Damage Control: Anatomy of a Cover-Up

By Gregory Boratgis

Damage Control: Anatomy Of A Cover-Up is a story of a brave individual who took on corruption within the IRS and lived to tell about it. Despite attempts to silence him, including an ad-hoc panel that enforced Soviet-style psychiatric fitness-for-duty examinations, the destruction of critical documents and a union empowered by management to beset him with reprisals, he survived to retire with honor and dignity.

• Language: English
• Publisher: BookBaby
• Release date: Oct 10, 2016
• ISBN: 9781483581965

Book preview

affair.

PROLOGUE

In the executive suite conference room, I confronted Group Chief Roberts, Branch Chief Nat Donato, who succeeded Pat Deo, who was promoted to Assistant Chief of Audit and Industrial Relations Representative Susan Young. Roberts handed me a memorandum and ordered me to read it in their presence.

September 14, 1979

To: Internal Revenue Agent Gregory Boratgis

In accordance with the procedures outlined in FPM Supplement 831-1, you are hereby instructed to report for a psychiatric Fitness For Duty examination.

If you wish, an appointment will be made for you at the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital. Alternatively, you may choose to be examined by a private physician. If you select this option, you must submit the names of three to five board-certified psychiatrists to the Regional Medical Officer, who will select a physician from that list, and an appointment will be made for you.

If you do not submit these names by September 21, 1979, we will assume you wish to be examined at the Public Health Service Hospital and an appointment will be made for you.

You must undergo this examination. Failure to comply with these instructions may lead to disciplinary action.

Before you undergo a psychiatric Fitness for Duty exam, you must have a representative. If you cannot obtain a representative, we will appoint a representative for you. If you have any questions, please feel free to consult me.

Signed: George Roberts

PART I: CORRUPTION

CHAPTER 1: FITNESS FOR DUTY

March 24, 1972

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (IRS) INSPECTION SERVICE completed my background investigation shortly before the probationary period expired. I had plenty of life experience and job history for the inspectors to investigate. A fellow employee had been fired for not disclosing he was a disbarred lawyer. I learned that two inspectors went door to door on the street where I lived with questions about my character and integrity.

Inspector Patricola: Everything in your job application checked out except one thing. You stated that in 1962 you resigned from Mosstype Corporation. They told us you did not resign. They fired you.

A false statement on the application could result in criminal penalties. Looking at the inspector, I said, They’re lying, and presented documents to prove it. Mosstype initially claimed I quit, which disqualified my claim for unemployment compensation. The disqualification was overruled on appeal because Mosstype made a material unilateral alteration of the contract of hire … claimant’s voluntary leaving of employment was with good cause. Shortly after the decision, I received a lump sum check for twenty-six weeks of unemployment compensation.

Resigning from Mosstype placed me in the 40-plus club of job seekers, with a negative reference from a powerful company that published a periodical distributed throughout the flexible packaging industry. Rising at 3:00 a.m., I drove two hundred and fifty miles for a job interview with Standard Packaging Corporation. I arrived on time but had to cool my heels for two hours, a bad sign. As I entered the executive’s office, he said, We are good friends of Mosstype. Any talk with you would be a waste of our time and a waste of your time. He offered neither apology nor the customary reimbursement for the expenses of my trip. My resignation from Mosstype had become a personal disaster.

I fought back without rancor or despair and learned to view the wreckage of my career in the packaging industry as an opportunity to use unemployed time to care for my mother in a time of need. Then I turned to the stock market, parlayed my limited means into a small fortune, and adopted a lifestyle of travel and private investment, which crashed in the bear market of 1970–71. To avoid liquidating investments at rock-bottom prices, I re-entered the job market with a resume degraded by the Mosstype experience.

I’d heard it said, The government is the employer of last resort. The Federal Service Entrance Examination qualified me for a variety of civil service careers, including that of management intern. The interview consisted of a group discussion among eight candidates about foreign aid for India during the Cold War. I said, Nehru is too involved with communist Russia; therefore, aid should be withheld until he supports America rather than the Russians. My comments were too simplistic for the career bureaucrats evaluating the candidates, mainly college students who ran with the ball like guests on a TV quiz show. One evaluator said successful candidates would have career paths to top management in agencies like the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the IRS, and the Small Business Administration and compared the agencies to large corporations like General Motors and IBM. The comparison seemed flawed because successful corporations thrived on competition in a free market, not on tax dollars.

I was grateful for the consolation prize of a Revenue Officer position in the IRS Collection Division and felt obligated to do my best work. Whenever the stock market recovered, I hoped to leave the IRS and return to my previous activities. Employees were invited to join a union called the National Association of Internal Revenue Employees (NAIRE). Personnel officials explained IRS labor policy and the law pertaining to the union. Employees were free to join or refrain from joining, and the union was prohibited from using coercion to recruit members. I decided not to join because I considered the job temporary and had no plans to seek promotions or special favors. Expectations about working in a peaceful environment were quickly shattered as union stewards descended upon me with warnings about trouble if I did not join. In the words of Union Steward Sol Borenstein, You’ll need the union when Inspection accuses you of taking a bribe. I considered the warning offensive and steadfastly refused to join during my probationary period. When badgering by the union stewards escalated to harassment and constant interruption of my work, under duress, I joined to get them off my back.

Revenue officers received formal training on the procedures for collecting taxes and closing tax delinquent account (TDA) cases, including instructions for using enforcement tools like liens, levies, and property seizures for sale at auction. In the words of one instructor, You will have more power than a judge. Restraint and humane treatment would prevent uncalled-for hardship on taxpayers entitled to due process, including Service Center and District Office notices, deferred payment agreements, and offers in compromise to settle accounts. Cases of unemployed individuals were placed in an uncollectable suspense file until the master file received information that an ability to pay was restored within a six-year statutory period for collection. Taxpayers who willfully evaded payment were fair game for enforcement. Statistics generated by enforcement activity were used for evaluating the job performance of managers and revenue officers. Aggressive use of statistics for self-promotion was an abuse of the system, and I was glad my manager did not engage in it.

Certified copies of the Rules of Conduct and classroom instructions covered prohibited activities and conflicts of interest at the IRS. Violation of the rules could result in suspension without pay or removal from the Service. In addition, a Code of Ethics for Government Service was widely displayed on bulletin boards and reproduced in training manuals. Article III of the traning manual, for example, stated, Give a full day’s work for a full day’s pay, giving earnest effort and best thought to the performance of duties. I felt comfortable with the Rules and Code of Ethics and did not imagine they might be trumped by any special interests of management or union.

Revenue officers hustled to complete and close their cases, with mornings devoted to paperwork in the office and afternoons to legwork in the field. Face-to-face meetings with taxpayers in all walks of life called for a balance of discretion, tact, and enforced collection. In 1972, the IRS implemented the Economic Stabilization Program (ESP) for price and rent controls with a staff of over two hundred in the Manhattan District, consisting of volunteers and draftees from the collection and audit divisions on six-month details. Some volunteered for the opportunity to transfer problem collection cases to other revenue officers. I did not volunteer, because of indications that ESP had degenerated into a boondoggle. Then one day, my manager, Manny Maggio, told me I had been drafted for ESP. I pleaded not to go because it would interrupt the momentum and learning curve I had going for me as a revenue officer. Maggio said, You have to go. It’s the law of the land. When your six months are up, you will be reassigned to this group (Group 29). My inventory of TDA cases was distributed to other members of the group, and I reported to the director of ESP, who stated that the new recruits for the detail would be returned to their respective groups after six months.

ESP had priority for the agency’s resources, including a large expanse of office space, desks, telephones, and a fleet of government cars. This huge imbalance between the allocated resources and assigned cases was a recipe for government waste. Managers on loan from the Audit and Intelligence Divisions supervised the ESP groups. The new recruits received no training and were expected to acquire whatever knowledge they needed by consulting with employees already in the program. Staff time was reported using an activity code rather than cases assigned, which reflected time for payroll purposes but offered no accountability for productivity. Socializing in the office became the principal activity, and managers reacted by enforcing a rule that everyone had to go into the field by 9:00 a.m., despite the shortage of workable cases. Revenue officers, in groups of five, shared autos for travel to the far reaches of Manhattan, the Bronx, Westchester County, and Staten Island, often in bad weather and heavy traffic. Typically, one or two individuals made business calls, with the others along in a makework mode for appearances, to comply with management orders to get out of the office. The two rent-control cases assigned to me required less than a week of actual work, which expanded to six months in terms of management’s use of resources. Every participant in the ESP boondoggle received a memorandum of commendation for a job well done.

During lunch breaks, many IRS employees congregated at the Merrill Lynch Information Center. One day, as I stood in line for my turn on the quote machine, a man appeared at my side and said, What does the Dow Jones average reaching a new high mean to you? He was talking about the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The date was November 10, 1972, three days after the presidential elections. I said, My investments are still depressed. It will take a long time for a real recovery. I believe President Nixon’s tight money policy in sixty-nine and seventy was the right thing to do, even though I lost sixty thousand dollars in the bear market that followed. There was too much speculation going on, and something had to be done to stop the feverish financial activity. As I spoke, he took notes for an article in the New York Post and requested my name and occupation. Under the heading, Stock Surge Sets A Record, he wrote, It’s a fantastic landmark. It’s historic, exclaimed Gregory Boratgis, who said he was an IRS Officer and a small investor. He added, I lost sixty thousand dollars in 1969, but I still feel Nixon did the right thing. Something had to be done to stop the feverish financial activity. The words fantastic landmark and historic were made up by the reporter. His interpretation of my comments contrasted sharply with another quotation in the article which said, in part, One investor, a civil service bank examiner who did not want his name used, said, ‘It shows that we have a President who is in favor of big business.’ The bank examiner said he voted for McGovern because he felt McGovern would be good for the little man and because he was opposed to Nixon’s war policies. ‘Big business is making millions today.’ I was dismayed that the reporter had distorted my comments about the stock market and used them to make a political statement with a left wing civil servant unwilling to give his name. Perhaps it was his job to polarize investment issues to make a political point. I disregarded warnings from friends that IRS management might punish me for the article.

As I languished in the ESP boondoggle, qualified IRS employees were invited to apply for the job of Special Agent in the Intelligence Division. I applied for the job hoping to escape from the environment of waste at ESP. At the interview, I faced a panel of two Intelligence Division group managers and a branch chief as they blurted out a barrage of questions and comments:

Why did you wait until you were so old to apply for law enforcement work?

Because of your age, I don’t know why you even bothered to apply for this job.

How do you feel about carrying a gun?

Because of your age, you will get the worst of all assignments, like long boring hours in bank vaults.

Because of your age, I would not send you on a seventeen-hour surveillance.

You will not be developed and promoted. In three years, your supervisor will be a twenty-three-year-old kid. And because you did not work as an accountant, we assume you have forgotten your accounting from college.

You are at an age when special agents are ready for retirement, and you will not survive to qualify for the retirement benefits offered to special agents.

I kept my cool while the rapid-fire questions crowded out my responses. I reported the panel’s behavior to Maggio, who advised me to Write everything down while it is fresh in your mind and get it notarized. Intelligence, for the panel, seemed to be a misnomer. I filed a complaint with the personnel department responsible for the job announcement, which resulted in a hastily called meeting with Union President Sol Katz and Union Attorney Peter Conroy Jr. When Conroy picked up a phone, I asked, Who are you calling? He replied, The Chief of Intelligence, to get you the job. I said, I don’t want the job anymore. Dripping with contempt, Conroy asked, What do you want, vengeance? I did not respond because the complaint seemed appropriate for the occasion, even as I looked into other opportunities to become a revenue agent. An evening course in accounting at Pace College provided the minimum credits required for the job.

Six months later, at the end of the ESP detail, I reported to Branch Chief Howard Helfand, as ordered, before returning to Group 29. When his secretary said she had no idea where Helfand might be contacted three hours after my arrival, I contacted Group Manager Maggio, who assigned some collection cases to me to work on. Two days later, I attended a luncheon for revenue officers who had completed the ESP detail. Several individuals at the luncheon had earlier attended the funeral for Joe Wittick of Group 27, who had died of a heart attack. The conversation was about Wittick’s boss, Jack Weiner, who reportedly told Wittick’s widow at the funeral, ‘There are some papers missing from your husband’s desk. Would you look around the house and let me know if you find them?"

After the luncheon, I learned that the report of Weiner’s callous behavior at Wittick’s funeral was a fact rather than mere gossip. Jack Weiner came to my desk and said, You are being transferred to my group; report to my office for instructions. As I faced Weiner across his desk, he said, I understand you are in some trouble. I responded, I know of no trouble, but if I am in trouble, I would like to know what kind of trouble I’m in. He continued, I heard that you have been taking time off from work to watch the stock market and that something was printed in the newspaper. You can tell me your side of the story. I replied, I’ve gone to the Information Center during my lunch breaks, as many others in this building have done, and I see nothing wrong with that. Weiner responded, Okay, let’s drop the subject.

Weiner explained his policy for revenue officers: to seize the property of delinquent taxpayers on the first contact in every case where the taxpayer did not make immediate full payment or show proof of payment. He emphasized, I don’t want you to just close a case; I want you to hurt the taxpayer. I could not live with such a policy. I told him that, in my training and experience as a revenue officer, emphasis was on the principles of fairness, firmness, and securing voluntary compliance. The purpose for seizing property was to protect the government’s interest, and in cases of employment taxes, to stop pyramiding. If the taxpayer shows his or her ability to maintain current payments while liquidating delinquent tax periods, deferred payment agreements should be used, as long as this approach is in the government’s best interest. If, however, the policy in his group is to seize property in all situations, I will try to reorient my thinking along those lines. My discourse about IRS policy did not move him.

Weiner gave me a stack of papers, which he identified as his workload review of the dead revenue officer, and said, It is a very bad review. You will see—he left his cases in terrible condition. I want you to take over his inventory and close all the cases using the instructions I have written in the review. There are some papers missing. I have asked Wittick’s wife to make a search for them. I was revolted but remained composed. I said, I would like to bring up the point that I have been given a firm commitment by Mr. Maggio that when my assignment in ESP was completed, I would return to Group 29. Management in ESP also promised the revenue officers that they would be returned to their groups. I believe consideration should be given to those promises and that I should at least have an opportunity to speak with Maggio before I am transferred. Weiner said, The decision will be negative, but it’s okay for you to talk to Maggio. I reported to Maggio, who said it was too late in the day to discuss my request with the branch chief but a response would be given the next day.

In the morning, I went to my desk in Group 29 to write my daily report and prepare my cases for transfer to other Group 29 revenue officers while waiting to hear from Maggio. Around 9:00 a.m., Weiner came to me and said, What are you doing here? Get over to my group. You are not supposed to be working here. I explained that I was waiting to hear from Maggio about a decision from the branch chief and that I had Group 29 cases to transfer. Weiner became loud and nasty, You’re going to have to work for me, so you better learn to get along with me. I replied, I feel that I am entitled to a hearing on the promises made by management. Also, yesterday you told me that I am in trouble. The conversation degenerated into an argument as Weiner reacted and said, I did not say trouble. I shot back, You did say trouble, and I spelled it out, T-R-O-U-B-L-E. Caught in a self-made trap, Weiner said, I told you to drop that. Sensing an advantage, I said, You raised it and you can drop it, but I feel that I deserve an explanation, and I will not drop it. Weiner began to stammer, Well, I heard rumors that … I interrupted him, What rumors, who? He responded sheepishly, Don’t you want to work for me? I replied, No, I don’t, because you made a serious charge against me, and you have taken part in a rumor that reflects on my integrity. He struggled to regain the advantage, You better drop this hostility because you are going to have to work for me. I advise you to learn to get along with me. I had the last word, If this conversation is going to continue, I want two responsible witnesses.

Upon Weiner’s departure, the revenue officers of Group 29 who witnessed the conversation surrounded me with moral support. The confrontation was an instant item of gossip in the IRS workplace, where news travels fast. Along came Union Steward Sol Borenstein, who said, You will have to go to Weiner’s group. Then came Branch Chief Howard Helfand and Group Manager Manny Maggio. Helfand, who became the branch chief while I was in ESP, said, What is the trouble? I told him that Weiner made a statement to me telling me that I am in trouble because I have taken time off from work to watch the stock market. I continued, Now he is harassing me while I am waiting for a decision about the promises made by management that I would return to Group 29. I will work wherever management requires me to work. Telling Weiner I don’t want to work for him is not insubordination, because it was in response to his question and justified by his behavior toward me. I understand the problem with Wittick’s cases, and I am willing to take those cases and close them in addition to the cases already assigned to me. A bit disconcerted, Helfand said, I don’t know if those cases can be transferred out of his group. I will try to find out if that is possible. You are not in any trouble, and you can stay in Group 29. Weary of the overused word trouble, anger crept into my voice as I said, I know I’m not in trouble.

I believed Weiner’s intimidating statements were made in the conduct of official business, therefore representing a management decision at the branch level, if not higher. Helfand’s reversal of the decision to transfer me to Weiner’s group would protect management from the onus of an unfair labor practice; however, it created an appearance that I had done something wrong and received favorable treatment. I wanted a retraction or at least an apology to remove that impression of me in the image-conscious agency.

Sol Borenstein came over to claim credit for the union. Your name was picked out of a hat to go to Weiner’s group, but you can chalk one up for the union that you are allowed to stay in your group. I told him that I believed I was entitled to a retraction or an apology for Weiner’s statements. Borenstein responded, Let it alone. You’ll gain nothing by it. If management upstairs hears about it, they will want to know where you got the sixty thousand dollars to lose, and that will bring in the special agents. The only thing to do is to wait for the next Grade 11 list to come up, and the union will fight your case for promotion at that time. At one point, he muttered that the union had once saved Weiner’s job. Strange words from an advocate of the rank-and-file employees and out of order since the union had no role in nullifying my transfer to Weiner’s group.

Borenstein’s off-the-wall remarks about the sixty thousand dollars and special agents indicated that there was more to the incident than met the eye and suggested that perhaps a little witch-hunting activity was being conducted by management and union. The sixty thousand dollar paper loss was fully accounted for in the financial statement filed with my job application, which listed investments at cost rather than the depressed current values. Any wrongdoing would be a job for Inspection, not the special agents.

At the time of the New York Post article, my broker informed me that an inspector visited his office to review my accounts. Borenstein reiterated his admonition on several occasions to drop the matter and the promise of a union fight to secure a promotion when the next Grade 11 list is made up. Each time he said it, I cited a section of the union contract that said, Management will respect the dignity of employees.

I was determined to pursue the matter. Several of my friends offered sincere advice. Tom Wright, for example, said, Don’t be a rebel without a cause. Maggio said, Greg, this is only a gut feeling you have. The best way to fight it is to do the kind of work you are capable of doing. However, my instinct to fight back was aroused and would not be reversed.

Mr. Shaw of the personnel office called for a hearing with Branch Chief Helfand and Group Manager Maggio. Alan Richards attended the hearing as an observer for the union, according to terms of the contract. My request was straightforward. Weiner’s statements, which were made during the conduct of official business, should be officially retracted. Helfand responded that the statements were made in a one-on-one situation, and as long as they were not publicly made, there was no slander involved. I did not buy his argument, as a matter of principle. I said, Individuals in Weiner’s group were present as he spoke. In any case, the statements were made during the conduct of official business. Therefore, they represent the views of management and prejudice my chances for being treated fairly by management. I want an official retraction. Helfand responded, I know Jack Weiner very well. He might have read the newspaper article, and you may have mistaken his remarks for rumors when it was actually his firsthand observation. Helfand left himself wide open for rebuttal.

I said, Mr. Weiner made it clear that he did not see the article. There is no question that his statements are related to a conversation with a third party. Did you read the article? Helfand replied, Yes, I read it on the train the day it was printed. I also had a conversation with a business commuter that morning who told me that it made the IRS look bad. I followed up, Did you discuss the article with Mr. Weiner before he made his statements to me? Helfand replied, I might have. In his zeal to protect Weiner, Helfand conditionally confessed to his own involvement. I pressed on, saying, I want an official retraction of Mr. Weiner’s statements because they were made in an official capacity, not on a personal basis, and they therefore represent the views of management. I also believe that I should be transferred to another branch. Taken aback, Helfand said, What does the branch have to do with something that happened in a group? I replied, Because the decision, in which I was to be transferred to Mr. Weiner’s group without notice to my supervisor, Mr. Maggio, was made at the branch level. Mr. Weiner made his statements in an official capacity as a result of the authority given to him by the branch chief.

Meetings to resolve the grievance dragged on for five days, from Monday to Friday, with two-hour meetings in the mornings followed by me typing my notes up from the meetings in the afternoons. It was difficult for me to understand why management would allocate so much time to spin an issue in their favor rather than face the truth and make a prompt decision one way or the other.

As I typed my notes at my desk one day, a revenue officer named Demetrios came over to me and said, Greg, why are you filing a grievance? Don’t do it. If you file a grievance, you will never be promoted. I resented the intrusion and asked, How do you know I’m involved in a grievance? He replied, I was in the branch chief ’s office and I heard someone talking on the telephone. The story did not ring true, and he was obviously running an errand for the branch chief. On another occasion, Jerry Freda sat beside me as I was typing and the branch chief passed by. Jerry said, Boy, he sure gave me a dirty look. I don’t give a damn, because you are my friend.

Weiner appeared at the second meeting. Helfand said, You misinterpreted the meaning of Mr. Weiner’s words. It became an argument because you misunderstood and overreacted to his words, but he will apologize for any misunderstanding. I did not accept Helfand’s interpretation of the issue, and I reminded him that my score on the Federal Service Entrance Examination shows that I would not misunderstand or overreact to Weiner’s words. I do not think it is fair for you to interpret my objections to Mr. Weiner’s statements as an argument. At this point, Weiner interjected that he did not make all of the statements I said he made and claimed that I did not say to him, If this conversation is going to continue, I want two responsible witnesses. Helfand intoned, This is a one-on-one situation, forgetting his previous day’s testimony that he might have been the source for Weiner’s statements. I said, I believe I should be allowed to state my case under oath with a lie detector test, and I am prepared to do that. Helfand replied, That is not necessary. I continued, I think it should be done because you are conducting this hearing as Mr. Weiner’s advocate, and you are conducting yourself with me as an adversary. Did you discuss the article with Mr. Weiner before he made his statements? Helfand repeated his response from the previous day, saying again, I might have, and continued, I will try to get you transferred to another branch, but I can tell you that you cannot run away from your problem. It will go with you. You must understand that I cannot make a unilateral decision to do this because it involves negotiating an agreement between the two branch chiefs involved. This can be done, and I believe Branch Chief Zarouches owes me a favor. Perhaps I can get him to agree to take you.

I was not about to become a pawn in a favor between two branch chiefs, especially after being warned with a veiled threat that the problem created in Helfand’s branch would follow me to another branch. I said, You can move my body from one branch to another, but that does not solve anything if it is done in a way that stigmatizes me because of your decisions and Mr. Weiner’s statements. I am not running away from anything. It seems you are raising the issue of a transfer with a stigma. I don’t want you to engage in negotiations where you will circulate my name among the supervisors in the Collection Division in a derogatory way. I believe the decision should be made by an impartial person in a higher position of authority.

My appeal to the chief of the Collection Division was based on my notes from the five branch-level meetings, including Helfand’s pre-judgmental comment, I’m going to show you. You have no complaint. My arguments included, If he believed that I showed bad judgment when I spoke with the reporter after seeing the article in the paper and if he felt that the article made the IRS look bad, which he agreed with in his statement about his conversation with a stranger on a train, why did he fail to talk to me about it face-to-face? How could he make a final judgment without all the facts? How could he be swayed by the loose talk on the train? I can cite hundreds of cases where the general public expresses frustration and criticism of the IRS. The taxpayer service telephones in the office branch can prove this; but at all times, wherever I encounter criticism of the IRS, I try to do the best job I can. I always defend the IRS. I understand that it is my responsibility to do my job and to conduct myself off the job in a manner that always wins respect for the agency and myself as an individual. I believe that I am entitled to an honorable transfer to another branch.

Helfand’s response to my appeal was stated in a memorandum to Union Observer Alan Richards:

I received a six-page statement from Revenue Officer Boratgis on March 26, 1973, in which he alleges a violation of Article 3, Section 1 of the NAIRE/IRS Multi-Unit Agreement. Since the alleged violation took place on February 7th or 8th, the fifteen-day period allowed for filing a grievance has passed, and I will not consider the allegation. However, due to the feelings of the Revenue Officer, I will recommend to the Chief of the Collections Division that Mr. Boratgis be reassigned to Field Branch B.

Citing the fifteen-day escape clause and reducing the issue to the employee’s ‘feelings’ did not change the fact that this was an unfair labor practice. The point I wanted to make by filing the grievance would be achieved at the Division level.

For the appeal hearing, Helfand, Richards, and I reported to the Assistant Chief of Collection, Terry Hall. I instinctively trusted Hall to do the right thing, and I was not disappointed. Wasting no time, he informed me that I would be transferred to another branch without prejudice. Helfand, seated nearby, glumly chewed on his pipe. Residual anger moved me to say, This whole affair is a vicious outrage. Hall laughed, shook my hand, and escorted me to the elevator. Richards said my outburst almost caused Helfand to swallow his pipe. On reflection, I regretted Helfand’s trip to the woodshed.

My new group manager, Mike Dallas, helped to restore my sense of job satisfaction and work ethic. As I pursued the accounting course at Pace and submitted my application for the revenue agent position, a strange letter from the District personnel office instructed me to report for an interview for a special agent position, a bureaucratic snafu in the making. My name was placed on a list of candidates from the Civil Service Commission, which was requested by the Intelligence Division.

The Civil Service Commission should have been notified to remove my name from the list when the IRS hired me two years earlier. I decided to play the game, so I reported for the interview. The ill-at-ease panel of two Intelligence Division group managers was constrained from playing the age discrimination card. I spoke first, after an embarrassing silence, and leveled with them about my application for the revenue agent job. One panelist said, Well, which job do you want? I replied, revenue agent. He replied, If you prefer the revenue agent job, why don’t you withdraw this application so we won’t have to evaluate you? I responded, My first choice is revenue agent. My second choice is special agent. I want you to evaluate me and offer me the job if I am qualified. Then I’ll decide which job to take. I spoke tongue-in-cheek, perhaps to even the score a bit after the previous disgraceful interview."

The panelists covered their behinds in typical bureaucratic fashion. On the day of my transfer to the Audit Division, Personnel requested that I sign a release, which stated, Since I have accepted the job of revenue agent, I withdraw my application for the job of special agent.

One year later, the Intelligence Division changed its name to the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) and established an age limitation for hiring special agents.

I departed the Collection Division with a solid record of achievement. I never refused to accept problem cases they asked to transfer from other revenue officers, and I solved legally complex problems with the lawyers at District Counsel. Some cases involved research of obscure and rarely used sections of the Collection Manual and the development of facts to obtain District Counsel approval for the transferee seizure of assets in flagrant cases which were otherwise beyond the government’s reach. Other cases with District Counsel participation involved coordination with other government agencies. In one case, I initiated advice to alert the Small Business Administration to file a claim for recovery on a defaulted loan, which intercepted an erroneous refund. In another case, with Department of State approval through District Counsel, a sensitive issue was resolved without causing an international incident. With respect to the seizure of taxpayers’ property, I practiced forbearance.

The transfer to the Audit Division entailed a voluntary reduction in grade, which cancelled my two promotions in the Collection Division, a minor consideration compared to becoming a revenue agent. I was assigned