IRS Admits They Targeted Conservative Groups

[Revoltingest]

I don't see the problem. So...the people at the IRS liked Obama more than Romney....MOST OF US did as well.....hence the election.....:sleep:

Hmmm.....do you approve of an administration having the power to steer audits in the direction of its foes?
Or is it that you believe it just doesn't happen. (I'm really not clear on your view.)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Hmmm.....do you approve of an administration having the power to steer audits in the direction of its foes?
Or is it that you believe it just doesn't happen. (I'm really not clear on your view.)

There were no "audits' from what I can tell. As far as power...ehhh!...they wouldn't have the power if they weren't granted the power.....and considering the majority of the groups, from what I can tell, have been conservative groups seeking tax exempt status even though they clearly are not in the slightest a "social welfare organization" but clearly using it's resources for political purposes...I don't have a problem with the scrutiny.......

 

[Revoltingest]

There were no "audits' from what I can tell. As far as power...ehhh!...they wouldn't have the power if they weren't granted the power.....and considering the majority of the groups, from what I can tell, have been conservative groups seeking tax exempt status even though they clearly are not in the slightest a "social welfare organization" but clearly using it's resources for political purposes...I don't have a problem with the scrutiny.......

The term "social welfare" legally includes political activities (per court ruling).
And from the IRS itself...

...a 501(c) (4) organization may engage in germane legislative activities as its sole activity.

And "social welfare" need only be the primary function, leaving something less than 50% for other activities.
Fom the IRS again....

...the "primary" test, as employed in section 501(c) (4), may permit an organization lawfully to participate or intervene in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to campaigns for public office so long as its primary activities remain the promotion of social welfare. See

The courts have broadly interpreted the above, perhaps beyond what Congress intended, but the courts rule.
The "audits" I refer to were part of the granting process, & resulted in approval delays for possibly 500 groups.
To exercise power as the IRS did is not proof that they had the legal authority to do so, ie, this is the fundamental question being raised.

 

[4consideration]

*edit*

The term "audit" is used in various industries to mean the process for scrutinizing, or evaluating activities or processes. Audits may be strictly financial in nature, or not. Many people that are unfamiliar with governmental or business processes may, personally, assume the term to only mean "tax audit". However, "a tax audit" is only one of the many types of possible audits.

The IRS conducts "tax audits" but also conducts other types of audits as well. As I see it, it is completely accurate to speak of the IRS process for scrutinizing applications as audits -- since they are looking at the finances, activities, etc. of the organization that submitted applications.

The US Attorney General's office refers to its scrutiny of the IRS as an "audit". Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review

"WHY TIGTA DID THE AUDIT
TIGTA initiated this audit based on concerns expressed by members of Congress. The overall objective of this audit was to determine whether allegations were founded that the IRS: 1) targeted specific groups applying for tax‑exempt status, 2) delayed processing of targeted groups’ applications, and 3) requested unnecessary information from targeted groups."

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The term "social welfare" legally includes political activities (per court ruling).
And from the IRS itself...
And "social welfare" need only be the primary function, leaving something less than 50% for other activities.
Fom the IRS again....
The courts have broadly interpreted the above, perhaps beyond what Congress intended, but the courts rule.

OK....As long as we're agreeing that courts rule....I'm fine with it...(for now). I still have a issue with Citizens United, undisclosed donors and other various forms of dark money contributions....

The "audits" I refer to were part of the granting process, & resulted in approval delays for possibly 500 groups.

How is this an "audit".....(scratching head)

EDIT: Question withdrawn as 4consideration did a decent job at clearing it up.

 

[Revoltingest]

OK....As long as we're agreeing that courts rule....I'm fine with it...(for now). I still have a issue with Citizens United, undisclosed donors and other various forms of dark money contributions....

I'm torn on the issue of disclosure. On the one hand, transparency is the bane of corruption. On the other,
lack of privacy can inhibit supporting one's causes. At the moment, I lean towards full disclosure.

How is this an "audit".....(scratching head)

I'm in the process of applying for a 501 (c) (3) status for a museum, & I've consulted many others who've been thru the tricky process. There is a normal level of scrutiny, generally served by just supplying required info. Greater scrutiny arrives later, if compliance is in doubt. (I know of one fella who lost his status for this reason.) But the level applied in the 501 (c) (4) cases I read about involves detailed question & answer exchanges which approach what I experienced during IRS tax audits, eg, IRS demand to provide a list of students served. This neatly fits the use of the word "audit" as commonly used in the US. (Quibbling Canuckistans may differ.)

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm just really confused here. If the IRS admitted they done something wrong, why all the debate?

It is almost like some of you champion what the IRS did for your own political reasons.

From where I sit, I can take the word of a Canadian about American tax law or I can take the word of the IRS instead.

If the IRS apologised, that should pretty much settle this issue.

If certain groups where wrong for applying for tax exempt status but still received scrutiny beyond the norm, there is still wrong doing on the IRS's part and is an abuse of power.

 

[Reverend Rick]

This is kinda like the State Policeman who pulled over black men in fancy cars on I-95. He had no right to pull them over but made plenty of drug busts that way.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is kinda like the State Policeman who pulled over black men in fancy cars on I-95. He had no right to pull them over but made plenty of drug busts that way.

It reminds me of the PRC philosophy that guilt is proven by the very fact that authorities pursue someone.
Poyun Wei explains as only he can......
China

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm working real hard here to keep this thread on track.

What about the black doctor or dentist, (I can't remember) who drove a very fancy car and was pulled over by police 50 odd times and was never cited for anything beyond driving while black?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm working real hard here to keep this thread on track.
What about the black doctor or dentist, (I can't remember) who drove a very fancy car and was pulled over by police 50 odd times and was never cited for anything beyond driving while black?

That's definitely part of the broader picture, ie, that government will target some people for greater 'enforcement' than others.
Of course, they always offer nominally plausible reasons for disparate treatment, but it still fundamentally violates the law,
which is a power I'd not want to grant them.
We had a similar incident here when a jewelry store owner criticized city government. The cops sought
him out for selective enforcement whenever his car left his home. Fortunately, this blew up in their faces.

 

[Adramelek]

The tax collector has never been viewed as a friend of the people, but more like the long arm of oppressive, over bloated government. I say replace the current tax code with something like the Fair Tax and abolish the IRS. This is why IRS employees despise and fear people like me, my ideas about the organization and the present tax code can possibly pose a threat to their dubious jobs.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

 

[Revoltingest]

The tax collector has never been viewed as a friend of the people, but more like the long arm of oppressive, over bloated government. I say replace the current tax code with something like the Fair Tax and abolish the IRS. This is why IRS employees despise and fear people like me, my ideas about the organization and the present tax code can possibly pose a threat to their dubious jobs.
Xeper.
/Adramelek\

I agree that the IRS should not be the gatekeeper of who may organize. The necessity
of getting tax exempt status in order to receive donations is the culprit behind this mischief.

 

[Adramelek]

I agree that the IRS should not be the gatekeeper of who may organize. The necessity
of getting tax exempt status in order to receive donations is the culprit behind this mischief.

Well, you know, under the current tax code, I really have no problem with say religious organizations paying taxes. It isn't meant to be a contradiction, just a variation on the reality of what we currently have to deal with.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, you know, under the current tax code, I really have no problem with say religious organizations paying taxes. It isn't meant to be a contradiction, just a variation on the reality of what we currently have to deal with.
Xeper.
/Adramelek\

Yes! (You are so left hand path.)
Eliminate deductability of contributions, & we eliminate (some) government control.
It will also raise tax revenue. Let's just ensure it won't be spent on more wars.

 

[Adramelek]

Yes! (You are so left hand path.)
Eliminate deductability of contributions, & we eliminate (some) government control.
It will also raise tax revenue. Let's just ensure it won't be spent on more wars.

I don't know if we have any control over the later, but yes I am all for taxing groups from the "Hillside Church of Christ" to the "First Church of Satan" to the "Temple of Set", etc.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

 

[esmith]

Interesting article.
Soros Gave $6.1 Million to Groups Linked to Pressure on IRS to Target Conservative Nonprofits | CNS News

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm torn on the issue of disclosure. On the one hand, transparency is the bane of corruption. On the other,
lack of privacy can inhibit supporting one's causes. At the moment, I lean towards full disclosure.

Same here....We decry transparency with our governments and I believe we should expect nothing less from the various contributors that would seek to influence politics for personal/corporate gain.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The tax collector has never been viewed as a friend of the people, but more like the long arm of oppressive, over bloated government. I say replace the current tax code with something like the Fair Tax and abolish the IRS. This is why IRS employees despise and fear people like me, my ideas about the organization and the present tax code can possibly pose a threat to their dubious jobs.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

Interesting.........So who will be there to make sure your taxes are collected, paid on time.....or enforce the rules if they're broken?

 

[Revoltingest]

Some brief history on presidents using the IRS to menace enemies.
(Note: Obama is not accused.)
The I.R.S. Abusing Americans Is Nothing New - YouTube

Interesting.........So who will be there to make sure your taxes are collected, paid on time.....or enforce the rules if they're broken?

If I may answer too, someone will have to do the IRS's job, but I'd like to see that it's easier for both the agency & the taxpayer.
We need simpler & clearer rules, & lower marginal tax rates. They can keep the "IRS" name as far as I'm concerned.