{"id":14646,"date":"2024-06-12T02:00:07","date_gmt":"2024-06-11T23:00:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/?p=14646"},"modified":"2024-06-12T02:00:07","modified_gmt":"2024-06-11T23:00:07","slug":"how-the-irs-went-soft-on-billionaires-and-corporate-tax-cheats-icij","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/?p=14646","title":{"rendered":"How the IRS went soft on billionaires and corporate tax cheats – ICIJ"},"content":{"rendered":"

M<\/span>ichael Welu worked at the IRS for decades as a specialist in helping agents identify and investigate possible tax crimes. In an agency known for offices working in their own silos, Welu had the rare ability to move between divisions, dissecting and learning each office\u2019s particular customs and procedures. But that experience had its own consequence for Welu: Seeing disparities in how the separate divisions treated different tiers of taxpayers left him exasperated and helped drive him into early retirement.
\nFor more than 30 years, Welu watched the agency struggle with budget cuts and dwindling staff. What troubled Welu, he says, went deeper than just resource constraints.
\nDuring his time at the IRS, he says, upper management in the division tasked with auditing large corporations and ultrawealthy people \u2014 the Large Business and International Division \u2014 was quick to dismiss any suggestion that a powerful taxpayer may have committed a crime, and commonly discouraged frontline agents from pursuing big cases. This stood in deep contrast to the office that policed small businesses and self-employed people, which was empowered to \u2014 as Welu saw it \u2014 take an appropriately firm stance toward taxpayers breaking the law, even if they were dealing with far smaller dollar amounts.
\n\u201cI was putting butchers, bakers and candlestick makers in jail, but the big stuff we really wanted to go after was being ignored,\u201d Welu told the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. \u201cIt could be the most egregious, ridiculous scheme and they were just not interested.\u201d<\/p>\n

Former IRS agent Michael Welu at his home in Iowa. Image: Stephen Mally \/ ICIJ <\/span> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In 2022, Congress approved a Biden administration proposal to give the IRS $80 billion to improve customer service and strengthen its efforts to enforce tax law on wealthy individuals and large corporations. President Joe Biden has repeatedly pledged that under his administration the IRS will use its new money to target illegal tax schemes by these high-end taxpayers, who are believed to do an outsize portion of tax cheating.
\nICIJ found that the agency will need more than new funding to fulfill the president\u2019s promise. The IRS\u2019s Large Business and International Division, or LB&I, takes a comparatively light approach toward the country\u2019s most powerful taxpayers, according to a review of records and interviews with current and former agents. In the agency\u2019s own comments to ICIJ, the IRS suggested that large corporations break the law less often than other types of businesses. ICIJ found that the agency treats these powerful taxpayers accordingly.
\nNew data obtained by ICIJ shows that over the past five years, LB&I flagged no more than 22 instances of possible tax crimes for the agency\u2019s criminal investigators to review further \u2014 out of trillions of dollars in annual income from large corporations and ultrawealthy people that the office oversees. During the same five years, the IRS office that covers small businesses and self-employed people flagged roughly 40 times more possible crimes, sending criminal investigators 848 referrals. This office is larger than LB&I and deals with easier cases, but many of the individuals and businesses it audits deal in dollar amounts too small to be considered for a criminal referral.
\nThe IRS\u2019s civil divisions, which make up the vast majority of the agency\u2019s workforce, are supposed to flag egregious tax cheating cases for potential prosecution from the volumes of returns they process and audit. The comparatively small number of referrals from LB&I has frustrated officials within the Criminal Investigation Division, who say they\u2019re often unsupported in identifying cases involving the biggest taxpayers.<\/p>\n

I was putting butchers, bakers and candlestick makers in jail, but the big stuff we really wanted to go after was being ignored.<\/strong>
\u2014 former IRS agent Michael Welu<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In response to questions from ICIJ, the IRS said that comparing criminal referrals between divisions is misleading, adding that LB&I conducts \u201cthe most complex audit situations the IRS faces, and there are unique circumstances around each examination.\u201d
\nThe agency said that large corporations generally have a limited ability to commit crimes, since they are audited by independent accounting firms and often have disclosure requirements. It said that LB&I ensures its agents have the training and resources to identify tax crimes and make referrals when necessary. The agency emphasized that it \u201cis in a period of transition\u201d and that it takes time to hire staff and strengthen its capabilities in the most complex areas of tax enforcement.<\/p>\n

Welu and other agents said LB&I is not a monolith; some offices and managers within the division are more willing to stand up to high-income earners than others. Current and former agents pointed to various reasons for the office\u2019s unique approach, including a separate set of audit rules and a sort of learned helplessness from years of fierce pushback by wealthy taxpayers amid government budget cuts. The movement of IRS officials in and out of the major accounting firms that represent big taxpayers has also raised questions of fair treatment.
\nWhatever the ultimate explanation, Welu and several current IRS agents told ICIJ that LB&I\u2019s enforcement style encourages continuous egregious behavior by the most well-heeled taxpayers, who know the office will almost certainly not elevate reports of tax dodging to criminal investigators. A Treasury Department inspector general has opened an inquiry into whether LB&I gives large corporations preferential treatment, according to people with knowledge of the matter.
\nTax evasion by the ultrarich is a key element in Oxfam International\u2019s recent forecast that the world will soon see its first trillionaire. Experts say the U.S.\u2019s failures to address high-end tax evasion have contributed to worsening global inequality.
\n\u201cNormal taxpayers are scared of the IRS \u2014 they fear real consequences,\u201d one current LB&I agent, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told ICIJ. \u201cThese highly wealthy people, it\u2019s more like a game to them.\u201d<\/p>\n

Different rules for the wealthiest<\/h2>\n

LB&I is the most important office in the IRS\u2019s \u2014 and President Biden\u2019s \u2014 commitment to ensure billionaires and multinational corporations pay their fair share. The IRS says the amount of U.S. taxes left uncollected could exceed $600 billion per year. And the Treasury Department, the IRS\u2019s parent agency, has estimated that wealthy people commit an outsize share of tax evasion. As of 2019, the top 1% of Americans were estimated to be responsible for 28% of the \u201ctax gap\u201d \u2014 defined as the difference between taxes that are owed and collected. This number added up to an estimated $163 billion annually.
\nLB&I is seen as an elite office within the IRS and a destination for more experienced and sophisticated agents. The office has 5,700 employees. LB&I is leading a new push to improve oversight of investment partnerships, like hedge funds and private equity firms, that alone account for trillions of dollars in income each year and are known to operate in gray areas of tax law to provide substantial benefits to their investors.
\nLB&I agents who want to audit such elite taxpayers effectively have a difficult job. They not only must be excellent accountants but also must have knowledge of arcane corners of tax law, investigative skills and experience in financial forensics. Caseloads are often heavy, and incentives can tilt toward closing audits quickly. When agents find evidence of serious cheating, the easier win is to nudge a taxpayer to pay the government its owed tax rather than attempt to add on civil or criminal penalties. A 2019 report by the IRS\u2019s inspector general examined dozens of cases where LB&I officials declined to impose civil penalty fees on taxpayers who had underpaid the agency by more than $10,000. Even when auditors find an egregious case, they may decide against crafting a criminal referral \u2014 known internally as a fraud referral \u2014 which can add significant time to an audit for an uncertain future payoff.
\nWelu and other current and former agents argue that this has been happening more than it should. The office, agents say, has established a soft playbook around reporting possible crimes that gives high-end taxpayers confidence that, if they\u2019re audited, the highest cost of getting caught cheating will amount to little more than paying the taxes they owed in the first place. Although federal agents frequently deal with a degree of confrontation, it\u2019s often discouraged at LB&I by timid managers and gun-shy attorneys, according to current and former agents.<\/p>\n

Michael Welu holds an IRS-branded mug and wears a custom IRS ring he had made after his retirement. Image: Stephen Mally \/ ICIJ <\/span> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Obtaining information about income, deductions and money movements is crucial for building a tax case. Although IRS agents have the power to send legally binding demands for information \u2014 known as summonses \u2014 LB&I agents issue comparatively few of them, instead relying more on information requests that do not carry the force of law, according to current and former agents. Unlike with these softer requests, a taxpayer who ignores a summons can be criminally prosecuted. A half-dozen current and former IRS agents told ICIJ that LB&I agents can go their whole careers without sending a summons.
\nAn agent within LB&I, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, described an office culture averse to summonses. He said that as a new agent wanting to take a more forceful posture toward suspected tax cheats, he found little help. \u201cWhen I asked around about how to craft a summons, no one was familiar with it,\u201d he said. \u201cI was asking experienced agents who had been there for a while and it was something they hadn\u2019t done.\u201d
\nThe agent said managers within LB&I appear to fear that issuing a summons would upset the esteemed lawyers and accountants representing the country\u2019s wealthiest taxpayers.
\nIn one publicly reported instance, an auditor in LB&I\u2019s Global High Wealth unit who merely mentioned the possibility of a summons while auditing a billionaire was forced to apologize after the billionaire\u2019s representatives complained to the IRS, according to ProPublica.<\/p>\n

Welu says the reluctance to issue summonses generally came from the higher levels of management. Welu would attempt to overcome this resistance by preparing a united front of lower-level attorneys to support taking steps like sending a summons for bank records or compelling a taxpayer to be interviewed by agents, he says.
\n\u201cIt\u2019s standard practice in Small Business [and Self-Employed Division], and they don\u2019t think twice about it,\u201d Welu told ICIJ. \u201cBut in LB&I, oh my god, I\u2019d have to round up a coalition of support. I\u2019d have to pave the road.\u201d
\nICIJ found that LB&I\u2019s written rules impose layers of restrictions on issuing summonses, compared with the Small Business and Self-Employed Division.<\/p>\n

Other people don\u2019t get those protections \u2026 It\u2019s only large corporations and the wealthiest individuals.<\/strong>
<\/em>\u2014 Nina Olson, former IRS national taxpayer advocate<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

These extra steps for LB&I agents include sending two warnings to taxpayers who have not complied with a voluntary information request before sending a summons, according to agents and an ICIJ examination of the IRS handbook. LB&I auditors are also required to, at the outset of an audit, share an audit plan with taxpayers, allow them to suggest changes to the impending audit, and request they sign the plan.<\/p>\n

Nina Olson, former IRS taxpayer advocate and now executive director at the Center for Taxpayer Rights, speaks during a Senate Finance Subcommittee hearing in Washington, D.C., in 2021. Image: Sarah Silbiger\/Bloomberg via Getty Images <\/span> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Nina Olson, who served for 18 years as the IRS\u2019s national taxpayer advocate, tasked with ensuring the fair treatment of taxpayers, says that LB&I\u2019s audit steps provide powerful actors with more information earlier that they can use to defend themselves. \u201cLB&I has a bespoke audit process,\u201d Olson, who left the IRS in 2019, told ICIJ. \u201cWith LB&I, you get a custom-made suit. With the Small Business and Self-Employed Division, you get it off the rack whether it fits you or not.\u201d
\nWhile at the IRS Olson tried unsuccessfully to get the small business division to adopt the extra steps taken in LB&I audits, which she says provides taxpayers a greater level of transparency and due process.
\n\u201cOther people don\u2019t get those protections,\u201d Olson said. \u201cIt\u2019s only large corporations and the wealthiest individuals.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2018An ingrained culture\u2019<\/h2>\n

One of the most recent examples of the U.S. government at least attempting to pursue a multinational corporation for alleged tax crimes was a major investigation into manufacturing giant Caterpillar, which used aggressive offshore maneuvers to avoid hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. In 2017, federal agents, including IRS criminal investigators, raided three Caterpillar facilities in Illinois. But the following year, the criminal investigation was abruptly halted amid circumstances now under investigation by two Democratic U.S. senators. The senators are seeking information on possible political interference in the investigation by lawyers hired by Caterpillar, which included William Barr, who served as President George H.W. Bush\u2019s attorney general and would later hold the same post under President Donald Trump.
\nLB&I did refer Caterpillar to IRS criminal investigators, but it did so only after the Criminal Investigation Division notified LB&I that it had opened its own inquiry into the corporation\u2019s possible tax dodges, according to two longtime IRS agents familiar with the case.<\/p>\n

U.S. Internal Revenue Service special agents enter the Caterpillar Inc. headquarters in Peoria, Illinois, U.S., in March 2017. Image: Daniel Acker\/Bloomberg via Getty Images <\/span> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s Caterpillar \u2014 LB&I had been auditing them forever. How could they have missed these issues?\u201d a supervisory agent within the Criminal Investigation Division told ICIJ on the condition of anonymity. \u201cIt was just an instance of CYA,\u201d the agent said of LB&I\u2019s referral, using the acronym for \u201ccover your ass.\u201d
\nIn statements to ICIJ, the agency defended LB&I, emphasizing\u00a0 that its cases are extremely complex and said that \u201cthere are major differences between a large international corporation and any other for-profit enterprise.\u201d
\n\u201cThe accounting profession operates under a professional code of conduct as well as under the purview of oversight review boards outside of the IRS related to the preparation of certified audited financial statements,\u201d IRS spokesperson Robyn Walker told ICIJ in a written statement. \u201cThese internal controls and checks and balances generally limit the opportunity for criminal activity. Instead, noncompliance for this population often presents itself in the form of disputes between the IRS and the taxpayers as to whether a taxpayer\u2019s position is consistent with laws and regulations.\u201d
\nA key part of the IRS\u2019s mission is to enforce U.S. tax laws. Tax crime investigations and prosecutions allow the agency to show that cheating carries consequences \u2014 and thus persuade taxpayers to voluntarily comply with the law.
\nICIJ reviewed data showing small numbers of cases that LB&I flags as potential crimes to investigate. Last year, the office flagged just seven instances of possible crimes to investigate further \u2014 the most since 2017, when it flagged eight.<\/p>\n

Those are ridiculous numbers \u2026 In my experience, it\u2019s an ingrained culture where they don\u2019t like to serve summonses.<\/strong>
\u2014 former IRS agent Don Fort<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That\u2019s seven cases of possible crimes among all of the large corporations and ultrawealthy people that the office oversees. Last year, Fortune 500 companies brought in $18 trillion in combined revenue, and trillions of dollars more flowed through the investment partnerships favored by the ultrawealthy.
\nThe low number of referrals from LB&I has left investigators in the agency\u2019s criminal division frustrated.<\/p>\n

Former IRS criminal investigation chief Don Fort. Image: Andrew Harrer\/Bloomberg via Getty Images <\/span> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\u201cThose are ridiculous numbers,\u201d Don Fort, a longtime IRS agent who led the Criminal Investigation Division before leaving in 2020, told ICIJ of LB&I\u2019s referrals. \u201cIn my experience, it\u2019s an ingrained culture where they don\u2019t like to serve summonses, they don\u2019t like to do fraud referrals.\u201d
\nThe sources of investigations opened by the IRS\u2019s criminal investigators between 2014 and 2020 illustrate the small role LB&I plays in the agency\u2019s criminal cases. During that period, according to the referrals data reviewed by ICIJ, LB&I sent criminal investigators no more than 40 fraud referrals. In comparison, according to a separate dataset, the IRS opened roughly 260 times as many criminal investigations from information it received from federal agencies outside the IRS, including federal prosecutors. The agency opened nine times as many criminal investigations from reading news stories.
\nICIJ acquired this additional data regarding the sources of criminal investigations from Robert Warren, a former IRS agent and assistant professor of accounting at Radford University in Virginia. Warren says that over the past 13 years, IRS criminal investigators have spent only a fraction of their time pursuing cases primarily related to tax crimes. Instead the investigators frequently chase cases such as drug crimes, cryptocurrency schemes and money laundering. Warren says this is a distraction from the agency\u2019s core mission. Many IRS criminal investigators are uninterested in chasing tax crimes due to a perceived reluctance of prosecutors to issue indictments and the generally light punishments that tax convictions often fetch, he says.
\n\u201cIf they can put in the same amount of work on a case that gets a higher rate of return, they\u2019re going to go with the higher rate of return,\u201d Warren told ICIJ.
\nIn 2020, then-IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig oversaw the establishment of the Office of Fraud Enforcement, which helps the civil divisions develop tax fraud cases. Rettig told ICIJ that when he arrived at the agency, he was shocked to discover only 7% of the IRS\u2019s criminal investigations had come from the civil divisions, which include LB&I. \u201cTo me, the civil side isn\u2019t doing their job if they\u2019re out there and\u201d can\u2019t detect possible tax crimes, Rettig said.
\nOlson, the former IRS taxpayer advocate, expressed concern about where the fraud enforcement office fell in the IRS\u2019s organizational chart: within the Small Business and Self-Employed Division. She worries that this may send the message that the IRS is more interested in finding crimes among less powerful taxpayers. \u201cIt should be a separate operational unit,\u201d Olson told ICIJ.<\/p>\n

Damon Rowe, a career IRS criminal investigator who ran the fraud enforcement office until retiring from the agency in 2022, disagreed, saying the office\u2019s place did not bias it in favor of any one division.
\nRowe told ICIJ that while the office saw plenty of potential criminal cases coming from the small business division, he sensed a cultural aversion within LB&I to flagging possible crimes among corporations and the ultrawealthy. His inability to meaningfully lift LB&I\u2019s criminal referral numbers remains a major regret from his time running the fraud enforcement office, he says.
\n\u201cI get that these cases are hard, but that doesn\u2019t mean that they shouldn\u2019t try,\u201d Rowe said. \u201cIf LB&I believes there\u2019s an infraction, they\u2019re more willing to work it out with the taxpayer rather than call over a fraud enforcement agent to take a look.\u201d
\nThe Treasury Department\u2019s Inspector General for Tax Administration has apparently taken notice of LB&I\u2019s differing approach. The watchdog opened an investigation in 2022 to determine whether the division gives large corporations preferential treatment, according to sources familiar with the inquiry.
\nIn an email, the inspector general told ICIJ that the inquiry is ongoing and that its report on the matter should be released by the end of this fiscal year. The office did not elaborate further.<\/p>\n

Activists staged a series of photos in New York in 2021 calling for more equitable taxation legislation. Image: Erik McGregor\/LightRocket via Getty Images <\/span> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The IRS\u2019s \u201crevolving door\u201d<\/h2>\n

Officials interviewed for this story pointed to numerous contributors to LB&I\u2019s comparatively light approach, and not everyone agreed on the causes. In addition to the division having to follow more cumbersome rules, current and former agents cited a culture of acquiescence after being beaten down for years by wealthy taxpayers and their high-priced accountants and lawyers. The representatives of these people and corporations often seek to gain an advantage by accusing IRS agents of breaking protocols or laws, and have enlisted lawmakers to attack the agency\u2019s enforcement actions.
\nOne current LB&I agent, however, disagreed that culture plays any role, saying his managers supported him taking a firm stance toward big taxpayers. The agent, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said it was insufficient resources \u2014 not timidity \u2014 that caused the office to shy away from taking a hard line on egregious tax dodging. He described a case in recent years in which an LB&I manager declined to advance any criminal investigation involving a major tax dodge by a wealthy individual. The agent described the case as a \u201cdead bang\u201d \u2014 in terms of easily proving criminal intent.
\n\u201cIt pissed me off,\u201d the agent said of his office declining to refer the case to criminal investigators. \u201cIt was because we didn\u2019t have enough people to chase it.\u201d
\nEvery current and former IRS official interviewed for this story said leadership is key in setting the tone for how LB&I approaches the most powerful taxpayers. Some agents expressed concerns about the seeming friendliness and familiarity of LB&I managers with the representatives of taxpayers under audit.<\/p>\n

It undermines trust in government and our tax system when IRS employees go back and forth between government service and lucrative jobs with big accounting firms and other giant corporations<\/strong>
\u2014 Senator Elizabeth Warren<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Some agents, as well as legislators and watchdog groups, singled out the prevalence of high-ranking officials at the IRS who previously worked for the major accounting and law firms that go head-to-head with LB&I every day. A closely related concern is the prevalence of former IRS agents and managers who went on to represent rich people and large corporations. In many cases, these former IRS agents and executives bring the arguments of wealthy taxpayers directly to IRS officials they know well as friends and former colleagues.
\nLast August, the IRS\u2019s watchdog, the Treasury\u2019s Inspector General for Tax Administration, released a report warning that the movement of employees between the IRS and accounting firms and big companies raises \u201cimpartiality concerns.\u201d The report identified no direct correlation between the employees\u2019 work assignments and the companies they came from or left the agency for. But it found that nearly 500 employees in LB&I, the Office of Chief Counsel and the appeals office had received income from a major accounting firm or large corporation before or after their time at the IRS. Some executives also received retirement income from a large accounting firm during their time at the IRS and properly reported it in their financial disclosure forms, the report said.
\n\u201cIt undermines trust in government and our tax system when IRS employees go back and forth between government service and lucrative jobs with big accounting firms and other giant corporations,\u201d Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, told ICIJ in a statement. \u201cWe need stronger ethics rules across the board for government officials and to close the revolving door.\u201d
\nThe IRS finds itself in a difficult position in this regard. Experts agree that with its new funding from Congress, the agency must attract top talent from major accounting and law firms who earn far more than the agency can pay.<\/p>\n

The Internal Revenue Service building in Washington, D.C. Image: Tada Images \/ Shutterstock.com <\/span> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

An ICIJ review shows that top executives in LB&I commonly switch hats from regulating the wealthiest taxpayers to working for them.
\nA review of LB&I executive lists covering the past 13 years shows that out of 114 top executives named, at least a quarter either had worked for a major accounting firm, a tax consulting firm or a major tax law firm shortly prior to joining the IRS or left the IRS for such private sector roles.
\nIn a statement to ICIJ, the IRS said it needed private sector talent and that safeguards are in place to prevent conflicts of interest.
\n\u201cThe tax law is complex, and the IRS needs insight from those in the tax community to help the agency tackle complex issues and share valuable insights that can complement the work of career government employees,\u201d IRS spokesperson Robyn Walker told ICIJ in a statement. \u201cPeople from the private sector provide important viewpoints and unique expertise needed to help the IRS run the tax system. This takes on even more importance as the agency works to build compliance work in high-risk corporate and high-wealth areas.\u201d
\n\u201cGiven the intricacies and evolving nature of the nation\u2019s tax code and the economy, it\u2019s impractical to assume only current IRS in-house employees can be executives,\u201d the statement added.
\nThe agency also said it has a \u201cstrong system of checks and balances in place to ensure fairness in its compliance activities,\u201d including a review process to make sure that decisions are shielded from outside influences.
\nThe IRS\u2019s current chief counsel, Margie Rollinson, has gone through the revolving door twice. In 2013, after more than two decades at EY, the Big Four accounting firm formerly known as Ernst & Young, Rollinson took a senior post at the IRS chief counsel office, overseeing more than 60 attorneys. She returned to EY in 2019 and then recently rejoined the IRS after the Senate confirmed her nomination for the chief counsel job at the end of February. During her first stint at EY, Rollinson advised Hewlett-Packard Co. on a major offshore tax scheme, according to records obtained in a Senate investigation into the technology firm\u2019s tax avoidance efforts. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that, with EY\u2019s apparent support, Hewlett-Packard used a loophole to avoid paying taxes on billions of dollars in income. \u201cWe believe it\u2019s egregious,\u2019\u2019 then-Subcommittee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said at the time about the offshore tax maneuvers.<\/p>\n

The agency noted that during the senate confirmation process Rollinson pledged to recuse herself from matters involving her past clients in her first four years at the IRS. She also committed to a four-year buffer after leaving the agency during which she will avoid working for firms whose clients she dealt with at the agency.
\nThe IRS Independent Office of Appeals, tasked with impartially deciding taxpayers\u2019 challenges to IRS findings, is headed by Elizabeth Askey, a former principal at PwC, another Big Four firm. The appeals office can have extensive influence over how much a company will ultimately owe the IRS and is known to frequently slash the tax bills of multinational corporations challenging audit results. A 2016 article that Askey co-authored while at PwC argued that LB&I was too aggressive with wealthy taxpayers and large corporations. Askey and her co-authors criticized LB&I for using the term \u201ccampaign\u201d in publicizing its enforcement priorities, arguing that it \u201csuggests a military style assault on perceived tax noncompliance.\u201d
\nThe IRS said that Askey has a strong record in \u201cfairly serving the interests of both taxpayers and tax administration.\u201d It noted that the agency\u2019s taxpayer advocate recently recommended that the appeals office hire more employees from the private sector to ensure fairness and impartiality. \u201cExternal hires help Appeals maintain an arms-length relationship with the rest of the IRS,\u201d the agency told ICIJ.<\/p>\n

Fulfilling a commitment<\/h2>\n

Michael Welu is proud of his more than three decades at the IRS. He sports a custom golden ring with the agency\u2019s logo that he had a jeweler make after his retirement nearly two years ago. The walls of his home office are lined with his awards and recognitions from the agency, and he drinks from a coffee mug emblazoned with the emblem of IRS Criminal Investigation, one of the offices he worked closely with.
\nHe says he is speaking out publicly for the first time because he wants the agency to do better in its pledge to stand up to the county\u2019s most powerful taxpayers. Even with the agency\u2019s new billions, he says, it will need a significant culture change to fulfill this commitment. Welu says that solutions can be as simple as teaching agents from an early stage that as long as they follow all protocols, they should not be afraid to take a firm stance with an uncooperative wealthy taxpayer. He believes the agency must pursue the firms that formulate and sell tax evasion schemes to major taxpayers.<\/p>\n

The walls of Michael Welu\u2019s home office are lined with awards and recognitions from his time at the agency. Image: Stephen Mally \/ ICIJ <\/span> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Welu also thinks that procedures for information gathering should be streamlined and made more equal across offices. To get serious about going after high-end tax cheats, he says, the agency will have to train its managers to be unafraid of conflict with big taxpayers who don\u2019t cooperate. To do this, they\u2019ll need support from the very top ranks, including the IRS commissioner and the Office of Chief Counsel.
\n\u201cThese are difficult cases,\u201d Welu said, \u201cbut they can be done.\u201d
\nContributors: Denise Ajiri, Jelena Cosic and Delphine Reuter<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Michael Welu worked at the IRS for decades as a specialist in helping agents identify and investigate possible tax crimes. In an agency known for offices working in their own silos, Welu had the rare ability to move between divisions, dissecting and learning each office\u2019s particular customs and procedures. But that experience had its own … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":14647,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"Default","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[1521,8144,5800,11649,3503,5936,1943,383,580,1274,1902,11097,492,3397,4461,9580,1766,4605,4039,186,11354,620,1221,797,11208,5663,2134,3348,4477,1002,1793,6782,2460,33,1776,2577,1498,6432,7260,10975,6584,6196,6262,2144,8256,4498,5099,6155,21,3635,2100,1470,303,10419,2369,11657,5193,11173,2681,11060,260,166,26,10488,6965,1610,9727,7279,1873,10897,2515,2544,569,3086,7343,8903,1059,7716,7704,304,2110,4081,415,5210,985,3895,4769,9046,12306,12036,6861,2294,959,899,6389,187,1419,1342,11016,2218,2753,3404,5236,2796,2667,28,756,3755,4770,5679,3903,591,2685,6653,7776,4442,3504,2628,1060,9597,11956,8232,4618,1193,393,3331,1020,1012,4593,9000,12183,6121,1775,7424,2946,6615,456,864,1004,4843,3360,1670,3689,9744,2247,4671,1292,11342,8171,4428,9232,8183,11900,4620,2871,8257,720,2599,737,12071,5612,1812,4054,470,12154,4441,10126,89,3603,10743,421,1827,8385,1358,3852,1065,1207,1206,7090,10788,4765,7151,1205,5681,4738,1183,7191,5044,1682,618,1731,7045,1571,973,4861,841,1681,6418,9357,7850,1503,5129,11263,3519,11722,4928,6762,6305,3145,11011,18],"class_list":["post-14646","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-other","tag-1521","tag-activists","tag-americans","tag-appeals","tag-arms","tag-article","tag-assault","tag-attack","tag-attorney-general","tag-awards","tag-bank","tag-benefits","tag-biden","tag-biden-administration","tag-billionaires","tag-bills","tag-budget","tag-budget-cuts","tag-building","tag-business","tag-businesses","tag-butchers","tag-campaign","tag-careers","tag-causes","tag-chairman","tag-challenges","tag-change","tag-charles","tag-checks","tag-coalition","tag-coffee","tag-community","tag-companies","tag-compliance","tag-concerns","tag-confidence","tag-conflict","tag-conflicts","tag-conflicts-of-interest","tag-confrontation","tag-congress","tag-consequences","tag-consortium","tag-convictions","tag-corporate-tax","tag-corporations","tag-correlation","tag-crime","tag-crimes","tag-criminal-investigators","tag-cryptocurrency","tag-culture","tag-customer","tag-data","tag-deal","tag-decisions","tag-destination","tag-disclosure","tag-disputes","tag-dollar","tag-donald-trump","tag-economy","tag-email","tag-establishment","tag-evidence","tag-examination","tag-fair-share","tag-fairness","tag-fear","tag-february","tag-fees","tag-finance","tag-financial-statements","tag-fiscal-year","tag-follow","tag-fraud","tag-friends","tag-frustrated","tag-funding","tag-funds","tag-future","tag-government","tag-government-officials","tag-gun","tag-hearing","tag-high-income-earners","tag-house","tag-image","tag-impartiality","tag-incentives","tag-income","tag-inequality","tag-interest","tag-interests","tag-international","tag-investigation","tag-investigations","tag-investigator","tag-investigators","tag-investment","tag-investors","tag-irs","tag-issues","tag-jail","tag-jobs","tag-joe-biden","tag-journalists","tag-large-corporations","tag-law","tag-law-firm","tag-lawyers","tag-legislation","tag-management","tag-march","tag-message","tag-military","tag-money","tag-money-laundering","tag-move","tag-movement","tag-movements","tag-multinational-corporations","tag-nature","tag-new-york","tag-news","tag-nomination","tag-numbers","tag-office","tag-offshore","tag-ongoing","tag-opportunity","tag-oversight","tag-partnerships","tag-penalties","tag-penalty","tag-photos","tag-population","tag-power","tag-president","tag-president-biden","tag-president-joe-biden","tag-private-equity","tag-private-sector","tag-profit","tag-proposal","tag-pwc","tag-ranking","tag-record","tag-regulations","tag-relationship","tag-released","tag-remains","tag-report","tag-request","tag-response","tag-rest","tag-restrictions","tag-retirement","tag-return","tag-revenue","tag-rights","tag-risk","tag-road","tag-scheme","tag-service","tag-shocked","tag-small-business","tag-small-businesses","tag-solutions","tag-sports","tag-statement","tag-stories","tag-support","tag-talent","tag-tax","tag-tax-administration","tag-tax-avoidance","tag-tax-bills","tag-tax-code","tag-tax-dodging","tag-tax-enforcement","tag-tax-evasion","tag-tax-system","tag-taxation","tag-taxes","tag-taxpayers","tag-teaching","tag-technology","tag-top","tag-training","tag-transition","tag-transparency","tag-treasury","tag-treatment","tag-trump","tag-trust","tag-trust-in-government","tag-u-s-taxes","tag-university","tag-upset","tag-warning","tag-warnings","tag-washington","tag-wealth","tag-wealthy","tag-wealthy-individuals","tag-who","tag-william","tag-workforce","tag-world"],"acf":{"keyphrase":"","keywords":"","sourceimg":"","country-category":""},"yoast_head":"\nHow the IRS went soft on billionaires and corporate tax cheats - ICIJ<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\".\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"noindex, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"How the IRS went soft on billionaires and corporate tax cheats - ICIJ\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\".\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/?p=14646\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"ch.jfdi.cc\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-06-11T23:00:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/how-the-irs-went-soft-on-billionaires-and-corporate-tax-cheats-icij.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1109\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"624\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Robot\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Robot\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/?p=14646#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/?p=14646\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Robot\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/24aeef359ef2df73056e7502e1cadc71\"},\"headline\":\"How the IRS went soft on billionaires and corporate tax cheats – ICIJ\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-06-11T23:00:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/?p=14646\"},\"wordCount\":4904,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/?p=14646#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/06\\\/how-the-irs-went-soft-on-billionaires-and-corporate-tax-cheats-icij.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"000\",\"activists\",\"Americans\",\"appeals\",\"arms\",\"article\",\"assault\",\"attack\",\"attorney general\",\"awards\",\"bank\",\"benefits\",\"biden\",\"Biden administration\",\"billionaires\",\"bills\",\"budget\",\"budget cuts\",\"building\",\"Business\",\"businesses\",\"Butchers\",\"campaign\",\"Careers\",\"causes\",\"chairman\",\"challenges\",\"change\",\"charles\",\"checks\",\"coalition\",\"coffee\",\"community\",\"Companies\",\"compliance\",\"concerns\",\"confidence\",\"conflict\",\"conflicts\",\"conflicts of interest\",\"confrontation\",\"Congress\",\"consequences\",\"consortium\",\"convictions\",\"corporate tax\",\"corporations\",\"correlation\",\"Crime\",\"crimes\",\"criminal investigators\",\"cryptocurrency\",\"culture\",\"customer\",\"data\",\"deal\",\"decisions\",\"destination\",\"disclosure\",\"disputes\",\"Dollar\",\"Donald Trump\",\"Economy\",\"email\",\"establishment\",\"evidence\",\"examination\",\"fair share\",\"fairness\",\"fear\",\"February\",\"fees\",\"finance\",\"financial statements\",\"fiscal year\",\"Follow\",\"fraud\",\"friends\",\"frustrated\",\"funding\",\"funds\",\"future\",\"government\",\"government officials\",\"gun\",\"hearing\",\"high-income earners\",\"house\",\"image\",\"impartiality\",\"incentives\",\"income\",\"inequality\",\"interest\",\"interests\",\"International\",\"investigation\",\"investigations\",\"investigator\",\"investigators\",\"investment\",\"investors\",\"IRS\",\"issues\",\"jail\",\"jobs\",\"Joe Biden\",\"journalists\",\"large corporations\",\"law\",\"law firm\",\"lawyers\",\"legislation\",\"management\",\"march\",\"message\",\"military\",\"money\",\"money laundering\",\"move\",\"movement\",\"movements\",\"multinational corporations\",\"nature\",\"New York\",\"news\",\"nomination\",\"numbers\",\"Office\",\"offshore\",\"ongoing\",\"opportunity\",\"oversight\",\"partnerships\",\"penalties\",\"penalty\",\"photos\",\"population\",\"power\",\"president\",\"President Biden\",\"President Joe Biden\",\"private equity\",\"private sector\",\"profit\",\"proposal\",\"PwC\",\"ranking\",\"record\",\"regulations\",\"relationship\",\"released\",\"remains\",\"report\",\"request\",\"response\",\"rest\",\"restrictions\",\"retirement\",\"return\",\"revenue\",\"rights\",\"risk\",\"road\",\"scheme\",\"service\",\"shocked\",\"small business\",\"small businesses\",\"solutions\",\"Sports\",\"statement\",\"stories\",\"support\",\"talent\",\"tax\",\"tax administration\",\"tax avoidance\",\"tax bills\",\"tax code\",\"tax dodging\",\"tax enforcement\",\"tax evasion\",\"tax system\",\"taxation\",\"taxes\",\"taxpayers\",\"teaching\",\"technology\",\"top\",\"training\",\"transition\",\"transparency\",\"Treasury\",\"treatment\",\"Trump\",\"trust\",\"trust in government\",\"U.S. taxes\",\"university\",\"upset\",\"warning\",\"warnings\",\"Washington\",\"wealth\",\"wealthy\",\"wealthy individuals\",\"WHO\",\"William\",\"workforce\",\"World\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Other\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/?p=14646\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/?p=14646\",\"name\":\"How the IRS went soft on billionaires and corporate tax cheats - ICIJ\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/?p=14646#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/?p=14646#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/06\\\/how-the-irs-went-soft-on-billionaires-and-corporate-tax-cheats-icij.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-06-11T23:00:07+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/24aeef359ef2df73056e7502e1cadc71\"},\"description\":\".\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/?p=14646#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/?p=14646\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/?p=14646#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/06\\\/how-the-irs-went-soft-on-billionaires-and-corporate-tax-cheats-icij.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/06\\\/how-the-irs-went-soft-on-billionaires-and-corporate-tax-cheats-icij.jpg\",\"width\":1109,\"height\":624,\"caption\":\"How the IRS went soft on billionaires and corporate tax cheats - ICIJ\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/?p=14646#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"How the IRS went soft on billionaires and corporate tax cheats – ICIJ\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/\",\"name\":\"ch.jfdi.cc\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/24aeef359ef2df73056e7502e1cadc71\",\"name\":\"Robot\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ch.jfdi.cc\\\/?author=6\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"How the IRS went soft on billionaires and corporate tax cheats - ICIJ","description":".","robots":{"index":"noindex","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"How the IRS went soft on billionaires and corporate tax cheats - ICIJ","og_description":".","og_url":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/?p=14646","og_site_name":"ch.jfdi.cc","article_published_time":"2024-06-11T23:00:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1109,"height":624,"url":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/how-the-irs-went-soft-on-billionaires-and-corporate-tax-cheats-icij.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Robot","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Robot","Estimated reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/?p=14646#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/?p=14646"},"author":{"name":"Robot","@id":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/#\/schema\/person\/24aeef359ef2df73056e7502e1cadc71"},"headline":"How the IRS went soft on billionaires and corporate tax cheats – ICIJ","datePublished":"2024-06-11T23:00:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/?p=14646"},"wordCount":4904,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/?p=14646#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/how-the-irs-went-soft-on-billionaires-and-corporate-tax-cheats-icij.jpg","keywords":["000","activists","Americans","appeals","arms","article","assault","attack","attorney general","awards","bank","benefits","biden","Biden administration","billionaires","bills","budget","budget cuts","building","Business","businesses","Butchers","campaign","Careers","causes","chairman","challenges","change","charles","checks","coalition","coffee","community","Companies","compliance","concerns","confidence","conflict","conflicts","conflicts of interest","confrontation","Congress","consequences","consortium","convictions","corporate tax","corporations","correlation","Crime","crimes","criminal investigators","cryptocurrency","culture","customer","data","deal","decisions","destination","disclosure","disputes","Dollar","Donald Trump","Economy","email","establishment","evidence","examination","fair share","fairness","fear","February","fees","finance","financial statements","fiscal year","Follow","fraud","friends","frustrated","funding","funds","future","government","government officials","gun","hearing","high-income earners","house","image","impartiality","incentives","income","inequality","interest","interests","International","investigation","investigations","investigator","investigators","investment","investors","IRS","issues","jail","jobs","Joe Biden","journalists","large corporations","law","law firm","lawyers","legislation","management","march","message","military","money","money laundering","move","movement","movements","multinational corporations","nature","New York","news","nomination","numbers","Office","offshore","ongoing","opportunity","oversight","partnerships","penalties","penalty","photos","population","power","president","President Biden","President Joe Biden","private equity","private sector","profit","proposal","PwC","ranking","record","regulations","relationship","released","remains","report","request","response","rest","restrictions","retirement","return","revenue","rights","risk","road","scheme","service","shocked","small business","small businesses","solutions","Sports","statement","stories","support","talent","tax","tax administration","tax avoidance","tax bills","tax code","tax dodging","tax enforcement","tax evasion","tax system","taxation","taxes","taxpayers","teaching","technology","top","training","transition","transparency","Treasury","treatment","Trump","trust","trust in government","U.S. taxes","university","upset","warning","warnings","Washington","wealth","wealthy","wealthy individuals","WHO","William","workforce","World"],"articleSection":["Other"],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/?p=14646","url":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/?p=14646","name":"How the IRS went soft on billionaires and corporate tax cheats - ICIJ","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/?p=14646#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/?p=14646#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/how-the-irs-went-soft-on-billionaires-and-corporate-tax-cheats-icij.jpg","datePublished":"2024-06-11T23:00:07+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/#\/schema\/person\/24aeef359ef2df73056e7502e1cadc71"},"description":".","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/?p=14646#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/?p=14646"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/?p=14646#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/how-the-irs-went-soft-on-billionaires-and-corporate-tax-cheats-icij.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/how-the-irs-went-soft-on-billionaires-and-corporate-tax-cheats-icij.jpg","width":1109,"height":624,"caption":"How the IRS went soft on billionaires and corporate tax cheats - ICIJ"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/?p=14646#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"How the IRS went soft on billionaires and corporate tax cheats – ICIJ"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/#website","url":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/","name":"ch.jfdi.cc","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/#\/schema\/person\/24aeef359ef2df73056e7502e1cadc71","name":"Robot","url":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/?author=6"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14646","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14646"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14646\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/14647"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14646"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14646"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ch.jfdi.cc\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14646"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}