K
éuring the Qffica sf Security's invratigatian of only nine
(Q) cases, which in sane inskancaa had involved the investi-
gatinn cf mare than one ndividua1%Qd»
All of tha cases whera the fififima of Security has
recaived information frnm fiha 1&6 axe considered extremely
sensitive, and in all such casefi grist apprwval to initiate
cantact with IRS cfficials haé bfiwg Taceive& from senior
Agency officials. At an time has am Offica of 3ecurity
empleyee been allawed to inéepenémnaly seek ta obtain IRS
infnrmation without wrist Headquawtwxs approval. In ganeral,
cases whcra the Agency has éeeaaé it necessary to obtain
IRS tax information can be éiviévé imto two categariesz
a. The counterintelligafiew type of investigation,
whare eviéence infiicatas zflat an individual
associated with the Agauay might have been <
recruited by a fcreign inzailigence aervice anfi
where it becomes necessary we determine the
amounts ané/or source cf um? insane the individual
might be receiving.
b. These cases where an Emfiividual occupying
a pssitinn sf trust ané T§@pORSihi1iiY with the
Anencv was suswectcé nf miwufiinfi th@~trust to
his awn financial GT §$$3&;al advantaga.
with specific raferenca tn ymn? request that the
identity of the Office nf €ecuri%;* ccntacts within IRS
be furnishe&, thh follnwing cenais of all availakle infor~
matinn cwncerning those IRS 0£fiain¢s with wham Gffice of
Security emplnyees ware in cantaaa, Further, whara the
ifiantity of the IRS officiai aannwt be determined, the
iéentity of the flffice of Securizy fifipl0y&€ who reviewed
tha ERS records is praviéad mhare ?mawn.
my
I
=5»
'
m
...
0:‘
31;;
'3’:
'
5
-s %§~
m A.L£§§§Em§§§EH§Ml;
.2,»
5"?‘
Information relatiag " Rnhcrt I. 31um’s tax
racsrds for the years ifiif threugh IQSE was
attained by T%pr@S&fi€&ii¥%§ cf the fiffice af
.Security's Has Francisan fialfi Office an
13 Decembar 1959 and 5 January 1950. As
indicated in Tab A, the iii official whu
proviéad the infarmatisa 5% identified as
2
"L {jg
KIM. .
\