Talk:Mark W. Everson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

FOR SHAME!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.17.116.252 (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV material removed

I removed the following material:

Everson will leave a behind a record for failing to respect the due process rights of tens of thousands of taxpayers. Under Mr. Everson's watch in 2005, the IRS froze more than 120,000 citizens' tax refunds without notification, causing some taxpayers to not receive their tax refunds for over a year. Their property was seized without any legal proceedings and their basic constitutional rights were violated under Mr. Everson's leadership.

This is, of course, blatant non-neutral POV, and at least facially unsourced (and therefore unverifiable) as well. After I removed the material, I discovered that the user who inserted this material had apparently also inserted a citation at the bottom of the article, and had intended that source to apply to this verbiage -- but had failed to actually link the verbiage and the citation.

In any case, the material would need to be reworked before being returned to this article. I argue that the material might go under a section of "critique" of the person who is the subject of the article -- assuming the material does not violate the rules on neutral POV, verifiabilitiy, etc. Yours, Famspear 20:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with how the facts given are presented, you are welcome to attempt to edit them. But you appear to be performing a whitewash when (a) your biography states that you are a tax attorney who either works for Mr. Everson or whose professional existence depends on having a strong working relationship with Mr. Everson's employees and (b) you delete all of the material that is critical of Mr. Everson.

The speculation about what kind of record the he will leave behind is my opinion, but everything else is fact that is derived from that newspaper article and can be verified by other newspaper articles. Because the IRS will be using the same systems and processes this year as for the 2005 tax year, more persons tax refunds will be seized without notice or due process. But you probably don't have a problem with that... it's just more business for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.138.100 (talk • contribs) on 10 January 2007.

Dear reader at IP 70.174.138.100: You may want to consider reviewing the Wikipedia rules regarding neutral point of view and verifiability. Lots of Wikipedia articles on living persons include material that is "critical" of those individuals. But you cannot just say anything you want in a Wikipedia article, especially one on a living person. The statement that "Everson will leave a behind a record for failing to respect the due process rights of tens of thousands of taxpayers" is blatant non-neutral point of view, it is a legal conclusion, and it is unsourced. I'm sorry, but the link at the bottom of the article does not count, as a typical reader would not have known that this material was the source. An intelligent reader would ask: Who says that Everson leaves behind this "record"? Who says that "property was seized without any legal proceedings". What legal proceedings were required, and which ones were not followed? What "basic constitutional rights were violated under Mr. Everson's leadership"?
Yes, I have a problem with how the supposed facts given are presented - and I and other Wikipedia editors are under no obligation to edit this kind of defamatory material when it has been inserted in an article on a living person without any attempt at neutral point of view. This material is over the top. Rather than add citation tags, I deleted it. This is an article about a living person. Please read Wikipedia rules and guidelines.
You appear to be that arguing that I removed the material not because of the Wikipedia rules, but instead because I am a tax attorney "who either works for Mr. Everson or whose professional existence depends on having a strong working relationship with Mr. Everson's employees". I'm sorry, but Wikipedia rules require you to assume good faith. You also appear to be attacking my edits on the basis of the fact that I am a tax attorney, which is pretty close to a personal attack that might also violate Wikipedia rules.
Further, you apparently overlooked or ignored the statement on my user page that I represent taxpayers -- not the Internal Revenue Service. The implication you appear to be making -- without even knowing who I am -- is that as a Wikipedia editor (whose true identity is unknown to any IRS employees who happen to be reading) I somehow felt compelled to remove material critical of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue from a Wikipedia article because my "professional existence depends on having a strong working relationship with Mr. Everson's employees." Not only is that implication false, the argument is not worth much more than a giggle. Yours, Famspear 00:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't blame you for taking offense at being called a sellout. But the changes made to and the execution of the Questionable Refund Program are a part of Mr. Everson's legacy. The purpose of recording history is to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. And I hope these mistakes are not repeated in the future including this coming year.

If you haven't already guessed, I am one of the honest 66% of those 120,000 persons who was negatively impacted by the way the Questionable Refund Program was executed in 2005. My refund was frozen. I wasn't notified that there was a question about the integrity of the tax return that I filed. No legal proceedings were held before the IRS seized my refund. I had to request an audit and was treated like a tax cheat by even after I proved my innocence and finally received a favorable ruling. In short, I was denied my property without due process of law. Moreover, my integrity was unjustly called into question at a time when my integrity was one of the only things that I had. Not only did the IRS owe me my refund, Mr. Everson owes me a sincere apology.

Everson rationalizes his behavior by saying that 120,000 persons is only a small percentage of the taxpayers out there. I doubt that he could look at the honest 80,000 (66% X 120,000) of us whom he arbitrarily branded as criminals and tell us he did the right thing.

I am willing to stand corrected as it appears that the data mining software used in 2005 for the 2004 tax year might not be used for the 2006 tax year. With your more neutral stance, maybe you can represent these facts fairly. I hope that you will be willing to record the mistakes that were made under Everson's leadership in 2005 so that they won't be repeated. The Constitution says the citizens may not be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law. In 2005 and 2006, Mr. Everson violated my Constitutional rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.138.100 (talk • contribs) on 11 January 2007.

Dear user at IP 70.174.138.100: Thank you for your comments. Actually, I do not "take offense at being called a sellout," but thanks for the comment anyway.
That the "changes made to and the execution of the Questionable Refund Program are a part of Mr. Everson's legacy" may or may not turn out to be the case. I would assume without even thinking about it too long that Mr. Everson's "legacy" (whatever that will turn out to be) might properly be included in a Wikipedia article on him. How the information is presented, is however, important. The Wikipedia rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, No Original Research, etc., will apply to this article.
I do remember reading the news stories about this frozen tax refund situation, but I am not (yet) steeped in all the details. I have had clients with improperly frozen Federal income tax refund claims (some big dollar amounts, too), but not in connection with this particular situation you are describing.
I'm not sure whether this kind of information properly would go in this particular article or, alternatively, maybe in some other Wikipedia tax-related article. But in any case we have to follow Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Wikipedia is not primarily a cyberspace soapbox for righting perceived wrongs. That does not mean that I am personally making a judgment that the frozen refund issue should or should not be mentioned in a Wikipedia article one way or the other. It will take awhile, but I and perhaps other Wikipedia editors will try to get to this topic and see if it can be presented or expanded. Yours, Famspear 16:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)