Mr. OBERDORFER. It has possibly some effect, Mr. Rooney. I want to say that there were two other factors which we considered in making this request so it was not entirely dependent Mr. ROONEY. Would you say to a great part? Mr. OBERDORFER. To a great part, of course. Mr. ROONEY. When was it estimated that these requested 62 additional employees would be put on the payroll? Was it July 1? Mr. OBERDORFER. No, sir; about September 1. Mr. ROONEY. Is that indicated in the justification? Mr. OBERDORFER. Page 9. Mr. ROONEY. What is the actual additional number of employees? The chairman calls our attention to the fact that the figures in these justifications do not jibe. Is this for 21 additional lawyers? Mr. OBERDORFER. We calculated it as 42 additional attorneys and 20 clerical personnel. If there is a discrepancy we certainly would like to adjust it on that basis. Mr. THOMAS. The green sheets show 70 rather than 62. Mr. ANDRETTA. Page 18 shows 42 more lawyers and 20 more clerks. There is a lapsed figure of 6, bringing us down to 56. Mr. THOMAS. You have 3 figures, then-56, 62, and 70. Mr. ANDRETTA. Then there is a regular figure that is always in the green sheets showing the average employment. Mr. THOMAS. But you do not say average employment. Mr. ANDRETTA. The average number takes care of the lapsed figure of six positions. Mr. THOMAS. It states "Total number of permanent positions, 70." Then you use the figure 56 later on. Mr. BROWN. That is the recap for the whole appropriation including the eight positions for Civil Rights. Mr. THOMAS. Very well. If you add them all up it is more than 70. Mr. BROWN. The total is 70. Mr. OBERDORFER. I had the impression, and I may be dead wrong, that the number of additional enforcement employees being hired by the Internal Revenue Service was 3,900 or 4,000. I believe you know better than I. Mr. ROONEY. I know it only by hearsay. I asked what happened on this and I was told they had settled for 3,300 plus for a request which was originally 4,500 plus. The original House action was 2,000 additional IRS employees. That will have something to do with the determination of this committee, I assure you. Mr. Boland? Mr. BOLAND. You show a lapse of six and you say it is for both divisions. Why do you say this when the green sheets show it is the Tax Division? Mr. ANDRETTA. The 70 are further down in the summary. Mr. BROWN. The recap shows 70 positions. Mr. BOLAND. On what page? Mr. BROWN. Page 7. Mr. ROONEY. There are 8 additional in Civil Rights and 62 additional in the Tax Division. That totals 70. Mr. BOLAND. Thank you. Mr. ROONEY. There is no difficulty with regard to these figures. We know what you are asking for. I am not so sure you need what you are asking for. Mr. Jonas? Mr. JONAS. These new lawyers are all to be in the District of Columbia? Mr. OBERDORFER. There is under consideration the possibility, which is mentioned at the end of the justification, of having some assignment of Department of Justice tax specialists to one or more field offices. Mr. JONAS. You will probably send out seasoned men in that event and not the new men? Mr. OBERDORFER. That is right. Mr. JONAS. This is a relatively low grade you are scheduling here? Mr. OBERDORFER. That is right. Mr. JONAS. Do you know how many lawyers are in the Internal Revenue Service? Mr. TADLOCK. 500 in round figures in the Chief Counsel's Office. They get 75 more in this new bill. EMPLOYMENT PROCEDURE FOR LAWYERS Mr. ROONEY. What will be the procedure for one who has a young lawyer in his district who would be perfectly agreeable to accepting one of these $7,560 GS-11 jobs? Mr. OBERDORFER. The employment procedure? Mr. ROONEY. Yes. Mr. OBERDORFER. He would submit a résumé showing his qualifications. He would be interviewed by the chiefs of the sections and by one or more of the assistants and by me. If his employment were recommended we would independently examine references that he gave us. If we considered him qualified we would advise him that he was under consideration, and if he again said he was interested in employment, without making him an offer, there would be an FBI investigation of his background and record. Then with the approval of the Deputy Attorney General he would be employed as an attorney in the Tax Division. We have done quite a bit of interviewing. As Mr. Rooney knows, this is an office which is attractive to young lawyers, so that we have had relatively little difficulty in filling places here, even though we have a large turnover. Mr. Bow. A year ago it helped a little bit to have the Republican National Committee aid in that recommendation. I do not suppose that would mean much now, would it? Mr. OBERDORFER. Nor the Democratic National Committee. Mr. ROONEY. The rest of my question was if he were one who really worked to elect Kennedy President would that fact preclude him from favorable consideration? TURNOVER OF ATTORNEYS Mr. BOLAND. Do you get a commitment from them for any period of time to stay with you? Mr. OBERDORFER. This is a problem we have wrestled with, sir. There is an honor program which has been used to hire a number of the attorneys in the Tax Division in the past. Mr. ROONEY. That program was thought up by former Attorney General Jim McGranery but he never got credit for it. Mr. OBERDORFER. We found the turnover was really not in the Government's interest. People were leaving that Division after 2 years or less. They just got enough gloss on them as tax attorneys to go out into private practice. Without making any demand that a man formally bind himself in the way the Internal Revenue Service does, we have been asking the individuals we interview what their intentions are, and making it clear to them that as between someone who intends presently to stay for a substantial period, like 4 years, or we hope to make a career of it, and some very bright young man who just wants to come in to get educated and go on, we will inevitably, all things being equal, and even if they are not quite equal, choose the man who gives us an indication he wants to work for us for a substantial period. PROSECUTION MEMORANDUMS Mr. JONAS. Mr. Witness, it is true that you referred to the preparation of a trial memorandum. Mr. OBERDORFER. A prosecution memorandum. Mr. JONAS. Which is prepared in your office? Mr. OBERDORFER. That is right. Mr. JONAS. On a tax case which is sent to the U.S. attorney? Mr. OBERDORFER. That is right. Mr. JONAS. When that case comes to your office it already has been analyzed and a prosecution memorandum is prepared in the Chief Counsel's Office, is it not? Mr. OBERDORFER. Actually, Mr. Jonas, that memorandum in point of fact is prepared in the regional counsel's office. Mr. JONAS. Of the Internal Revenue Service? Mr. OBERDORFER. That is right. Mr. JONAS. It comes to you after having been analyzed and considered by the lawyers in the Chief Counsel's Section of the Internal Revenue Service? Mr. OBERDORFER. That is correct. Mr. JONAS. Then after you handle it and consider it you send it to the U.S. attorney. Mr. OBERDORFER. That is right. Mr. JONAS. And he has the right and privilege, and he usually exercises it, of making an independent investigation or study of the memorandum and makes a decision on whether to prosecute or not. Is that correct? Mr. OBERDORFER. It can be described in that way, Mr. Jonas. The fact is, as Chairman Thomas stated, that the practice is for the Department to make a very careful, and I want to add original, review of the recommendation and the supporting evidence that is sent over to the Department of Justice by the Internal Revenue Service. The responsibiliy and authority for deciding whether a prosecution should be initiated resides in the Department here. If a decision is made after this study that the prosecution should take place, the file is sent to the U.S. attorney with instructions that he prosecute. Mr. JONAS. From January 1, 1961 to August 1, 1961, how many of those cases have you sent out with recommendations to prosecute? Mr. TADLOCK. Roughly 400. Mr. JONAS. For the 50 States? Mr. OBERDORFER. Whether they are in every State I have not calculated. That is nationwide, sir. Mr. JONAS. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONNEL AND RECEIPTS Mr. ROONEY. Each year before the regular committee, Mr. Attorney General, there are submitted figures with regard to the workload of the Tax Division and the successes of the Tax Division insofar as recovery of money into the Treasury is concerned. I cannot recall any year in which the request for additional funds or employees in the Tax Division has been denied, for the reason that the allowance of the funds and the additional personnel results in increased revenue to the Treasury. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Rooney, page 11 sets out $42,000 returned to the Treasury for each employee. That is set out on page 11. Mr. ROONEY. That refers to Treasury employees. Mr. THOMAS. Treasury estimates, yes. consequences Mr. ROONEY. Can you make an estimate for us as to the of additional personnel in added receipts to the Treasury? Mr. OBERDORFER. I would like to do that on reflection rather than off the cuff. I shall supply it for the record. (The information requested follows:) In the past 10 years the Tax Division with an average of 220 employees (legal and nonlegal) has collected $124 million in delinquent taxes and successfully defended $670 million refund claims against the Government. Thus the average employee each year collects $56,000 in delinquent taxes and saves the Government $300,000 in refunds. In the long run these figures will be maintained for the new employees, although there may be a lag before the additional personnel are reflected in actual closings and in any one year the total may be affected by the timing of decisions in important cases. ANTITRUST DIVISION Object classification WITNESSES LEE LOEVINGER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL R. L. WRIGHT, ACTING FIRST ASSISTANT J. T. DUFFNER, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT Mr. ROONEY. If there are no further questions we shall now proceed to the next item. Mr. ROONEY. The next item for "salaries and expenses, Antitrust Division," which is also contained in House Document No. 210. This is a request for a half million dollars additional, $248,000 by way of salaries and $252,000 by way of general expenses. How much was the original requests for the fiscal year 1962? Mr. LOEVINGER. Approximately $5.5 million. Mr. ROONEY. Did you say "approximately"? Mr. ROONEY. Exactly. You don't deal in approximations, do you? Mr. LOEVINGER. No, sir; but I find that some of the administrative divisions sometimes get a couple dollars off. Mr. ROONEY. You cannot use this money in the Tax Division or any other Divisions, can you? It has to be used in Antitrust and nowhere else. Mr. ANDRETTA. That is right. |