Seal of the United States Internal Revenue Service. The design is the same as the Treasury seal with an IRS inscription. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
The complaint states that these medical
records had no relevance to the IRS search, and accuses the IRS agents
of seizing the documents against their wishes, and regardless of the objection and warnings of
company executives. The IRS agent’s conduct in the investigation is also being
questioned in the law suit, because of their casual use of the company’s offices to
watch basketball and eat pizza during their raid.
The law suit was filed by Barnes in the San Diego Superior court, and alleges that the IRS violated the privacy rules found in
the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA. Medical records were not the only private
items seized. According Nextgov.com, The agents also took personal mobile phones belonging to
employees.
The “John Doe Company” seeks $25,000 in
damages “per
violation per individual” who’s records were taken, the return of the documents, and government assurances that there will be no retained copies of the private material.
There is a second law suit being filed
against the IRS by the National
Organization for Marriage (NOM). NOM alleges that the IRS released confidential information from their 2008 tax
returns to their reform issue opponents: the Human Rights Campaign, who then posted
the information on their public website. The private information included a
donor list; among the donors was Mitt Romney.
Congressional Committee and Justice Department IRS investigations will continue in the following weeks on matters related to allegations that the IRS targeted conservative organizations in giving greater scrutiny when they applied for non profit exemption.
as seen on examiner.com
Congressional Committee and Justice Department IRS investigations will continue in the following weeks on matters related to allegations that the IRS targeted conservative organizations in giving greater scrutiny when they applied for non profit exemption.
as seen on examiner.com
No comments:
Post a Comment