IRS Admits They Targeted Conservative Groups

[Revoltingest]

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.

I hope that you mean we decry the lack of transparency.

 

[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?

Under the Fair Tax all taxes will automatically be collected only every time you purchase something be it a food item or something like a cd. Ideally there should be something like a 9% sales tax, so if you purchase something that may cost $1.00, the tax on it would bring it to $1.09. It's not perfect but I think it is a whole hell of a lot simpler and better than what we have right now.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

 

[Alceste]

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."

*edit*

Seriously though, I've worked in the public sector. Part of my job was to implement recommendations from a privacy audit by the privacy commissioner. You're simply incorrect. Verifying the eligibility of an applicant for a specific service by asking for supporting documentation or additional information is not called an audit by anyone, ever.

 

[Debater Slayer]

***Staff Advisory***

Thread closed for staff review.
​

 

[ChristineES]

***Mod Post***

Some posts have been deleted as well as their responses. Please keep in mind forum rules, especially rules 1, 3, and 11.​

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Under the Fair Tax all taxes will automatically be collected only every time you purchase something be it a food item or something like a cd. Ideally there should be something like a 9% sales tax, so if you purchase something that may cost $1.00, the tax on it would bring it to $1.09. It's not perfect but I think it is a whole hell of a lot simpler and better than what we have right now.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

I opt for flat state and fed tax. You can have your sales tax. IMO it's the worst kind of tax. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana thought about getting rid of corporate tax and state taxes. Turns out that meant jacking up the sales tax which meant it was going to cost more than it would benefit the people. Paying a tax on every transaction is not my idea of a fair tax.

 

[Revoltingest]

I opt for flat state and fed tax. You can have your sales tax. IMO it's the worst kind of tax. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana thought about getting rid of corporate tax and state taxes. Turns out that meant jacking up the sales tax which meant it was going to cost more than it would benefit the people. Paying a tax on every transaction is not my idea of a fair tax.

The sales tax eliminates IRS power over tax exempt groups by removing the qualification process.
I'll go with your approach if we get rid of personal deductions, which will allow a lower tax rate for a given level of revenue.

 

[tytlyf]

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

Why do you keep doing this? Do you see the propaganda just from the headline? If not, I'll point it out after your reply. I did read the "article."

 

[4consideration]

*edit*

Seriously though, I've worked in the public sector. Part of my job was to implement recommendations from a privacy audit by the privacy commissioner. You're simply incorrect. Verifying the eligibility of an applicant for a specific service by asking for supporting documentation or additional information is not called an audit by anyone, ever.

It looks like we'll likely have to agree to disagree on the use of the term.

With the massive amount of information required to be submitted with those applications, including financial information, I maintain that the requesting the type and amount of additional information that has been alleged to have been required only of specific organizations is at best part of an audit process.

I was inclined to look at what organizations submitting applications had to present on the application and the instructions for doing so -- that would have been in effect at the time, since it seems the processes and forms were revised in 2012. I would hope that the IRS would post accurate information online, when this is such a hot topic right now.

Unfortunately, that information seems unavailable to me at this time, as the search on the IRS site this morning brought up something confusing for me. It seems that under the prior year publications it contains the instructions last revised in 2006, but the actual application listed as the one previously used for that period (2006 until revised) is really the current one (revised in 2012.) I would hope that the IRS would post accurate information online, when this is such a hot topic right now. Link below.

(If anyone can find that I was making a error, or has found both the application and the instructions that would have applied in 2010, please post a link for me.)

Prior Year Products

From what I have been able to see so far (knowing there is likely to be some significant differences to policy and processes as a result of revisions,) if I had submitted an application that contains what looks like a massive amount of information, including financial data over the past few years, who and what types of organizations that we would support, specific questions regarding political involvement, etc. there is enough information on the actual application to make the determination needed as to whether or not tax exempt status is in order.

After submitting such a large amount of information, should I have received an 88 page document for more information, over and above the information listed as required for the process, a request for a list of all members, ALL correspondence, Facebook and twitter activity, etc. I would also have come to the conclusion that not only was this process easily termed an "audit," but that the information being provided was opening up my members to intrusion by the IRS into their personal lives -- as has been alleged by some of these organizations.

This quote is from the first link in the OP:

"Kentucky 9/12 Project is one of the conservative organizations that joined with Sekulow to complain of government overreach.
Its executive director, Eric Wilson, said his group applied for tax-exempt status in December 2010. He said the IRS responded with an 88-page questionnaire that sought all the organization's correspondence, the names of its members -- along with details of group's activity on Facebook and Twitter. It was eventually granted its nonprofit designation last month.
"I would love to say that I feel vindicated, but to think that the government has the capability to reach into the lives of people in our organization is not only scary but describes the times we live in today," Wilson said of the apology."

 

[esmith]

Why do you keep doing this? Do you see the propaganda just from the headline? If not, I'll point it out after your reply. I did read the "article."

And you did not see the links between letters sent to the IRS by Soros funded groups requesting that the IRS investagate conservative groups and the eventual IRS targeting of conservitive groups. Just to refresh your memory the following from the article

Timeline Shows Influence of Soros-Funded Groups

• March 1-17, 2010: First ten reported cases of targeting by the IRS against groups that had ties to the "tea party or similar organizations."
• Sept. 16, 2010: TIME article "The New GOP Money Stampede" quotes Wertheimer;
• Sept. 23, 2010: DISCLOSE act, a campaign finance disclosure act specifically targeting a Tea Party group, in the writing of which the CLC participated, fails in the Senate;
• Sept. 28, 2010: Democrat Senator Max Baucus writes a letter to the IRS, citing the TIME article;
• Oct. 5, 2010: Democracy 21 and Campaign Legal Center petition IRS, Wertheimer writes HuffPo article;
• Oct. 7, 2010: Legal brief from HoltzmanVogel PLLC against the Democracy 21 petition;
• Oct. 14, 2010: Dick Durbin asks IRS to investigate American Crossroads, HuffPo coverage;
• June 27, 2011: Second petition to the IRS by CLC and Democracy 21;
• June 29, 2011: IRS senior agency official Lois Lerner briefed on efforts to target groups which "criticize how the country is being run";
• Sept. 28, 2011: CLC and Democracy 21 petition IRS again, this time about four conservative groups;
• Oct. 31, 2011: CPI "investigation";
• Nov. 18, 2011: Mother Jones article;
• Nov. 21, 2011: Alternet repost of Mother Jones Article;
• Dec. 29, 2011: New York Times oped;
• Jan. 15, 2012: IRS targeted groups focusing on limiting government or educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights;
• February 2012: First articles promoting this issue appear in New York Times, Washington Post and LA Times

 

[Alceste]

It looks like we'll likely have to agree to disagree on the use of the term.

With the massive amount of information required to be submitted with those applications, including financial information, I maintain that the requesting the type and amount of additional information that has been alleged to have been required only of specific organizations is at best part of an audit process.

I was inclined to look at what organizations submitting applications had to present on the application and the instructions for doing so -- that would have been in effect at the time, since it seems the processes and forms were revised in 2012. I would hope that the IRS would post accurate information online, when this is such a hot topic right now.

Unfortunately, that information seems unavailable to me at this time, as the search on the IRS site this morning brought up something confusing for me. It seems that under the prior year publications it contains the instructions last revised in 2006, but the actual application listed as the one previously used for that period (2006 until revised) is really the current one (revised in 2012.) I would hope that the IRS would post accurate information online, when this is such a hot topic right now. Link below.

(If anyone can find that I was making a error, or has found both the application and the instructions that would have applied in 2010, please post a link for me.)

Prior Year Products

From what I have been able to see so far (knowing there is likely to be some significant differences to policy and processes as a result of revisions,) if I had submitted an application that contains what looks like a massive amount of information, including financial data over the past few years, who and what types of organizations that we would support, specific questions regarding political involvement, etc. there is enough information on the actual application to make the determination needed as to whether or not tax exempt status is in order.

After submitting such a large amount of information, should I have received an 88 page document for more information, over and above the information listed as required for the process, a request for a list of all members, ALL correspondence, Facebook and twitter activity, etc. I would also have come to the conclusion that not only was this process easily termed an "audit," but that the information being provided was opening up my members to intrusion by the IRS into their personal lives -- as has been alleged by some of these organizations.

This quote is from the first link in the OP:

"Kentucky 9/12 Project is one of the conservative organizations that joined with Sekulow to complain of government overreach.
Its executive director, Eric Wilson, said his group applied for tax-exempt status in December 2010. He said the IRS responded with an 88-page questionnaire that sought all the organization's correspondence, the names of its members -- along with details of group's activity on Facebook and Twitter. It was eventually granted its nonprofit designation last month.
"I would love to say that I feel vindicated, but to think that the government has the capability to reach into the lives of people in our organization is not only scary but describes the times we live in today," Wilson said of the apology."

I don't know why you're having trouble with this, but that still isn't an audit. It's a gruelling application process.

I write a lot of grant applications. They require a large amount of supporting information. Financial records, membership lists, mission statements, etc. They distinguish between internally prepared financial statements, externally prepared financial statements and audited financial statements. Why do you suppose they would make that distinction if voluntarily turning in your internally prepared statements was, in an of itself, an audit?

I'm not going to pursue this semantic sideline with you. It seems silly to get bogged down here. I think most people are aware of what is or isn't an IRS audit, and hopefully recognize that the IRS did not in fact audit any conservative groups.

 

[Apex]

Everyone here knows that there is more than one definition of "audit", right?

 

[esmith]

Well it seems that Obama is the typical lawyer. When asked a direct question don't answer it, but appear to answer it with a CYA answer. It seems that Juliana Goldman of Bloomberg asked Obama if anyone in the White House knew about the IRS scandal and ole "I know nothing" said he only heard about the IG report from the news. Come on Mr President, the lady asked you a question and instead of answering it you don't answer it directly but give a CYA answer. Now isn't it obvious that either he doesn't want to answer the question because it makes him look bad or is in charge of the most incompetent staff in the world. So, for those of you who want supporting evidence of either incompetence, stupidity, or attempt to cover it up I submit the following:

The PJ Tatler » Flash: Obama Carefully Issues Non-Denial Denial in IRS Scandal (Updated)
White House counsel should resign if she knew about IRS abuses - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com
NYT: Obama Administration Aware of IRS Scandal 5 Months Before Election

 

[Alceste]

Everyone here knows that there is more than one definition of "audit", right?

Is there anything to be gained by claiming the standard application process for tax exempt status is actually an IRS audit? Is that an accurate way to communicate the factual events or it a confusing way that implies much more invasiveness and scrutiny than these political groups were actually subjected to?

The goal of our choice of words for things should be accurate, clear communication of the truth.

 

[4consideration]

I don't know why you're having trouble with this, but that still isn't an audit. It's a gruelling application process.

I write a lot of grant applications. They require a large amount of supporting information. Financial records, membership lists, mission statements, etc. They distinguish between internally prepared financial statements, externally prepared financial statements and audited financial statements. Why do you suppose they would make that distinction if voluntarily turning in your internally prepared statements was, in an of itself, an audit?

I'm not going to pursue this semantic sideline with you. It seems silly to get bogged down here. I think most people are aware of what is or isn't an IRS audit, and hopefully recognize that the IRS did not in fact audit any conservative groups.

I think that the term audit accurately applies here for reasons like this, especially the first paragraph:

"WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service apologized to Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations on Friday for what it now says were overzealous audits of their applications for tax-exempt status."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/u...tive-groups-over-application-audits.html?_r=0

I think that IRS would not call something an audit that they did not think was an audit. If you wish to disagree with the IRS that there own activity involved audit, that's fine. Perhaps the New York Times is misrepresenting the IRS's statement. I don't know. I have not seen their actual statement, yet.

You were the one to make a big issue that audits were not involved, when no one (as far as I saw on this thread) ever maintained that it was a "tax audit" which is a specific audit for a specific period of time.

I think the semantic sideline in this thread was created (or made a big issue of) by you. For that reason, I think it is valid to pursue with you.

It would probably be easier if you just explain to me what you think they would have had to have done, that they did not do, in order to have it qualify as an audit in your eyes.

 

[Alceste]

I think that the term audit accurately applies here for reasons like this, especially the first paragraph:

"WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service apologized to Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations on Friday for what it now says were overzealous audits of their applications for tax-exempt status."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/u...tive-groups-over-application-audits.html?_r=0

I think that IRS would not call something an audit that they did not think was an audit. If you wish to disagree with the IRS that there own activity involved audit, that's fine. Perhaps the New York Times is misrepresenting the IRS's statement. I don't know. I have not seen their actual statement, yet.

You were the one to make a big issue that audits were not involved, when no one (as far as I saw on this thread) ever maintained that it was a "tax audit" which is a specific audit for a specific period of time.

I think the semantic sideline in this thread was created (or made a big issue of) by you. For that reason, I think it is valid to pursue with you.

It would probably be easier if you just explain to me what you think they would have had to have done, that they did not do, in order to have it qualify as an audit in your eyes.

That was the NY times using the word audit, not the IRS, with the qualifier that it was the applications for tax exemption being scrutinized, not the finances of the organizations. It's a little more clear than what you are advocating, but IMO still misleading and inaccurate in that it would probably be confusing to the average reader.

Seriously, though, this is semantics. It's silly. I'm confident most people know what an IRS audit is or isn't, and so are you, apparently. We're not going to convince each other. We might as well be arguing over whether abortion is "technically" murder.

 

[Alceste]

Oh right, missed your last question.

When the IRS sends a representative to your home or business to personally examine your financial records and you have no choice in the matter, you are being audited.

When you voluntarily submit an application for a government service, prepare all the documentation yourself, mail it in and wait for their determination, you are not being audited.

 

[esmith]

Look, this issue is not what you want to call what the IRS did, it is what they did that is important. If you want to get into the semantics of a word start a thread on it.

 

[Alceste]

Look, this issue is not what you want to call what the IRS did, it is what they did that is important. If you want to get into the semantics of a word start a thread on it.

Ok, so what did they do? They scrutinized applications for tax exempt status to determine whether or not the applicants were eligible. That's their job. To make their job more efficient, some staff took an inappropriate short cut and threw all the tea party applications on the "request further info" pile. This all happened during the Bush administration. The IRS recently brought the problem to light, apologized to the affected groups and revised their policies and procedures.

Is any part of this summary factually incorrect, in your view?

All the rest of this "story" (OMG FREE SPEECH IS UNDER ATTACK!!!) is spin, spin, spin.

 

[Revoltingest]

Everyone here knows that there is more than one definition of "audit", right?

From dictionary.com, the first 3 definitions of "audit" for your reference....

noun
1. an official examination and verification of accounts and records, especially of financial accounts.
2. a report or statement reflecting an audit; a final statement of account.
3. the inspection or examination of a building or other facility to evaluate or improve its appropriateness, safety, efficiency, or the like: An energy audit can suggest ways to reduce home fuel bills.

If any of the "scrutiny" of applicants met one of these definitions, then the word "audit" would apply. Since many of the applications resulted in extensive query & response exchanges between the IRS & applicants, #1 fits. The problem here is not which word is used to describe scrutinization which rises to the level of an audit, but rather that the IRS perpetrated partisan selective scrutinization, some of which rose to the level of an audit. I find it chilling that government should have such power over speech. (And yes, it's about speech. The raising of money by tax deductable donations is the great engine behind organized advocacy.)
The semantic objections are mere deflection from the real issue, ie, that the IRS operates to the benefit of political allies & the detriment of perceived foes. Some might see no corruption as long as their side's ox is deservedly gored, but remember that the worm turns, & you'll face another Republican in office some day. It's is an age old problem, & I believe we're fortunate that it might actually be addressed.