The IRS scandal - when did tax excemption become a right?

[ordnance11]

Do you know who I blame for this?..The Supreme Court. The IRS may had ham handedly been trying to determine who has been worthy of tax exempt status, but I would not be calling it a conspiracy.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/ ... right.html
I just got off duty officer this week. I am tired and irritable. Five 10-11 hour days of answering complaints, requests, numerous minor crises and interruptions. So forgive this rant:
I am tired hearing of tales where employers allegedly making employees work in unsafe conditions. I am tired of ex-employees telling me of atrocious working conditions of the places they worked. And then get mad at me when I tell them that I need a complaint letter from a current employee for an inspector to go there. It would have been better if they had made a complaint while they were still working.
I will give a pass to the current employees who called a complaint in, tell me that they will send in a signed complaint letter.   And then it does not show. And this goes on 5-10 times an hour. The only way to keep up is to skip lunch.
Lastly I am tired of people who denigrate government agencies, starve them of funding and personnel. And then rail against them for not doing their job.
Believe it or not, there is a history of U.S doing that. The U.S. army had no funding for a year during the post Civil War when it had its hands full trying to fight off the Indians who are attacking settlers and railroad workers crossing across tribal lands previously guaranteed by treaty. Which Congress allowed the settlers and the railroad to do.
So I will take the long view. We have had our cycle of stupid before. Maybe we can survive this current cycle. God takes care of fools, drunks and the United States after all. Least, I hope so.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Logan Darklighter]

[Foxboy]

Iunno, there can be some validity to, y'know, the guys who take in taxes being leery of groups that effectively say "DAMMIT NO TAXES EVAR!"

Just y'know, it was "No Taxation Without Representation" not just "No Taxation." By removing taxes, they remove the necessity of being represented.
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.''

-- James Nicoll

[Dartz]

Cut a long story short for me... because some of those videos are giving me the usual 'not in your country' errors. What actually happened?

Was a group registered under one tax code, but clearly doing things that disqualified them from that code investigated by the Revenue?

Did some random low-level functionaries with a private agenda abuse their power a little?

Or did the President deliberately order everything, oversee everything as the head of general political suppression campaign?

Because I've heard people saying all three.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[Black Aeronaut]

What happened, Dartz, is that you have a bunch of conservative-alligned (But non-partisan! That's the important part groups that like to promote things like political awareness and such that applied for tax exempt status because they are non-profit organizations. Now, the non-profit part is true. But if you're espousing political ideals, it's tough to say whether or not you're actually non-partisan, especially with the way the party lines are so sharply defined these days (republicans are absolutely conservative and democrats are absolutely liberal and nothing you say will change that to many Americans).

So, naturally, the IRS gave these groups a some extra scrutiny when their applications passed under the noses of their bureaucrats. It simply won't do, you see, to have mouthpieces of the Tea Party and Republican Party running around, espousing their ideals, and not have to pay a penny in tax dollars while doing so. That's right. The concern was whether or not they were being directly, or indirectly, funded by conservative superpacks.

Natrually, the Tea Party being the Tea Party, they have cried foul on this whole deal. And it really does seem unfair... at first glance.

Dig a little deeper and you'll find that they weren't the only ones scrutinized by IRS. Liberal groups, in particularly one here in Texas known as Progress Texas was scrutinized as well. After all, the Democrats can't get away with the same thing. That'd just be unfair. What does Progress Texas have to say on the matter? TO: Tea/Republican Party: SUCK IT UP, BITCHES. Well, not quite so colorfully, but the sentiment was there.

Now, someone may want to fact check me on this, but what I heard on the radio was that the Tea Party and Republican groups only made up about one-third of these non-profits that the IRS scrutinized. If this is true, then these people really don't have a leg to stand on. Your mileage may vary, though.

[robkelk]

Now, someone may want to fact check me on this, but what I heard on the radio was that the Tea Party and Republican groups only made up about one-third of these non-profits that the IRS scrutinized. If this is true, then these people really don't have a leg to stand on. Your mileage may vary, though.

One-quarter of the groups, according to the Daily Show clip that Logan embedded above.

So, yeah, this isn't a case of the current administration harassing its political opponents. It's a case of some bureaucrats instructing their subordinates to scrutinize apparently-politically-active groups.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Logan Darklighter]

Via USA Today:

In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked.
That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn’t be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months.
In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.
As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like “Progress” or “Progressive,” the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.

You honestly think that didn't have an effect on the 2012 Election?

[Logan Darklighter]

blackaeronaut wrote:

---

Dig a little deeper and you'll find that they weren't the only ones scrutinized by IRS. Liberal groups, in particularly one here in Texas known as Progress Texas was scrutinized as well. After all, the Democrats can't get away with the same thing. That'd just be unfair. What does Progress Texas have to say on the matter? TO: Tea/Republican Party: SUCK IT UP, BITCHES. Well, not quite so colorfully, but the sentiment was there.

They claim they were “scrutinized” by the IRS in much the same way that Conservative and Tea Party groups were scrutinized, and that they “appreciate” the scrutiny. 

As with the Tea Party groups, the IRS sought copies of promotional materials, backgrounds of officers, meeting minutes and specifics about activities, such as get-out-the-vote drives, that the organization said it would conduct.

Matt Glazer of Progress Texas would have you believe that those were the same questions and inquiries made of Conservative Groups.


Not true. The questions asked the conservative groups were unconstitutionally intrusive.  Here’s one example:
Do you directly or indirectly communicate with members of legislative bodies?  If so, provide copies of the written communications and contents of other forms of communications. 
What is an “indirect” communication?  A newspaper article that a legislator might read?  A speech a legislator’s spouse might attend?  The question is impossibly broad and vague. Here’s another example:
List each past or present board member, officer, key employee and members of their families who:a) Has served on the board of another organization.b) Was, is or plans to be a candidate for public office.  Indicate the nature of each candidacy.c) Has previously conducted similar activities for another entity.d) Has previously submitted an application for tax exempt status.
So now the spouses, parents, and children of conservative leaders are under scrutiny?

Or, how about this:

Do you have a close relationship with any candidate for public office or political party?  If so describe fully the nature of that relationship.

These questions read like a wish list for far-left activists trying to examine every aspect of the conservative grassroots movement and chill or intimidate activists into silence.  Imagine if the IRS had similarly targeted the Occupy Wall Street movement or labor unions or environmentalist groups, the outcry -- from the beginning -- would have been overwhelming.

Progress Texas is trying the "equivalency dodge" but closer examination of ALL the facts puts the lie to what they are trying to claim.

Additionally, the Progress Texas’s routine audit request came from a California office. The targeted Conservative inquiries were all from D.C.  and Cincinnati  Ohio offices. They were not sending out the same letters of inquiry from California to Liberals as they were to Conservatives.
You’ll also notice this little bit of information glossed over by Glazer:

An Austin, Texas-based group, Progress Texas, received a letter from the IRS in February 2013 when it sought nonprofit status.

While the average wait for Conservative and Tea Party groups to be granted (or denied) their tax exempt status is about 3 years, Progress Texas sought tax exempt non-profit status in February.
Of this year.
You’ll notice, if you go to their site, that tax exempt status has already been granted. In less than 3 months.
Probably a lot quicker than that.
But Matt Glazer and Phillip Martin would have you believe that they received the exact same scrutiny as Conservative groups.
Who are still waiting for their tax-exempt non-profit status.
If the IRS treated Progress Texas just the way they treat everybody else seeking non-profit status, why did the IRS admit wrong doing in specifically targeting Conservative and Tea Party groups?

[robkelk]

Not true. The questions asked the conservative groups were unconstitutionally intrusive. Here’s one example:

Do you directly or indirectly communicate with members of legislative bodies? If so, provide copies of the written communications and contents of other forms of communications.

What is an “indirect” communication? A newspaper article that a legislator might read? A speech a legislator’s spouse might attend? The question is impossibly broad and vague.
Here’s another example:

List each past or present board member, officer, key employee and members of their families who:
a) Has served on the board of another organization.
b) Was, is or plans to be a candidate for public office. Indicate the nature of each candidacy.
c) Has previously conducted similar activities for another entity.
d) Has previously submitted an application for tax exempt status.

So now the spouses, parents, and children of conservative leaders are under scrutiny?

Or, how about this:

Do you have a close relationship with any candidate for public office or political party? If so describe fully the nature of that relationship.

These questions read like a wish list for far-left activists trying to examine every aspect of the conservative grassroots movement and chill or intimidate activists into silence.

Not from where I sit, they don't. These are perfectly legitimate, non-partisan questions.

"Do you directly or indirectly communicate with members of legislative bodies?" - If they do, then they are lobbyist organizations.

"List each past or present board member, officer, key employee and members of their families who (etc)" - Is a household trying to "double-dip" in the tax-exempt trough?

"Do you have a close relationship with any candidate for public office or political party?" - If they do, then they are potentially lobbyists, and actual lobbyists if said candidate is elected.

If these actually are "unconstitutional," that goes a long way toward explaining why your political system is so dysfunctional. However, I strongly suspect that they are not.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[CattyNebulart]

Do you directly or indirectly communicate with members of legislative bodies?  If so, provide copies of the written communications and contents of other forms of communications. 

What is an “indirect” communication?  A newspaper article that a legislator might read?  A speech a legislator’s spouse might attend?  The question is impossibly broad and vague. 

The problem the IRS is having is that it doesn't have any extra personnel for this, but since the Citizens United decision they have been flooded with orders of maginitude more applications, mostly from Tea Party groups. If you make the tax code so hideously complicated you must provide sufficient personnel to handle it.... which costs money.

Second problem is the vagueness in the tax law... the groups on this status cannot be primarily political organisations, but the law is very vague and filled with loopholes... if they could actually affect election outcomes then they would definitly not fall under the tax exempt catagory. So why do some repubs claim it could have affected the election outcome? If so those groups should not have gotten tax exempt status at all.

But how is the IRS supposed to determine how much of your organization is political? Well that requires some very intrusive questions. If you don't want that don't put such vague loopholes as mostly in the law, just draw a line saying they must be non-political. As ussual congress messes up and blames everyone else.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[khagler]

Indeed, the whole point of the overly complicated US tax code is to provide politicians with a way to manipulate people into behaving the way the politicians want them to behave. It's a bit silly to create something that was specifically intended to serve political aims and then complain when people use it to serve political aims in ways that are slightly different in some obscure way from the way they wanted political aims served.

Here's an article that provides some background:

A Brief History of IRS Political Targeting

[Black Aeronaut]

Listening in to NPR again today and there's another, more interesting aspect to this debacle.

The IRS apparently has a tax-exempt classification specifically for non-profit political groups that actively lobby their causes. The catch? They need to disclose who exactly their benefactors are.

Funny how many of these groups, which at first blush sound like they belong in the above described category, opted for the one that does not require such disclosures.

Of course, to play devil's advocate here, there is clear-cut evidence that the IRS was negligent. Why on earth would you target small organizations, some with as few as five members, when there are others with a hundred times the funding and personnel that should have been scrutinized more closely? That, without a doubt, does not make sense.

[ECSNorway]

From where I'm sitting, the issue is simple.

Groups were targeted not on the merits of their applications, but on the nature of their political ideology. IRS officials have admitted that there were blanket orders that all groups that mention certain key words such as "Tea Party", "tax policy", etc, be subject to the same deeper scrutiny. Whether there was any actual evidence that such scrutiny was required or not.

When cops pull over more blacks or hispanics than they do whites, we call it "Profiling" and people bitch and whine about it.

Why is it more justified when the IRS does it to conservatives?
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Black Aeronaut]

Because that's just how they're spinning it. In this case, 'white people' got 'pulled over', too. More 'white people' than 'blacks' and 'hispanics'.

[Logan Darklighter]

You didn't actually answer the question. You said it was "spin". What is there to spin? The facts are the facts and are plain to see. Conservatives were targeted in exactly the way that would give the advantage to Obama in the last election. The system was compromised. 
The actual question is "why is it more justified when the IRS does it to conservatives?" 

Anybody who thinks it IS justified should have to Answer. That. Question. 

If you think it is more justified for conservatives, then WHY? 

We've never said that sort of thing is justified for blacks, hispanics, or liberals. It's NEVER justified. And if you think that it IS, then perhaps you're willing to take this as the new normal and won't complain so much when the very same tactics are used against liberals the next time a conservative is in the white house? Are you willing to take that chance? Because if this is accepted as the "normal" way of doing business, then it will happen again. And the next time the favor may be returned in spades and then some. Perhaps - just perhaps - it would be better to call it for what is is NOW and put a stop to it in such a way that it does not become the new normal. 

[robkelk]

The actual question is "why is it more justified when the IRS does it to conservatives?"

You are aware that people have lost their jobs because of this, are you not? Nobody thinks that this is justified, or justifiable.

Everybody: Please, calm down, look at evidence that doesn't support your preconceived opinions, think about this rationally, and then come back and discuss the matter.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Bob Schroeck]

What Rob said.

Or I'll lock the thread.

Discussion, exploration, exchange of POVs: all encouraged.

Invective, knee-jerk responses, huddling in corners and refusing to acknowledge other parts of the room: not.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Morganite]

You’ll also notice this little bit of information glossed over by Glazer:

An Austin, Texas-based group, Progress Texas, received a letter from the IRS in February 2013 when it sought nonprofit status.

While the average wait for Conservative and Tea Party groups to be granted (or denied) their tax exempt status is about 3 years, Progress Texas sought tax exempt non-profit status in February.

Of this year.

You’ll notice, if you go to their site, that tax exempt status has already been granted. In less than 3 months.

Probably a lot quicker than that.

But Matt Glazer and Phillip Martin would have you believe that they received the exact same scrutiny as Conservative groups.

Who are still waiting for their tax-exempt non-profit status.

If the IRS treated Progress Texas just the way they treat everybody else seeking non-profit status, why did the IRS admit wrong doing in specifically targeting Conservative and Tea Party groups?

Emphasize this.

Frankly, I think a lot of these groups shouldn't be getting tax exempt status anyway. But that doesn't seem to be what's happening. What is happening?

Well, you've got one set that's getting it's applications handled quickly, and one that have been dragged out interminably.

One set was asked various relevant questions, and one was asked various irrelevant questions, like for reports on books they had read, or what their relationship was with random people who were never even part of their organization.

One set didn't have confidential information they submitted leaked to outside groups, and one did.

And of course, one set was likely to get approved, and one set wasn't.

This arrangement strikes me as kind of an *issue*, even if it weren't for the very obvious political criteria being used to decide who ends up in which sets.

Rob: Who lost their jobs? Steven Miller was asked to resign, and did so. But everything I've found relating to firings has been either been about how there should be firings in the future, or about how expensive and time-consuming it will be to actually do the firing.

-Morgan.

[robkelk]

Rob: Who lost their jobs? Steven Miller was asked to resign, and did so.

I stand corrected - one person has lost his job.

(Being a civil servant, myself, I know what "asked to resign" really means...)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ordnance11]

robkelk wrote:

---

Morganni wrote:

---

Rob: Who lost their jobs? Steven Miller was asked to resign, and did so.

I stand corrected - one person has lost his job.

(Being a civil servant, myself, I know what "asked to resign" really means...)

It means you either voluntarily leave and keep your benefits when you do go..or be involuntarily released and forgo those benefits. And I do not believe you have union representation at the grade he is in.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[CattyNebulart]

Conservatives were targeted in exactly the way that would give the advantage to Obama in the last election.

If they wouldn't have affected the election they should not have qualified for that particular tax exempt status they where seeking. In which case the IRS is fullfiulling it's duty by going after taxdodgers... if they ignore democratic taxdodgers however you have a point. But this would have affected the election... You are saying they are basicly crooks but they should have been allowed to get away with it?

An indepth investigation is being carried out which is the proper thing to do in these circumstances, but it doesn't seem very cut an dry to me, and then there is the question of course of just how high this reaches. And I still think that Obama should be in prison for murder, so I am hardly one of the administrations greatest supporters.

We've never said that sort of thing is justified for blacks, hispanics, or liberals. It's NEVER justified.

Yay a point of agreement. I fully agree on this one.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Logan Darklighter]

CattyNebulart wrote:

---

Logan Darklighter wrote:

---

Conservatives were targeted in exactly the way that would give the advantage to Obama in the last election.

If they wouldn't have affected the election they should not have qualified for that particular tax exempt status they where seeking. In which case the IRS is fullfiulling it's duty by going after taxdodgers... if they ignore democratic taxdodgers however you have a point. 

That right there is PRECISELY the point. Hey - it may suck and be borderline (or even right across the borderline) unethical, but like Jon Stewert said - may as well spread it equally all over. Give everyone a chance to influence the election exactly as much as they can, with whatever means they can. 
Would it be better not to have tax exempt status for everyone across the board? Damn straight! Because that gives the IRS too much power over things! It makes them into an arbiter of the election process, and they already have WAY too much power over us as it is. 

But since it isn't, targeting one group and making sure they can't get that advantage while clearly giving it wholesale to their opposite number - do I really need to spell it out further? Isn't the advantage for "progressive" groups obvious? Isn't it obvious that the 2012 election was influenced greatly by the amount of money that Tax Exempt 501 groups - on the Left - could use, and that conservative groups like the Tea Party were hobbled? 

It's too late to do a recall election of course. We have to live with what we've got. But there are other means of redress. And the process has just begun. It'll be long, painful, and drawn out. And the irony is that, just like with the 1970 Nixon election, it never had to come to this. 

And I still think that Obama should be in prison for murder, so I am hardly one of the administrations greatest supporters.

Er... what? I hold Obama in contempt myself, but I'm not sure I'd go that far. Do you mean in regards to the Benghazi or the Fast and Furious scandals? (And isn't it ironic that I have to ask a multiple choice question about scandals... ) At least I don't think he could be held personally responsible for any deaths. Conspiracy maybe. But murder? I don't see it. 

[Valles]

But since it isn't, targeting one group and making sure they can't get that advantage while clearly giving it wholesale to their opposite number - do I really need to spell it out further? Isn't the advantage for "progressive" groups obvious? Isn't it obvious that the 2012 election was influenced greatly by the amount of money that Tax Exempt 501 groups - on the Left - could use, and that conservative groups like the Tea Party were hobbled? 

...Um, no.
No, it's not obvious at all. It is, in fact, directly contrary to every bit of credible evidence and testimony I've seen on the subject.

Obama's campaign and its supporters were just flat better at raising money. I know that this runs counter to the traditional strengths and weaknesses of the party campaign structures, but given the increasing alienation of the entire non-Old WASP demographic sector from the Republican message, it is not merely possible, but expectable.

The actions of some minor bureaucrats whose duties were assigned under the Bush Administration is really irrelevant to that.
===========

===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."

[Logan Darklighter]

Valles wrote:

---

But since it isn't, targeting one group and making sure they can't get that advantage while clearly giving it wholesale to their opposite number - do I really need to spell it out further? Isn't the advantage for "progressive" groups obvious? Isn't it obvious that the 2012 election was influenced greatly by the amount of money that Tax Exempt 501 groups - on the Left - could use, and that conservative groups like the Tea Party were hobbled? 

...Um, no.
No, it's not obvious at all. It is, in fact, directly contrary to every bit of credible evidence and testimony I've seen on the subject.

Cite your sources please. 

[Valles]

For the absence of some sinister conspiracy to suppress Republican political organizations (as opposed to voter populations that happened to be poor, non-white, and predictably Democratic)? Is the New York Times reputable enough?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/us/po ... ml?hp&_r=1&

For the money, well, Wiki has 'Total Receipts' neatly marked in its infoboxes on the Romney and Obama campaigns, so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Oba ... aign,_2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romne ... aign,_2012

That said, I do owe you something of an apology. What I'd picked up by osmosis browsing politics sections in other forae had more or less convinced me that this IRS thing was another desperate attempt to lie a scandal into existence, but there do seem to have been some genuine fuckups made, however nonpartisanly.
===========

===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."