IRS Admits They Targeted Conservative Groups

[dawny0826]

Seems to me that tea party political campaigns should have applied as political organizations rather than social welfare organizations. Do we know why they didn't?

No, we don't know why.

Social welfare organizations and political organizations in the US from a functional perspective are different animals.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, we don't know why.
Social welfare organizations and political organizations in the US from a functional perspective are different animals.

Some political organizations such as National Write Your Congressman will lobby politicians, but they have a huge educational component. I don't know how they registered for their tax exempt status, but they seem a good candidate for 501 (c) (4).

 

[Dirty Penguin]

David Cay Johnston (David Cay Johnston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

He does a really job breaking it down here.
What makes a 501(c)(4)? - Video on NBCNews.com

But Mitch McConnell summed it up 25 years ago...Well back then he did. Today he sings a different tune.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biiR3I8c5tg

Hmmm...!!!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Please do. If this is the policy, I don't get why virtually every article I've read on the subject says campaigning for a particular political candidate is not exempt.

Well the law says the following....

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/IncomeTax1913.pdf

NOTE: Wouldn't paste correctly due to its format. The law is on Page 10 of the PDF document which is page 172 of the law. I believe what IRS wound up doing later, from what I've been reading it was 1959, was made their own change or basically drafted an interpretation of the law.


http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/tehistory.pdf

The Revenue Act of 1909 mirrored and expanded the language from the 1894 act. Under this statute, tax exemption was granted to “any corporation or association organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes, no part of the net income of which inures to the benefit of any private stockholder or individual.” This important addition set forth the idea that tax-exempt charitable organizations should be free of private inurement—in other words, nonprofit.

....:sad:

 

[dawny0826]

Well the law says the following....

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/IncomeTax1913.pdf

NOTE: Wouldn't paste correctly due to its format. The law is on Page 10 of the PDF document which is page 172 of the law. I believe what IRS wound up doing later, from what I've been reading it was 1959, was made their own change or basically drafted an interpretation of the law.


http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/tehistory.pdf



....:sad:

Just reiterates how screwed up our government is. Did we not already know that?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Just reiterates how screwed up our government is. Did we not already know that?

Screwed up indeed but then again while we know that we're all just pointing out the highlights of how screwed up it is. Personally I believe the IRS brought this all on themselves due to their interpretation of law. They should have left it alone when it cited what "exclusively" meant. Exclusively doesn't mean "Primarily"...I think David Cay Johnston put things in more perspective here (What makes a 501(c)(4)? - Video on NBCNews.com). I predict going forward that this will be another blown up much ado about nothing from Congress going into the 2014 mid terms.....:sad:

 

[dawny0826]

Screwed up indeed but then again while we know that we're all just pointing out the highlights of how screwed up it is. Personally I believe the IRS brought this all on themselves due to their interpretation of law. They should have left it alone when it cited what "exclusively" meant. Exclusively doesn't mean "Primarily"...I think David Cay Johnston put things in more perspective here (What makes a 501(c)(4)? - Video on NBCNews.com). I predict going forward that this will be another blown up much ado about nothing from Congress going into the 2014 mid terms.....:sad:

Perhaps.

But, that interpretation and change went into effect long before this incident happened, which suggests that those applying for non-profit/tax exempt status during the campaign had access to the same criteria or comparable from the IRS.

It does, in my opinion, make the situation appear more politically motivated, as there are significant enough differences, by IRS definition, for charitable, social welfare and political organizations to apply for the appropriate tax exempt status - which makes the most sense and yields the greatest benefit from an organizational standpoint.

I don't buy that there wasn't any political motivation behind this "targeting", despite the IRS's public apology.

Though I still don't view the situation as scandalous, it deepens my distrust in our government and desire for change.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

But, that interpretation and change went into effect long before this incident happened, which suggests that those applying for non-profit/tax exempt status during the campaign had access to the same criteria or comparable from the IRS.

True..but to me it appears that it confirms what Mitch McConnell said 25 years ago about it. He feels different now...(hmmm!....I wonder why)....but back then he was on to something. Such ambiguity opens the flood gates.

It does, in my opinion, make the situation appear more politically motivated, as there are significant enough differences, by IRS definition, for charitable, social welfare and political organizations to apply for the appropriate tax exempt status - which makes the most sense and yields the greatest benefit from an organizational standpoint.

I agree.

I don't buy that there wasn't any political motivation behind this "targeting", despite the IRS's public apology.

The apology, IMO, is secondary and is hardly worth focusing on as been describe a few times in this thread. I have an issue with the way they went about their scrutiny. I don't have a problem with the scrutiny itself (per se). My position is that scrutiny should be equal and they need to find better ways to deal with an influx of tax exempt request. I see the influx of applications from organizations accepting dark money for political purposes/influence getting worse before it gets better.

Though I still don't view the situation as scandalous, it deepens my distrust in our government and desire for change.

I hear you. I still have the same level of distrust I always had. I have no dog in this fight as I'm not applying for tax exempt status. Such an issue is lost on most Americans because they can't relate. My trust in the IRS to deal with my standard taxes has always been the same. Personally I've never been disappointed on that level. I think I trust my state a lot less when it comes to taxes. Here's where I feel as though I'm really being taken advantage of (property tax, luxury tax, high sales tax from county to county..etc.)

 

[esmith]

I find a couple of underlying thought processes in some of the post that troubles me. One is why should organizations like the Tea Party be tax exempt? Well let me give you my opinion on why. If you as a single person wants to influence who is elected or what law, levy, or anything affecting you, how do you as one person make their voice heard? In today's political machines (DNC, RNC) it is hard for one voice to be heard over the roar of the machines. Therefor if like minded citizens come together to present a united front why should they not have tax free status? I do believe that the majority of those that consider themselves liberals have no problem with organizing to present a united front, I believe they are called unions and they are tax exempt. So what are your problems with political groups wanting basically the same thing? I also read that there are those of you who say what the IRS did was "just better organization to simplify the work load. My question to those who support this idea is as follows: Why ask for documentation that is not required and in some instances illegal to ask for? Then we have the group that it was only a couple of people in Cincinnati that got up one morning and decided on their own to undertake what they did, and when people complained no one in management thought to look into the issue. Then we have the White House. They (and I do not know who encompasses all of the "They's") after hearing rumblings didn't insist that the accusations be looked into before it became the scandal that it is now.

 

[tytlyf]

Why ask for documentation that is not required and in some instances illegal to ask for? Then we have the group that it was only a couple of people in Cincinnati that got up one morning and decided on their own to undertake what they did, and when people complained no one in management thought to look into the issue. Then we have the White House. They (and I do not know who encompasses all of the "They's") after hearing rumblings didn't insist that the accusations be looked into before it became the scandal that it is now.

Already been discussed.

What documentation is illegal to ask for?
I don't buy the Cincinnati story.
The Obama Admin knew about the extra scrutiny months before, that doesn't mean the President did.
If the President wasn't alerted, it's because it's nothing out of the ordinary with the IRS.

But I understand how you are suspicious of everything.

 

[Revoltingest]

If the President wasn't alerted, it's because it's nothing out of the ordinary with the IRS.

The underlined portion is what concerns me, since it has been a standard procedure at least since Roosevelt (with some exceptions here & there). We have a systemic problem which is independent of the administration's party affiliation.
James Bovard: A Brief History of IRS Political Targeting - WSJ.com
But Obama's plausible deniability is also troublesome.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323648304578493081906824260.html

In my experience with many attorneys I've hired over the years, I'm always alerted to all communications of material interest. His not knowing about this matter doesn't pass the smell test. If he didn't know, then was this because he has a policy of deliberately remaining unaware of contentious matters which will be handled to his liking, but without his direct involvement?
Does the sign on his desk say "The buck stops there"?

But I understand how you are suspicious of everything.

Tis far more dangerous to be trusting of everything.

 

[esmith]

Already been discussed.

What documentation is illegal to ask for?
.

I meant to say that information give out by the same office was confidential and by law illegal for them to do so.IRS Released Confidential Data Of Conservative Groups

I don't buy the Cincinnati story

What do you mean that you don't buy the Cincinnati story? Do you mean to say that you do not believe that the IRS acted improperly or illegally?

The Obama Admin knew about the extra scrutiny months before, that doesn't mean the President did.
If the President wasn't alerted, it's because it's nothing out of the ordinary with the IRS.

Just a minute here, on one hand you say you don't believe the Cincinnati story then turn around and admit that the Obama Admin knew about the extra scrutiny months before. Then you say that as the Chief Executive of the United States that the President shouldn't be informed about possible wrongdoings within the government. Maybe it is so that he can be given "plausible deniability"

But I understand how you are suspicious of everything.

No, I am not suspicious of everything but I question actions that I find suspicious. Some times it is best to questions things than to blindly accept actions or statements just because of who they are.

 

[Magic Man]

That's a good question and I was just asking myself this as I wrote my last post.

I wonder if they included words like "Liberal" or "Socialist" or "We <3 Obama" in their criteria if that would have balanced it all out and made this whole selection process legit.

This is the main question. What we need is a list of all the terms they flagged. That would settle the whole thing. The wouldn't even have to include "Liberal" or anything specific like that. It might be that there are few or no so-called liberal terms that apply to many applications where it would be beneficial to include them in a search. The question is whether the list of terms was solely conservative ones, or whether it included other popular ones that weren't necessarily liberal, but also not conservative. Without that list we won't know whether this was really political bias.

 

[esmith]

This is the main question. What we need is a list of all the terms they flagged. That would settle the whole thing. The wouldn't even have to include "Liberal" or anything specific like that. It might be that there are few or no so-called liberal terms that apply to many applications where it would be beneficial to include them in a search. The question is whether the list of terms was solely conservative ones, or whether it included other popular ones that weren't necessarily liberal, but also not conservative. Without that list we won't know whether this was really political bias.

I don't think that the major issue is who was targeted but the idea that the full force of the US Government, in the form of the IRS, came down on US citizens in possible illegal and definitely inappropriate actions. There are many cases of petty little bureaucrats that let the power go to their head and think that they know what is best. There are also political appointees that feel that they have an agenda and will do everything in their power and in some cases beyond. It also gets to the point that people who are in charge are there for the money and really do not do their job or even attempt to do it. As long as the taxpayers are paying their salary they could care less.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This is the main question. What we need is a list of all the terms they flagged. That would settle the whole thing. The wouldn't even have to include "Liberal" or anything specific like that. It might be that there are few or no so-called liberal terms that apply to many applications where it would be beneficial to include them in a search. The question is whether the list of terms was solely conservative ones, or whether it included other popular ones that weren't necessarily liberal, but also not conservative. Without that list we won't know whether this was really political bias.

You raise a good point. From what I can tell, because more info is released almost daily over this issue, is that three Liberal/Liberal Leaning groups faced similar scrutiny by the IRS.

IRS Sent Same Letter to Democrats That Fed Tea Party Row - Bloomberg

The Internal Revenue Service, under pressure after admitting it targeted anti-tax Tea Party groups for scrutiny in recent years, also had its eye on at least three Democratic-leaning organizations seeking nonprofit status. One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected.

Progress Texas, another of the organizations, faced the same lines of questioning as the Tea Party groups from the same IRS office that issued letters to the Republican-friendly applicants. A third group, Clean Elections Texas, which supports public funding of campaigns, also received IRS inquiries.

An Austin, Texas-based group, Progress Texas, received a letter from the IRS in February 2013 when it sought nonprofit status. The letter came from the agency’s Laguna Niguel, California, office, which sent essentially the same queries to Republican-leaning groups.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I don't think that the major issue is who was targeted but the idea that the full force of the US Government, in the form of the IRS, came down on US citizens in possible illegal and definitely inappropriate actions. There are many cases of petty little bureaucrats that let the power go to their head and think that they know what is best. There are also political appointees that feel that they have an agenda and will do everything in their power and in some cases beyond. It also gets to the point that people who are in charge are there for the money and really do not do their job or even attempt to do it. As long as the taxpayers are paying their salary they could care less.

This is all hyperbolic rhetoric.....

 

[esmith]

This is all hyperbolic rhetoric.....

So, you do not agree that the major issue is that the IRS did resort to targeting?

 

[Revoltingest]

This is all hyperbolic rhetoric.....

Don't be so hard on yerself. I post to you because
unlike some, you come around to thoughtful discourse.

Btw, I'm not flattering you in order to come on to you.
(You're not my type.....too tall, too male, too little income.)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Don't be so hard on yerself. I post to you because
unlike some, you come around to thoughtful discourse.

Btw, I'm not flattering you in order to come on to you.
(You're not my type.....too tall, too male, too little income.)

Oh, but the fact that you even had to say it shows you like me...you really, really like me...:flirt:

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, but the fact that you even had to say it shows you like me...you really, really like me...:flirt:

The Flying Nun is more my type.