William Hathaway, a 21-year IRS veteran and former special agent with IRS Criminal Investigations (IRS-CI), alleges he was wrongfully terminated after reporting discrimination and questioning leadership decisions.
His case, currently pending before the Merit Systems Protection Board, raises larger concerns about what he describes as a “culture of retaliation” and ongoing selective enforcement within federal law enforcement.
Hathaway began his federal service in the U.S. Navy before moving to the civil side of the IRS in 2004. He joined IRS-CI in 2010 and, in the time since, has served for more than 15 years as a criminal investigator. He completed leadership development programs, served in acting supervisory roles, and coordinated use-of-force responsibilities in the Tampa Field Office.
In other words, he did everything right.
Hathaway alleges that while serving in an acting supervisory detail in Nashville, he was removed early from the assignment after requesting accommodations related to his wife’s high-risk pregnancy. He says he reported discriminatory treatment toward him to his permanent chain of command in April 2023.
Three weeks later, according to Hathaway, allegations were filed against him with the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA).
Hathaway was then investigated for what IRS-CI later characterized as “lack of candor.” He maintains that two separate TIGTA investigations failed to substantiate claims that he made false statements. Despite that, he was placed on temporary restricted duty in April 2025, stripped of his firearm, cases, and government vehicle, and ultimately terminated in September 2025.
According to the TIGTA, the basis for termination was “conduct unbecoming of an employee,” tied to the aforementioned lack of candor. His appeal is now scheduled for a hearing before the Merit Systems Protection Board in April.
As Hathaway points out, “lack of candor” does not appear as a standalone offense in the IRS penalty policy. He argues it has been used as a catch-all justification in disciplinary actions, used selectively to retaliate and discriminate against specific individuals.
Hathaway contends his case is not isolated, alleging that IRS-CI management promotes individuals accused of discrimination while disciplining those who challenge leadership. He also points to what he describes as inconsistent enforcement of relocation and hardship transfer policies.
According to Hathaway, IRS-CI policy generally requires agents to serve a minimum period before requesting voluntary relocation. He claims that in at least one instance, an agent was allowed to transfer under circumstances that conflicted with internal policy based on favoritism from leadership.
Hathaway also references what he calls a “one voice” culture within IRS-CI, alleging that employees who deviate from management narratives or raise internal concerns risk retaliation. He says many current agents are reluctant to speak publicly for fear of professional consequences.
As Hathaway notes, the IRS-CI division has already faced scrutiny in recent years, including controversy involving supervisory officials tied to high-profile investigations and internal disputes. Hathaway argues his experience reflects a systemic issue, not a personal grievance.
Hathaway’s case represents what agents across America have been echoing for years: that favoritism and selective enforcement are making a mockery of our once-esteemed agencies and creating the perfect environment for corruption to fester.
Comments