IRS unable to produce emails to Congress
- Thread starter formersoldier71
- Start date
Many companies, such as the large international company I work for, very much limit how long corporate emails are saved on email servers and specifically prohibit pst files ( personal email storage) on servers for the exact purpose of making it impossible to pull up "old" emails from archive for the specific reason of of preventing opposing counsel from accessing email records. I'm in IT and I know for a fact this is our companies policies. They accept that the harm done by the emails far outweighs the possible proof of defense the emails might provide. Corruption reaches far and wide in private and government sectors.
I was with you until this final sentence. In my experience in the private sector, it is far more likely that opposing counsel will twist the most innocent of emails to his ambulance-chasing purposes than it is that "corruption" will exist in the company.
Internal IRS records disposition policy (which includes policy on email retention) is outlined in General Records Schedules (GRS), IRS Document 12829, Catalog 54713E and IRS Records Control Schedules (RCS), IRS Document 12990, Catalog 57910D in accordance with guidance provided by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
As with all things IRS, the maze of bureaucracy and regulations makes it near impossible to find those two documents (12829 and 12990) to nail down the specific retention schedule. But NARA is a tad bit more transparent in its guidance, giving ranges, to the best of my ability to discern, from 2 years to forever, with the vast majority of government record types legally required to be retained from 5 years to 7 years.
Whereas private business email retention is largely a matter left to the individual company and a function of risk vs. reward, official government email retention is a matter of law. And the IRS, regardless of its guilt or innocence with regard to slow-rolling conservative tax exemption applicants, is definitely guilty of failing to follow the law with regard to records retention and discovery.
As with all things IRS, the maze of bureaucracy and regulations makes it near impossible to find those two documents (12829 and 12990) to nail down the specific retention schedule. But NARA is a tad bit more transparent in its guidance, giving ranges, to the best of my ability to discern, from 2 years to forever, with the vast majority of government record types legally required to be retained from 5 years to 7 years.
Whereas private business email retention is largely a matter left to the individual company and a function of risk vs. reward, official government email retention is a matter of law. And the IRS, regardless of its guilt or innocence with regard to slow-rolling conservative tax exemption applicants, is definitely guilty of failing to follow the law with regard to records retention and discovery.
Last edited:
Yes, except for those few employees involved in the sale and administration of registered products.
These are government IT workers. So it really wouldn't surprise me, but yeah I'm going to call BS.
Also to the comment earlier that there is a 7yr retention requirement for email, that isn't my understanding. You keep them as long as your internal IT retention policy states. If your policy says 3 yrs, then it is 3 years. If e-discovery happens and they ask for 4 yr old emails, you just say you deleted the backup per your policy. If you don't have a policy, in effect you have to keep them forever.
i vehemently disagree. the esteemed administration has more of a "i didnt know about it until i saw it on the news" problem
Mixed with a bit of perhaps a problem of , "and what are you going to do about it, America? We're the freakin' government."
I wondered what had happened to him.
Steve never struck me as the kind of guy who would need a chief of staff, though.
I just thinking if obama was allowed to run again would he get elected again? After reading this thread at the corruption that surrounds him I just don't think it matters to at least 50 percent of Americans. They would vote for him no matter what.
Not a chance. He doesn't get elected in 08 or 12 without the white lib vote. Most libs I personally know attack him from the left - he's been more of the same when he promised fundamental change. If given a second chance, I think their vote goes to Hil, and almost certainly will in 16.
Well, he is as black now as he was in 2008, so yeah, I'd bet most O-bots would vote for him again without a second thought. And most likely, without a first thought.
Latest threads
-
SEC West Showdown Sends Alabama to Oxford to Meet with Ole Miss- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Davis II Named to Stopper of the Year Midseason Watch List
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Eleven-Run Third Powers Alabama to 14-5 Win over Samford
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 9
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 24
-