Search Engine - Why is it so hard to tax billionaires? (Part 2)

Episode Date: October 18, 2024

We reveal the one weird trick some billionaires use to pay less in federal income taxes than you do. And we explain the consequences faced by the person who leaked the tax returns of billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Taylor Swift, thereby enraging some of the most powerful people in our country. Support the show at searchengine.show! To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This episode of Search Engine is brought to you in part by Serval AI. If you ever worked with an IT team, you know how quickly their day gets eaten up by repetitive tickets, password resets, access requests, onboarding. It all adds up. And as your company grows, those requests just keep piling higher, pulling your team away from the work that actually moves the business forward. That's where Serval comes in. Serval can cut up to 80% of your help desk tickets. And it's not just another tool layering on AI as an afterthought. While legacy platforms bolt AI on, Serval was built for AI agents from the ground up. Here's what that looks like. Instead of a new hire onboarding taking hours or even days, a manager just drops a request in Slack.

And Serval handles everything instantly. No back and forth, no bottlenecks. Serval even writes automations in seconds. Serval powers the latest growing companies in the world, like perplexity, Mercore, Verkata, and Clay. Get your team out of the help desk and back to the work they enjoy. Book your free pilot at Serval.com. slash search. That's s-e-r-v-a-l-com slash search. This episode of search engine is brought to you in part by

Vanguard. To all the financial advisors out there whose job is to help your clients keep more of what they earn, Vanguard is here to help you with that. Vanguard is slashing fees again, this time for more than 50 of its funds. That's on top of big fee cuts they gave last year to investors in 87 of their funds. In an increasingly high-priced world, Vanguard is staying true to excellence without expense. With Vanguard, your clients get access to sophisticated, active, and index bond funds at industry-leading low costs, backed by a fixed-income team that's truly obsessed with consistent outperformance. Lower fees don't just mean savings. They give Vanguard's skilled bond managers more freedom to maneuver as they pursue strong results.

And they give you more flexibility to deliver measurable value to your clients, because top performance shouldn't come at higher cost. Go see the record for yourself at vanguard.com slash impact. That's vanguard.com slash impact. All investing is subject to risk, Vanguard Marketing Corporation distributor. Welcome to search engine. I'm PJ Vote.

No question too big, no question too small. Today, if we've done our jobs correctly, and who knows, we've hopefully suckered you into paying attention to a story about 110 years of American tax policy. Let's find out. So September 2020, Jesse Isinger, a senior editor and reporter at ProPublica, had gotten this leak of internal documents.

from an anonymous source. The tax returns of thousands of the wealthiest Americans, dating back over 15 years. In those leaked tax returns, Jesse and the team at ProPublica could see proof of this maneuver, a maneuver that some academics and economists had suspected was now being deployed

by the country's wealthiest. What did the documents help you understand that you hadn't understood before? Well, I mean, me, non-tax reporter, non-tax expert, it was all extraordinarily revelatory. But even tax experts didn't understand this fully. So, you know, I think there's a general lay understanding that the wealthy avoid taxes.

And that's the kind of eye-roll thing that you would hear in a bar if you were talking about these stories with someone drinking next to you. But they didn't know that Jeff Bezos and Musk and Bloomberg and Carl Iconn't. and George Soros literally could pay zero in federal income tax in recent years. They didn't know that Jeff Bezos got a child tax credit because his income was so low.

Experts understood that in the abstract, and no one understood it in the specific until we proved it because we had the specific numbers and the names. So let's get into the actual specifics. In this episode, we're going to dig into how it is that some billionaires end up paying $0 in federal income tax. Chapter 1. One Weird Trick. I asked Jesse to walk me through step by step how the trick works. I gave him Jeff Bezos as my hypothetical billionaire who might want to not pay his federal

income taxes. So let me tell you my dumb-dum's view of what Jeff Bezos' life looks like. My dumb-dum view of Jeff Bezos is like... He's working out? He works out a lot. He takes a lot of pictures with his beautiful partner. and then every two weeks his phone buses, and it's his Chase bank account,

and it says that his payroll deposit is in, and that Amazon.com pays him, I don't know, Jeff Bezos, $10 million a year, so he gets like almost $200,000 a week. So every two weeks he gets like $400,000. They take out, like, you know, all the stuff the government takes out. So after taxes, he gets like $200,000,

it goes into his checking account. that's not what happens. What happens instead? No. So what happens instead is if he gets a small paycheck, you know, a lot of these guys get $1 salaries. Yeah. And, you know, Steve Jobs sort of popularized that. But the Google guys, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, they get $1 a lot. It's very popular. And if you've got $1 divided by $52, you're not paying a lot in taxes. And so what's happening with those guys is they're not really getting that kind of weekly paycheck or they're getting very modest amounts of money. So there's nothing to tax in terms of wages? There's nothing to tax in terms of wages. They're keeping their wages low. And the reason why you're keeping your wages low is that wages are relatively highly taxed. They're taxed at about 40%. The top marginal tax rate of 37% plus about 3% for payroll taxes. And so you don't want wages. It's stupid if you're a really wealthy person to get wages. So instead, what you're doing is you're getting money through gains

on your asset. So obviously, anyone who is not taking income is not going to pay income tax. But most people need some form of income to live. What sets ultra-rich people apart is that they typically own at least one very expensive asset. For instance, a business they made or inherited, and there's actually a way to make money off of that asset without the money. that money being taxed as income. And so what Bezos, it's very easy to think about what Bezos is doing, which is that most of his wealth is tied up in Amazon stock. And so Amazon stock goes up several billion dollars a year, typically, or has for a long

time. And then if Bezos needed cash, he could sell some of that stock, and then he would get cash. But then he had to pay taxes on selling that. stock. And then if he sold that stock, then he would have to pay taxes on it. You're not paying 37%. You're only paying 20% on that because that's what capital gains tax is. But why pay 20%? So what you want to do instead is borrow against that money. So he goes to the bank and he says, like, hi, Jeff Bezos, you may have heard of me. I only make $1 a year, but I do happen to own a lot of Amazon stock. Yes. I want you to just give me a loan and the collateral will be my Amazon stock.

Yeah, so I don't actually know if Bezos specifically does this, but Larry Ellison, we know does this. He's the billionaire from Oracle, one of the richest people in the world, and a guy named Elon Musk. We've talked about this very podcast. He's literally borrowed against his stock to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. Every person whose tax information was described in ProPublicus reporting was asked to comment. Jeff Bezos's reps declined, as did Larry Allison's reps. Musk responded to ProPublica's email with a loan question mark. After a ProPublica responded with detailed questions, he did not reply.

Okay, so Elon Musk pays himself something like a dollar a year. Yeah. Even though he works at like eight companies. Yeah, it's eight dollars a year. Yeah. And when he wants money, he goes to the bank and he says, hi, Elon Musk, I've ruined Twitter. You guys are going to give me a loan,

and the collateral for the loan is going to be my Tesla stock, presumably. Yeah. Exactly. And then you don't get taxed on a loan. You don't get taxed on borrowings. But so then he, they give him like a bunch of money. He, like, buys a bunch of social media companies. Yeah, Larry Ellson bought a Hawaiian island.

But then what do you do? You have to pay loans back? No. No. Wrong. Why? You're so naive. I am.

Yeah. In a lot of ways. Yeah. So you basically borrow at almost no cost. Yeah. because they know that the stock is there and they can call it at any time. Yeah.

And you essentially never really have to pay it back. The estate's going to pay it back when you die. What Jesse's saying is that billionaires, instead of funding their lifestyles with salaries or by selling some of their valuable assets, billionaires can just borrow money against their assets at extremely low interest rates available only to them. Those rates fluctuate with the market.

But according to Bloomberg, billionaires have in the past been able to borrow money at less than 1% interest. Money that is completely untaxed. And they can then use that money to buy whatever they want. Islands, basketball teams, social media companies. The government will tax billionaire assets when the billionaire dies through estate taxes,

although you won't be shocked to know that the ultra-wealthy are pretty good at working around the estate tax as well. A USC professor named Ed McCaffrey coined the phrase for this, buy, borrow, die, which sounds like a confusing bumper sticker. but buy-borrow die is the tactic that people like Elon Musk are employing, avoiding avoiding paychecks, living off of borrowed money.

Do you think his credit score that is high or low? Because he has a lot of debt. He's got a lot of debt, and they were a little worried about it at some point. The reason we know this is that his lawyers forced him to disclose it in the SEC filings. That's why we also know about Larry Ellison. So you can't see everybody's borrowing, so you don't know how much Jeff Bezos is actually borrowing if he's borrowing. if he's borrowing at all.

But this is an extremely common technique for ultra-wealthy people. So that is the one weird trick billionaires have come up with to not pay income taxes. Don't have income. Or have as little income as possible. It won't really work for me and it won't really work for you unless you're a billionaire. If you are a millionaire and you're listening to Search Engine,

I do want to say we could actually use help funding the show And I'm really sorry that Jesse was so rude about you and your friends. I actually barely know him. I happen to think you guys are great. I'm very proud of your ability to allocate capital efficiently. Anyway, where was I? Right. The loophole.

What if we wanted to close it? What if instead of relying so much on the largesse of the middle class and the merely rich? What if we asked the ultra wealthy to get taxed like the rest of us? After the break, new ideas from unexpected quarters. It's so good. Miles are at Nordstrom rack stores now, and they're up to 60% off. Stock up and save on Raggin' Bone, Made Well, Vince, All Saints, and more of your favorites. How did I not know rack as Adidas?

Why do we rack? For the hottest deals. Just so many good brands. Join the Nordy Club to unlock exclusive discounts, shop new arrivals first, and more. Plus, buy online and pick up at your favorite rack store for free. Great brands, great prices. That's why you rack. Ambition comes in all shapes and sizes.

Citizens Bank, we roll with your goals because we're built for what you're building. Fit for your ambition for Citizens Bank. Welcome back to the show. When ProPublica published a series about the secret IRS files, Jesse initially felt like their reporting hadn't really had the impact he would have hoped for. But this past spring, he realized they'd reached at least one influential American. Mr. Speaker, Madam Vice President, members of Congress, my fellow Americans, Chapter 2. Joe Biden.

Listening back now, it's a little strange that this clip is only from March. Biden, back then, still the Democratic candidate. And also sounding at the time fairly energetic as he addressed the nation. Not since President Lincoln and the Civil War have freedom and democracy been under assault at home as they are today. He stood at the lectern, Kamala Harris behind him applauding his better lines. And later in the speech, he began to talk about taxes. As the crowd started to respond, you kind of felt like you were at a youth crew hardcore show. Folks at home, does anybody really think the tax code is fair?

No. Do you really think the wealthy and big corporations need another $2 trillion tax break? No. I sure don't. But then Biden went from this very standard fare. You know, the rich should pay taxes, blah, blah, blah, and slipped in a way more radical idea. I'm going to play you the moment he does this, although I will warn you, the radicalness of it is somewhat well concealed.

But listen, maybe you'll catch it. You know, there are 1,000 billionaires in America. You know what the average federal tax is for those billionaires? No. They're making great sacrifices, 8.2%. That's far less than the vast majority of Americans pay. No billionaire should pay a lower federal tax rate than a teacher, a sanitation worker, or a nurse. So the radical part is the number that Biden just used.

He said the billionaire tax rate is 8.2%. To be clear, the federal income tax rate for a billionaire is actually almost 40%. And Biden got a lot of pushback for saying 8.2. From the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times fact checker accused him of bending the truth. But let me just explain to you how he got that number. The logic Biden is using here is the exact same logic that you would find in the ProPublica series.

Remember the buy, borrow, die technique? We know a billionaire at Lekeleyn Musk does not get a real salary. Instead, he pays himself a dollar and then owns a lot of Tesla stock. In most years, the stock gains value. A stock, anything that gains value, that you then don't sell,

we call that gain an unrealized gain. An unrealized gain is anytime something you own becomes more valuable, but you hold onto it. My unsold Eric Lindross rookie card that is somewhere in my parents' house is an unrealized gain. In theory, it's worth more money than when I bought it, but I'm not benefiting from that gain right now. I'm not, but we now know someone like Elon Musk can. Billionaires like him are constantly borrowing against their unrealized gains. Joe Biden is saying, when it comes to these billionaires, we should treat that gain in value as if it's real money, in their pocket, that should be taxed.

And that, believe it or not, is an extremely, extremely controversial idea. It's a religious tenant among tax accountants and lawyers that you cannot tax unrealized gains. And so people are very offended by the notion. People are offended by the notion. Like, of all the third rails in American culture, taxing unrealized gains was like a spicy topic that ProPublica was afraid to poke? It's a very, very spicy topic. In tax circles, this is as spicy as you get. Jesse's quick to point out that tax textbooks across the country do consider

unrealized gains income, but the idea of taxing that income is a lot spicer. Jesse and ProPublica got very similar flak to the flag that Joe Biden received. People responded to us by saying, you idiots, we don't tax unrealized gains in this country. And we had to say, you know, I responded to 150 emails from readers saying, yeah, that's the point of the article, is that we have a choice about what to tax, and we're not taxing this, and that's why billionaires are able to live outside of our tax system. Our government, since its inception, has been in this push and pull with the very wealthy. The government typically tries to get them to pay more. They mostly try to pay less. Sometimes this push and pull is so strong

It actually changes the nature of wealth Changes in some ways the structure of our economy So what if right now You wanted to bring more billionaires More firmly into our tax system There's a few possible solutions Solution one, the one Jesse is getting so much crap For pointing to, is to just make a law

That would let the government tax unrealized gains There's a bill that would do this It's based on Biden's proposal It's called the billionaire Minimum Income Tax Act Here's Biden laying it out And if you can make a billion bucks, great. Just pay your fair share. Pay a little bit.

A firefighter and a teacher pay more than double, double the tax rate that a billionaire pays. That's not fair. It's like he's trying to whisper directly into the troubled mind of Elon Musk. This billionaire minimum income tax, it would actually apply not just to billionaires, but to any American whose net worth exceeds $100 million, meaning, 99.99% of Americans would be unaffected by it. It applies only to the top 100th of 1%. 100th of 1% of the Americans will pay this tax.

The billionaire minimum tax is fair, and it raises $360 billion that can be used in lower cost for families and cut the deficit. After Joe Biden left the race, Kamala Harris adopted his same plan. Here she is on 60 Minutes, an hour-long television show discussing it. I'm going to make sure that the richest among us,

who can afford it, pay their fair share and taxes. It is not right that teachers and nurses and firefighters are paying a higher tax rate than billionaires and the biggest corporations. And I plan on making that fair. It's very easy for most of us to get on board with a plan like this. More money for roads, no skin off our backs, but I wanted to rent by a more skeptical expert. Okay.

Are you all settled? Are you good? Yeah, I'm good. Okay, first of all, I can just say your name on what you do. Alison Schrager, I'm a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and columnist at Bloomberg Opinion. And is Manhattan Institute technically a think tank? Yes. I like how you put think tank in quotes. Think tank always feels like a weird. I'm like, it always makes you think of Star Wars and the Bacta tanks. Like everyone's put in like sort of amniotic fluid all day and forced to come up with policy ideas.

Yeah, you know, I do spend a lot of time thinking, which makes me feel like I don't work that hard because the amount of hours in a day I'm actually doing something like writing or doing things like this is actually minimal, but I do think a lot. Honestly, that sounds completely lovely. That sounds like a great way to spend your entire life. Maybe I should have said this earlier, but ProPublica, where Jesse works, is a nonpartisan investigative journalism organization, but the thrust of their reporting, to me, leans left. The Manhattan Institute, where Allison sits in a tank and thinks.

Their thrust, generally conservative. I would say Romney, not Trump. But that means, in a sense, yeah, maybe it's not surprising that this person from this place is skeptical about an innovative new tax on the rich. But the thing is, Allison does believe that billionaires need to pay more than they're paying. I agree they should be paying more in taxes.

Okay. I'm not against that idea. I just, how you structure your tax system is important to me. In a perfect world, I wouldn't think anyone should pay any tax, but the fact is we do need a function. in government, and we've committed to a lot of things that people are counting on, and we need money. And everyone's going to have to pay more taxes and they have more money, so they should pay more. So Allison agrees on the problem, but she doesn't like the facts that the Democrats are suggesting.

I don't agree with taxing unrealized gains. There are credible economists who think differently. This is a conversation we should have, but, like, I think it's just impractical. And the ability to collect a tax you levy is actually very important and it's important consideration. First of all, it's very hard to tax wealth because it's really hard to put a value in wealth. When you tax a capital gain, I mean, there's a financial transaction you can observe and you can tax that. Meaning like you can actually say like the stock was worth this on the day you bought it. It was worth this on the day you sold it.

And so it's really easy to say what the value was and you just take the tax rate and you're out of there. Exactly. It's like taxing income. You know, you observe your income. income and then you pay a tax on it, and this makes collecting it easier. But how do you measure an unrealized gain? So is it just like December 31st, the value of your portfolio, and then what you pay the tax on April 15th? What do you do if there's a loss? Do they get a tax credit? After this call with Allison, we looked through the Biden-Harris proposal, all 256 pages of it. Not me. We. It does actually have pretty specific answers to many.

of these questions. There's a specific date where you'd measure the unrealized gain, and if there's a loss, there'd be a credit. Jesse Eisner told me that he's spoken to tax experts who say the details in this proposal actually seem quite thought through. I do take Allison's point that the ease of collecting a tax matters, and I'm also moved by this idea she has that a new tax could be distortive, meaning taxing something we've never taxed before could have social consequences beyond what we imagine, some of which we might not like. Allison does have some of the some other competing ideas for ways to get more tax revenue from the wealthy, which brings us to solution two. Get rid of step up and basis. Which is when you buy an asset, when you sell it,

you pay tax based on what the price was when you bought it versus what you were when you sold it. Yeah. But if you die and leave it to your heirs, it's not based on when you bought it. Step up and basis. God, when did this podcast get so in the weeds? step up in basis basically is another way that a wealthy person can give an asset to their kids, and in doing so, avoid a lot of taxes. Allison explained how that tax maneuver works right now. So suppose you start a company. Suppose you're Jeff Bezos and you kept Amazon private.

And he died tomorrow. Yeah. And he left this private company to his children, or even if it was public, and they sold all their shares. They wouldn't pay a capital gains tax on it. So rather than paying the difference between what, Amazon was worth when Jeff Bezos started it and what it was worth the day that they sold it, they would pay the difference between what Amazon was worth the day they inherited it from Jeff Bezos and the day that they sold it, which would be a much, much smaller, taxable windfall for the government.

Yeah. And that actually is a distortion that does encourage people to never sell their assets, because it's better just to leave it to your heirs. So that is one way. You're like, okay, if you wanted to find a way to capture more tax revenue from the very wealthy, you would do this. And one of the reasons I'm assuming you like this plan better is because it feels easier to collect, easier to measure. Exactly. Allison also proposed a third solution, eliminating the carried interest loophole. That's essentially a loophole that allows private equity executives to avoid income tax

on most of their take-home pay. If you don't like this fix and don't work in private equity, please send me an email. I would love to know more. But closing both of these loopholes seems like a pretty good start. The Harris campaign supports both of these changes, but, But Allison pointed out that when push comes to shove, the politics here are actually kind of tricky. Step-up and basis is something economists love to talk about getting rid of. But, you know, you always get, like, the farmer who has the family farm, right?

And he leaves the family farm to his kids. And all of a sudden, they have this huge tax bill. That's very compelling for people who are an economist. And then, like, I guess my question is, like, if the feeling is that there's not a lot of political momentum, behind eliminating somebody's loophole? How do you think we solve the problem realistically of we need to collect more tax revenue now? I have no idea because I don't see any political will.

I think everyone's looking for it. We can just take this money from rich people, but the fact is we're probably all going have to pay more taxes. And why is that? Why can't we just take more money from rich people? They don't have enough money. But it seems like they have a lot of money. They got a lot of money, but not enough to pay for our debt and our functioning government

moving forward. So you think everyone's going to have to pay more, but that that's a kind of conversation that's politically a bit of a loser. Yeah. You know, no one really wants to hear that. Raise the taxes, not just on billionaires, but also nurses, teachers, firefighters, even podcasters. You can imagine this idea tanking a presidential campaign.

But between Jesse and Allison, you can at least hear the range between the left and the center on how to fix the billionaire part of the tax problem. The center thinks we can solve this problem mainly by closing loopholes. As you move left, you find people who think the problem here is bigger, requiring more drastic solutions. I can be persuaded that taxing unrealized gains might be risky or too complicated, but the notion that we need to do something drastic here, I still find persuasive. And I partly find it persuasive because I now know we've done the drastic thing before. The story that historian Molly Mitchellmore told about creating the federal income tax in the 1940s about FDR,

In that story, I hear us creating our modern country by getting everyone to pony up for it. And for several decades after, our wealthiest really did pay extraordinarily high marginal tax rates, as high as 94%. We had a country we all paid for, and the consensus was that that was the patriotic thing to do. Taxes, the price of citizenship. That belief decayed over time. You can see that decay at its worst, actually, in 2016, during one of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's debates. There's this famous moment where Hillary Clinton accuses Donald Trump of tax avoidance,

saying that some years the self-proclaimed billionaire had paid zero dollars in federal taxes. And Trump replies as if it's obvious. That makes me smart. This idea that paying taxes to the federal government is for suckers, expressed by a candidate for president. Of all Trump's scandals, his tax avoidance and his refusal to release his tax returns, to me did not seem like the largest. But they did bother one person, bothered him a lot, a former contractor at the IRS

who would go back to that job expressly to try to leak the president's tax returns, and later on, decide while he was there to go ahead and leak a lot more. Eventually, to a reporter named Jesse Isinger. After the break, our final chapter in this tech saga, we returned to the person we started with,

the whistleblower. This episode is brought to you by Indeed. Stop waiting around for the perfect candidate. Instead, use Indeed sponsored jobs to find the right people with the right skills fast. It's a simple way to make sure your listing is the first candidate C. According to Indeed data, sponsored jobs have four times more applicants than non-sponsored jobs. So go build your dream team today with Indeed. Get a $75 sponsor job credit at Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Spring is in the air, which means now is the time to save during spring outdoor power deals at the Home Depot.

Make cleanup easier when you go cordless with the Milwaukee M18 string trimmer designed to deliver more runtime, more speed, and maximum performance. Then grab a select Milwaukee fuel attachment, like the pole saw, edger, or brush cutter, included at no extra cost when you buy the Milwaukee M18 string trimmer. Shop seven days of spring outdoor power deals at the Home Depot. Now through April 29th. We all have that dream trip. We've been wishing we could go on, but too often life or usually price gets in the way.

That's why Priceline is here to help you turn your dream trip into reality. With up to 60% off hotels and up to 50% off flights, you can book everything you need for your next adventure. Don't just dream about that next trip. Book it with Priceline. Download the Priceline app or visit Priceline.com and book your next trip today. Epilogue. When the whistleblower, back in 2020, when Jesse had first gotten a signal message from an unknown person, he hadn't known who they really were.

He had guesses about their personality and motives, but this was mostly his imagination. And then, last fall, Jesse heard the news. The whistleblower had been caught and charged with federal crimes. After a two-year investigation, a suspect has been charged with leaking tax returns of wealthy taxpayers. Charles Little John of Washington, D.C., faces up to five years in prison after being charged with unauthorized disclosure of tax information, including financial records from then-president Donald Trump, as well as the leak of tax information on other public figures,

such as Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, to the news outlet ProPublica. The whistleblower turned out to be a man named Charles Littlejohn. In some of the news clips, you can see him. Brown hair, slim, he looks like a lot of professional young men you might pass on the street in D.C. A consultant who'd worked at Booz Allen Hamilton, Booz Allen had a big contract with the IRS. He'd been at the agency for two separate stints, collectively amounting to several years. Little John was arrested because investigators at the IRS were able to link his account to searches made in the IRS database. They had him, and he pleaded guilty.

Journalism can be a good tool for understanding strangers. It works intermittently well. The legal system is another tool for assessing out human motive. There was no trial here since Little John pleaded guilty, but in the sentencing, government prosecutors and Little John's defense attorneys offered competing visions of the man. The portrait that emerges surprised me in some ways. In the prosecution's memo, you don't learn much about Little John himself. The prosecutors describe the damage he did to the private lives of 7,500 Americans,

who, however we feel about their tax bills, were following the laws as they're written. The prosecution's memo highlights a clear pattern showing little John's actions were premeditated. He'd actually worked as a contractor at the IRS, left, and then specifically returned in 2017 with the goal of leaking tax returns. It wasn't an impulsive choice. The prosecution says little John believed he was above the law. In the defense memo, his legal team tells a fuller version of his story. As a kid, an excellent student, a member of the church, At college, UNC, a member of the campus social justice hub.

In the defense's version, what Charles Little John did was still wrong. This is a guilty plea after all. They explain how he was partly inspired by this book about wealthy tax avoidance called The Triumph of Injustice, which lays out in part the story you've heard in these episodes. But they also explained that a formative experience for Charles, Chas, they call him, was the death of his sister. She was a senior in high school when she was diagnosed with leukemia.

She died in 2013, only 19 years old. He moved back home after that to help with his parents. Later on, he donated bone marrow and T-cells to a person he didn't know from a donor list. The defense, I think, is trying to establish a pattern in Little John's character, that he's a person who, when he experiences an injustice, will go to greater than normal lengths to repair it, even if that means self-sacrifice. In the time preceding Little John's choice to go back to the IRS and lead these documents,

a close family friend had died. And in Little John's diary, which they quote from, he writes, Life is so fragile and short, grieving for the years she will not see the friends and family that will carry her loss for the rest of their days. We should all try to live our lives as if we will die tomorrow. The next week, he contacts Jesse Isinger. He sends him the USB drive,

filled with the tax returns of America's wealthiest and most powerful people. The articles are published, and later Little John is arrested. Little John spoke for himself in a deposition last spring. He'd already been sentenced. This deposition was part of a separate lawsuit against the IRS about these leagues. The person who comes across is not who I was expecting. He describes his time at the IRS as time at a job he really cared about. He sounds proud as he explains the details of this anti-fraud program he built

that could detect scammers sending in fake returns and stealing refunds. He says they stopped a million of these cases with his fix. He describes reaching out to the New York Times. then describes reaching out to Jesse. He says he asks Jesse for his address to send the USB key, and that Jesse gave this stranger his address, but joke that Little John wasn't allowed to show up at his house and murder him, which sounds a lot like the Jesse I know.

One of the stranger details in the deposition, Little John relays how all the data he leaked, he made another copy of it, this one for the government, for when he got caught, so the IRS would know which taxpayers to reach out to, so they wouldn't have to guess. Little John, in my view, behaved like a person who seemed to know he'd likely be caught

who expected to face consequences. In the deposition, he says the thing the government got wrong about him is that he never thought he was above the law. This January, a judge decided that little John will turn 40 in prison. It's a five-year sentence. Jesse Isinger says that that is unusually heavy for a case like this.

It's the longest sentence, I believe, for anyone who did not leak classified information. Yes, he did break the law, and it's up to society to punish people who break the law, but understanding what he did and how that was a public service is very important. We used his information to publish many, many stories in the public interest. So I think what he did was a huge service to the American public to reveal things that would not have been revealed otherwise. He took great risk and now was going to pay an enormous price. What was the moment for you that you knew the identity?

Like, did you find out that Charles Littlejohn was the person on the other end of your correspondence when he was arrested? Did you find out before that? That's what we found out. Yeah, not when he was arrested, but when it first hit the public is arraignment or something like that. We never knew who it was before that. And had you wondered about who he was? Oh, of course. What did you thought when you wondered?

Well, I wondered, am I ever going to know? and if I do, can that circumstance be anything but terrible news? And did you, when you got more information about who he was, did it fit with the person that you'd imagined in your mind? Yeah, it wasn't surprising. Relatively young, someone who had principles. I mean, I'm taking what they've attested to under the threat of perjury as true, and it rings true, what Little John and his lawyers have said, which is he didn't profit from it, he didn't sell the information, and he was motivated by the desire to do a public service. And I think he did do a public service.

You know, you kind of describe yourself as a funny mix of someone who is, like, somewhat cynical about American democracy in its present state, but also the work you do and the way you do it, it's idealistic. It's like you get, 100 messages from people who are kind of nutty, and you read all the messages, and you respond to some of them. Like, at the end of this story, what does it do for you as an optimist and what does it do for you as a pessimist? Well, so you talk about these billionaires

saying that they're victims of this, and at the beginning, a couple of them felt like they had to respond to our questions about this and have some justification for how they avoided taxes or what they did, their techniques. And by the end, we did about 50 stories. By the end, we were almost entirely blown off.

So we would send our 50 questions to the subject of a story and hear nothing back, no response. And the reason I ended up concluding was that they feel they're untouchable in American society, and they're right. We didn't touch them at all. We exposed the greatest injustice about American inequality in decades, and nothing happened.

And why do you think? Because I think people do care about inequality. I think people do, if someone ran for president and they were like, my big policy is that billionaires aren't going to pay taxes, I don't think they would win. Like, if everybody wants it to be different, then why isn't it different? This is a policy. People really want billionaires to pay more taxes.

It polls very well with Republicans, even. But billionaires have disproportionate power in this country, and they have a lot more power than the 70% of people who want them to be taxed more. I mean, you know, they wield extraordinary amount of influence and power in society. and so they can bend public policy to their will. This is a tough fight. Yeah. So that's how the pessimist in you views this story.

If you can find him, what about the optimist in you? A rare, rare emotion for me. You know, we go back to Cordell Hall and 100 years ago. There was extraordinary power from the wealthiest people who'd ever walk the earth. And the government was relatively powerless at the time. And somehow, coalitions cobbled together to reform the system and to start to bring billionaires to heal, not just with taxes, but, you know, with the advent of antitrust enforcement and eventually securities regulation. And so there are ways to corral the power end, bring. And,

billionaires, if not to heal, then bring them back into the fold where they have some sense of civic and social responsibility. But you also think they should be paid a higher salary? I wouldn't mind if they got paid a salary. Or let's say they can keep their stock options. We just text their unrealized gains. How about that? Jesse Isinger, he's a grumpy idealist.

The series he worked on is called The Secret IRS Files. You can find it at ProPublica.org. And you can find Jesse on Signal. Jesse, thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Surge Engine is a presentation of Odyssey and Jigsaw Productions. It was created by me, PJ Vote, and Shrithy Pinnaminani,

and is produced by Garrett Graham and Noah John. Fact-checking this week by Mary Mathis. Theme, original composition, and mixing by Armand Bizarrian. The team that worked on the ProPublica series includes Jesse Isinger, Paul Keel, Jeff Ernsthausen, Justin Elliott, James Bandler, Shalahan, Robert Federici, Ellis Simony, Ash New, and Doris Burke. Our executive producers are Jenna Weiss Berman and Leah Reese Dennis. Thanks to the team at Jigsaw, Alex Gibney, Rich Perelo, and John Schmidt, and to the team at Odyssey,

J.D. Crowley, Rob Morandi, Craig Cox, Eric Donnelly, Kate Rose, Matt Casey, Moira Curran, Josephina-F, Kirste, and Hilary Schuff. Our agent is Orrin Rosenbaum at UTA. Follow and listen to ZERGE Engine for free on the Odyssey app or wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks for listening. I'll see you next week. Hey, business owners.

The NFL season is a big revenue driver. Now there's a smarter way to get ready. Everpass is the only authorized commercial platform for NFL Sunday ticket, delivering every live out-of-market regular season Sunday afternoon game. Locking the best offer now with up to 40% off saving up to $2,500. For the first time, you can pay over nine months. Get up to six free devices and a free bar kit. Sign up by April 27th.

Visit everpass.com. Limited time offer, terms apply.