AUG 29 1994

The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman

U.S. House of Representatives
2185 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-3220

Dear Congressman Gilman:

This is in response to your inquiry on behalf of your

constituent, Dr. XX who has a question about the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Dr. XX has inquired whether the ADA requires insurance

companies to make direct deposit of monthly benefit payments for
people with vision impairments who have difficulty handling
checks because of their disability.

The ADA requires public accommodations to make "reasonable

modifications" in their policies, practices, and procedures in
order to make their goods and services available to persons with
disabilities, unless a modification would "fundamentally alter"
the nature of the goods and services offered. Absent an
investigation, we are unable to determine in this particular
situation whether the insurance fund would be required to modify
its practices to enable Dr. XX checks to be deposited
directly.

In reference to Dr. XX letter about his 1989 and

1990 Federal Income Tax Returns, we suggest that you contact the
Internal Revenue Service. The Department of Justice does not
have jurisdiction over these matters.

We hope that this information is useful to you and your

constituent.

Sincerely,

Stuart J. Ishimaru
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division

Enclosure

01-03381

XX M.D., M.B.A.
New City, NY XX
Simple Telephone XX
 Caller Controlled Voice Mail/Facsimile Machine XX

June 13, 1994

Honorable Benjamin Gilman

United States House of Representatives
2185 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-3222 Facsimile (202) 225-2541

ATTN: Jason Epstein

Dear Mr. Gilman,

Since I have become disabled from my work I have contacted

the three insurance companies with which I have disability income
insurance. At this time all three companies are either paying me
by benefits or are making final decisions.

Because of my vision impairment I find it very difficult to

handle any object without risking misplacing it. This is a very
serious problem and while at times it is almost comical to see me
scurrying around trying to determine where I put something down,
it is emotionally very depressing. That is why I have requested
of all three insurance companies to provide me with wire direct
deposit of my monthly benefits checks. All have refused, while
one is considering providing me with a mail deposit. I made
those requests to simplify my life, and the insurance companies
will not comply. I assume their refusal is based on their desire
to have the money paid to me, "float," for their benefit.

I have no concern regarding the insurance companies

finances, I paid insurance premiums for up to 23 years so that I
could protect myself. Please ask the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission if they would consider ordering a public
company to wire transfer money into the account of an insured who
cannot handle checks because of a disability. The Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) orders businesses that serve the public to
make accommodations for the benefit of disabled persons.

I would rather not be disabled, but since the EEOC was

unable to assist me, I am now at home attempting to live on my
insurance benefits. Your prompt action in forwarding this
request to the EEOC for a decision is appreciated. Thank you
very much.

XX
Yours truly,
XX

01-03382
 XX M.D., M.B.A.
New City, NY XX
Simple Telephone XX
Caller Controlled Voice Mail/Facsimile Machine XX

June 13, 1994

Honorable Benjamin Gilman
United States House of Representatives
2185 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-3222 Facsimile (202) 225-2541

ATTN: Jason Epstein

Dear Mr. Gilman,

Despite my poor vision I have been fortunate to find parts

of our 1989 Form 1040 and some of the correspondence with the IRS
that relates to our payment of approximately $9,200 last spring,
payment that was coerced from us despite our having paid that
money in a timely manner in 1989 and 1990.

The reason for the IRS demanding the principal, interest and
penalties is that one of their employees incorrectly keyed our
tax form into their computer. I entered on our 1989 Form 1040
that I had paid $7,000 with a request for an extension that was
filed on time in 1990. I have even provided you with copies of
both sides of that check. What happened is the IRS employee
entered the $7,000 on line 60, rather than line 59 where we
correctly entered it. That is why the IRS could not find the
money that we claimed as having paid. Revenue Agent Anthony J.
Stabile, had in front of him the Form 1040 as well as the
computerized print out. He was either too stupid to compare the
Form 1040 with the computer print out, or he did and didn't care
to act properly by correcting the computer print out. What is
most interesting is that all his supervisors and superiors had
the same opportunity to see the glaring error, but they also let
it pass through undetected.

It should have been evident to all the personnel involved in

our audit and to the personnel who prepared Mr. Alexander's June
22, 1993 letter to you, which you forwarded to us, that entering
$7,000 as a claim for overpayment of FICA taxes is very unusual,
and perhaps there was an error. No one, including the District
Director, had the least discomfort with accusing us of entering
$7,000 as a claim for overpayment of FICA taxes. No one made the
effort to determine if there was an error. Only the IRS had the
original Form 1040, we had already notified Mr. Stabile that we
could no longer locate our copy.
 In the letter dated June 22, 1993 Mr. Alexander repeated the
idiotic statement that we had entered $7,000 on line 60. Anyone
with half a brain should have recognized the stupidity of that
statement. If the IRS wishes to confirm my statements your
01-03383

office can provide Mr. Alexander with a copy of his letter and
they can review the copy of our Form 1040 in the possession of
Mr. Hank Rummell the accountant who prepared our return that
year. Mr. Rummell has not cooperated with us in any manner
during this matter and he demanded and received his fee before he
would meet with the Revenue Agent. Mr. Rummell was party to an
error in a prior year tax return and that was why he no longer
did our returns in January 1993.

I am overwhelmed that even with your assistance in this

matter the District Director was incapable of recognizing the
nonsense that was published over his signature. I would like you
to contact the IRS in its national headquarters and ask them to
investigate the whole matter of our 1989 Form 1040 and the manner
in which we were coerced into paying money that we had already
paid. Each employee is responsible for the quality of his/her
work output and I have now identified a whole chain of employees,
including the District Director who were careless, perhaps even
intentionally in error, and who allowed this injustice to be
perpetrated on us.

We deserve an apology as well as a refund of our money and

interest on it. I am very concerned that we will become targets
of the IRS with perpetual audits and other forms of harassment.
We overpaid our 1989 taxes, and there were no adjustments in our
1990 and 1991 taxes after the audit by Agent Stabile. I seek
your assistance in providing us a barrier from future harassing
actions.

I remain available to assist the IRS in disciplining any

employee who was involved in our 1989 Form 1040 key entry and the
audit and was party to the repeated errors made at many levels.
This is not a matter which I am willing to forget. We were
subjected to coercion, harassment, stupidity, ridicule, and the
denial of access to a considerable amount of money for more than
one year. Ms. Sabb of the Manhattan Problem Resolution Office of
the IRS told me that in 30 years of working for the IRS she had
never heard of a complete file being lost, everything is gone
into some, "Black Hole," at the IRS. I remain suspicious that
some IRS employee intentionally trashed our file realizing that
an error of monumental stupidity had been made, and the loss of
the file would prevent us from recognizing what had happened. I
wish the IRS Inspector General be provided with all our letters
to you. With whatever the Manhattan and White Plains IRS offices
can provide he should investigate whether the loss of our file
may have been intended to prevent anyone from learning of the
chain of errors that resulted in our being forced to pay money
that had already been collected. The Inspector General should
review whether the IRS should have acted more aggressively to
subpoena files, checks, banking records, etc., in order to have
brought this matter to an earlier conclusion. I would like to
discuss these matters with the Inspector General in a face to
face meeting to be able to provide him/her with my experiences
and feelings about this case. I suspect a criminal conspiracy to
cover up the chain of significant errors surrounding our 1989

01-03384​

Form 1040 handling.

What adds to my belief that our experience in 1993 was a

criminal conspiracy is the actions NOT taken by the IRS. If I
had claimed the $7,000 as an overpayment of FICA taxes in 1989
then the IRS should have referred this case for a criminal
investigation. If I had made such a ridiculous claim, that would
have been perjury and should have been construed as a criminal
attempt to defraud the IRS of taxes owed. The lack of a criminal
referral further adds to my suspicions that there was more than
one IRS employee who conspired to defraud us of our money.
Certainly many employees were careless, including the District
Director, and did not perform their duties properly. Perhaps the
District Director will contact the office that would have been
requested to initiated a criminal investigation to learn if our
1989 Form 1040 file was forwarded to them. I am unable to
express in words the anger I feel.

Now I better understand why my former employers had no

concern regarding my charges to the EEOC. They had prior
experience dealing with the EEOC and they could reliably predict
that the EEOC would never be able to act to protect me because it
is staffed with personnel who had previously been employed at the
IRS. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) contains Section
503 and 504 that require the withholding of all federal funds if
an employer is found guilty of discrimination in defiance of the
ADA. Please remember that my EEOC file was in a black hole at
the EEOC for more than two months and would have remained there
forever if I hadn't called to seek action. Perhaps I
misunderstand, maybe EEOC employees are subsequently transferred
to the IRS after they prove that they can successfully misplace
whole files. The two agencies used to be housed together at 90
Church Street and I can now see that an employee at one agency
could feel perfectly comfortable if they got off the elevator at
the other agency's floor. Considering the quality of work and
the non-existent review of the quality of employee work output
demonstrated by both agencies in my recent interactions, I am not
even sure that the employee would realize that they hadn't
arrived at their proper work location.

I am enclosing another copy of both sides of the check that

I used to pay the IRS $7,000 when we applied for an extension to
file our 1989 Form 1040.

Please forward to me a copy of your letter to the EEOC

Inspector General so that I will have a better understanding of
how they cover over their mistakes. Perhaps the only instance
when something comes out of a, "Black Hole," at one Federal
Agency is when the Inspector General seeks answers to questions,
and perhaps not even then.

XX
Yours truly,

XX , M.D., M.B.A.
enclosure

01-03385