I dislike knee-jerk media criticism on HN (or anywhere), but in this case the story is actually based on one anonymous source, whom the journalist has never met, and on nothing else. Quality journalists corroborate anonymous tips with multiple sources and documents. The journalist's own description of the evidence:

> Just so you know, I spoke with this whistleblower a couple times by phone and he sounds credible. Plus I was able to confirm that he was with the IRS, in the position he says, during the time this was alleged to be happening.

Also, the NY Post is partisan conservative (which is fine, but important context), part of Murdoch's News Corp last I knew, and a part of the conservative partisan agenda is to discredit the IRS.

All of that doesn't make it wrong, but doesn't make it credible IMHO. I'll wait to hear more.

EDIT: A few clarifications