esmith
Veteran Member
Suggest you read the following article, it might answer your question or open up other questions.
FactCheck.org : IRS Officials Misled Congress, Public
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
IRS Admits They Targeted Conservative Groups
- Thread starter esmith
- Start date
Suggest you read the following article, it might answer your question or open up other questions.
FactCheck.org : IRS Officials Misled Congress, Public
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Why? What from that link do you think counters anything I've said? All that was included was what we already know. We still don't have the full list.
We have other evidence supporting political motivation too.
Schumer, Franken urged IRS to target tea party in 2012 | The Daily Caller
Alceste
Vagabond
I've read what you've posted. That included the relevant criteria for social welfare non-profits as well as irrelevant criteria for applying as a political organization. You posted the relevant section (thanks for that), so no, I didn't go to the IRS website. I took your word for it.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Over 40 years ago. They had no legal right to. It changes the raw meaning of the law and makes it ambiguous.
If they only targeted conservative groups I would agree but they didn't. If they were denying conservative groups vs. others I would agree but they didn't. I'm not saying I agree with their methods but their methods, at least to me, don't seem that out of line. Strike the ambiguity in their interpretation and you won't have this problem anymore....IMO
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
This isn't evidence of what you assert. The letter didn't even focus, from what I can tell, on a specific group or party.....
Senator Charles E. Schumer
They rightly raise the question and concerns we're now discussing a year later....concerning the original text of the law as it relates to "exclusive" and the ambiguity of "primarily"...That's what the letter is focusing on....:sad:
Little Darwin
Member
To me, the bottom line is that any group labeling themselves as Tea Party and claiming to be 501c4 would be suspect. As would anything with other political terms in the name, Democratic, Freedom, Libertarian, Whig or Party, among many others... There is a category for political non-profits, and that should be used by political groups. Any group that wants to be a 501 charity with limited political activities with a name or description that is blatantly political should be closely examined, whether conservative, liberal or middle-of-the-road.
If you primary purpose isn't political and you want a 501 tax exempt status, pick a name that reflects what the group is really about, not a political movement.
If you primary purpose isn't political and you want a 501 tax exempt status, pick a name that reflects what the group is really about, not a political movement.
The letter reference a Mar 7 NYT article (actually dated Mar 6 by the NYT). While Schumer's letter doesn't mention partisan concerns, the actual NYT article mentions that Democrats suffer relative to Republicans in 501 c4 fund raising.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/u...ps-stirs-harassment-claim.html?pagewanted=all
Is this a call to arms for the IRS to help the Dems?
It does not seem so clear to me now.
(The date discrepancy made this article very hard to find.)
Not that I recall.
But Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, & Nixon sicced the IRS on their foes.
This isn't to say that Obama is as culpable as they are.
His management style is more of "The Buck Stops There" style.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
My point is that per their own guidelines, there was really no reason to "target" and sort in the manner that they did. If these applications with terms such as "tea party" and "patriot" were politically involved organizations...and were applying for tax exempt status as a political non-profit organization, they have the abiliity to qualify for tax exempt status. There shouldn't have been a problem, UNLESS the government WANTED to discriminate. Now, do you follow me.
Read the criteria and guidelines for involvement in political campaigning. Those applying for social welfare organizations can ALSO campaign and endorse as an exempt function, it just can't be the primary activity and purpose of their non-profit organization.
Chances are bumble bee, your non-profit groups with titles and terms such as tea party and patriot weren't filing for tax exempt status as a social welfare organization. Read the criteria. It doesn't make sense.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Your previous post linking a website article titled "Flashback: Schumer, Franken Urged IRS to target Tea Party in 2012"...From the Daily Caller..
...WHERE??? When you examine what Shumer wrote on March 12th (Senator Charles E. Schumer) I'd say the concerns were justified. We're now a year out and the concerns they raised then are just as important now.
Last edited:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Not sure. I thought I saw an article that during his administration the IRS were looking into conservative groups.
It certainly happened under George W. Bush. I believe the person heading this IRS was appointed by Bush.
When the IRS targeted liberals - Salon.com
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
They're trying to weed out groups who are primarily focused on politics and whose actions favor a particular candidate or party. I'd say "Tea Party" and "Patriot" would be good indicators of those things. That's not to say you deny every application with those terms, but they seem like obvious candidates for more scrutiny. The only question is whether they did the same for other political terms that might not be conservative.
The whole point was that they were applying for exactly that. That's the problem. That's why they were scrutinizing them more.
I seriously doubt the IRS would apologise and their employees invoking the fifth amendment if everything was as above board as some of you imply. 
More news...
Strassel: Conservatives Became Targets in 2008 - WSJ.com
What I glean from the claims is that we have a problem with tax policy more than partisanship, ie, speech & advocacy are inextricably linked with taxation.
Strassel: Conservatives Became Targets in 2008 - WSJ.com
What I glean from the claims is that we have a problem with tax policy more than partisanship, ie, speech & advocacy are inextricably linked with taxation.
Last edited:
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I seriously doubt the IRS would apologise and their employees invoking the fifth amendment if everything was as above board as some of you imply.
You can doubt it all you want, but it remains as plausible as any explanation so far. It's easy to figure they'd apologize for the method used, since, at best it looks really bad. People and agencies apologize all the time for stuff that doesn't require an apology, just to make some people feel better. And taking the fifth in a hearing where the people asking you questions are specifically trying to get you to say something that sounds incriminating, even if they have to take it out of context, makes perfect sense, even if you didn't do anything wrong. We have plenty of examples of people saying things in such hearings that get taken out of context and used to denigrate the person who said it.
I understand that from your perspective, you'll take the position that of course these things are obvious signs that there was wrong-doing, but then if the roles were reversed, you'd be defending the accused. If they were targeting liberals, you'd take the opposite view. Meanwhile, I'd be consistent, since I'm not saying Lerner is innocent or that nothing was done wrong here. I'm only saying we don't have all the facts, so we can't just assume things.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Well, that was unhelpful and a huge stretch.
I think that's the main thing to take from this "scandal": that our tax policy sucks, especially concerning groups like this.
esmith
Veteran Member
Sorry Charlie. As we commonly see that their are those that demand separation of church and state and the left screamed when the Catholic Church went against the ACA as a violation of this. Yet, we see you and those that screamed the loudest supporting a church that was doing the same thing. The only difference is that the church was supporting the ideals of the screamers.
tytlyf
Not Religious
We've already addressed this. The IRS apologized for the extra scrutiny, they did not apologize for what they did. (nothing wrong with what they did)I seriously doubt the IRS would apologise and their employees invoking the fifth amendment if everything was as above board as some of you imply.