Mr. Holder ... you got some 'splainin to do

[Judge Roy Bean]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... nor-tax-r/

“Although this may not be indicative of wide spread targeting, any instance is cause for concern,” Mr. Grassley wrote. “Even more alarming, in at least one instance TIGTA referred evidence of ‘willful unauthorized access’ to the United States Attorney’s Office, but criminal prosecution was declined. ...”

Then again ... "in at least one instance," means more than one.

What does it take?

[LaVidaRoja]

All IRS employees are annually given UNAX training (Unauthorized Access to Tax Accounts) This is a BIG thing with TIGTA. If they found real evidence of a UNAX violation and did not pursue it, the answer is very likely that the access was by a high-level manager.
When the IRS first started closely watching employees computer usage, someone either in Criminal Investigation or management was found to be accessing porn sites. It was clear that the violator was NOT a regular working stiff, because the access was for more than a normal shift. There was never any public announcement. Which is why we working stiffs suspected that the culprit was in management.
Sorry, I'm retired, but I spent long enough as either a regular working stiff or a union steward that some of these issues still rankle.

[Burnaby49]

All IRS employees are annually given UNAX training (Unauthorized Access to Tax Accounts) This is a BIG thing with TIGTA. If they found real evidence of a UNAX violation and did not pursue it, the answer is very likely that the access was by a high-level manager.
When the IRS first started closely watching employees computer usage, someone either in Criminal Investigation or management was found to be accessing porn sites. It was clear that the violator was NOT a regular working stiff, because the access was for more than a normal shift. There was never any public announcement. Which is why we working stiffs suspected that the culprit was in management.
Sorry, I'm retired, but I spent long enough as either a regular working stiff or a union steward that some of these issues still rankle.

Ditto from north of the 49th. I spent 35 years with the CRA and they are very big on unauthorized access. Staff are frequently fired over it but they tend to be lower level staff who don't understand the career-ending consequences. Checking out celebrity returns, neighbours, that kind of totally stupid stuff. Fair enough, the integrity of the system is based on the confidentiality of taxpayer information and idle checks by staff jeopardize that. The problem is, with quite literally millions of staff file return requests every year, finding the ones that aren't work-related.

A story I enjoyed. In a Vancouver divorce proceedings the husband contested the wife's claimed income. As proof he had copies of her last five years tax returns. Wife quite naturally wondered how the hell he'd got them and went storming to the CRA for an explanation. Turns out hubby's girlfriend was a staff member who'd pulled them from records. As soon as management figured that out she was an ex-staff member. Even the union didn't bother making a fuss.

[AndyK]

UNAX is number one on the list of "deadly sins." Even an accidental UNAX or a belated awareness that an employee is compromised with respect to a case MUST be formally written up and reported to two levels of the employee's management plus TIGTA. TIGTA will review the circumstances and make the final decision as to willfulness or not.

Once a determination is made that the unauthorized access was willful, termination is automatic and mandatory absent the intercession by the Commissioner. Criminal prosecution (which must be done by DoJ) is optional on their part.

What would be MOST interesting would be to see if there was, in fact, an automatic termination.