ADVERTISEMENT

Not even ProPublica knows the source who provided blockbuster ‘Secret IRS Files’

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
78,198
60,114
113
ProPublica does not know whom to thank for providing the raw material for what organization president Richard Tofel called “the most important story we have ever published.”
On Tuesday morning, the nonprofit investigative news operation published “The Secret IRS Files,” the first in a series of investigative stories based on federal tax documents from thousands of wealthy individuals covering a period of more than 15 years. It lays out how wealthy Americans “exploit the structure of our tax code to avoid the tax burdens borne by ordinary citizens,” with many not paying taxes at all for certain years.

In a companion piece, Tofel and top editor Stephen Engelberg made a stunning revelation: ProPublica does not know who sent the documents or why they were sent.

“The source says they were motivated by our previous coverage of issues surrounding the IRS and tax enforcement,” they wrote, “but we do not know for certain that is true.”


ADVERTISING

They acknowledged the possibility that the documents could come from “a state actor hostile to American interests.” But “provenance is not essential; accuracy is.”
IRS records show wealthiest Americans, including Bezos and Musk, paid little in income taxes as share of wealth, report says
In an interview, Engelberg said ProPublica was further convinced of the veracity of the documents after cross-checking the data with some of the individuals to whom the tax returns belonged. “It was certainly relevant that in each case that we were contacting people, we were getting the same numbers they had, so it became pretty clear that we had an accurate set of things,” he said. Amazon founder and chief executive Jeff Bezos, who also owns The Washington Post, was among the wealthy Americans covered in the story.

Tofel and Engelberg said they wrestled with the ethics of publishing private tax documents but decided that it was in the public interest to do so.


Some skeptics said the report was noteworthy but did not fundamentally change the perception of American billionaires as savvy employers of tax code workarounds and enterprising accountants.
The bigger question, at least among journalists, seemed to focus on where the documents came from and who would have access to them. The Internal Revenue Service is also interested in how the documents were acquired by the source, announcing an investigation on Tuesday.
Engelberg said ProPublica was approached directly by the source, though he said the organization is “trying to be a little bit vague about that just so that we don’t give any hints.” He acknowledged that the publication has had “sufficient conversation” with the source.

Traditionally, media organizations prefer to know who is sending source material to have a better grasp of the authenticity of the material, the way in which it was obtained and the motivations of the sender. But, in this case, some journalists praised ProPublica for focusing on the veracity of the documents as the primary factor in deciding to publish, not the identity of the source.


The reporting project, he said, has been in the works for months and included a “significant investment” in the effort. Even internally at ProPublica, he said the group that began working on the material was small, though the circle widened over time.
“We certainly handled this very carefully internally. We worked pretty hard to try to make sure this didn’t become a matter of public conversation before it published,” he said. “By the end of it, the number of people involved in the room — it was a big Zoom.”

The only recent precedent is a series of New York Times stories that were based on tax documents involving President Donald Trump. Metro reporter Susanne Craig recalled in a first-person article that she received a copy of Trump’s 1995 tax records in her mailbox at the Times building in New York City. The Times was able to confirm the authenticity of the documents through the accountant who had prepared them. “Nowadays, when people are worried that anything sent by email will leave forensic fingerprints, ‘snail mail’ is a great way to communicate with us anonymously,” Craig wrote. Later, the Times obtained a much larger trove of Trump’s tax information.


At a time when multiple individuals have been imprisoned recently for leaking government documents to reporters — including a former Treasury Department official who was sentenced last week to six months in prison — Engelberg said the publication “wants to be very protective of our source” and “as meticulous and careful as we possibly could be.”
The “Secret IRS Files” is likely to mark a new chapter for ProPublica, which has received six Pulitzer Prize awards since it began publishing in 2008. The organization employs 168 people, including about 140 in the newsroom.

“It’s one of the biggest things that we have ever done, if not the biggest,” Engelberg said. “We anticipate covering this for many, many months, if not years. We have really sort of scratched the surface of what needs to be said and drawn from this material.”


The publication has also solicited reader assistance, specifically asking for those “knowledgeable about tax law, accounting, the IRS, wealth management or tax policy of any kind” to help with reporting on future stories.
Engelberg, who spent 18 years with the Times, said the document leak was unlike anything he’s experienced before, including his eight-year tenure as ProPublica’s editor in chief. “Very few times do people send you things,” he said, “but they tell you things all the time.”

 
  • Like
Reactions: lucas80
If the records are confidential material, why then is there no apparent penalty to publishing them?

Does this mean that all records, previously thought to be personal and confidential, are fair game now? I think this is a very bad precedent being set.
 
If people change their valuation of Amazon stock from $2000/share to 3000/share how much taxable income does that generate for Jeff Bezos?
 
If the records are confidential material, why then is there no apparent penalty to publishing them?

Does this mean that all records, previously thought to be personal and confidential, are fair game now? I think this is a very bad precedent being set.

Because the US Supreme Court ruled that media organizations can generally publish newsworthy materials in the public interest as long as they did not work with the source to violate the law to obtain them.

If they were sent in anonymously, they can generally be published.
 
Because the US Supreme Court ruled that media organizations can generally publish newsworthy materials in the public interest as long as they did not work with the source to violate the law to obtain them.

If they were sent in anonymously, they can generally be published.
OK, let me ask this question...if anyone had say...divulged Barack Obama's college transcripts in the run up to the 2008 election, something that the Obama campaign was very motivated not to have out in the public eye, would you feel the same way?

(I ask because I know someone that worked at a place where these records would have possibly/probably been accessible to at least certain employees AND they were very strongly advised that should said records be accessed, not disseminated, just accessed, that there would be very severe repercussions...as they were considered confidential, personal info.)
 
OK, let me ask this question...if anyone had say...divulged Barack Obama's college transcripts in the run up to the 2008 election, something that the Obama campaign was very motivated not to have out in the public eye, would you feel the same way?

(I ask because I know someone that worked at a place where these records would have possibly/probably been accessible to at least certain employees AND they were very strongly advised that should said records be accessed, not disseminated, just accessed, that there would be very severe repercussions...as they were considered confidential, personal info.)
How would Obama's college transcripts be in the public interest?
 
OK, let me ask this question...if anyone had say...divulged Barack Obama's college transcripts in the run up to the 2008 election, something that the Obama campaign was very motivated not to have out in the public eye, would you feel the same way?

(I ask because I know someone that worked at a place where these records would have possibly/probably been accessible to at least certain employees AND they were very strongly advised that should said records be accessed, not disseminated, just accessed, that there would be very severe repercussions...as they were considered confidential, personal info.)

I’m biased and want the bad stuff out about the cons and not out about Dems, but that being said, I don’t fault the media for it because that’s what the Court has said is allowed.

I also don’t fault investigations into unauthorized leaks or unauthorized access.
 
If they do it legally I'm not sure what the problem is. I'm sure we would all do it as well. If there is a loophole that isn't fair, close it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Old_wrestling_fan
I’m biased and want the bad stuff out about the cons and not out about Dems, but that being said, I don’t fault the media for it because that’s what the Court has said is allowed.

I also don’t fault investigations into unauthorized leaks or unauthorized access.

I appreciate you admitting that you’re biased.
 
If they do it legally I'm not sure what the problem is. I'm sure we would all do it as well. If there is a loophole that isn't fair, close it.
Exactly. Don’t we all want to pay as little as possible each year? We hire tax preparers and accountants to find loopholes, even for us 99 percenters. Close the loopholes. It’s a different story if these people actually broke the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawkman98
I’m biased and want the bad stuff out about the cons and not out about Dems, but that being said, I don’t fault the media for it because that’s what the Court has said is allowed.

I also don’t fault investigations into unauthorized leaks or unauthorized access.
Thanks for the honest answer. I want all citizens to be able to trust that their private info is kept private. Whether it is college transcripts, financial data or even something like health information, when it is OK for some to leak, and then publicize, some stuff...where does that stop?

IMO, there should be repercussions for those that are found to be involved in this leak. I know that no one has stepped forward and admitted it...but I strongly suspect that the culprit(s) could be identified.
 
Thanks for the honest answer. I want all citizens to be able to trust that their private info is kept private. Whether it is college transcripts, financial data or even something like health information, when it is OK for some to leak, and then publicize, some stuff...where does that stop?

IMO, there should be repercussions for those that are found to be involved in this leak. I know that no one has stepped forward and admitted it...but I strongly suspect that the culprit(s) could be identified.
I guess I never heard this. What was the reason that Obama's transcripts were sought?
 
OK, let me ask this question...if anyone had say...divulged Barack Obama's college transcripts in the run up to the 2008 election, something that the Obama campaign was very motivated not to have out in the public eye, would you feel the same way?

(I ask because I know someone that worked at a place where these records would have possibly/probably been accessible to at least certain employees AND they were very strongly advised that should said records be accessed, not disseminated, just accessed, that there would be very severe repercussions...as they were considered confidential, personal info.)
The media doesn't get in trouble but the people who disseminate do. In your example the record keeper put another layer to try and persuade people from even looking at it.

In the tax case the person who took the records could face both criminal and civil penalties. In the Obama grades case, the civil punishments would fall under FERPA

It's like Grandy jury transcripts. They are secret and protected but if the media gets them they are free to publish. Thats how we found out about BALCO
 
I guess I never heard this. What was the reason that Obama's transcripts were sought?
Mainly embarrassment.

But you could make the argument school records show the ability to learn and remember information, which are certainly important in the role of president.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT