IRS Selectively Targeting

[guido911]

Well, this will certainly get patric's panties all wadded up; right? Government misusing/abusing its authority in order to silence/punish its enemies and all? 

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-05-10/irs-apologizes-for-targeting-conservative-groups

[AquaMan]

Bwa hah hah hah hah!

They have nothing to fear if they're following the law...right?

[guido911]

Bwa hah hah hah hah!

They have nothing to fear if they're following the law...right?

Oh, nothing except being punished for exercising their first amendment rights. Thanks for both the softball, and letting everyone in this forum see your ignorance/bias.

[AquaMan]

I was pretending to do one of your posts. You critiqued yourself quite accurately.

[Ed W]

Maybe instead of castigating the IRS in this instance, we should applaud them for rigorously pursuing possible tax evasion. I seem to recall Guido being up in arms about a portion of the population that doesn't pay federal taxes. It would be consistent to demand that political organizations pay their fair share too.

[Hoss]

Maybe instead of castigating the IRS in this instance, we should applaud them for rigorously pursuing possible tax evasion. I seem to recall Guido being up in arms about a portion of the population that doesn't pay federal taxes. It would be consistent to demand that political organizations pay their fair share too.

How about churches also?  Why should churches continue to receive tax exempt status?

[guido911]

Maybe instead of castigating the IRS in this instance, we should applaud them for rigorously pursuing possible tax evasion. I seem to recall Guido being up in arms about a portion of the population that doesn't pay federal taxes. It would be consistent to demand that political organizations pay their fair share too.

Out of the woodwork comes all sorts finding ways to justify government pursuit of interest groups that just don't comply with our current government's message. And yes, I am upset that 47% pay no federal income tax, to engage your straw man for a moment. And to build it out, chances are those 47% are not in large part tea partiers or conservatives--those are the folks PAYING the taxes and which the government apparently is so dissatisfied they should not have any exempt status if they organize.  Incidentally, the IRS APOLOGIZED, for what that is worth. So they have expressly acknowledged wrongdoing.

And "whatever" waterboy.

[Ed W]

Out of the woodwork comes all sorts finding ways to justify government pursuit of interest groups that just don't comply with our current government's message. And yes, I am upset that 47% pay no federal income tax...

So that percentage of our population that doesn't make enough money to require payment of federal income taxes should be somehow forced to pay them, yet astro-turf organizations used as fronts to hide the influx of cash from a few wealthy individuals and corporations should be tax exempt.  OK.  Got it.

[patric]

How about churches also?  Why should churches continue to receive tax exempt status?

Because no churches have flown any planes into their offices?

[guido911]

So that percentage of our population that doesn't make enough money to require payment of federal income taxes should be somehow forced to pay them, yet astro-turf organizations used as fronts to hide the influx of cash from a few wealthy individuals and corporations should be tax exempt.  OK.  Got it.

More straw man bullcrap. Try to stay focused with me in this thread.

The government is targeting individuals/groups for additional IRS scrutiny. Okay.

The government is focusing on one group of people. Okay?

This one group of people doesn't like this current administration. Okay?

This intrudes upon and perhaps violates their First Amendment rights to free speech and association. Okay?

And by the way, the IRS has been doing this for some time now.

WASHINGTON (AP) – Senior Internal Revenue Service officials knew agents were targeting tea party groups as early as 2011, according to a draft of an inspector general's report obtained by The Associated Press that seemingly contradicts public statements by the IRS commissioner.

The IRS apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was "inappropriate" targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status. The agency blamed low-level employees, saying no high-level officials were aware.

But on June 29, 2011, Lois G. Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt organizations, learned at a meeting that groups were being targeted, according to the watchdog's report. At the meeting, she was told that groups with "Tea Party," "Patriot" or "9/12 Project" in their names were being flagged for additional and often burdensome scrutiny, the report says.

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/11/ap-exclusive-senior-irs-officials-knew-irs-targeting-tea-party-groups-as-early-as-2011/

Let's walk down memory lane, just a few months ago when some in here were all DAMNED upset about a private company kicking out a bunch of atheists from their restaurant. Oklahoma Joe's can't do that; that's discrimination. But when the IRS, a government entity, targets groups with  "Tea Party," "Patriot" or "9/12 Project", that is not discrimination because those people are "astroturf" [thank Nancy Pelosi clone] and deserve it.   

[guido911]

Because no churches have flown any planes into their offices?

You are the biggest damned hypocrite in this forum. You whine, grumble, and decry government thuggery, and here you given the classic example of the most widespread and intrusive form of that thuggery. Your response, trying (and failing miserably) to joke about.

Frankly, I 'm glad I posted this story. Shows how far Tulsa's left will go to excuse its own failings.

[cynical]

I actually agree with Guido here, but only to a point, of course. The IRS should never single out an entity for special scrutiny because its political philosophy is on the right. Likewise, it should not single out an entity because it has a political philosophy on the left. But let's look at the facts in this case and see if a general rule can emerge that even Guido will find acceptable.

The organizations in question were non-profit corporations who had filed for tax-exempt status under Sec. 501(c)3 of the tax code. One of the things a 501(c)3 non-profit cannot do is engage in partisan political activity. That means no advocacy for or against a political party nor any advocacy for or against a political candidate. 501(c)3 non-profits can engage in issue advocacy, but can't support or attack candidates or parties. That is the price of tax-exempt status. The IRS requires any organization seeking recognition as a tax-exempt organization to file a lengthy questionnaire, along with copies of the organization's articles of incorporation, it's Certificate of Incorporation, its bylaws, and a conflict of interest policy governing its directors. An organization failing to prohibit partisan political activity, among other things, will not be granted recognition. Period.

I haven't seen the documents submitted by these organizations, but I assume their Articles and bylaws contain the requisite prohibitions. In the ordinary case, all other things being in line, the IRS issues its letter granting recognition. But this was not an ordinary case. The organizations in question included in their corporate names brands such as "tea party" that are closely identified with a faction of the Republican Party. Though the inclusion of "tea party" in the name should not automatically disqualify the organization from recognition, does it not justify some degree of higher scrutiny than the ordinary case, just to make sure that tax-exempt contributions aren't funding partisan political activity? And should this be the case regardless of which side of the political spectrum the organization falls?

So how is this for the rule? An organization seeking tax exempt status under Sec. 501(c)3 must refrain now and in the future from partisan political activity. (This is current law) Any organization, liberal or conservative, that is stupid enough to use a brand closely identified with a political party or candidate shall be given extra scrutiny to ensure compliance with the law.

In the case the brand borrowing came from the right. Any liberal organization doing the same thing should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny.

I think the agents were going after low hanging fruit and forgot that even very focused issue advocacy is consistent with tax-exempt status.

[patric]

This intrudes upon and perhaps violates their First Amendment rights to free speech and association. Okay?

You should protest.
Go downtown and pitch a tent in some city park.
You'll meet new friends, and maybe some government representative will talk to you and rinse your sinuses for you.

[RecycleMichael]

The government is targeting individuals/groups for additional IRS scrutiny. Okay.

The government is focusing on one group of people. Okay?

This one group of people doesn't like this current administration. Okay?

This intrudes upon and perhaps violates their First Amendment rights to free speech and association. Okay?

And by the way, the IRS has been doing this for some time now.    

Pardon me for being ignorant on this...but I kind of assumed that every administration uses the IRS as a weapon. Are you sure that this is the first time it has ever happened?

[patric]

The GOP may not be the only ones to play the victim card here:


The Internal Revenue Service's scrutiny of conservative groups went beyond those with "tea party" or "patriot" in their names—as the agency admitted Friday—to also include ones worried about government spending, debt or taxes, and even ones that lobbied to "make America a better place to live," according to new details of a government probe.

The new details suggest that agency workers were examining statements in applications for tax-exempt status to determine whether groups had political leanings.

Tax-exempt social-welfare groups organized under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code are allowed to engage in some political activity, but the primary focus of their efforts must remain promoting social welfare. That social-welfare activity can include lobbying and advocating for issues and legislation, but not outright political-campaign activity. But some of the rules leave room for IRS officials to make judgment calls and probe individual groups for further information.

According to the report, by June 2011 some IRS specialists were probing applications using the following criteria: "issues include government spending, government debt or taxes; education of the public by advocacy/lobbying to 'make America a better place to live'; statements in the case file criticize how the country is being run."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324715704578478851998004528.html