IRS Admits They Targeted Conservative Groups

[ZooGirl02]

This really angers me. I am considered a conservative by many although I do have moderate and even liberal views on some issues. The IRS had no right to target conservative groups in this way.

To be honest I have wondered whether or not we aren't increasingly becoming a police state. I think we are and it is very concerning to me.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So no mention of the prebate these poor down trodden people would receive each month?

Dangling that carrot doesn't absolve the ideas and assumptions put forth in that program. I've laid out why it's a bad idea...even why Jindal backed away from it. It benefits those at the top and furthers the income inequality gap while continuing to squeeze more money out of the working poor and middle class. There's nothing "fair" about that tax.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This really angers me. I am considered a conservative by many although I do have moderate and even liberal views on some issues. The IRS had no right to target conservative groups in this way.

To be honest I have wondered whether or not we aren't increasingly becoming a police state. I think we are and it is very concerning to me.

They had no right to target in that manner but every right to be concerned that various Tea Party groups were seeking to avoid paying taxes and an unprecedented rate. So far no TP group have been denied tax exempt status....even though the "law", not the IRS interpretation, but the "law" would deny both democrat and republican groups this status.

Do you think the IRS should enforce the actual "law"..?

 

[esmith]

They had no right to target in that manner but every right to be concerned that various Tea Party groups were seeking to avoid paying taxes and an unprecedented rate. So far no TP group have been denied tax exempt status....even though the "law", not the IRS interpretation, but the "law" would deny both democrat and republican groups this status.

Do you think the IRS should enforce the actual "law"..?

Ok, let's have it your way. No organization that advocates political motivation should have tax free status. Do you agree with this?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Ok, let's have it your way. No organization that advocates political motivation should have tax free status. Do you agree with this?

If it's against the law then yes which in all of the cases on both sides of the isle this is the case.

 

[esmith]

If it's against the law then yes which in all of the cases on both sides of the isle this is the case.

I am advocating a new law that would not allow tax free status to any organization that involves itself in political matters in city, county, state, or federal elections. Do you agree with that?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I am advocating a new law that would not allow tax free status to any organization that involves itself in political matters in city, county, state, or federal elections. Do you agree with that?

IMO...we don't need a new law. I think the actual (501 C 4) law says that and is sufficient enough. The problem here is the IRS's interpretation of the law. Since the IRS did that everyone is referring to "that" interpretation as if it is the law for justification. It's not.

 

[esmith]

I am advocating a new law that would not allow tax free status to any organization that involves itself in political matters in city, county, state, or federal elections. Do you agree with that?

IMO...we don't need a new law. I think the actual (501 C 4) law says that and is sufficient enough. The problem here is the IRS's interpretation of the law. Since the IRS did that everyone is referring to "that" interpretation as if it is the law for justification. It's not.

So how do you propose that this will not happen again. You are taking a very simplistic view of the problem. We all know that "liberties" are taken with various laws, what makes you think that by saying you can't do "this" that it will not occur? I still say do away with tax exemption for any organization that advocates political policy. My question to you is why you wouldn't support such a action?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So how do you propose that this will not happen again.

Because if the law was enforced in the first place then we wouldn't be talking about this.

You are taking a very simplistic view of the problem.

How so? I agree that the methods used were wrong and may not have been completely fair.....but how is saying the actual law should be enforced to deny all groups that engage in politics tax exempt status a simplistic view? What you're proposing and what I'm saying about current law seems to be in harmony.....(as strange as that sounds)...

We all know that "liberties" are taken with various laws, what makes you think that by saying you can't do "this" that it will not occur?

Because if the law is enforced then you're saying from the onset that because you're engaged in political activity you do not qualify for (501 C-4) status. No discrimination involved in this at all.

I still say do away with tax exemption for any organization that advocates political policy.

This has already been done. That IS the law as it relates to (501 c-4). We shouldn't be confused by the IRS's "interpretation and additional wording of the law" with the actual law itself. The actual law is straight forward. NO groups participating in the political process is eligible because they are not "exclusively" organized for "social welfare". All of these groups are prohibited by law and the law lays out what is considered "social welfare"...and politics of any kind isn't one of them and is explicitly banned from this exemption.

My question to you is why you wouldn't support such a action?

Again...I do...because that is what current law says. Not what the IRS interpretation says....

26 USC § 501 - Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc. | Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.

Note: emphasis mine.

 

[esmith]

It appears that you are in in favor of tax exempt status for "promotion of social welfare"; However, this is a very gray area and would be open to interpretation of what is "social welfare". Would supporting one issue over another, or promoting one candidate over another because someone decides that one would benefit social welfare and the other would not. Again it is left up to interpretation. It also loosely authorizes unions to be tax exempt and their lobbying and supporting of one candidate over another with contributions and direct advertisement. I say if you want to support a political agenda do so without being tax exempt. When organizations like the AARP, NAACP, NRA, Planned Parenthood, or a myriad of others that take a political stand then they should loose their tax exempt status

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It appears that you are in in favor of tax exempt status for "promotion of social welfare"

Because that's exactly what the law says.

However, this is a very gray area and would be open to interpretation of what is "social welfare"

No it isn't. I gave you a web link that lays it all out.

When organizations like the AARP, NAACP, NRA, Planned Parenthood, or a myriad of others that take a political stand then they should loose their tax exempt status

I agree.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So....as I've been saying for weeks now...."There is no scandal"

IRS Manager Behind Tea Party Screening is a "Conservative Republican" | Mother Jones

Cincinnati IRS employees say their actions started the targeting efforts

Case closed....move along people...nothing more to see here....!!!

 

[esmith]

It appears that you are in in favor of tax exempt status for "promotion of social welfare"; However, this is a very gray area and would be open to interpretation of what is "social welfare".

Because that's exactly what the law says.



No it isn't. I gave you a web link that lays it all out.

If it is the present law, then how did the current issue come to pass. You can say "it is the law" but until something is done to stop the "interpretation" of what organization is "promoting social welfare" you will continue to have problems as they exist now. One of the major problems I see is the majority of "heads" of the various government department are political appointees that may or may not have any idea what they are doing. They know that they can be replaced when a different administration comes to power so why do anything that taxes their skills; that is if they had any to start with. There are very qualified career employees within each department that know what has to be done and their job is on the line to insure that the department is being run "correctly". Yes there will be corporation, that is the nature of human beings. It appears that they can not even be fired. see: Why Hasn't IRS Director Lois Lerner Been Fired? - Forbes

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Rep. Elijah Cummings releases a full IRS interview transcript

"The Cincinnati manager in the transcript revealed Tuesday is a self-described “conservative Republican” who told congressional investigators that he asked Washington for guidance on a tea party case on Feb. 25, 2010, the same date listed in an inspector general’s report as the genesis of the IRS’s targeting efforts.
The Cincinnati supervisor also confirmed that an IRS screener from his office developed the controversial search criteria that the agency used to identify groups for extra scrutiny.":sleep:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If it is the present law, then how did the current issue come to pass.

The current interpretation and lack of correcting this is due to a lack of congressional oversight. Or it could be that the interpretation allowed all parties to benefit politically and financially so there was no rush to correct it.

You can say "it is the law" but until something is done to stop the "interpretation" of what organization is "promoting social welfare" you will continue to have problems as they exist now.

I agree...and that's what is being lost in the discussion on how to fix the problem. It's easy.."enforce the actual law" and not the interpretation.

One of the major problems I see is the majority of "heads" of the various government department are political appointees that may or may not have any idea what they are doing.

From what we can now tell..it seems that they did. They were and need to find better ways to deal with influx of tax exempt request and apply them fairly across the board

They know that they can be replaced when a different administration comes to power so why do anything that taxes their skills; that is if they had any to start with.

It takes a lot of skill to do what the IRS and various other departments do. We may not like them from time to time but their job isn't an easy one.

It appears that they can not even be fired. see: Why Hasn't IRS Director Lois Lerner Been Fired? - Forbes

They can be fired but one needs to have some very good reasons to fire them. In her case...I see no reason she should have been fired.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's in the news again....
IRS auditor reaffirms that conservatives, not liberals, were targeted - Washington Times
and.....
Treasury: IRS targeted 292 Tea Party groups, just 6 progressive groups | WashingtonExaminer.com
and.....
House committee grills IRS chief on scope of targeting

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It's in the news again....
IRS auditor reaffirms that conservatives, not liberals, were targeted - Washington Times
and.....
Treasury: IRS targeted 292 Tea Party groups, just 6 progressive groups | WashingtonExaminer.com
and.....
House committee grills IRS chief on scope of targeting

This story is dying. It's not important anymore. The manager heading up the "targeting" out of Cincinnati is a self described "Conservative Republican". He and the staff under him came up with the formula to separate the increased influx of Tea Party applicants. Just so happens that not as many Liberal applications were filed as compared to Tea Party/Republican groups. So far that I know of no one has been denied status except one liberal group. So if "targeting" was done, and the evidence is showing there was none, then it was done and managed by a "Conservative Republican" manager......


IRS Manager Behind Tea Party Screening is a "Conservative Republican" | Mother Jones

Cincinnati IRS employees say their actions started the targeting efforts


Rep. Elijah Cummings releases a full IRS interview transcript


26 USC § 501 - Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc. | Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
Quote:
Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.

 

[Revoltingest]

This story is dying. It's not important anymore.

So you say, but there it is in the news again.
All things run their course.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So you say, but there it is in the news again.
All things run their course.

It's run its course. The move to keep it in the news (see: Daryl Issa)...is a sign of desperation. It took Mr. Cummings to release that information. Issa was releasing bits and pieces of other testimonies that fit his preconceived notions. He didn't want Mr. Cummings to release this bit of important info. So now it's out there and shapes the situation differently. As I said in the very beginning of all of this..."It's much ado about nothing".....No targeting and no White House\Obama involvement whatsoever....move along. There's nothing to see here.....

 

[Revoltingest]

No targeting...

So you disagree with the IRS's auditor's findings in the first article?