Having done that I remember the way to deal with things outside the formal process was to just write a memo!
No form is needed ~ the bureaucrat sits down and writes the memo to the supplicant and asks for information ~ and might even specify the format, but probably not.
The only time you need a form is when you have a large number of supplicants with essentially the same 'prey thee lord take pity on my request' situation. Otherwise you just cite a rule in the regulations and away you go.
Asking for the names of donors is simply prohibited ~ asking for the names of OWNERS (of a periodical) OR the names of principal OFFICERS (for any sort of corporation) would always be acceptable.
That's not what was happening here ~ they asked for names of donors, or members.
No form would be provided ~ so I just did a search at >http://search.irs.gov/search?q=donors&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=irs_portals_frontend&client=irs_portals_frontend&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&num=10&ud=1&exclude_apps=1&site=default_collection&numgm=5&requiredfields=-archive%3A1
Someone might have snatched up one of the various documents listed to use for this other prohibited practice of course ~ but that'd be one smart cookie ~ well versed in IRS Processes ~ likely not a terribly low level worker at all!
Ok my issue is that the committee should be looking into who drafted the questions (and since these questions were sent to a “group” it can be considered a “form” but those rules may be long gone now)
I cannot imagine a single low level employee asking for this type of information if there had not been direction from above and there should be an email path to the who required the low level folks to ask for donor lists.
I believe there are 27 clients with these questions which does indicate coordination in an office for the employees to send them out.
Just a thought running through my head as I try to imagine how the questions were developed and sent out to more than one applicant. What guidelines were given the employees to ask for them and which attorney int he government approved it because there is always attorneys lurking behind anything of this kind.