That is not what the report states. Your article appears to be conflating two different things. From the report linked in the article:
Quote from page 25:
Recommendation 4: The Commissioners, SB/SE and LB&I Divisions, should coordinate
examination planning to ensure that the examination plans will follow the Secretary of the Treasury Directive to prioritize coverage of individual high-income earners over $400,000.
Management’s Response: The IRS agreed with this recommendation. The IRS agreed
to ensure that the enterprise examination plan will follow the Treasury Secretary’s
directive to not increase audit rates above historic levels for households making less than $400,000 and small businesses.
The Report did go on to state that:
The IRS Commissioner should:
Recommendation 5: Establish a definition for high-income taxpayers in reference to
examination compliance for purposes of focusing on income levels above which taxpayers have unique and varied opportunities for tax avoidance.
Management’s Response: The IRS disagreed with this recommendation. It asserted
that a static and overly proscriptive definition of high-income taxpayers for purposes of
focusing on income levels above which taxpayers have unique and varied opportunities
for tax would serve to deprive the IRS of the agility to address emerging issues and
trends.
Further, the report goes on to state:
Recommendation 6: Further refine the examination activity codes scheme to better identify high-income individual returns.
Management’s Response: The IRS partially agreed with this recommendation. The IRS
agreed to identify the best method to identify and track high-income examinations as
part of the work being undertaken to implement the Treasury Secretary’s directive to not increase audit rates for households making less than $400,000 and small businesses.
Your source article appears to be trying to pull a rope a dope.