IRS Admits They Targeted Conservative Groups

[Dirty Penguin]

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

Naw...but your tone was hyperbolic....

 

[Revoltingest]

Some news....
Top IRS official will invoke 5th Amendment - latimes.com
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348961/true-vote-files-suit-against-irs-ian-tuttle

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/21/senators-hit-irs-failure-disclose-tea-party-target/

Democratic lawmakers on the Senate Finance Committee said Tuesday the IRS, while engaging in “unacceptable” targeting of conservative groups, may have been set up for failure by campaign finance law ambiguities that allowed tax-exempt groups to engage in partisan politics without disclosing their donors.

I can agree with them.
​

 

[esmith]

Naw...but your tone was hyperbolic....

We here in the West see the issue a little different than those on both coast especially those in the East. We are constantly seeing rules and regulations that may or may not "fit" in all parts of the country. However, we have such a small input due to our population that our concerns are drowned out by, how should I say "liberal minded East Coast bureaucracy ".

 

[tytlyf]

We here in the West see the issue a little different than those on both coast especially those in the East. We are constantly seeing rules and regulations that may or may not "fit" in all parts of the country. However, we have such a small input due to our population that our concerns are drowned out by, how should I say "liberal minded East Coast bureaucracy ".

I love how certain Americans discredit anything that comes from another country. As if no one can learn about our systems.
Please explain what a "liberal minded East Coast Bureaucracy" is. Thanks.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't think that the major issue is who was targeted

No, that is the only issue. They had a job to weed out political groups from social welfare groups, because political groups weren't supposed to be tax exempt. The only question is how they decided on which groups required extra scrutiny for the process. If they solely went after conservative groups, that's a problem. If they went after groups of all kinds, I don't see a problem.

 

[esmith]

I love how certain Americans discredit anything that comes from another country. As if no one can learn about our systems.
Please explain what a "liberal minded East Coast Bureaucracy" is. Thanks.

policy against oil and gas exploration on public lands, keystone pipeline, certain EPA's policies, telling ranches how to manage public grazing lands when the ranches have been doing it for decades, attempting to tell farmers they can't use a certain genetically engineered seed(Roundup resistant), telling the public they can't use parts of a man-made lake for recreation (built for irrigation), attempting to federally mandate firearms, I could continue but I think you get the idea.

 

[tytlyf]

policy against oil and gas exploration on public lands, keystone pipeline, certain EPA's policies, telling ranches how to manage public grazing lands when the ranches have been doing it for decades, attempting to tell farmers they can't use a certain genetically engineered seed(Roundup resistant), telling the public they can't use parts of a man-made lake for recreation (built for irrigation), attempting to federally mandate firearms, I could continue but I think you get the idea.

Sorry to burst your bubble, most Americans are against those policies. Not just 'democrats. "

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No, that is the only issue. They had a job to weed out political groups from social welfare groups, because political groups weren't supposed to be tax exempt. The only question is how they decided on which groups required extra scrutiny for the process. If they solely went after conservative groups, that's a problem. If they went after groups of all kinds, I don't see a problem.

Yep...They put the scrutiny to four liberal groups as well. I believe a letter the conservative groups received the liberal groups got as well. And after all that the only group between the two that was denied tax exempt status was a liberal group....so far. Some other conservative applications are pending.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

policy against oil and gas exploration on public lands, keystone pipeline, certain EPA's policies, telling ranches how to manage public grazing lands when the ranches have been doing it for decades, attempting to tell farmers they can't use a certain genetically engineered seed(Roundup resistant), telling the public they can't use parts of a man-made lake for recreation (built for irrigation), attempting to federally mandate firearms, I could continue but I think you get the idea.

All of these make sense to me...and we Dems aren't the only political group in agreement here. There are many conservatives that agree as well.

 

[esmith]

Sorry to burst your bubble, most Americans are against those policies. Not just 'democrats. "

All of these make sense to me...and we Dems aren't the only political group in agreement here. There are many conservatives that agree as well.

Yes and as I said " "liberal minded East Coast Bureaucracy"I didn't specify and political party. Just because one thinks that what is good for them does not necessarily mean it is good for the entire country. It is time for a Libertarian Government.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

We here in the West see the issue a little different than those on both coast especially those in the East. We are constantly seeing rules and regulations that may or may not "fit" in all parts of the country. However, we have such a small input due to our population that our concerns are drowned out by, how should I say "liberal minded East Coast bureaucracy ".

This is what I mean by hyperbole. This country isn't ideologically divided when it comes to region... And what in the world is "liberal minded East Coast bureaucracy"... Nothing gets done in the House with out the Senate and vice versa.....And since we only control one then it's safe to say that any blame you have should be cast upon both parties. I know I do...........And for everything "federal" government does that you find fault in I can show you a state government, many controlled by your party, that's doing things even worse...then again...I can find some crazy state governing by both dems and pubs...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Libertarian Government.

Keep on dreamin'...

 

[Falvlun]

Some news....
Top IRS official will invoke 5th Amendment - latimes.com
True the Vote Files Suit Against the IRS | National Review Online

Democratic lawmakers on the Senate Finance Committee said Tuesday the IRS, while engaging in “unacceptable” targeting of conservative groups, may have been set up for failure by campaign finance law ambiguities that allowed tax-exempt groups to engage in partisan politics without disclosing their donors.

Parties divide over IRS scandal fallout - Washington Times

I can agree with them.
​

Me too.

 

[dawny0826]

No, that is the only issue. They had a job to weed out political groups from social welfare groups, because political groups weren't supposed to be tax exempt. The only question is how they decided on which groups required extra scrutiny for the process. If they solely went after conservative groups, that's a problem. If they went after groups of all kinds, I don't see a problem.

According to the IRS...

Exemption Requirements - Political Organizations

A political organization subject to section 527 is a party, committee, association, fund, or other organization (whether or not incorporated) organized and operated primarily for the purpose of directly or indirectly accepting contributions or making expenditures, or both, for an exempt function.
A political organization must be organized for the primary purpose of carrying on exempt function activities. A political organization's primary activities must be exempt function activities. A political organization may engage in activities that are not exempt function activities, but these may not be its primary activities.
To be exempt, a political organization must file a timely notice with the IRS that it is to be treated as a tax-exempt organization.

...Political non-profit organizations can apply for tax exemption.

And social welfare groups are not excluded from supporting political functions - as long as such activities are not the group's primary activity focus.

Please refer to www.irs.gov.

Unless the IRS has shifted its own policies within the last two years - I don't understand how it's actions can be construed as anything other than politically motivated "targeting".

 

[Alceste]

According to the IRS...


...Political non-profit organizations can apply for tax exemption.

And social welfare groups are not excluded from supporting political functions - as long as such activities are not the group's primary activity focus.

Please refer to www.irs.gov.

Unless the IRS has shifted its own policies within the last two years - I don't understand how it's actions can be construed as anything other than politically motivated "targeting".

If there were also liberal terms on the list of terms they were scrutinizing, who were they targeting?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Unless the IRS has shifted its own policies within the last two years - I don't understand how it's actions can be construed as anything other than politically motivated "targeting".

They have. By law none of the groups that have been suckling at the tax exempt teet should have been granted the ability to do so. In order to meet the law an organizatin had to "exclusively" be engaging in "social welfare". The IRS changed that in their interpretation and introduced the word "primarily"...By law this is illeagal. THIS......is the real "scandal" IMO.

 

[Revoltingest]

They have. By law none of the groups that have been suckling at the tax exempt teet should have been granted the ability to do so. In order to meet the law an organizatin had to "exclusively" be engaging in "social welfare". The IRS changed that in their interpretation and introduced the word "primarily"...By law this is illeagal. THIS......is the real "scandal" IMO.

This poses an odd situation. If the IRS effectively changed the law by interpreting it differently from what was
intended, thereby allowing political activity under 501c4, then the IRS violated its own interpretation when
it engaged in partisan disparate treatment. This would make them a more lawless bunch than even I would.
But aside from that, what evidence do you have that the law prohibits political activity under 501c4?
What evidence do you have that the IRS itself introduced the word "primarily"?

 

[dawny0826]

They have. By law none of the groups that have been suckling at the tax exempt teet should have been granted the ability to do so. In order to meet the law an organizatin had to "exclusively" be engaging in "social welfare". The IRS changed that in their interpretation and introduced the word "primarily"...By law this is illeagal. THIS......is the real "scandal" IMO.

WHEN did they change their interpretation of that law?

Over forty years ago or within the last two years?

The current criteria for application doesn't reconcile with the actions that they took.

 

[dawny0826]

If there were also liberal terms on the list of terms they were scrutinizing, who were they targeting?

Did you ever read the application criteria on the IRS website for non-profit tax exempt application?

 

[Magic Man]

According to the IRS...


...Political non-profit organizations can apply for tax exemption.

And social welfare groups are not excluded from supporting political functions - as long as such activities are not the group's primary activity focus.

Please refer to www.irs.gov.

I'm not sure what the point of this was. If you were under the impression that my talking about weeding out political groups from social welfare ones indicates that I think no political groups can be tax exempt, then you were mistaken. I didn't think it necessary to specify "primarily political" groups.

Unless the IRS has shifted its own policies within the last two years - I don't understand how it's actions can be construed as anything other than politically motivated "targeting".

Because we don't know why they targetted the terms they did. It's possible it's politically motivated, but it's also possible it's just because they're obvious targets for extra scrutiny considering it sure sounds like they'd be primarily political groups. This is why I said we'd only know for sure, if we were provided with the entire list of terms they flagged. If that list was focused only on conservative terms, then concluding it was politically motivated would seem to be accurate. If the list was a mix of political terms that included things like "Tea Party" and "Patriot" as well as a bunch of non-conservative terms, then it would seem to not be politically motivated.