A classic example of failure to read the article properly, resulting in a wholly misleading headline (at the time of writing it's 'IRS spent $108M of taxpayer's money on porn, romance novels, personal items').<p><i>The Treasury's inspector general for tax administration — the same agency that brought the hammer down on the IRS for singling out conservative groups for special scrutiny — found that IRS workers on the whole stick to the rules when they use government credit cards.<p>It identified improprieties in only about</i> two-tenths of 1 percent of transactions <i>in fiscal years 2010 and 2011, when IRS workers made 273,000 credit card purchases worth about $108 million.<p>"The majority of IRS cardholders appear to use their purchase cards properly," the report said, adding that "we</i> did not <i>find a significant amount of improper purchases in our limited testing."</i><p>The article goes on to discuss examples of improper spending amounting to a few thousand dollars in the most egregious case, as well as some less egregious examples of poor spending controls that were not necessarily fraudulent. A far cry from the headline $108 million claim. I wonder what the OP has to say about this.
Title blatantly false.<p>It identified improprieties in only about two-tenths of 1 percent of transactions in fiscal years 2010 and 2011, when IRS workers made 273,000 credit card purchases worth about $108 million.<p>"The majority of IRS cardholders appear to use their purchase cards properly," the report said, adding that "we did not find a significant amount of improper purchases in our limited testing."