for adding watermarks to some 11:33:51
9 images?" 11:33:54
10 A. Yes. 11:33:55
11 Q. Where was Mr. Blackwell in the reporting -- or 11:33:55
12 did you report to Mr. Blackwell? 11:34:00
13 A. Yes. 11:34:01
14 Q. So as of March 8, 2011, he didn't know what the 11:34:08
15 watermarks were for. Is that fair to say? 11:34:13
16 A. Yes. 11:34:15
17 Q. Do you know what was generating the curiosity 11:34:21
18 about watermarks in March of 2011? 11:34:25
19 A. Yes. 11:34:28
20 Q. What was? 11:34:28
21 A. We were trying to rewrite a program that 11:34:31
22 displays images of tax returns that's used in our editing 11:34:34
23 functions. And the programmer, Greg Doble, Gregorio 11:34:45
24 Doble, was the person who was going to write that special 11:34:50
25 application. And he wanted to know why we needed to have 11:34:54
38
1 A. They got access in September of 2009. 11:58:49
2 Q. Were you, as an administrator, concerned that 11:58:55
3 they had access to both redacted and unredacted in terms 11:58:59
4 of possible unauthorized disclosure? 11:59:03
5 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection. Lack of foundation. 11:59:10
6 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) You can answer. 11:59:16
7 A. I was aware that that was a possibility. 11:59:19
8 Q. Were you concerned about it? 11:59:22
9 A. Yes. But I also knew that we had the tracking 11:59:23
10 system in place. 11:59:27
11 Q. Was there any other system, other than the 11:59:29
12 tracking system, that could work to prevent unauthorized 11:59:31
13 disclosure? 11:59:39
14 A. Not within the SEIN system. 11:59:41
15 Q. Within your job at the IRS, did you express that 11:59:46
16 concern in any way prior to January of 2011? 11:59:51
17 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection. Calls for information 11:59:55
18 protected by deliberative process. 11:59:57
19 THE WITNESS: Do I still answer? 12:00:03
20 MR. TOMPKINS: No. 12:00:04
21 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Did you ever have discussions 12:00:07
22 with Sherry Whitaker concerning your concern in that 12:00:08
23 regard? 12:00:12
24 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection. Same objection. 12:00:14
25 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Had there ever been any 12:00:18
41
1 A. (The witness nodded his head in the 12:04:04
2 affirmative.) 12:04:04
3 Q. So Sherry Whitaker, on April 13, 2012, 12:04:06
4 apparently wasn't aware of the existence of audit trails 12:04:11
5 with respect to using On-Line SEIN? 12:04:16
6 A. Apparently not. 12:04:18
7 Q. Now, you respond on April 13, 2012, that 12:04:48
8 indicates, "Even though the watermark was removed, we 12:04:56
9 will know who accessed that return." 12:04:59
10 What are you referring to there with regard to a 12:05:03
11 removed watermark? 12:05:05
12 A. Well, I followed the link that's in Sherry's 12:05:06
13 original article -- or original email and went to this 12:05:11
14 daily caller site, where it referenced a -- the 12:05:14
15 disclosure of the NOM return. And I'm not sure where I 12:05:23
16 saw the page without the watermark. It might have been 12:05:32
17 on that website, but it might have been somewhere else. 12:05:37
18 I don't know where. Anyway, but I did have EIN and the 12:05:41
19 tax period. So I was able to use my audit trail table 12:05:48
20 and look up the accesses to that return. 12:05:53
21 Q. You say the "Access User" column shows "SEID." 12:06:05
22 And that is the personal user name; is that correct? 12:06:09
23 A. Right. 12:06:15
24 Q. Which, in that case, you were probably referring 12:06:16
25 to Wendy Peters? 12:06:19
50
2 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Let me show you what I've 12:22:37
3 marked as Exhibit 56, which is an email chain from 12:22:39
4 yourself -- or between yourself and Sherry Whitaker or 12:22:46
5 Sherry Whitaker and yourself. 12:22:49
6 Sherry Whitaker emails you on April 18, 2012: 12:22:52
7 "Dave, has the actions been taken in adjusting access to 12:22:55
8 OL-SEIN redact/unredact per attached chart? If not, do 12:23:03
9 you know when the actions will be completed? Inquiring 12:23:10
10 minds are asking. Thanks." 12:23:14
11 So had -- I guess Sherry Whitaker had provided 12:23:16
12 you with a chart as to who would have access to redacted 12:23:19
13 or and -- strike that. 12:23:25
14 Sherry Whitaker had provided you with a chart as 12:23:27
15 to who would have access to unredacted return 12:23:30
16 information? 12:23:34
17 A. I don't remember. 12:23:39
18 Q. Well, at some point in time, were you instructed 12:23:41
19 by Sherry Whitaker as to who or what category of IRS 12:23:44
20 employee should have access to the unredacted images? 12:23:51
21 A. Yes. 12:23:54
22 Q. And how did that change from the RAIVS clerks 12:23:56
23 having access to the unredacted images? 12:24:01
24 A. They no longer had access to the -- I'm sorry. 12:24:05
25 They no longer had access to the unredacted images. 12:24:08
51
1 Q. Was any other category of IRS employee no longer 12:24:12
2 having access to unredacted images other than RAIVS 12:24:15
3 clerks? 12:24:19
4 A. No. 12:24:20
5 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection to form. 12:24:20
6 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Do you know when that change 12:24:30
7 went effective? 12:24:31
8 A. The programming change went in May of 2012. 12:24:34
10 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Let me show you what's been 12:25:32
11 marked as Exhibit 57. It's a document produced under 12:25:33
12 Government Production Nos. 1619 and 1620. I want to 12:25:37
13 focus on an email from Robert M. Blackwell to Patricia 12:25:42
14 McGuire, Michael Leszcz, and David Hamilton. 12:25:46
15 Do you recall receiving an email such as this 12:25:51
16 from Mr. Blackwell at or around May 21, 2013? 12:25:55
17 A. Yes. 12:26:11
18 Q. And he says, "In summary, below is what we 12:26:11
19 furnished to TIGTA last year when Dave met with them." 12:26:14
20 Is this an accurate summary that's contained in 12:26:19
21 this email of what you provided TIGTA when you met with 12:26:22
22 them? 12:26:25
23 MR. TOMPKINS: Hey, are you talking about just 12:26:25
24 On-Line SEIN? 12:26:27
25 MR. DAVIS: Yeah. Well, the -- yeah. 12:26:28
62
1 CERTIFICATE
2
State of Utah )
3 ss.
4
5
within-entitled cause; 12:50:16
8
witness' testimony; 12:50:16
11
into typewritten form; 12:50:16
13
15 event thereof.
16
17
18
19
________________________________
Utah CSR #267114-7801 12:50:16
22
23
24
25
1
3 ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
4 -o0o-
5
MARRIAGE, INC., )
Plaintiff, )
8 )
v. )
9 )
10 )
Defendant. )
11 _____________________________)
12
13 30(b)(6) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION, VOLUME III
14 WITNESS: SHERRY WHITAKER
16 at 12:56 p.m.
17
Ogden, Utah 84401
19
20
21
Glendale, CA 91203
23 (818) 551-7300
www.depo.com
24
FILE #A8027FA
25
2
1 APPEARANCES
2
3 FOR PLAINTIFF:
6 Telephone: (305) 482-8404
7
SHAWN SHEEHY, ESQ.
Telephone: (540) 341-8808
ssheehy@hvjlaw.com
12
Telephone: (317) 203-5599
16
17 FOR DEFENDANT:
19 P.O. Box 14198
20 Telephone: (202) 514-5885
21
23 P.O. Box 14198
24 Telephone: (202) 514-6069
25
3
1 FOR THE IRS:
4 Telephone: (609) 575-4531
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
1 Management Staff. 12:57:34
2 Q. Okay. Government Entities -- 12:57:35
3 A. Government Entity Management Program Staff. 12:57:38
4 Q. And what is your job responsibility in that 12:57:41
5 role? 12:57:43
6 A. I oversee, as a senior manager, of the GECU unit 12:57:43
7 as well as the Closing Unit. The GECU unit -- 12:57:49
8 Q. I'm sorry, what -- 12:57:50
9 A. The GECU unit. G-E-C-U is the acronym. It 12:57:51
10 stands for Government Entity Complaints Unit. 12:57:55
11 Q. Okay. And -- 12:57:58
12 A. And the Closing Unit, who closes their accounts 12:58:00
13 after the examinations are completed. 12:58:03
14 Q. Okay. Could you explain what your -- well, 12:58:05
15 actually, let me ask you this: Have you ever had your 12:58:08
16 deposition taken before? 12:58:11
17 A. No. 12:58:12
18 Q. How did you prepare for your deposition today? 12:58:12
19 A. I met with these three gentlemen a few times. 12:58:15
20 Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as 12:58:19
21 Exhibit 40, which is the notice for the deposition today. 12:58:22
22 I just want you to turn and just make that you're 12:58:26
23 familiar with the subjects that you've been designated to 12:58:29
24 testify about. 12:58:33
25 A. Yes. 12:58:34
7
1 Q. On page 4: 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14. And 12:58:34
2 then on page 5: 15, 16, 17, and 18. On page 6: Numbers 12:58:42
3 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 35? 12:58:49
4 MR. TOMPKINS: You can take your time. 12:58:57
5 THE WITNESS: Okay. See, we went through them. 12:58:59
6 Now, are they the exact numbers that we discussed? 12:59:00
7 Looking at them -- 12:59:04
8 MR. TOMPKINS: You don't talk about what -- 12:59:05
9 THE WITNESS: Yes. 12:59:07
10 MR. TOMPKINS: -- what we talked about. 12:59:07
11 Q. (BY MR. TORCHINSKY:) Okay. Have you spoken to 12:59:09
12 anyone else, other than your attorneys, to prepare for 12:59:11
13 your deposition today? 12:59:13
14 A. No. 12:59:14
15 Q. No. How long have you been with the IRS? 12:59:16
16 A. Twenty-eight years. 12:59:19
17 Q. And what positions have you held up through your 12:59:19
18 current position? 12:59:22
19 A. I was the manager of Submission Processing 12:59:22
20 Program staff prior to my current position. I was tax 12:59:26
21 examiner. I've been manager in several different other 12:59:30
22 areas as well as a headquarter analyst. 12:59:34
23 Q. And what position were you in, in the time frame 12:59:38
24 between January 2011 and April 2012? 12:59:41
25 A. The manager of Submission Processing. 12:59:46
13
1 Q. (BY MR. TORCHINSKY:) And were you involved in 13:06:12
2 this training process? 13:06:13
3 A. No. 13:06:15
4 Q. Who was involved in this training process? 13:06:15
5 A. That would depend on the area that you're 13:06:18
6 talking -- that the employee is coming from. 13:06:21
7 Q. Who was involved in the training process for the 13:06:25
8 RAIVS unit? 13:06:28
9 A. That would be the W&I management. 13:06:28
10 Q. So did anyone from Exempt Organizations play any 13:06:31
11 role in training RAIVS clerks as to what pieces of exempt 13:06:35
12 organization returns could be made public? 13:06:39
13 A. TEGE provided them the IRM, which is the process 13:06:41
14 and procedures that they utilize in order to fulfill the 13:06:45
15 request for the RAIVS. 13:06:48
16 Q. So to be clear, no one from Exempt Organizations 13:06:49
17 was personally involved in training of RAIVS clerks 13:06:52
18 all -- is that -- 13:06:55
19 A. -- that's correct. 13:06:56
20 Q. -- correct? 13:06:57
21 So TEGE provided to someone in W&I a copy of the 13:06:58
22 Internal Revenue Manual? 13:07:02
23 A. We provided a copy of IRM to W&I, yes. 13:07:04
24 Q. And that was the extent of the training that 13:07:09
25 anybody from Exempt Organizations provided to W&I? 13:07:10
14
1 A. That TEGE would provide, yes. 13:07:14
2 Q. Did you approve Wendy Peters' Form 5081 13:07:21
3 application? 13:07:25
4 A. Yes. 13:07:26
5 Q. Do you know what year that was? 13:07:26
6 A. Not right off the bat, no. 13:07:31
7 Q. Why did Ms. Peters need access to On-Line SEIN? 13:07:35
8 A. She worked in the RAIVS unit, which accepted and 13:07:39
9 approved and fulfilled requests of 4506-As. That was a 13:07:42
10 system that she would go in and pull the copy of the 13:07:46
11 return from. 13:07:51
12 Q. I want to pull the -- what's the TIGTA report, 13:07:52
13 pages 26 and 27? 13:07:57
14 MR. SCHREIBER: Twenty-six and 27? 13:08:00
15 MR. TORCHINSKY: Yeah. What's the exhibit 13:08:02
16 number? 13:08:02
17 MR. TOMPKINS: Forty. 13:08:03
18 MR. TORCHINSKY: Forty. 13:08:03
19 MR. TOMPKINS: It's behind you in the big red -- 13:08:04
20 well, in the court reporter's materials. 13:08:07
21 MR. TORCHINSKY: In this -- in here? 13:08:15
22 MR. TOMPKINS: No. 13:08:16
23 MR. TORCHINSKY: Somebody needs to find it for 13:08:17
24 me. 13:08:19
25 MS. PHILLIPS: I'll find it. 13:08:20
15
1 Q. (BY MR. TORCHINSKY:) Who is Ben Aaron 13:08:33
2 Johanson? 13:08:37
3 A. He's the manager of the RAIVS unit. 13:08:37
4 Q. Is he still the manager the RAIVS unit? 13:08:39
5 A. My understanding is no. 13:08:42
6 Q. Who is the current manager of the RAIVS unit? 13:08:44
7 A. That, I couldn't tell you, sir. 13:08:46
8 Q. I want to show you what's been marked as 13:08:48
9 Exhibit 41, Government Production pages 26 and 27. 13:08:51
10 If you could review the bottom paragraph that 13:08:57
11 goes on to the next page, I have some questions about the 13:09:01
12 production process. 13:09:04
13 A. Okay. 13:09:21
14 Q. Let's talk first about the time frame of 13:09:22
15 January 2011. If someone filed a request for -- or if a 13:09:24
16 request was made for an exempt organization tax return, 13:09:31
17 what were they given? 13:09:34
18 A. I'm sorry, could you repeat that, please? 13:09:35
19 Q. If someone filed a request for an exempt 13:09:37
20 organization tax return, what were they given? 13:09:40
21 A. Somebody filed a 4506-A request? 13:09:42
22 Q. If someone filed a 4506-A in January of 2011 13:09:45
23 requesting a tax -- requesting a tax return for an exempt 13:09:49
24 organization, what were they provided? 13:09:52
25 A. They were -- if they, on the 4506-A, requested a 13:09:53
16
1 particular year, filled it out completely, they would be 13:09:57
2 provided that return, that tax year that they requested. 13:10:00
3 And the information would be redacted for that that is 13:10:05
4 not disclosable. If there was a Schedule B, unless they 13:10:11
5 specifically asked for the Schedule B, they would not 13:10:16
6 receive the Schedule B. 13:10:18
7 Q. Was that the procedure in place in January of 13:10:20
8 2011? 13:10:22
9 A. In the IRM of the 3.20.13, it does say -- it's 13:10:24
10 under one section -- that EO had made the determination 13:10:29
11 that if Schedule B was to be restricted -- that's 13:10:33
12 different than redacted -- Schedule B would be restricted 13:10:37
13 in order to prevent unauthorized disclosures, that they 13:10:41
14 need to ask for a specific Schedule B. And I do have a 13:10:44
15 copy of that IRM, if you would like. 13:10:48
16 Q. Okay. That change -- so, again, I refer you 13:10:51
17 back to pages 26 and 27. Mr. Johanson says that prior to 13:10:55
18 April 2011, anybody that filed a 4506-A request was 13:11:01
19 provided the redacted Schedule Bs for any time for any 13:11:06
20 year. Is that correct? 13:11:11
21 A. Okay. We need to take a break for a second. 13:11:13
22 Can we not take a break? 13:11:15
23 MR. SCHREIBER: You have to answer the question. 13:11:17
24 THE WITNESS: Okay. In the IRMs clear back to 13:11:18
25 2007, it states exactly what I just told you -- in 2007, 13:11:19
17
1 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011. It's been updated to clarify 13:11:22
2 more. But it basically states exactly what I just 13:11:28
3 repeated. 13:11:30
4 Q. (BY MR. TORCHINSKY:) Okay. What changed in 13:11:32
5 April of 2011 to change the procedure to -- or why did 13:11:33
6 the proceed change to require specific requests for 13:11:37
7 Schedule B before Schedule B could be released? 13:11:41
8 A. Did not change in 2011. An IUP may have been 13:11:43
9 issued to clarify it. 13:11:46
10 Q. I'm sorry. What -- a what might have been 13:11:47
11 issued? 13:11:48
12 A. It's an IRM update. 13:11:48
13 Q. Okay. 13:11:50
14 A. So an IRM alert. We call it "IUP." 13:11:50
15 It may have clarified that. But the bottom line 13:11:56
16 is the instructions was in there in 2007 through 2014. 13:11:59
17 MR. TORCHINSKY: So have we been provided a copy 13:12:04
18 of that document, that April 2011 update? 13:12:08
19 MR. SCHREIBER: I have no idea without 13:12:14
20 referring -- knowing exactly what you are talking about. 13:12:17
21 MR. TORCHINSKY: She just said there was an 13:12:19
22 Internal Revenue Manual update issued in April of 2011. 13:12:19
23 MR. TOMPKINS: She said there may have been. 13:12:23
24 THE WITNESS: You asked me what was changed in 13:12:25
25 2011. 13:12:26
18
1 Q. (BY MR. TORCHINSKY:) Yes. 13:12:27
2 A. I said there may have been an IUP issued to 13:12:27
3 clarify it. But there was no change because those 13:12:29
4 procedures were in there. 13:12:32
5 Q. Okay. So the procedure -- so Mr. Johanson 13:12:34
6 believed -- I guess I'm having a hard time reconciling 13:12:39
7 what you just said the IRM says and what Mr. Johanson 13:12:43
8 says they were doing. 13:12:46
9 Could you reconcile the two? 13:12:47
10 A. I can only tell you, sir, what the IRM says and 13:12:49
11 what they should have been following. 13:12:52
12 Q. Did you do any follow-up in your role in 13:12:53
13 supervising the RAIVS unit to ensure that the procedure 13:12:56
14 in the manual was actually what was followed by the RAIVS 13:12:59
15 unit? 13:13:02
16 A. Okay. Clarification: We don't supervise a 13:13:03
17 RAIVS unit. We have oversight of the RAIVS unit. 13:13:04
18 Q. Okay. Did you conduct any oversight? 13:13:07
19 A. And my -- and the program analyst would 13:13:09
20 periodically go out and do program reviews in order to 13:13:11
21 ensure that the IRMs were being followed. 13:13:14
22 Q. And that would be Connie Peek? 13:13:16
23 A. That would have been Connie Peek or Marsha 13:13:17
24 White. 13:13:19
25 Q. And how did they -- when they conducted a 13:13:20
19
1 program review, what did they do to conduct such a 13:13:20
2 program review? 13:13:22
3 A. They would actually physically go out to the 13:13:22
4 area and make an onsite visit and review the cases as 13:13:24
5 well as review the IRM and procedures, sit down with an 13:13:28
6 employee that's actually doing hands-on, and have them 13:13:32
7 show them what they were doing. 13:13:36
8 Q. So Connie Peek was in charge of providing 13:13:37
9 training to the RAIVS unit for compliance -- 13:13:39
10 A. Connie Peek is not -- 13:13:41
11 Q. -- with the IRM? 13:13:41
12 A. No. Connie Peek is TEGE. She does not provide 13:13:41
13 training. 13:13:47
14 Q. Okay. I'm trying to understand. 13:13:48
15 If they were conducting program reviews of a 13:13:50
16 unit under your -- that you had oversight over, what 13:13:52
17 exactly would Connie Peek do when she went to the RAIVS 13:13:57
18 unit? 13:14:00
19 A. She would go out there and write up a review, 13:14:01
20 observe what they were -- how they were operating, how 13:14:04
21 they were following the IRM. She would look at their 13:14:08
22 cases. She would provide a writeup to W&I management 13:14:11
23 with her recommendations as well as her findings. 13:14:15
24 Q. How long has Connie Peek worked? How long has 13:14:20
25 Connie Peek been in her current role -- or the role she 13:14:23
20
1 was in, in January of 2011? How long was she in that 13:14:28
2 role? 13:14:30
3 A. She's still in that role. She was in that role 13:14:31
4 for, I would say, 2009 -- 2010. Maybe 2009 she came 13:14:33
5 over. 13:14:45
6 Q. So between 2009 and April of 2011, did Connie 13:14:45
7 Peek's program reviews that she submitted to the W&I 13:14:48
8 management include this apparent inconsistency between 13:14:51
9 the Internal Revenue Manual -- 13:14:55
10 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection. Form. 13:14:57
11 MR. TORCHINSKY: -- and the RAIVS procedure? 13:14:58
12 Q. (BY MR. TORCHINSKY:) Okay. Approximately how 13:14:58
13 many program reviews did Connie Peek complete between 13:15:00
14 April of 2009 -- or between 2009 and 2011? 13:15:02
15 A. Okay. Now, keep in mind Connie Peek was in that 13:15:06
16 role, but she did not have oversight of the RAIVS unit 13:15:09
17 for that whole entire time. That's why I mentioned 13:15:11
18 Marsha White. Marsha White had program oversight of 13:15:14
19 RAIVS until -- in 2009, '8, and '10. 13:15:18
20 Q. Okay. And then Connie Peek took over in 2010? 13:15:22
21 A. Connie Peek picked it up in 2011. 13:15:25
22 Q. Okay. During that time period, approximately 13:15:28
23 how many program reviews were conducted? 13:15:30
24 A. Two, that I know of. 13:15:32
25 Q. Did either program review -- well, let me 13:15:33
21
1 rephrase it. 13:15:35
2 Were both of those program reviews submitted to 13:15:35
3 W&I? 13:15:38
4 A. Yes. 13:15:39
5 Q. Did either program review mention the 13:15:39
6 inconsistency between the Internal Revenue Manual and the 13:15:42
7 procedures Mr. Johanson described prior -- 13:15:45
8 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection. Misstates the 13:15:46
10 (Reporter interruption.) 13:15:45
11 Q. (BY MR. TORCHINSKY:) Was there any mention of 13:15:46
12 the Internal Revenue Manual procedures for redactions of 13:16:05
13 Schedule Bs in the two program reviews that were 13:16:07
14 submitted to W&I? 13:16:10
15 A. No -- that I remember. 13:16:13
16 Q. Do you have any recollection of what prompted 13:16:17
17 the April 2011 change that might have happened? 13:16:18
18 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection. Misstates her 13:16:24
20 Q. (BY MR. TORCHINSKY:) Do you have any 13:16:27
21 recollection of what prompted the April 2011 change 13:16:29
22 described -- or change in procedure described by 13:16:33
23 Mr. Johanson? 13:16:36
24 A. It may have been a request coming from someone 13:16:37
25 within the RAIVS unit asking for clarification of a 13:16:40
43
2 Q. (BY MR. TORCHINSKY:) I'm going to show you 13:52:31
3 what's been marked as Exhibit 63. Do you recognize this 13:52:32
4 document? 13:52:43
5 A. Again, another email from me to Mike Leszcz and 13:52:43
6 Dave Hamilton and Rob Blackwell. 13:52:47
7 Q. Okay. And do you remember reviewing the 13:52:49
8 attached documents? 13:52:51
9 A. According to this email, I attached three 13:53:11
10 documents. It does not say what years they were, but 13:53:14
11 there were three documents attached. 13:53:17
13 Q. (BY MR. TORCHINSKY:) I'm going to show you 13:53:39
14 what's been marked as Exhibit 64. It's an email from 13:53:41
15 David Hamilton to you. Do you recognize this document? 13:53:44
16 A. Yes. 13:53:51
17 Q. Were you surprised by the number of people that 13:53:52
18 had accessed a particular 990? 13:53:54
19 A. Didn't throw a red flag, no. 13:53:59
20 Q. I'm going to refer you back to Exhibit 42 -- 13:54:08
21 it's right here. Top of page 2. 13:54:13
22 Does the chart there with the words accompanying 13:54:19
23 it, does that connect back with the February 13, 2012, 13:54:23
24 email to David Hamilton? 13:54:26
25 A. Yes. Six and six. Yes. 13:54:51
44
1 Q. And let's go through the list of people at the 13:54:53
2 top of page 42. 13:54:56
3 Who is Kathi Palmer? 13:54:59
4 A. She also worked for me as a program analyst. 13:55:00
5 This is incorrect. Kathi Palmer is not a manager, she's 13:55:03
6 a headquarters analyst. 13:55:08
7 Q. Okay. And what was her connection to -- for 13:55:10
8 what reasons would she need to access a tax return? 13:55:12
9 A. I may have asked her to help do research for me 13:55:15
10 on this particular case. 13:55:18
11 Q. Okay. For what reason would Connie Peek have 13:55:20
12 needed to access the same tax return? 13:55:23
13 A. Same reason, to help me do the research 13:55:26
14 necessary on this particular case. 13:55:29
15 MR. TOMPKINS: Just for the record that was 13:55:32
16 Government Production 188. 13:55:33
17 Q. (BY MR. TORCHINSKY:) For what reason would 13:55:36
18 Laurice have needed to access that return? 13:55:37
19 A. Laurice would have been alerted -- Laurice is 13:55:41
20 the one that alerted us to the disclosure. So when she 13:55:45
21 received information, she would have accessed it for 13:55:48
22 research purposes as well. 13:55:50
23 Q. What information would have been in the actual 13:55:54
24 tax return that would have assisted with the research 13:55:56
25 here? 13:55:58
45
1 A. To see if the redacted side had been redacted. 13:55:59
2 As I explained, was it the imaging folks that created the 13:56:03
3 disclosure or was it the RAIVS? 13:56:09
4 Q. And five people needed to check that? Or could 13:56:12
5 one person have checked it and let everybody else know? 13:56:15
6 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection. Form. 13:56:19
7 Q. (BY MR. TORCHINSKY:) Why was it necessary for 13:56:21
8 five people to check that same question? 13:56:23
9 A. Connie, Kathi all work for me. If I had a 13:56:27
10 situation come up that I needed an answer to and one was 13:56:32
11 not available, where they all work for me, for a business 13:56:35
12 need, I would have asked them to access it for me. 13:56:40
13 Q. Okay. Let's look at the dates and times in the 13:56:42
14 chart above. Now, I see here that DQJFB8 accessed it 13:56:45
15 on -- 13:56:54
16 A. Which is me. 13:56:56
17 Q. Which is you. 13:56:56
18 -- accessed it on April 13? 13:56:57
19 A. Umm-hmm. 13:56:58
20 Q. I also see that someone listed as "W&I Imaging 13:56:59
21 Manager" also accessed it on the 13th? 13:57:03
22 A. And that particular SEID refers to Jody 13:57:08
23 Michaels, who is a manager of the imaging folks. 13:57:14
24 Q. Okay. And I also show you that Laurice accessed 13:57:18
25 the same document one week before, or about eight days 13:57:21
46
1 before you did. Is that correct? 13:57:25
2 A. On April the 5th, which falls in line with she 13:57:26
3 notified me on April the 5th that there was a potential 13:57:30
4 disclosure. 13:57:33
5 Q. Okay. And why was it necessary for at least 13:57:35
6 four people to look at this same document to verify what 13:57:38
7 the first person probably would have seen? 13:57:42
8 A. Laurice doesn't have access to both the redacted 13:57:45
9 and the unredacted version of On-Line SEIN. So she only 13:57:48
10 can see the unredacted side. 13:57:53
11 Q. Are you certain about that? 13:57:56
12 A. At that time, she did not have access to both. 13:57:59
13 Q. Okay. Does she currently have access to the 13:58:03
14 redacted and unredacted side? 13:58:07
15 A. That, I couldn't tell you, sir. 13:58:09
16 Q. What did Laurice have access to at the time? 13:58:11
17 A. At that time, she had access to the unredacted. 13:58:14
18 MR. SHEEHY: If we could go ahead and take a 13:58:26
19 five-minute recess. 13:58:29
20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off record. The time 13:58:32
21 is 1:58. 13:58:34
22 (A break was taken from 1:58 p.m. to 2:08 p.m.) 13:58:41
23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. We're back on the 14:02:26
24 record. The time is 2:08. 14:09:18
25 Q. (BY MR. TORCHINSKY:) Ms. Whitaker, I'm going to 14:09:21
47
1 point you to pages 38 and 39, again, of Production 1 and 14:09:22
2 set Exhibit 42 by you as well. I'd like to go through 14:09:24
3 the accesses that are listed, beginning on April 5 over 14:09:29
4 here. 14:09:36
5 Who is represented -- I believe the first one on 14:09:37
6 April 5 is 6DJLB. Who is that? 14:09:39
7 A. What would be Laurice. 14:09:44
8 Q. Okay. And what did Laurice have access to? 14:09:45
9 A. To the best of my knowledge back in that time 14:09:48
10 frame, she had the unredacted side of the house. 14:09:52
11 Q. Okay. What is the next person who accessed it? 14:09:57
12 A. JLJ. That would be Kathi Palmer. 14:10:00
13 Q. Okay. And what did Kathi have access to? 14:10:02
14 A. Kathi Palmer would have access to both the 14:10:05
15 unredacted and the redacted side. 14:10:07
16 Q. Okay. And what is the -- who is the next person 14:10:10
17 up? 14:10:11
18 A. T5? Connie Peek. We left the 5 out. 14:10:13
19 Q. Okay. 14:10:25
20 A. Connie Peek. 14:10:26
21 Q. And how many times did Connie access the 14:10:27
22 document? 14:10:29
23 A. She accessed it four times -- one, two, three, 14:10:31
24 four times. 14:10:35
25 Q. And what did Connie have access to? 14:10:36
48
1 A. The unredacted and the redacted. 14:10:38
2 Q. Okay. Do you know why Connie needed to access 14:10:40
3 the document four times? 14:10:42
4 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection. Assumes that it's 14:10:44
5 one -- there's -- the previous testimony was there was 14:10:46
6 two versions of the '08. You are assuming that it was 14:10:49
7 the same document. 14:10:52
8 Q. (BY MR. TORCHINSKY:) What document did she 14:10:55
9 access those four times? Can you tell me based on that 14:10:56
10 log? 14:10:59
11 A. Based on this log, it was a 200812. 14:10:59
12 Q. What is the 200812? 14:11:03
13 A. The 2008 not Form 990. 14:11:05
14 Q. Not Form 990? 14:11:11
15 A. Form 990. 14:11:13
16 Q. So she accessed the 2008 Form 990 four times? 14:11:14
17 A. She accessed it, yes. 14:11:17
18 Q. Can you tell whether that was the amended or the 14:11:19
19 original? 14:11:21
20 A. Doesn't say according to this log. 14:11:22
21 Q. Okay. And who is the next person to access it? 14:11:24
22 A. DQJFB. 14:11:26
23 Q. And who is that? 14:11:29
24 A. That's myself. 14:11:29
25 Q. And how many times did you access it? 14:11:30
49
1 A. Four times. 14:11:32
2 Q. On what date? 14:11:34
3 A. On 4/13. 14:11:36
4 Q. Okay. And who is the next person to access it? 14:11:37
5 A. 8-2, which would be Jody. She's a W&I imaging 14:11:40
6 manager. 14:11:47
7 Q. And how many times did she access it? 14:11:47
8 A. Six times. 14:11:50
9 Q. And what did she have access to? 14:11:50
10 A. Jody has access to both. 14:11:53
11 Q. Okay. And who was the next person to access it? 14:12:06
12 A. Myself. 14:12:10
13 Q. And on what date? 14:12:10
14 A. On 4/13. 14:12:13
15 Q. And how many times did you access it? 14:12:15
16 A. The 200812 or accessed On-Line SEIN? 14:12:18
17 Q. The 200812 for NOM. 14:12:22
18 A. Four. 14:12:30
19 MR. TOMPKINS: Same objection to all those 14:12:31
20 questions about the use of the word "it." 14:12:32
21 Q. (BY MR. TORCHINSKY:) Based on that log, what 14:12:36
22 would your need have been to have accessed any version of 14:12:38
23 the 2008 990 eight times? 14:12:41
24 A. Research. 14:12:44
25 Q. Would the image have changed from the 5th to the 14:12:46
50
1 13th? 14:12:50
2 A. Sir, that's part of our research in order to 14:12:51
3 ensure we're providing the service that we need to 14:12:55
4 provide. 14:12:58
5 Q. Okay. You testified a minute ago that the 14:12:58
6 research was to figure out if what was in the redacted -- 14:13:00
7 what was in the redacted or restricted version of On-Line 14:13:03
8 SEIN was proper. 14:13:05
9 When you look for that, what do you look for? 14:13:10
10 A. We compare the images in both versions. 14:13:16
11 Q. How many times would you need to do that 14:13:19
12 comparison to make the judgment? 14:13:21
13 A. Multiple times, if necessary. 14:13:24
14 Q. On the unrestricted image, the full Schedule B 14:13:29
15 is supposed to be there. Is that correct? 14:13:33
16 A. On the unrestricted? 14:13:35
17 Q. Yes. 14:13:36
18 A. Yes. 14:13:37
19 Q. And on the restricted, Schedule B is not 14:13:37
20 supposed to be there at all. Is that correct? 14:13:39
21 A. That's correct. 14:13:41
22 Q. Why would you need multiple times to access the 14:13:42
23 document and compare to see if Schedule B was there in 14:13:44
24 the restricted side or not? 14:13:47
25 A. We may also have been researching to ensure 14:13:49
51
1 other documents that are required to be redacted was 14:13:52
2 redacted. We may have -- 14:13:56
3 Q. What else is -- 14:13:59
4 A. -- been asked to print it off one time when we 14:13:59
5 were not asked to print it off at the prior time. 14:14:02
6 Q. Who would have asked you to print or not print? 14:14:05
7 A. I may have asked to print it off for records. 14:14:09
8 Q. What else is redacted in the 990 besides -- what 14:14:13
9 else is restricted or redacted in a 990 besides Schedule 14:14:16
10 B? 14:14:20
11 A. Is that pertinent to the case, or -- 14:14:23
12 Q. Well, I'm just trying to understand. If you 14:14:25
13 were looking for other things that should have been 14:14:27
14 restricted or redacted in the document, I'm asking what 14:14:29
15 else that would be besides Schedule B. 14:14:33
16 A. The filer can provide other documents that are 14:14:37
17 not disclosable, such as correspondence going back and 14:14:39
18 forth from IRS. 14:14:43
19 Q. Anything else? 14:14:46
20 A. Could be a balance due notice. A compliance 14:14:49
21 issue. 14:14:52
22 Q. Those would have all been in the 990? 14:14:53
23 A. We have seen them attached to 990s, yes, sir. 14:14:57
25 Q. (BY MR. TORCHINSKY:) I'm going to show you a 14:15:18
55
1 in one. 14:19:04
2 MR. SCHREIBER: Are these two separate? 14:19:18
3 MR. SHEEHY: Yes. But I think we're going to 14:19:20
4 group -- 14:19:22
5 MR. TORCHINSKY: I think we're just going to 14:19:23
6 group these. 14:19:24
8 Q. (BY MR. TORCHINSKY:) I'm going to show you what 14:19:52
9 I've marked as Exhibit 66, which includes Government 14:19:53
10 Production pages 2317, 2039, and 163. I want to 14:19:57
11 specifically draw your attention to what is marked as 14:20:04
12 2317. 14:20:07
13 What is this document, 2317, that's marked on 14:20:12
14 the bottom? 14:20:20
15 A. It's an email. 14:20:21
16 Q. From who? 14:20:21
17 A. From me to Dave Hamilton with a cc to Rob 14:20:22
18 Blackwell. 14:20:25
19 Q. And could you read the first sentence there? 14:20:25
20 A. "Yes, please do what is necessary to prevent 14:20:27
21 RAIVS employees to have access to the unredacted images. 14:20:33
22 They should only have access to the redacted images. No 14:20:37
23 exceptions." 14:20:41
24 Q. Was that a change from the current practice? 14:20:42
25 A. That was a change from the current practice 14:20:44
56
1 prior to the disclosure. 14:20:47
2 Q. Why? 14:20:48
3 A. Based on the conversation with Jeff Cooper and 14:20:50
4 myself, we made the business decision that we could make 14:20:53
5 necessary changes to prevent RAIVS from needing the 14:20:58
6 unredacted version. 14:21:03
7 Q. Prior to this, were you aware that RAIVS had 14:21:05
8 access to the unredacted versions? 14:21:07
9 A. Yes, because they had a business need. 14:21:10
10 Q. Why did their business need change in April of 14:21:12
11 2012? 14:21:14
12 A. Jeff Cooper and I decided, based on -- because 14:21:15
13 of the disclosure, we could implement an enhancement to 14:21:20
14 the procedures to prevent additional disclosures by 14:21:23
15 changing and removing the unredacted version from RAIVS. 14:21:27
16 Q. On page 139, which I think is probably the third 14:21:41
17 page in that stack I handed you. 14:21:45
18 MR. TOMPKINS: It's the second page, I think. 14:21:49
19 MR. TORCHINSKY: Okay. 14:21:51
20 Q. (BY MR. TORCHINSKY:) You say here, "We both 14:21:51
21 have seen that they sometimes pull from the unredacted 14:21:54
22 side of OL-SEIN." What does that mean? 14:21:58
23 A. Where are you reading that, sir? 14:22:01
24 Q. Right at the top of the page, right underneath 14:22:04
25 where it says "Connie." 14:22:08
57
1 A. What that means is RAIVS can pull the images 14:22:24
2 from the unredacted side of SEIN. "On-Line SEIN" is -- 14:22:27
3 stands for -- "OL" stands for "On-Line SEIN." 14:22:31
4 "... if they receive a request for Schedule B. 14:22:34
5 I just want to confirm that all bases are covered." 14:22:38
6 Q. And were they covered? 14:22:42
7 A. Clarify what you mean: "were they covered," sir. 14:22:52
8 Q. I'm just asking you -- you said you wanted to 14:22:54
9 make sure that all bases were covered. I'm asking you: 14:22:57
10 Were all bases covered here? 14:23:01
11 A. Based on the research that we have, we couldn't 14:23:03
12 determine if the Schedule B was requested on the 45R 14:23:08
13 because there was -- excuse me -- on the 4506-A because 14:23:13
14 there was no copy of the 4506-A to confirm. 14:23:18
16 Q. (BY MR. TORCHINSKY:) I want to next show you 14:23:23
17 what I've marked as Exhibit 67, which is Government 14:23:24
18 Production 2317 and 2318. 14:23:30
19 I want to point you to page 2318. There's an 14:23:36
20 email from you to Robert Blackwell and David Hamilton, 14:23:39
21 where you say, "What is the chance of pulling a list of 14:23:42
22 all RAIVS employees who have access to the unredacted 14:23:45
23 side of the house?" What did that mean? 14:23:49
24 A. I wanted him to be able -- I asked him if he was 14:23:51
25 able to go into the On-Line SEIN system and pull me a 14:23:54
60
1 A. If I instructed Connie to issue one, I am sure 14:27:28
2 that it got issued. 14:27:31
3 Q. When an alert for the Internal Revenue Manual 14:27:33
4 gets issued, are copies of that alert maintained? 14:27:35
5 A. Record of that alert is maintained through the 14:27:39
6 system, SERP. 14:27:42
7 Q. I'm sorry. Through the what? 14:27:44
8 A. SERP, S-E-R-P. 14:27:46
9 Q. And -- 14:27:50
10 (Counsel conferred off the record.) 14:27:51
11 MR. TORCHINSKY: Could you guys see if there's a 14:28:01
12 copy of that around? 14:28:04
13 MR. SCHREIBER: We'll look. 14:28:05
14 MR. TORCHINSKY: Okay. 14:28:07
15 Q. (BY MR. TORCHINSKY:) Going back to January of 14:28:10
16 2011, what did you understand the process to be at the 14:28:13
17 time when Schedule Bs were requested from the IRS? 14:28:16
18 A. When Schedule Bs was requested, specifically 14:28:23
19 requested from the IRS in 2011, the RAIVS unit would go 14:28:28
20 in -- within On-Line SEIN, the unredacted side, pull the 14:28:31
21 Schedule B, and redact the necessary information. 14:28:36
22 Money -- the amount of money could be disclosed, unless 14:28:40
23 it linked back to where they could -- the contributor. 14:28:45
24 Q. And how did that redaction happen? 14:28:50
25 A. In RAIVS. 14:28:56
61
1 Q. How did -- physically, how did the redaction of 14:28:56
2 the information happen? 14:28:59
3 A. They would actually pull, print off the Schedule 14:29:01
4 B from On-Line SEIN, the unredacted side. They would 14:29:03
5 then take -- we refer to it as "paper doll cutting." 14:29:08
6 What that is, is they could either take another piece of 14:29:13
7 paper and lay it over the information that could not be 14:29:17
8 disclosed and then photocopy it. Or they could actually 14:29:20
9 cut out the information and then photocopy it without 14:29:24
10 that information being shown. 14:29:27
11 Q. And this is in the Internal Revenue Manual? 14:29:29
12 A. Does it lay out the nitty-gritty of how to do 14:29:33
13 it? No, sir. The IRM is not for that purpose. 14:29:36
14 Q. And so -- so a clerk takes the piece of paper 14:29:39
15 and lays it on a copier, makes a copy. And then you have 14:29:42
16 the redacted copy. 14:29:45
17 Who is in charge of ensuring that only the 14:29:47
18 redacted copy went out? 14:29:50
19 A. All cases are sent to -- subject for quality 14:29:52
20 review. 14:29:55
21 Q. I'm sorry. Who is in charge of ensuring that 14:29:57
22 only the redacted copies went out? I didn't ask about 14:30:00
23 quality review. 14:30:04
24 A. Okay. The employee working the case would be 14:30:05
25 doing their job to ensure that unredacted version was not 14:30:08
62
1 disclosed or sent to the public. At that time, then, it 14:30:14
2 was sent to Quality Review, who was another level to 14:30:17
3 ensure that that disclosure was not made. 14:30:21
4 Q. So every request was reviewed by Quality Review? 14:30:24
5 A. Every request was subject to quality review. 14:30:27
6 Q. What do you mean by "subject to quality review"? 14:30:30
7 A. All requests, when they were filled, was set up 14:30:34
8 on what they refer to as "the wall" in a basket there 14:30:39
9 within the unit. Quality Review, every day, would come 14:30:42
10 by with a statistical number that they would pull as a 14:30:46
11 sample and review them. That number changes, based on 14:30:50
12 volume received and time frame within the year. 14:30:55
13 Q. And Quality Review is located where in this 14:30:59
14 organizational chart? 14:31:02
15 A. Under W&I. 14:31:03
16 Q. Okay. Was anybody from Exempt Organizations 14:31:05
17 involved in reviewing the work of the RAIVS clerks? 14:31:08
18 A. The only time W -- the only time Exempt 14:31:11
19 Organization would become involved in reviewing W&I's 14:31:15
20 work is when they did a program review. 14:31:18
21 Q. Okay. Are you aware of the peer review process 14:31:21
22 that apparently occurred within the RAIVS unit? 14:31:24
23 A. Yes. 14:31:27
24 Q. And what was that process? 14:31:27
25 A. Peer review was put into place when a case was 14:31:29
83
1 A. It's never documented in the IRM. 15:10:21
2 Q. Was the peer review process, to the best of your 15:10:25
3 knowledge, ever mentioned during the -- by anyone during 15:10:28
4 the TIGTA investigation? 15:10:31
5 A. Not to my knowledge. 15:10:36
6 Q. Who is Shirleen Anderson? 15:11:19
7 A. Without looking at the document you're looking 15:11:33
8 at, I know a Shirleen Anderson that works for W&I. 15:11:36
9 Q. And where does she work for W&I? 15:11:40
10 A. Currently, she works in an area that would have 15:11:44
11 nothing to do with the EO organization. 15:11:47
12 Q. I'm going to show you -- point you back to 15:11:59
13 Exhibit 41. And I'm going to point you to page 30. 15:12:01
14 Does -- could you review that document? 15:12:06
15 A. Okay. 15:12:15
16 Q. Do you see the last sentence of the first 15:12:16
17 paragraph there? 15:12:20
18 A. "Anderson provided the following information 15:12:23
19 during the interview." 15:12:26
20 Q. And the last sentence of the next paragraph? 15:12:28
21 A. "She estimated that quality review approximately 15:12:30
22 two EO RAIVS cases per week." (sic) 15:12:33
23 Q. So that's less than daily. Is that accurate? 15:12:36
24 A. That is correct, sir. 15:12:40
25 Q. And if they're receiving 1 to 300 requests per 15:12:41
84
1 week, that would be -- am I correct to say that that 15:12:45
2 would be approximate -- between 5200 and 15,000 cases a 15:12:48
3 year for EO requests? Is that an accurate assessment of 15:12:54
4 the approximate volume? 15:13:00
5 A. Based on the volumes that I have reviewed, 15:13:04
6 you're about 10,000 a year annually. 15:13:08
7 Q. And two EO RAIVS cases were reviewed per week. 15:13:12
8 And that would be 104 per year? 15:13:16
9 A. That's correct, sir. 15:13:21
10 Q. So is it correct to say that QR only reviewed 15:13:22
11 basically one percent, maybe, of the exempt organization 15:13:26
12 requests? 15:13:30
13 A. Based on those calculations, yes, sir. 15:13:33
14 Q. And where is it -- or where is it documented 15:13:36
15 that QR adjusted the number that they reviewed, based on 15:13:40
16 any kind of volume? 15:13:45
17 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection. Are you referring to 15:13:47
18 the interview? 15:13:48
19 MR. TORCHINSKY: No. I'm referring to 15:13:49
20 Ms. Whitaker's testimony that QR adjusted the volume that 15:13:52
21 they reviewed, based on some volume of EO requests. I'm 15:13:56
22 trying to understand where that information came from. 15:14:01
23 THE WITNESS: The general practice of Quality 15:14:06
24 Review throughout the entire W&I process is they review 15:14:09
25 all cases available based on a statistical sample. The 15:14:14
93
1 CERTIFICATE
2
State of Utah )
3 ss.
4
5
within-entitled cause;
8
witness' testimony;
11
into typewritten form;
13
15 event thereof.
16
17
18
19
________________________________
Utah CSR #267114-7801 15:27:05
22
23
24
25
GOV-PROD-0000161
GOV-PROD-0000114
GOV-PROD-0000129
GOV-PROD-0000139
GOV-PROD-0000140
GOV-PROD-0000187
GOV-PROD-0000188
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Importance:
Hamilton David K
Monday, April 16, 2012 12:21 PM
Berendt Thomas E
FW: HOT ISSUE- Need help
High
FYI, it looks like the On-Line-SEIN audit system works. The article linked below talks about an illegal disclosure of an un-
redacted return to a web site. Even though the watermark was crudely removed, the tracking number was obtained by
examining the under-layers of the PDF. Querying the Access_Audit table for the return id showed 6 users had accessed
the return and one of the tracking numbers matched the one that was removed. The other 5 users were TEGE higher-
ups taking a look once the disclosure was reported in the press.
Yay! Something worked the first time!
Dave Hamilton <David.K.Hamilton@irs.gov>
SOl Exempt Organization Returns Image Net (SEIN)
From: Whitaker Sherry L
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 10:13 AM
To: Leszcz Michael R; Blackwell Robert M; Hamilton David K
Subject: HOT ISSUE- Need help
Importance: High
I need your help on a very HOT issue II .. Got TIGTA calling me from all sides. Can you tell me does ON-SEIN have an
audit trail that would tell me who (everybody and anybody) that accessed a return?
This is all about the New Article that broke on Mitt Romney
See link for article. http:/!dailycaller.com/2012/04/12/pro-marriage-group-thinks-irs-employee-leaked-mitt-romneys-
donor-info-to-human-rights-campaign/
EIN T 26-0240498
Legacy
Sherry L. Whitaker, Manager
SE:T:BSP:SPP
Office Phone- 801-620-5045
GOV-PROD-0002308
1
4 -o0o-
5
MARRIAGE, INC., )
Plaintiff, )
8 )
v. )
9 )
10 )
Defendant. )
11 _____________________________)
12
13 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
14 WENDY PETERS
15 Taken on Wednesday, January 29, 2014
16 at 11:18 a.m.
17
Ogden, Utah 84401
19
20
21
Glendale, CA 91203
23 (818) 551-7300
www.depo.com
24
FILE #A800C72
25
2
1 APPEARANCES
2
3 FOR PLAINTIFF:
6 Telephone: (305) 482-8404
7
SHAWN SHEEHY, ESQ.
Telephone: (540) 341-8808
ssheehy@hvjlaw.com
12
Telephone: (317) 203-5599
16
17 FOR DEFENDANT:
19 P.O. Box 14198
20 Telephone: (202) 514-5885
21
22 CHRISTOPHER D. BELEN, ESQ.
23 P.O. Box 227
24 Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: (202) 307-2089
25 Email: christopher.d.belen@usdoj.gov
3
1 FOR THE IRS:
4 Telephone: (609) 575-4531
5
6 ALSO PRESENT:
7 LANCE HARRISON, VIDEOGRAPHER
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
1 whole Schedule B was blank paged. I know when we access 11:59:09
2 it and if it was in there, when the program first 11:59:16
3 started, it would print it up. And we personally would 11:59:19
4 have to remove the names. 11:59:23
5 Q. So when you would access the Form 990 Schedule B 11:59:25
6 in order to deliver that in response to a 4506-A request, 11:59:31
7 you would have to print out the unredacted version? 11:59:39
8 A. Originally, yes. And I'm not sure if -- the 11:59:44
9 timeframe that is in question here, how it was redacted 11:59:47
10 at that time. I don't recall. 11:59:51
11 Q. But during the time period when you had to call 11:59:54
12 up the entire 990 Schedule B unredacted and print it out, 11:59:57
13 then you would manually redact it? 12:00:06
14 A. Yes. We would have to manually redact it. 12:00:08
15 Q. Describe for me how you did that. 12:00:12
16 A. You either cut out with shears that half of the 12:00:13
17 page with the donors' names on them or use a black marker 12:00:20
18 to cross it out and then photocopy it. 12:00:25
19 Q. And you were trained, I take it, that it was not 12:00:36
20 proper to not redact the information and to send it out. 12:00:40
21 Is that correct? 12:00:47
22 A. We were to redact it. 12:00:48
23 Q. Now, in the January to March time period 2011, 12:00:52
24 what supervision did you have to make sure that when you 12:01:04
25 were doing redactions like that, you were doing them 12:01:08
36
1 trained you? 12:14:24
2 A. Yes. 12:14:24
3 Q. And how long ago did she -- when did she leave 12:14:27
4 the IRS? 12:14:32
5 A. I'm not exactly sure. I think it was sometime 12:14:37
6 in 2010. But I can't be sure. 12:14:40
7 Q. During the March to January 2011 time period, do 12:14:46
8 you recall any specific instance where you had something 12:14:52
9 peer reviewed and you actually changed what you were 12:14:56
10 going to do as a result of a peer review? 12:14:59
11 A. No. I don't remember any. 12:15:02
12 Q. You were involved in the response to a 4506-A 12:15:11
13 request for the 2008 990-A return information for 12:15:18
14 National Organization of Marriage. Is that correct? 12:15:25
15 A. That's what I've been informed. 12:15:28
16 Q. And your involvement related to accessing the 12:15:34
17 SEIN database? 12:15:38
18 A. I'm sorry? 12:15:40
19 Q. Your involvement in that was you accessed the 12:15:42
20 SEIN database, correct? 12:15:45
21 A. That's what I've been told, yes. 12:15:47
22 Q. And you caused to be printed out the 2008 990 12:15:49
23 return and Schedule B. Is that correct? 12:16:00
24 A. That's what I've been told, yes. 12:16:03
25 Q. And you printed out both the original return and 12:16:05
37
1 an amended return for that year. Is that correct? 12:16:08
2 A. I don't recall what I printed up. 12:16:11
3 Q. Okay. You also printed out something with 12:16:13
4 respect to the National Organization for Marriage's 2007 12:16:16
5 return. Is that correct? 12:16:21
6 A. I've been told those are the years that were 12:16:24
7 involved. 12:16:27
8 Q. Okay. Did the -- what you printed out with 12:16:28
9 regard to the 2008 return include an unredacted list of 12:16:30
10 contributors and donors? 12:16:35
11 MR. TOMPKINS: Which year are you talking about? 12:16:38
12 MR. DAVIS: 2008. That's what I said. 12:16:40
13 THE WITNESS: I've been told, yes. 12:16:41
14 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) And with respect to the 2007 12:16:44
15 return, did you also print out the unredacted Schedule B 12:16:48
16 with respect to the donors? 12:16:54
17 A. That's what I've been told. I don't remember. 12:16:56
18 Q. In the process of responding to a peer review -- 12:16:59
19 strike that. 12:17:03
20 In the process of responding to a 4506-A request 12:17:03
21 for those documents, did you seek peer review? 12:17:08
22 A. I don't recall. 12:17:13
23 Q. Was it reviewed by quality -- QR? 12:17:13
25 Q. With respect to the 2007 990 return filed by the 12:17:43
38
1 National Organization for Marriage, did you print out a 12:17:53
2 redacted or unredacted? 12:17:58
3 A. I don't remember. I don't recall. 12:18:02
4 Q. In the process of responding to the 4506-A 12:18:28
5 request for the National Organization for Marriage 2007 12:18:39
6 and 2008 return, after you printed out the information, 12:18:46
7 whatever it was, where did you send it for processing? 12:18:53
8 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection. She's already stated 12:18:58
9 she doesn't remember this request. 12:18:59
10 THE WITNESS: I don't recall if a 4506-A was 12:19:07
11 completed or if it was a written request. 12:19:11
12 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Do you recall the name Matthew 12:19:15
13 Meisel? 12:19:17
14 A. No. 12:19:18
15 Q. Have you ever processed a request for this kind 12:19:26
16 of information that wasn't in writing? 12:19:29
17 MR. TOMPKINS: Are you talking about the 4506-A 12:19:35
18 990s? 12:19:37
19 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Yes. Information that would be 12:19:39
20 encompassed in it without a request in writing. Have you 12:19:41
21 ever done that? 12:19:44
22 A. Have I processed a request that wasn't on a 12:19:45
23 4506-A? 12:19:48
24 Q. Yeah. 12:19:50
25 A. Yes. 12:19:50
39
1 Q. Under what circumstances? 12:19:53
2 A. It's been submitted on letterhead. We are 12:19:54
3 allowed to process those. 12:19:58
4 Q. What kind of letterhead? 12:20:00
5 A. A letterhead from a media outlet. 12:20:02
6 Q. And by "media," you mean, what, broadcast media? 12:20:10
7 Newspaper? What? 12:20:15
8 A. Yes. 12:20:17
9 Q. Both? 12:20:18
10 A. Media. Yeah, if they check the box on the form 12:20:20
11 for media. 12:20:24
13 MR. DAVIS: Do you have a clear date -- 12:22:43
14 document -- 12:22:47
15 MR. BELEN: The witness -- you mean the one with 12:22:49
16 the Bates stamp? 12:22:49
17 MR. DAVIS: Mine, I can't even decipher. 12:22:51
18 MR. TOMPKINS: The witness' copy is clear, so I 12:22:53
19 don't know if that helps you. 12:22:55
20 MR. DAVIS: Let's just establish for the record 12:22:57
21 what they are. 12:22:59
22 MR. BELEN: Yep. I'll show you. 12:23:05
23 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) I want to show you what I've 12:23:07
24 marked as composite Exhibit 6, which is made up of 12:23:09
25 documents produced under government production numbers 86 12:23:12
40
1 through 98, inclusive. And direct your attention to the 12:23:18
2 first page of that, which purports to be an email from 12:23:26
3 Wendy J. Peters to Peggy E. Riley, dated Wednesday, 12:23:35
4 January 19, 2011. 12:23:46
5 Is that an email that you authored? 12:23:48
6 A. Yes. 12:23:51
7 Q. Who is Peggy E. Riley? 12:23:52
8 A. She's a media specialist and IRS employee. 12:23:57
9 Q. And what does Peggy Riley do as a media 12:24:01
10 specialist? 12:24:05
11 A. I don't know her full job requirements. I work 12:24:07
12 with her to verify media requests that I have received. 12:24:12
13 Q. And your email says, "I thought I'd do a 12:24:18
14 follow-up with an email to you regarding the phone 12:24:24
15 message I left you yesterday. This was in regards to a 12:24:27
16 Matthew Meisel of Somerville, Massachusetts. He checked 12:24:30
17 the media box and states the reason for the request is to 12:24:35
18 be analyzed for personal blog." 12:24:39
19 You wrote that email? 12:24:43
20 A. Yes. 12:24:44
21 Q. And what is this email -- why did you write this 12:24:46
22 email? 12:24:52
23 A. I had a request from this person. And I have to 12:24:53
24 verify with the media specialist. She covers a certain 12:24:58
25 area of the country. And if this person is from 12:25:05
41
1 Massachusetts, Peggy handled the state of Massachusetts. 12:25:07
2 So we have to verify that he qualifies for media, which 12:25:10
3 is expedited request. 12:25:15
4 Q. Did Mr. Meisel submit a 4506-A form to you? 12:25:21
5 A. I have no idea. 12:25:29
6 Q. You mentioned the -- "he checked the media box." 12:25:30
7 A. Okay. So it must have been the form, then. 12:25:38
8 Q. There's a media box on the 4506 form that was 12:25:40
9 being used in January of 2011? 12:25:44
10 A. Say that again? 12:25:49
11 Q. There was a box, where you check off that you 12:25:50
12 are a member of the media in a 4506-A form in 12:25:53
13 January 2011? 12:26:01
14 A. Yes. 12:26:02
15 Q. Have you ever had any conversations with Matthew 12:26:03
16 Meisel? 12:26:06
17 A. No. 12:26:06
18 Q. Did you have any idea who Matthew Meisel was 12:26:07
19 when you received a request from him? 12:26:10
20 A. No. 12:26:13
21 Q. At any point in time, have you had any kind of 12:26:15
22 communication with Matthew Meisel? 12:26:20
23 A. No. 12:26:22
24 Q. Other than making reference to receiving a 12:26:22
25 4506-A? 12:26:25
42
1 A. I have never spoken to him. 12:26:28
2 Q. If you go to the next page, on the bottom -- no, 12:26:45
3 not on the bottom. 12:26:55
4 The middle email is from Peggy Riley to you and 12:26:57
5 then your response. Did you receive the one she sent to 12:27:03
6 you? And did you send that response at or about 12:27:07
7 January 19, 2011? 12:27:10
8 A. Yes. 12:27:12
9 Q. Now, if you go to the next page, there's another 12:27:20
10 email on January 24, 2011, from yourself to Peggy Riley. 12:27:26
11 Did you send that email at or about January 24, 2011? 12:27:31
12 MR. TOMPKINS: There's two pages above, I think. 12:27:39
13 MR. BELEN: Are you on 89? 12:27:43
14 MR. TOMPKINS: Because on 88, there's nothing on 12:27:44
15 it. And then page 89. Just clarifying for the record. 12:27:46
16 MR. DAVIS: Okay. 12:27:51
17 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) I'm referring to -- it looks 12:27:55
18 like it's 90 on my document. 12:28:00
19 MR. TORCHINSKY: No, it's 89. 12:28:06
20 MR. DAVIS: It's page -- oh, I see, okay. My 12:28:08
21 mistake. 12:28:11
22 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) So referring to the document 12:28:11
23 page 89, did you send that email? 12:28:13
24 A. Yes. 12:28:15
25 Q. So as of January 24, 2011, you hadn't gotten a 12:28:16
43
1 response yet from Peggy Riley, correct? 12:28:20
2 A. That's what I have typed in for the email, yes. 12:28:25
3 Q. And then we go from January 24, 2011, to the 12:28:30
4 next one on page 90, which is February 28, 2011, where 12:28:38
5 you sent another email to Peggy Riley. Do you see that? 12:28:44
6 A. Yes. 12:28:49
7 Q. And you sent that email in February -- on 12:28:49
8 February 28, 2011? 12:28:52
9 A. Yes. 12:28:54
10 Q. Okay. So near a month later, you still haven't 12:28:55
11 heard from Peggy Riley, correct? 12:28:59
12 A. It might have been another request. 12:29:05
13 Q. Okay. Do you recall another request from 12:29:10
14 Matthew Meisel? 12:29:14
15 A. No. I don't. 12:29:16
16 Q. Okay. 12:29:19
17 A. I don't. 12:29:18
18 Q. Let's look at page 91. Again, is that an 12:29:42
19 exchange or an email from Peggy Riley to you at the top 12:29:46
20 on March 2, 2011? 12:29:54
21 A. Yes. 12:29:59
22 Q. And did you receive that at or about that day? 12:29:59
23 A. I sent it on that date. 12:30:04
24 Q. And then on March 2 -- 12:30:09
25 A. I thought that's the one that we were looking 12:30:14
44
1 at. 12:30:18
2 Q. I'm on page 92 now. 12:30:18
3 MR. TOMPKINS: So you were asking her if she 12:30:21
4 sent emails to Ms. Riley? 12:30:24
5 MR. DAVIS: Yeah. On the March 2, 2011, on 12:30:27
6 page 91, there's an email at the top. 12:30:32
7 MR. TOMPKINS: Because I couldn't tell if you 12:30:34
8 said to -- you may have mixed up the "to" and the "from." 12:30:36
9 So I just wanted to clarify for the record. 12:30:40
10 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) The question is: Did you send 12:30:42
11 that email of March 2, 2011, to Peggy Riley on page 91? 12:30:44
12 A. Yes. 12:30:51
13 Q. Then let's go forward to page 96. There's an 12:31:17
14 email which appears from yourself, Friday, March the 4th, 12:31:26
15 2011, at 8:33 a.m., where you say, "Happy Friday. Any 12:31:30
16 updates?" Did you send that email? 12:31:35
17 A. Yes. 12:31:42
18 Q. And then right above that Peggy Riley responds, 12:31:44
19 March 4, 2011, "Wendy - he is not media. It is just a 12:31:47
20 personal blog." 12:31:53
21 Do you recall receiving that email? 12:31:55
22 A. I don't recall receiving it. But apparently I 12:31:57
23 did because it's here. 12:32:00
24 Q. Did realizing that Matthew Meisel was not media 12:32:02
25 change the manner in which you processed the 4506-A 12:32:10
45
1 request that Mr. Meisel had submitted? 12:32:16
2 A. It would not have been expedited. 12:32:19
3 Q. And when you say "expedited," what kind of a 12:32:23
4 timeframe do you mean by "expedited"? 12:32:26
5 A. With media, we try to get it out within ten to 12:32:31
6 14 days. 12:32:37
7 Q. Is there any reason for that, that you know of? 12:32:40
8 A. I've never been told a reason, no. 12:32:43
9 Q. Let me show you what we've previously marked as 12:33:26
10 Exhibit 4. Do you know what this document is? 12:33:31
11 A. No. 12:33:46
12 Q. Do you recognize the access user ZKNLB? 12:33:48
13 A. Yeah. That is my IDRS, umm-hmm. 12:33:55
14 Q. It appears that if you go down to the bottom of 12:34:06
15 the first page, six entries up from the bottom -- the six 12:34:10
16 entries on the bottom, starting with 260240498 as an 12:34:21
17 employer identification number. Do you see that? 12:34:28
18 MR. TOMPKINS: Sixth from the bottom? 12:34:33
19 MR. DAVIS: Yes. 12:34:35
20 THE WITNESS: I see the "ZKNLB." The number on 12:34:36
21 the far left, the 26024, I'm not -- I'm not familiar with 12:34:38
22 that number. 12:34:43
23 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Do you know -- 12:34:46
24 A. Oh, it's an EIN. Okay. 12:34:49
25 Q. Now, you're accessing the SEIN database here 12:34:51
46
1 with respect to this taxpayer? 12:34:55
2 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection. Lack of foundation. 12:35:00
3 She stated she doesn't know what this document is. 12:35:03
4 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) When you are responding to a 12:35:28
5 4506-A request and printing documents to do that, do you 12:35:32
6 know if your act of printing those documents is logged? 12:35:40
7 A. Am I aware of that? 12:35:46
8 Q. Yes. 12:35:48
9 A. I have been told now, since this all transpired. 12:35:49
10 Q. What were you told in that regard? 12:35:57
11 A. That it is tracked. That they can access who 12:36:01
12 pulled up what organization. 12:36:06
13 Q. Let me show you what's been previously marked as 12:36:10
14 Exhibit 3. 12:36:13
15 Have you seen any of the documents which make up 12:36:18
16 Exhibit 3 before? 12:36:21
17 A. No. 12:36:22
18 Q. In this proceeding, the US government has 12:37:13
19 responded to some interrogatories. And one of the 12:37:17
20 interrogatories that they -- one of their responses was 12:37:22
21 that you were processing a substantial majority of 12:37:27
22 approximately 100 to 300 requests for copies of Form 990s 12:37:38
23 that the IRS received on a weekly basis back in the 12:37:43
24 January-March 2011 time period. Was that -- does that 12:37:48
25 comport with your recollection? 12:37:52
49
1 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) And what did that consist of? 12:41:56
2 A. They interviewed me, and they did a lot of 12:42:01
3 research. 12:42:05
4 Q. And as best you can recall, what did you tell 12:42:12
5 them happened? 12:42:17
6 A. I didn't recall it happening. I don't recall 12:42:18
7 the request. I didn't remember any of it. They were the 12:42:20
8 ones that informed me of it. 12:42:25
9 Q. Did you describe in your discussions with the 12:42:39
10 TIGTA people this process of peer review? 12:42:44
12 Q. Did you indicate the names of anyone else who 12:42:59
13 would have been supervising or assisting you in 12:43:03
14 conjunction with the response to the 4506-A request of 12:43:07
15 Matthew Meisel regarding National Organization for 12:43:13
16 Marriage? 12:43:18
17 A. I don't remember. I don't remember. 12:43:19
18 Q. After -- in this process you described about CR 12:44:22
19 review -- 12:44:28
20 MR. TOMPKINS: You mean QR? 12:44:30
21 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) QR, I'm sorry. 12:44:32
22 After this QR review, and after it occurred in 12:44:33
23 the instances where it occurred, where would the 12:44:37
24 documents then go? 12:44:43
25 A. After QR, they would come back to the clerk that 12:44:45
91
1 CERTIFICATE
2
State of Utah )
3 ss.
4
5
8
witness' testimony;
11
13
15 event thereof.
16
17
18
19
________________________________
Utah CSR #267114-7801
22
23 (Signature not Waived)
24
25
page 56
3.20.12.3.30.1
(01-01-2011)
Form 990-T Redacting
Procedures
FORM
3.20 Exempt Organizations Returns Processing
For political organizations, names, addresses, and additional information
provided on Form 8871 and Form 8872 are open to public inspections.
Refer to I RM 11.3.9 for additional information.
(11) To reduce the risk of inadvertently identifying contributors, Exempt Organiza-
tions (EO) established the policy not to include Schedule B. Schedule B is to
be completely restricted with the exception of 990-PF.
(12) Except as provided in (5) below, amounts of contributions to a private founda-
tion shall be available for public inspection. Grant or grantor information listed
on a return is not considered to be information regarding contributions and is
open to public inspection.
(13) The names, addresses, and amounts of contributions or bequests of persons
who are not US citizens to a foreign private foundation which from the date of
its creation has received at least 85 percent of its support (other than gross
investment income) from sources outside the US (see IRC 4948(b)), shall not
be made available for public inspection.
(1) The Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2007, amended section 61 04(b) to
require that Form 990-T and related schedules or attachments that pertain to
tax on UBIT, filed by 501 (c)(3) organizations, be made available for public in-
spection by the IRS. This provision is effective for returns filed after August 17,
2006, the date of enactment of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, PL. 1 09-
280 (PPA).
(2) Forms 990-T filed prior to August 17, 2006 are not open for public inspection.
Forms 990-T filed by organizations other than section 501 (c)(3) are also not
available for public inspection.
(3) The Form 990-T must meet the following criteria to be open for public inspec-
tion:
Subsection Code (SS) is a 501 (c)(3) organization
Form 990-T filed after August 17, 2006
Status Code (SC) is not "06"; and
Form 990-T not filed solely for the purpose of claiming a refund of the
Telephone Excise Tax (TETR) credit or Back-up Withholding (BUWH) credit
is open for public inspection or disclosure.
Form 990-T filed solely for the purpose of claiming a refund of the Section
45R Small Business Credit is not open for public inspection or disclosure.
(4) All information included with the Form 990-T and related schedules can be
disclosed with the exception of a few forms. Refer to the table below for proce-
dures on forms attached to the Form 990-T. Refer to section 3.20.12.2.3 for
additional forms and attachments that are not open for public inspection if
attached to the Form 990-T filing,
INFORMATION
IMAGE I DISCLOSE I REDACT I
RESTRICT
Form 926 Return by a U.S. Transferor of Property to a I mage & Restrict
Foreign Corporation
3.20.12 .3.30.1 Internal Revenue Manual Cat. No. 33965G (01-01-2011)
Any line marked with a#
is for Official Use Only
GOV-PROD-0000933
Imaging and Perfecting Exempt Organization
Returns for Public and Internal Viewing 3.20.12 page 17
3.20.12.2.4
(01-01-201 0)
Information Subject to
Deletion
3.20.12.2.5
(01-01-201 0)
Information That May Be
Disclosed
(1 0) When documents are voluntarily submitted as supporting documentation and
not specifically required by a code section other than section 6033, or listed in
the tables above, the supporting documentation will be disclosed
(1) Contributor names and addresses and some contribution amounts must be
redacted from certain returns before the returns are open to public inspection.
(2) In general, the names and addresses of contributors to an organization other
than a private foundation shall not be available for public inspection.
a. Except as provided in (4) below, names and addresses of contributors to
private foundations are open to public inspection.
b. For political organizations, names, addresses, and additional information
provided on Form 8871 and Form 8872 are open to public inspections
(see IRM 11.3.9).
(3) The amounts of contributions and bequests to an organization will be available
for public inspection unless the disclosure can reasonably be expected to
identify any contributor.
Note: To reduce the risk of inadvertently identifying contributors, Exempt Organiza-
tions (EO) of TE/GE has established the policy to not disclose Schedule B,
which lists contributors and the amounts of contributions.
(5) The names, addresses, and amounts of contributions or bequests of persons
who are not U.S. citizens to a foreign private foundation which from the date of
its creation has received at least 85 percent of its support (other than gross
investment income) from sources outside the U.S. (see IRC 4948(b)), shall not
be made available for public inspection.
(6) DO NOT disclose the following Information.
FORM INFORMATION
Contributor Names and Addresses
Note: During the scanning operation, Schedule
B, contribution amounts and/or related
990 or 990-EZ
information are redacted. However, contri-
bution amounts will be provided by EO
Photocopy when specifically requested,
unless such amounts could reasonably be
expected to identify a contributor.
(1) The statutory requirements of I RC 61 04(a) regarding the withholding of certain
information from documents available under that section do not apply to infor-
mation which must be disclosed under IRC 6104(b). The reverse situation
would also be true.
Cat. No. 33965G (01-01-201 0)
Any line marked with a#
Internal Revenue Manual 3.20.12.2.5
is for Official Use Only
GOV-PROD-0001160
11.3.9.12.2
(12-28-2007)
Processing Requests for
Exempt Organization
Returns
(1) If a request is for a photocopy of a return, the Ogden Campus should send the
copy directly to the requester. ( See IRM 11.3.9.12.1(2)).
(2) If the request is for inspection of a return and received by Ogden, the return
should be requested and sent to the servicing Disclosure office. The request
itself should be forwarded to the servicing Disclosure office with the notation
that the return has been requested and will be forwarded upon receipt.
(3) If inspection is desired at a field office, the request should be addressed to the
servicing Disclosure office. Inspection of this information will not be permitted
at IRS campuses. If a request is received directly from the requester, Disclo-
sure personnel should contact Ogden Campus and request the return. The
requester will be notified when the material is available for inspection. The in-
formation may be made available at such time as will not interfere with its use
by the IRS.
(4) In addition, the IRS may limit the number of returns to be made available to
any person for inspection on a given date. Inspection will be allowed only
during regular office hours.
(5) If original returns are being inspected, an IRS employee should be present to
prevent any abuse of such documents.
11.3.9.13
(12-28-2007)
Information Subject to
Deletion
(1) For copying rules and sanitization procedures, See IRM 11.3.9.17. and IRM
3.20.12, Disclosure Returns Processing - Public Inspection Under IRC 6104.
(2) Contributor names and addresses and some contribution amounts must be
edited from certain returns before the returns are open to public inspection.
(3) In general, the names and addresses of contributors to an organization other
than a private foundation shall not be available for public inspection.
a. Except as provided in (5) below, names and addresses of contributors to
private foundations are open to public inspection
b. For political organizations, names, addresses, and additional information
provided on Form 8871 and Form 8872 are open to public inspections. (
See IRM 11.3.9.1(8))
(4) The amounts of contributions and bequests to an organization shall be
available for public inspection unless the disclosure can reasonably be
expected to identify any contributor.
Note: To reduce the risk of inadvertently identifying contributors, Exempt Organiza-
tions (EO) of TEGE has established the policy to not include Form 990
Schedule B, which lists contributors and the amounts of contributions, with
copies of 990s for mass distribution, such as DVD sets or other public
media, and will not include the schedules in individual requests for copies of
Form 990s. Requestors are advised that a redacted Schedule B may be
requested, and, if requested, the schedules are to be redacted in accordance
with guidance provided in this section. This is the policy used by Ogden
when copying Forms 990 for public use.
page 14
11.3 Disclosure of Official Information
11.3.9.12.2 Internal Revenue Manual Cat. No. 30432C (05-30-2008)
GOV-PROD-0000496
1
4 -o0o-
5
MARRIAGE, INC., )
Plaintiff, )
8 )
v. )
9 )
10 )
Defendant. )
11 _____________________________)
12
13 DEPOSITION OF
14 David Hamilton
15 Taken on Wednesday, January 29, 2014
16 at 8:00 a.m.
17
Ogden, Utah 84401
19
20
21
Glendale, CA 91203
23 (818) 551-7300
www.depo.com
24
FILE #A800C72
25
2
1 APPEARANCES
2
3 FOR PLAINTIFF:
6 Telephone: (305) 482-8404
7
SHAWN SHEEHY, ESQ.
Telephone: (540) 341-8808
ssheehy@hvjlaw.com
12
Telephone: (317) 203-5599
16
17 FOR DEFENDANT:
19 P.O. Box 14198
20 Telephone: (202) 514-5885
21
22 CHRISTOPHER D. BELEN, ESQ.
23 P.O. Box 227
24 Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: (202) 307-2089
25 Email: christopher.d.belen@usdoj.gov
3
1 FOR THE IRS:
4 Telephone: (609) 575-4531
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
1 forward. To whom do you report in that time period?
2 A. In that time period, I report to -- my boss was
3 Rob Blackwell.
4 Q. And what position does -- did Mr. Blackwell hold
5 in that time period?
6 A. I'm not sure of his title. He was the
7 Statistics of Income imaging chief.
8 Q. The term "Statistics of Income Management
9 Division," what is that?
10 A. Data management division.
11 Q. What does it do?
12 A. It's responsible for imaging many different
13 types of tax returns, among them the 990s, and providing
14 them to customers within the IRS then outside.
15 Q. And the 990 tax form is what?
16 A. It's an exempt organization tax return.
17 Q. Does your job also encompass 1024 applications
18 for exempt organizations?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Do you have any data management responsibility
21 with regard to 1024 applications?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Now, what is the Statistics of Income Exempt
24 Organization's Return Image Network?
25 A. That's the project that I work on.
9
1 Q. Tell me as specifically as you can what that
2 project entails.
3 A. It entails imaging of all 990 tax returns that
4 come into the service center that are filed nationwide.
5 That includes 990s and other types of returns. Once
6 they're imaged, the returns are made available to
7 internal IRS customers. And in addition, we also provide
8 redacted versions to external customers.
9 Q. Okay. Let's back up for a second.
10 (Exhibits-1 and 2 were marked for identification.)
11 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Okay, Mr. Hamilton, I have
12 placed in front of you what we had marked as deposition
13 Exhibit No. 1, which appears to be a document produced
14 under Government Production No. 220. Can you identify
15 what that document is, sir?
16 A. Yes. It's a description of the SEIN imaging
17 process.
18 Q. And was this the -- is this an accurate
19 description of the imaging process that would have been
20 in operation between January of 2011 and the end of
21 March 2011?
22 A. Let me check.
23 Yes, it is.
24 Q. There seem to be numerous steps in the imaging
25 process. In lay terms, is this the process whereby a
10
1 document which is filed by, say, a taxpayer gets scanned
2 and put into the IRS database?
3 MR. BELEN: Objection. Which taxpayer? What
4 type of document?
5 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) I would say a tax exempt
6 organization, Taxpayer Form 990.
7 A. Yes, it is.
8 Q. And would this be the process whereby the Form
9 990 with Schedule B, which has the list of contributors,
10 would be scanned into and become part of the IRS
11 database?
12 A. Yes, it is.
13 Q. Now, who is it within the organization that
14 you're a part of that has responsibility for the actual
15 scanning of such documents into the system pursuant to
16 this process?
17 A. It's our imaging area. It's part of SOI.
18 There's a set of clerks there that do the scanning and
19 indexing and redaction.
20 Q. And can you tell me who developed this process
21 that's identified here as Exhibit No. 1?
22 A. I don't know.
23 Q. Do you know how long it's been in effect?
24 A. This process has been running since 1998.
25 Q. If you look at the third column, it indicates
11
1 "Quality Control"?
2 A. Umm-hmm.
3 Q. It says, "Log into SEIN. Review every page
4 image for order and clarity."
5 Who within the system would have the
6 responsibility of doing that?
7 A. That would be the SEIN imaging clerks.
8 Q. Would that be the initial imaging clerk, who
9 received the document for the purposes of initiating this
10 process?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, there's a column there that reflects
13 "Verification." Can you tell me what the purpose is of
14 that verification column?
15 A. Yes. That's a second entry step so that we make
16 sure we get certain key identifying information
17 correct -- that it's correctly entered into the system.
18 Q. And the information that's being verified is
19 articulated and set forth in that column. Is that
20 correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, with regard to the column that talks about
23 "Redaction Restriction," what is the process of
24 redaction?
25 MR. BELEN: Objection. Lack of foundation. We
12
1 need to make sure it's something he knows.
2 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Are you aware of what the
3 process of redaction or restriction, as articulated in
4 this document, is in the process described by this
5 document?
6 A. Yes, I am.
7 Q. Can you tell me what it is?
8 A. Redaction is the step whereby we -- the imaging
9 clerk removes non-disclosable information from part of a
10 page of a return.
11 Q. And to be very specific, in terms of a Form 990
12 Schedule B, would there be portions of that which would
13 be redacted in the normal, ordinary course of this
14 process?
15 A. Actually, no. The Schedule B is one of the
16 forms which is restricted, which means that the entire
17 page is marked as non-disclosable. Redaction is where
18 part of a page is non-disclosable.
19 Q. So the list of donors on a Schedule B Form 990
20 filed by an exempt organization under this process would
21 be restricted?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And by "restricted," what does that mean in the
24 context of the administration of this process?
25 A. It means that the page is marked on our database
13
1 as non-disclosable.
2 Q. Non-disclosable to whom?
3 A. To anyone not -- anyone outside the IRS.
4 Q. And who within the IRS would have access to a
5 Form 990 Schedule B, which is restricted?
6 MR. BELEN: Objection. Foundation.
7 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Do you know who within this
8 process within the IRS would have access to the
9 restricted document, Form 990 Schedule B?
10 A. I'm aware of some of the users that would have
11 access.
12 Q. Give me the list of those who you would be aware
13 of.
14 A. They would be IRS employees who worked for the
15 tax exempt government entities organization, who are
16 involved in reviewing the submission of 990 tax returns.
17 Q. Would that be somebody like Wendy Peters?
18 A. No.
19 Q. She would not have access to restricted
20 documents?
21 A. That is -- she's not in that group.
22 Another group that would have access is the
23 RAIVS unit, which is -- well, I'm not sure exactly what
24 their mission is. But one of their missions is to
25 provide copies of tax returns to requesters.
14
1 Q. And you use the term "RAIVS." What does that
2 mean?
3 A. I don't even know what that stands for.
4 MR. BELEN: Just for the record, do you know how
5 it's spelled for the court reporter?
6 THE WITNESS: R-A-I-V-S.
7 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Now, the person who in this
8 process who is involved in making the decision of either
9 redaction or restriction, to your knowledge, who is that
10 person?
11 A. That would be your regular SEIN clerk.
12 Q. And would that be the same clerk that initiated
13 the process?
14 A. The same person does every step from scan
15 through redaction restriction.
16 Q. And now we go to the next column, which is
17 "Quality Reviewed by Different Clerk."
18 A. Right.
19 Q. Do you know why it is that that process is part
20 of this overall scanning process?
21 MR. BELEN: Objection to form. Characterizing
22 the document.
23 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) You may answer.
24 A. Yes. It's so that a different set of eyes
25 quality reviews the work of the first clerk to make sure
15
1 that it meets the standards that they're expected to
2 meet, including redaction and restriction.
3 Q. Are there, to your knowledge, published
4 standards that the quality review clerk would follow?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And where would those published standards be
7 located?
8 A. They would be in an IRM document, Internal
9 Revenue Manual. I don't know the number.
10 Q. Now, the next column is "Release and Commit to
11 Database." Would that be -- to your knowledge, would
12 that be the same clerk that did the quality review?
13 A. Actually, that's an automated process. Once
14 quality review is completed, the batch of returns gets
15 written to the database and files moved to our file
16 server.
17 Q. Who initiates that process?
18 A. The different clerk at the end of the quality
19 review step just by completing the batch.
20 Q. Now, going to the last column on the right,
21 there's a column that says "Delivery by R-A-S-D-M-D." Do
22 you know what that column refers to?
23 A. Yes. That refers to our end users of the SEIN
24 system.
25 Q. Who are the end users?
16
1 A. Well, we've got a number. I'll just go down the
2 bullets. The "Redacted Copy for External Use" is -- we
3 have a number of external customers who pay the IRS
4 for -- to get DVDs containing the redacted images of the
5 tax returns so that they can use them in their own
6 organization or business. And then they get them on --
7 we no longer do CDs, but they get them on DVDs.
8 "Provide paper copy to RAIVS." That's through a
9 system called the online SEIN system. And that's talked
10 about in the last bullet.
11 Q. Now --
12 A. And those images are available to the TEGE
13 employees, who have access to the system.
14 Q. This column refers to "Redacted Copies." Where
15 does the restricted information fit, to your knowledge --
16 if at all?
17 A. I believe that they -- it is sort of included in
18 the "unredacted images" phrase. So anything that's
19 restricted is also not provided publicly.
20 Q. Let me show you what -- well, before we move on
21 from Exhibit 1, there's sort of a reference in the lower
22 right. It says, "Review methods of delivery to public."
23 Do you know what that means in the context of this
24 process?
25 A. I'm not sure. I can guess.
17
1 MR. BELEN: No.
2 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Do you know -- strike that.
3 Let me show you what's been marked as Deposition
4 Exhibit 2, which is a document produced under Government
5 Production No. 221. Have you seen this document before?
6 A. I've seen something very similar to it.
7 Q. Do you know what this is?
8 A. It's a simplified version of the process
9 described in the first document.
10 Q. Now, does the scanning system that we've just
11 gone through, can someone such as yourself -- strike
12 that.
13 Do the people that are involved in the scanning
14 process in this system, are they within the ambit of what
15 you administer?
16 A. Are the people involved in the scanning
17 process --
18 Q. The scanning clerks and the quality control
19 clerk for scanning.
20 A. Right. I'm not their manager, but they are
21 within the system that I manage.
22 Q. In the January to March 2011 time period, who
23 would have been the manager of that -- the scanning
24 clerks and the quality control clerk?
25 A. Well, we have two shifts. We have day and
18
1 swing. Well, day shift would have been Jodi Mikesell,
2 J-O-D-I, M-I-K-E-S-E-L-L. Swing shift would have been
3 Kyle Ellis, K-Y-L-E. And those are the immediate
4 managers of the imaging clerks.
5 Q. Now, from the standpoint of this data management
6 system, does it have the capability if you wanted to go
7 back and, say, find out who originally imaged a
8 particular Form 990 and schedule, can you track that; in
9 other words, which clerk did what?
10 MR. BELEN: Objection. Which system are you
11 talking about? The SEIN, the scanning system or?
12 MR. DAVIS: I'm talking about the return
13 image -- or the Statistics of Income Exempt -- this
14 system, Exhibit 1, SEIN.
15 THE WITNESS: Yes.
16 MR. DAVIS: You government types get me all
17 mixed up with these acronyms. Okay.
18 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) So if I wanted to go find out
19 who it was that actually was the clerk who initiated the
20 input or scanning of a Form 990, how would I go about
21 doing that?
22 A. You would have to access our database. And on
23 one of the tables, it's related to the SEIN imaging
24 process. It would show the original scan clerk.
25 Q. There would be some code or some number?
19
1 A. A user name.
2 Q. A user name. And would that be the same with
3 respect to the quality control clerk in this process?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, in the RAIVS unit, to your knowledge, who
6 has access to the database that we've just talked about,
7 the SEIN database? Can we call it that?
8 A. Umm-hmm.
9 Q. The SEIN database, for the purposes of accessing
10 individual returns?
11 A. There are -- there are probably between three
12 and five clerks down there that have access.
13 Q. And is there a process which is articulated for
14 accessing the database similar to Deposition Exhibit 1?
15 A. Yeah. That would be the On-Line SEIN process.
16 That's a program that would be used to access the
17 database. That's over in the right-hand column.
18 Q. Now, you said there's, like, three to five
19 clerks?
20 A. As far as I know.
21 Q. Do they have any official titles other than
22 "clerk"?
23 A. No.
24 Q. And in the January-March 2011 time period, about
25 how many clerks would have had access to the SEIN
29
1 they're on a screen that allows them to enter a search
2 criteria to pull up.
3 Q. Is there, like, a pop-up window that happens or
4 something?
5 A. Well, the whole program opens up and fills up
6 the screen.
7 Q. And then what kind of information would be on
8 the screen?
9 A. The screen they see allows them to enter search
10 criteria to pull up/pick out specific returns. So they
11 could query on an EIN tax period or any combination of
12 these -- taxpayer name, state, zip code.
13 Q. Now, let me ask you this: This access is to a
14 database which has the taxpayer information for a lot of
15 taxpayers, right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So the clerk at that point in time can access
18 whichever taxpayer the clerk wants to. Is that correct?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Now, what restriction is there, if any, that
21 prevents that clerk from accessing the information of a
22 taxpayer that there's no relevant reason to access?
23 MR. BELEN: Are you saying all taxpayers or
24 exempt 990s?
25 MR. DAVIS: I meant exempt 990s.
30
1 THE WITNESS: There's nothing to stop that.
2 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Now, when the Form 5081 is
3 filled out, is that filled out in a way -- or do you
4 know -- is it filled out in a way that's directed toward
5 a specific taxpayer, or is it just directed towards, "I
6 want access"?
7 A. It's directed towards, "I need access to this
8 application to do my job," not just for a specific
9 taxpayer.
10 Q. Is it customary to articulate in a 5081, "In
11 order to do my job, I need to get access to a particular
12 taxpayer's records"?
13 MR. BELEN: Objection. Lack of foundation. And
14 you asked that already.
15 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
16 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Okay. So once the clerk is in
17 the database, there's no restriction that prevents that
18 clerk from going from taxpayer to taxpayer to taxpayer.
19 Is that correct?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Now, in the database itself that our clerk now
22 has access to, there's both redacted, unredacted and
23 restricted information on taxpayers. Is that correct?
24 A. The database itself does not contain a lot of
25 information about the taxpayer, just identifying
35
1 It appears on the printed output.
2 Q. Now, let's say the clerk accessed the page and
3 reviewed the screen, chose not to print, closed the
4 screen, and what have you.
5 Does that horizontal watermark remain as part of
6 the record?
7 A. That event is stored in our audit table, yes.
8 Q. Okay. So after the fact, you can go back and
9 look and see some -- a clerk accessed this information,
10 looked at it, chose not to print it, and closed out?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Is there a way of ascertaining from looking at
13 the database that has been accessed whether or not a
14 document has been printed?
15 A. At that time, no. You know what? Even today,
16 no.
17 Q. When a document is sent for printing in this
18 process that we've been talking about, is there -- or are
19 there -- I should say, is there a trail with respect to
20 the actual printing that would reflect who it was that
21 requested the printing? Maybe I'm not -- if that's not
22 clear, I'll rephrase.
23 A. There is. The printing event is recorded on our
24 application servers.
25 Q. And what kind of information is retained on the
36
1 application servers reflecting the printing event?
2 A. It would be the name of the printer, the user
3 name, and number of pages printed.
4 Q. Is there anything that --
5 A. And the time.
6 Q. And the time. That's what I was going to ask.
7 MR. BELEN: Do you need a break?
8 MR. DAVIS: We've got a couple of documents that
9 we're going to get to. Why don't we take, like, a
10 five-minute break?
11 (A break was taken from 9:16 a.m. to 9:27 a.m.)
12 (Exhibit-3 was marked for identification.)
13 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Mr. Hamilton, I show you what I
14 have had marked as composite Exhibit 3, Deposition
15 Exhibit 3, which appear to be documents, Government
16 Produced 44, 45, and 46. I think it's 44, 45, and 46.
17 MR. TOMPKINS: That's correct.
18 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Can you tell me if you can
19 identify these documents?
20 A. Yes, I can.
21 Q. What are these documents?
22 A. These are screen shots of part of an event log
23 from our application server.
24 Q. Do you know to what specific event these
25 documents relate?
37
1 A. Yes. They are -- let's see. I'll make sure.
2 They're all three print events, where it records when a
3 user printed a document.
4 Q. And the user is identified in the user line
5 here?
6 A. Yes, the Z-K-N-L-B.
7 Q. ZKNLB. What is the, I say, the preface --
8 A. The "SOIWORLD"?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. That's the name of the domain.
11 Q. So ZKNLB would identify a specific user?
12 A. Right.
13 Q. Do you know who that user was?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. Who was that user?
16 A. Wendy Peters.
17 Q. And the time indication on here reflects what?
18 MR. BELEN: Are you asking on which page?
19 MR. DAVIS: On the first page, I'm sorry.
20 THE WITNESS: That indicates the time of the
21 event.
22 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) The time something was sent to
23 a printer?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And obviously, the date would indicate the
38
1 date --
2 A. Right.
3 Q. -- that it was sent.
4 Now, going down -- we're on the first page
5 still. There's a reference, "Document 44." What would
6 that reference mean?
7 A. I do not know.
8 Q. And there's also an indication of the number of
9 pages printed. Is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Is there any way from looking at this document
12 on its face to ascertain what kind of a document was
13 printed?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Do you know from looking at this document on its
16 face what document was printed?
17 A. Not just from looking at this document on its
18 face.
19 Q. Do you know without reference specifically to
20 the -- no. Strike that.
21 Do you know what document was printed by this
22 print event -- the first page?
23 A. I can make a fairly safe assumption.
24 Q. And what would that be?
25 A. That it was the 17-page document that was
39
1 accessed at the same time in our audit trail record.
2 Q. Did you review an audit trail record to
3 ascertain what that 17-page document was?
4 A. I -- I looked at the audit trail record first.
5 And then this corroborated that.
6 Q. All right. We've kind of got things backwards.
7 MR. DAVIS: Are these two different ones?
9 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Okay. I show you what I've
10 marked as Deposition Exhibit 4, which appears to be a
11 two-page document under Government Production No. -- I
12 think it's 38 and 39. It looks like mine's cut off.
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. TOMPKINS: That's right.
15 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Have you seen this document
16 before?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can you tell me what this document is?
19 A. This is a printout of the results of a query
20 against the audit trail, the SEIN audit trail database
21 table.
22 Q. Do you know why this document was generated?
23 A. I was asked to -- I was asked to find out --
24 well, first of all, I was asked to -- whether it was
25 possible to determine which user accessed the specific
40
1 return on a certain date with a certain tracking number.
2 And I did so.
3 Q. Can I ask you what specific return were you
4 asked?
5 A. I was given an EIN, and -- I was given an EIN.
6 So I looked at it.
7 Q. Was that the EIN of the National Organization of
8 Marriage?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And who asked you to do that?
11 A. Sherry Whitaker, TEGE.
12 Q. And when was it you were asked to do that?
13 A. That was April 13th of 2012.
14 Q. And was there a specific event that occurred
15 that triggered this inquiry?
16 A. It appeared to be an article that appeared in
17 the Daily Caller on the 12th of April, 2012.
18 Q. And what about that article triggered this
19 event?
20 A. I'm not sure what triggered the event, but the
21 email that I received from Sherry Whitaker asked if I
22 could track down who had access to this EIN. And it
23 referenced the link to the Daily Caller article.
24 Q. Did you look at the Daily Caller article?
25 A. Yes, I did.
41
1 Q. And was return information of the National
2 Organization of Marriage disclosed in that article?
3 MR. BELEN: Objection. Calls for a legal
4 conclusion. Lack of foundation.
5 THE WITNESS: What was the question again?
6 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) All right. When you saw the
7 article, what did you see in the article?
8 A. It was a description of how a tax return for the
9 National Organization for Marriage had been posted on a
10 website, including donor information.
11 Q. Do you recall what tax return that was?
12 A. I don't.
13 Q. Would looking at the -- what we've marked as
14 Exhibit 4 assist you in answering that question?
15 MR. BELEN: Which question, Mr. Davis?
16 MR. DAVIS: What tax return it was that was
17 posted on the website.
18 THE WITNESS: Let's see. Yes. This does help.
19 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Okay. Well, first of all, can
20 you tell from looking at this document, Exhibit No. 4,
21 what tax return was posted on the website?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Okay. Does it assist you, though, in recalling
24 what tax return you saw posted on the website?
25 A. Well, I never did see the tax return itself
42
1 posted on the website.
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. I just did look at the Daily Caller article
4 referencing that.
5 Q. Was the 2008 tax return referenced?
6 A. I don't remember if it was referenced as the
7 2008 tax return.
8 Q. Let's go back to Exhibit 4. What information is
9 set forth here on Exhibit 4?
10 A. Let's go back to this page. The first column is
11 the EIN.
12 Q. And you say "EIN." Is that Employee
13 Identification Number?
14 A. Right. The second column would be the "Tax Year
15 on Record" as the tax year of a specific return.
16 The type of code -- "Type Code" indicates that
17 the form was a 990 and not a Subsection (c)3.
18 The "Return ID" column, it looks like a money
19 amount, but it's not. It's just a seven-digit number.
20 That's a unique identifier for each filing of a tax
21 return.
22 Q. What does it indicate?
23 A. It's just a random number that indicates that --
24 it's a unique number to each filing of a tax return.
25 Q. Okay. At the time that a tax return is filed,
43
1 it's assigned one of those numbers?
2 A. At the time it is saved to our database.
3 Q. Okay. And the "Sub Number" column?
4 A. It indicates which submission of the return.
5 Since 2004, the "Sub No." is always one.
6 Q. "Access User" column. What does that mean?
7 A. That's the user name of the person who accessed
8 the return.
9 Q. "Access Time." What is that?
10 A. The time where the -- the time and date of the
11 access.
12 Q. And what is the column for "Access Code"?
13 A. And that code is -- also looks like a money
14 amount, but it's not. It's a, looks like, a nine-digit
15 number that is a unique tracking number for the event,
16 the access event.
17 Q. What is unique about it? In other words, what
18 information do you get from looking at that number?
19 A. Every time a -- every time a user looks at a
20 return in On-Line SEIN, views a page, this unique
21 number -- this number is generated and assigned to that
22 event.
23 Q. So if we didn't have any other information on
24 this page other than the column which, says 100663494,
25 what information can we get from knowing that number?
44
1 MR. BELEN: I'm sorry. Where are we looking?
2 THE WITNESS: Just down here at the bottom.
3 MR. DAVIS: "Access Code" column, Exhibit 4.
4 THE WITNESS: Just looking at that number, I can
5 tell that the user ZKNLB accessed the return at that
6 time.
7 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Again, I'm asking you, though,
8 let's assume all you had was the access code number,
9 none of the other information. What does that -- what
10 can you -- what kind of information can you obtain by
11 virtue of having just the access code number?
12 A. I could query this table on that access number
13 and come back with the single record that reflected the
14 accessed data.
15 Q. Okay. Now, going back to the "Tax Year" column.
16 A. Okay.
17 Q. There's a -- let's say the next to the last one
18 on the page.
19 MR. BELEN: First page?
20 MR. DAVIS: First page, right.
21 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) 2007, and then it has a
22 No. 12. Do you see that?
23 A. Umm-hmm.
24 Q. I assume -- am I correct that the "2007" refers
25 to the tax year?
45
1 A. That refers to the tax year of the filing, yes.
2 Q. And what does the "12" signify?
3 A. December.
4 Q. Does that indicate that that was a calendar
5 year-end return?
6 A. It could. If the taxpayer fails to enter a tax
7 period at the top of the return, we use a default of 12.
8 We go by the tax form, the year, and a default of 12.
9 Q. Now, let's go to the top of page 2. And if you
10 look at the "Access User" column, that's ZKNLB.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And who do you know that to be?
13 A. That's Wendy Peters.
14 Q. And just walking through the top one on page 2.
15 What does this tell you that Wendy Peters did on
16 January 21, 2011 at 7:12:12?
17 A. It shows me that she accessed the return with
18 the return I.D. of 260240498, the EIN, and 2008/12 as the
19 tax period.
20 Q. Does it tell you that she did anything else? Is
21 there anything else that you can glean from this, other
22 than she accessed that return on that date and that time?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Is it possible for a clerk accessing a return
25 such as this to have multiple returns open on the same
46
1 screen at the same time?
2 A. No.
3 Q. If you were to take Exhibit 4 and the three
4 entries on the top of the second page of Exhibit 4 and
5 correspond them with the three printed event documents
6 that we've shown you on Exhibit 3, are you able, as an
7 administrator, to conclude whether or not there's any
8 relationship between the access on Exhibit 4 indicated on
9 Exhibit 4 and the print event on Exhibit 3?
10 A. Yes. There's a fairly strong correlation.
11 Q. And what does that correlation tell you?
12 A. That for these three returns listed on
13 Exhibit 4, there were three print events.
14 Q. As identified in Exhibit 3?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. The time stamp that's on Exhibit 3, is that the
17 time that she actually sent it to print or the time that
18 it was -- the printing was completed? Do you know?
19 A. This is going to be a hard one to explain. The
20 time on Exhibit 3 is recorded -- well, let me go back.
21 The event, the print event that is recorded on
22 our event log, is a relative time, relative to Greenwich
23 Mean Time. When we open up the event log at a later
24 date, the time that shows here on Exhibit 3 is somehow --
25 and I'm not totally clear on this explanation -- is
47
1 somehow relative to the location where the event log was
2 opened.
3 Q. So the time that's indicated on Exhibit 3 is
4 driven by the physical location of the actual printing?
5 A. It's driven by the location of who opened up the
6 event log to look at the event.
7 Q. And where they were?
8 A. And where they were.
9 Q. And is there any effect by Daylight Savings Time
10 on that, or does it calibrate -- or do you know?
11 A. I can't say for sure.
12 Q. Now, asking you about the mechanics of this.
13 Going back to Exhibit 4 with the three documents -- or
14 the three access events, I should say.
15 If Wendy wanted to print, for instance,
16 information as a result of the first access event, would
17 she have to access it, print it, close it, and then open
18 again to do the second one and the third one? How does
19 that work?
20 A. Yes. She would have to go out to the summary
21 screen, which presents the list of search results, if not
22 further out, depending on what her search criteria were.
23 And then back in to view the images.
24 Q. Each time that she engaged in this exercise,
25 would she be presented with the selection criteria for
48
1 redacted or unredacted material?
2 MR. BELEN: Objection. Could you just clarify
3 what you mean by "this exercise"? Are you talking about
4 printing? I'm just ...
5 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Okay. On Exhibit 4, the top
6 three, there appear to be three access events. And they
7 appear to correlate to three events of printing. The
8 first event is -- relates to the 2008 990 for the
9 identified taxpayer. But my question, first question,
10 was in order to, while accessing that return, to print, a
11 clerk would print and then close out of that one; and
12 then in order to access the next return to print, have to
13 reopen and go back in. Is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. So in the process of going back in, would
16 the menu come up again to select whether or not you
17 wanted redacted or restricted information or unredacted
18 information?
19 A. It depends. If the original search was for a
20 very -- was very specific so it's such that the result
21 page only showed one result, then to get to the second
22 document, the user would have to get all the way back out
23 to the search page, enter new criteria, and get a new
24 result. And at that point, they would get the original
25 versus redacted choice.
49
1 If the original query was, say, just on EIN and
2 the result page showed a number of results, including all
3 three, then the question would not come up again.
4 Q. If, with respect to these three events of
5 access, if you wanted to access redacted material only
6 for two of them and unredacted material for one of them,
7 would the process change?
8 MR. TORCHINSKY: Can we -- hold on for one
9 second.
10 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Let me rephrase.
11 A. Okay.
12 Q. If at the time that the query was done in the
13 system and the decision was made redacted or unredacted
14 and you had queried redacted, would you have to then go
15 back out and reenter to query unredacted?
16 A. Again, it depends on the original search
17 criteria.
18 Q. If the search criteria was for redacted only.
19 A. If you wanted to make a deliberate change to
20 your original answer, then yes, you'd have to go all the
21 way back out and enter new search criteria.
22 Q. If you chose the unredacted in a query, would
23 that include within it the redacted when you had access?
24 A. If I chose unredacted, would it include redacted
25 pages? Yes.
50
1 Q. So taking, for instance, the access here
2 involving the 2007 return. This is the third one from
3 the top of the second page. If your query was for
4 unredacted information, would your screen have allowed
5 you to select not only unredacted but redacted as well?
6 A. If -- you mean the -- would you be presented
7 with unredacted pages --
8 Q. Yes.
9 A. -- if you chose "unredacted" as your choice?
10 Yes.
11 Q. Would that also have enabled you to choose from
12 redacted pages as well?
13 A. "Unredacted," could you see redacted pages as
14 well? Yes. Wait a minute. You asked -- the two choices
15 are redacted and original?
16 Q. Yeah. I guess what I mean is if your original
17 entry point in your query is for unredacted for, say, the
18 2007 return, while you've got the screen open, do you
19 have the option to go to redacted?
20 A. No.
21 Q. If you look at the top three again on the second
22 page of Exhibit 4, the top three accesses. The time
23 range runs from 7:11:00 to 7:12:12, so a little over a
24 minute.
25 Is it possible in this system to go out and come
51
1 back in, in three events in that period of time?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What is a Form 46 -- or 4506?
4 A. 4506. That's a form used by taxpayers to
5 request a copy of a tax return.
6 Q. And what's a Form 4506-A?
7 A. I think it's the same form. It also allows
8 taxpayers to request sets of, for instance, the DVDs that
9 we publish for all returns.
10 Q. Does it permit non-taxpayers to request public
11 information?
12 MR. BELEN: I'm just going to start objecting
13 based on foundation. I don't know if this is within his
14 scope.
16 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Do you know what the process is
17 that's followed for a clerk, such as Wendy Peters, to
18 comply with a request to provide taxpayer information to
19 a non-taxpayer?
20 MR. BELEN: You asked if he knew?
21 MR. DAVIS: Yeah.
22 MR. BELEN: You asked did he know?
23 MR. DAVIS: Yeah.
25 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) Do you know if there's any
52
1 policy within your division that relates to clerks, such
2 as Wendy Peters, releasing restricted or non-redacted
3 taxpayer information to non-taxpayers?
4 MR. BELEN: Objection to form when you say "your
5 division."
6 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) The area over which you
7 administer.
8 A. Yes. The redacted pages or restricted pages
9 should not be disclosed, other than to the taxpayer who
10 filed the return.
11 Q. Can -- does this system allow, the system I'm
12 talking about is the -- what we've been -- the SEIN
13 system that we've been talking about here. Does it allow
14 a clerk, such as Wendy Peters, to access redacted
15 information in order to provide it to a third party who
16 requests such information?
17 A. The system does allow that -- at that time, it
18 did.
19 Q. Between January and March of 2011, a clerk could
20 access the system, get redacted information, and
21 communicate that information to someone who requests it?
22 A. Yes, it would be possible.
23 Q. Are you aware of any procedure that was in place
24 in January through March of 2011 that would have served
25 to prevent a disclosure of restricted information by a
53
1 clerk, such as Wendy Peters?
2 A. No. I'm not aware of any that would.
3 Q. Do you know if -- for instance, we started out
4 by looking at Exhibit 1. And there was a second level of
5 quality review in the scanning process.
6 A. Umm-hmm.
7 Q. Do you know if there is a level of review for a
8 clerk, such as Wendy Peters, prior to her disclosing
9 information that she acquires out of the SEIN database?
10 A. I don't know if there is or not.
12 Q. (BY MR. DAVIS:) All right. Let me show you
13 what we've marked as Exhibit 5 to your deposition, a
14 document which was produced under Government Production
15 No. 596, purporting to be an email dated March the 8th,
16 from a David K. Hamilton to Robert M. Blackwell. Can you
17 identify that email?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Is that an email which you sent?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did you send that to David Blackwell at or
22 around March 8, 2011, at 11:06 a.m.?
23 A. To Robert Blackwell, yes.
24 Q. And that's in response to his earlier email
25 where he inquired of what is the reason for adding
54
1 watermarks to some images. Is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And you say, "In On-Line SEIN and On-Line Pilot
4 Vouchers, we have a concern that an IRS user could print
5 a page that should not be disclosed."
6 What was your concern in that regard at that
7 time?
8 A. Well, the system was set up to anticipate that
9 it would be possible to print a page off of On-Line SEIN
10 and disclose it illegally to the public. So we set up
11 this tracking number audit process to keep track of all
12 accesses and have a record of all accesses.
13 Q. So that the tracking number, the watermark
14 number, would not have prevented disclosure, but it would
15 have deterred disclosure because you could have tracked
16 back on who procured it?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And when did you first develop a concern
19 regarding this possible disclosure of information?
20 A. Well, that concern has always been part of the
21 job when I took over in 2004. It was impressed on me by
22 the previous administrator that the system, the On-Line
23 SEIN system, needed to be able track user access.
24 Q. Were you aware of any process or procedure that
25 was in place in the January to March 2011 time period,
55
1 where if, say, a clerk accesses and procures or prints
2 confidential information, that a second set of eyes, a
3 supervisor or someone else, would have the responsibility
4 of signing off on the disclosure of such information?
5 A. I didn't -- I wasn't aware of anything like
6 that.
7 Q. When was the watermark process started?
8 A. It was started at the very beginning of the
9 On-Line SEIN program, which was written in, probably,
10 2004.
11 Q. Now, when Mr. Blackwell sent you his email
12 asking what the reason was for adding watermarks to some
13 images, do you know or have information as to what
14 prompted his inquiry in that regard?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What was it?
17 A. At the time, we were -- we were converting our
18 programs from -- to a new version of Oracle Forms. And
19 in the new version of Oracle Forms, the ability to pull
20 up and display an image was very -- it was much worse
21 than the previous version. So we were looking for a way
22 to write our own viewer that would display the images
23 quicker and much more clearly. And the CC line there,
24 Greg Doble, he is the programmer who eventually wrote a
25 new TIF viewer for us, and he included the ability to
69
1 CERTIFICATE
2
State of Utah )
3 ss.
4
5
8
witness' testimony;
11
13
15 event thereof.
16
17
18
19
________________________________
Utah CSR #267114-7801
22
23 (Signature not Waived)
24
25

1:13-cv-01225 #74

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1:13-cv-01225 #74

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

S-ar putea să vă placă și