I wasn’t praising Ms. O’Connor’s job performance, but merely pointing out that historically the DOJ Tax Division heads have been well-grounded in tax law.

The fact that someone who is had extensive tax experience ends up doing a bad job as tax division head is irrelevant.

Unless you are suggesting that because we have past tax division heads who had significant tax backgrounds we should dispense with the requirement that future tax division heads have tax experience.

Of course, in order to support that recommendation you would first have to conclude that the conjunction of two independent events – the tax experience of Eileen O’Connor and her bad performance as Tax Division head – are somehow causally connected.

There is no evidence of that.

If Ms. O’Connor failed to do a good job as tax division head, basic principles of logic require that we conclude that her bad performance was in spite of her tax background and not because of it.

IRS-CI is nearly in shambles. Let’s wait to see how the POTUS messes that one up too.

Thanks for the comment.

I’m not sure I get the “IRS swindle” you are talking about.

Any links?

Now here is what the opponents to the appointment of Mary Smith to head the Tax Division at the Justice Department running scared:

“She had previously received a B.S., magna cum laude, in mathematics and computer science from Loyola University of Chicago”.

Having Mary Smith head the Tax Division at the Justice Department would be like having Harry Markopolos (B.S. Loyola College in Baltimore), the Madoff Ponzi Scheme whistleblower, working at the SEC. In his 60 Minutes interview Markopolos indicated that he had taken intergral and differential calculus, linear algebra, and normal and non-normal statistics.

Unlike prior assistant attorneys general that have headed the Tax Division at the Justice Department, Mary Smith would have no trouble recognizing the multi-billion fraud on the Treasury that has resulted from the exclusion of ALL taxes entered on lines 10 and 21 of Form 1040 from alternative minimum taxable income since 1988. See section 56(b)(1)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code and line 8 on Form 6251 (2008).

Also, there is IRS’s swindle of millions of taxpayer that has resulted from the inclusion of itemized deduction recoveries in the income based phase-out calculations of deductions, exclusions, exemptions, eligibilities, and credits in violations of section 111(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. This swindle goes back to at least 1980.

If a $500 state income tax refund in 2008 was added on line 10 of Form 1040 and then included in overlapping phase-outs of the Social Security benefit exclusion and the Hope Education Credit for two students per IRS instructions, the refund could have produced $472 (nominally)of tax on a taxpayer in the 15 percent tax bracket. Thus, it should be evident that something is seriously wrong with the instructions. BTW, the $500 used for the state income tax overpayment in 2007 could have yielded $369 of tax. So the total tax on $500 of real income could total $841.

Rants lack facts, arguments do not.

Eileen O’Connor had substantial tax experience, that is readily apparent and it is why I mentioned her.

She may have been a horrible Tax Division leader for all I know, but that is not the point.

The position requires knowledge of substantive tax law and Mary Smith doesn’t have that knowledge.

Thanks for your kind comments.

I think the appointment of Ms. Smith is more about cowtowing to special interest identity groups than it is about finding the best candidate for the job.

But Obama isn’t the only one who plays that game.

Like Tip O’Neil said, “politics ain’t bean bag.”

Abe

I meant bologna – - – fancy baloney.

From Wikipedia: Bologna can alternatively be made out of chicken, turkey, beef, or pork. It is commonly called bologna and often pronounced and/or spelled baloney.