IRS Apologizes for Targeting Conservative Groups!...Low Level Operatives at Fault...Hillary: 'WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!'

[wolfagain]

...she BELLOWED like a Hog Stuck in a mud hole. Here's the way top IRS
officials are "explaining" what happened...during the '12 Pres
Campaign leading up to the election about 300 conservative groups who
had "Tea Party" of "Patriot" associated somewhere in their group name
were singled out for "Further Review" by low level employees...no
higher ups appear to have been involved and no Obama Admin officials
have been linked...they are all as innocent as a new born baby!

Tea Party groups aren't so sure! And neither are anyone else with even
half a brain! Hillary expressed doubt, but added "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES
IT MAKE?"...the Election is over and this is "Old News."

to see full details of the above go to bigstory.com

[Charles H. Sampson]

I find it odd that the IRS has refuted this. I can think of a lot
of reasons to take a second look at such groups. For one, to get tax
breaks, the amount of politiking they can do is limited. For another,
given the emotional overtones "tea party" and "patriot" have for a lot
of people, scoundrels might name fake groups thusly and bilk a lot of
people.

But apparently none of these reasons hold, because the IRS has
given a loud "oops" instead of an explanation, an "oops" that sounds a
lot like "we got caught".

Charlie
--
Nobody in this country got rich on his own. You built a factory--good.
But you moved your goods on roads we all paid for. You hired workers we
all paid to educate. So keep a big hunk of the money from your factory.
But take a hunk and pay it forward. Elizabeth Warren (paraphrased)

[BTR1701]

In article <1l2t20v.1bbzlbedfzckhN%csam...@inetworld.net>,

csam...@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) wrote:

> wolfagain <wo...@provide.net> wrote:
>
> > ...she BELLOWED like a Hog Stuck in a mud hole. Here's the way top IRS
> > officials are "explaining" what happened...during the '12 Pres
> > Campaign leading up to the election about 300 conservative groups who
> > had "Tea Party" of "Patriot" associated somewhere in their group name
> > were singled out for "Further Review" by low level employees...no
> > higher ups appear to have been involved and no Obama Admin officials
> > have been linked...they are all as innocent as a new born baby!
> >
> > Tea Party groups aren't so sure! And neither are anyone else with even
> > half a brain! Hillary expressed doubt, but added "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES
> > IT MAKE?"...the Election is over and this is "Old News."
> >
> > to see full details of the above go to bigstory.com
>
> I find it odd that the IRS has refuted this. I can think of a lot
> of reasons to take a second look at such groups. For one, to get tax
> breaks, the amount of politiking they can do is limited. For another,
> given the emotional overtones "tea party" and "patriot" have for a lot
> of people, scoundrels might name fake groups thusly and bilk a lot of
> people.

Yes, but if that's the criteria, they should have been looking equally
at *all* political action groups, left, right and in between. But they
were only looking at the right-wing groups.

[Obveeus]

I have yet to see anything on the TV that suggests reporters have even begun
to investigate these claims to any real degree. I know when I first heard
this story a couple days ago there was mention of 3,000 or so new non-profit
groups and something like 300 of them had had their applications
'scrutinized'. That was the bit of info that appalled me. I don't expect
the IRS to have the manpower to dig into every potential scam out there, but
they should be checking and double checking *every single* non-profit
organization filing, at least during the initial year of claiming the
status. As the other poster mentions above, if these organizations are
nothing more than political activist groups and serve no broader/general use
to society, they don't qualify as non-profits as they are claiming.

Meanwhile, I'll wait for the reporters to mine out some real details on the
total applications, and how many were scrutinized based upon perceived
political affiliation. If 9 out of 10 new 'non-profit' groups are
conservative in nature (which I can easily believe for the last election),
then it makes perfect sense for 9 out of 10 'scrutinized' groups would be
from the conservative end. Sadly, I doubt the news will do any real level
of investigating on this since it looks like another case of the news doing
no more work than to act as infomercial...and I sure don't expect them to
stand up and ask why the IRS isn't scrutinizing every new non-profit to make
sure that it is at least established initially with the proper aim that it
is more than just a political organization trying to sway elections.

[Bville]

Douglas Shulman, who was appointed by the Bush/Cheney administration
five years ago, and who was in charge when the agency began treating
conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status unfairly. It's unlikely
that a Republican deliberately targeted groups on the right for extra
scrutiny.

[trotsky]

Yes, but if you asked anybody which ones are most likely to be liars,
what would they say? Yet another variation of "the truth hurts."


--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.

[Adam H. Kerman]

I've been thinking about this for a few days. At first, I was infuriated,
because it did sound like IRS was playing favorites, but as this story
has trickled out, I'm starting to wonder if IRS did anything wrong at all.

The logical explanation for why purported Tea Party movement organizations
were targeted at all is that there were so many of them, and so many were
very new, and a great many were applying for recognition in time for a
federal election. Generally, IRS does a bad job of tax law enforcement
of political organizations, but some of this sounds like it was legitimate.

Kevin D. Williamson, correspondent for National Review, has been quoted by
bloggers. I was looking for a more neutrally written story, but his will do.
http://nationalreview.com/article/347987/irs%E2%80%99s-tea-party-targeting
The IRS's Tea-Party Targeting
5/10/2013

Third, and perhaps most troubling, those tea-party
organizations were sent letters of inquiry demanding
information that would seldom if ever be demanded of any other
applicant in the process. The IRS demanded lists of donors,
names of spouses and family members, detailed information
about political views and associations--all of that "under
penalties of perjury." Many applicants dropped out of the
process. The questions were remarkably invasive: For example,
the IRS demanded to know not only whether political candidates
participated in public forums conducted by the groups,
but which issues were discussed, along with copies of any
literature distributed at the forum and material published
on websites. (The IRS has been less forthcoming with its own
materials related to this investigation.) If the organizations
collected dues, the IRS demanded to know how much they were. It
demanded everything down to the resumes of employees. The inquiry
was not limited to members of the organization, its executives,
or its directors, but included even their family members:
The IRS demanded to know--again, under penalty of perjury
--whether any of their family members might be thinking about
running for office. Its demand for the names of all donors
--and all recipients of grants--is in violation of IRS policy.

Williamson is quite wrong about some of this, but I suspect he has zero
experience in applying to IRS for recognition of tax exempt status. The
process can be quite smooth or quite intrusive, depending on what the IRS
examiner decides to question. And, yes, applications are indeed filed under
penalty of perjury. All of them. Not just the ones on someone's enemies list.
It's not surprising that applicants would drop out of the process.

Copies of literature? Yes, IRS asks for that. Does IRS want to know if
political candidates participated at forums? Yes, indeed. Dues levels?
That's a pretty basic question. Yes, IRS can ask for information about
family members. There are rules about disqualified persons with regard to
enforcing tax laws concerning foundations and excess benefit transactions;
family members are disqualified persons. Foundation rules are unlikely to
come up with regard to these types of organizations as they aren't charities,
but rules on excess benefit transactions do apply to civic leagues and
social welfare organizations described in 501(c)(4).

Political activity (accepting contributions and making expenditures to
influence nomination or election of a candidate but not a referendum)
cannot be the primary purpose of an organization described in 501(c)(4),
but it is allowed to make accept political contributions and make political
expenditures, subject to a tax.

The names of donors and amounts donated are discloseable to the extent
that they were political contributions in aggregate of at least $200 per
calendar year (as of the end of a reporting period, which might be monthly,
quarterly, semiannually, annually, pre-election, or post-election, depending
on the election year calendar).

Numerous 501(c)(4)s have been set up in an attempt to avoid disclosure of
political contributions and expenditures under tax law, Federal Election
Campaign Act, or comparable state campaign disclosure law. They may exist
for a couple of months around election time, raise their money and make
their expenditures, then go out of business, hoping IRS won't be able to
force them to reveal the source of monies.

However, if IRS was trying to force disclosure of the names of small donors,
that's not a method of attempting to catch the Koch brothers and their allies
of tax law violations, and it's bullying.

For an interesting scholarly paper on these issues, read this abstract,
which has a link from which you can download the full paper. It's written
by a professor of tax law after the Citizens United decision.

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2033306
Nonprofits, Politics, and Privacy
Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer
Notre Dame Law School
April 2, 2012
Case Western Reserve Law Review, Vol. 62, 2012, Forthcoming
Notre Dame Legal Studies Paper No. 12-60

[Adam H. Kerman]

Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>I have yet to see anything on the TV that suggests reporters have even begun
>to investigate these claims to any real degree. I know when I first heard
>this story a couple days ago there was mention of 3,000 or so new non-profit
>groups and something like 300 of them had had their applications
>'scrutinized'. That was the bit of info that appalled me. I don't expect
>the IRS to have the manpower to dig into every potential scam out there, but
>they should be checking and double checking *every single* non-profit
>organization filing, at least during the initial year of claiming the
>status. As the other poster mentions above, if these organizations are
>nothing more than political activist groups and serve no broader/general use
>to society, they don't qualify as non-profits as they are claiming.

You don't know shit about tax law, Obveeus. What makes you think a tax
exempt entity is more likely to have been established for fraudulent reasons
or to violate tax laws than a business? The section at IRS that reviews
entities that are exempt organizations is tiny.

Every application is examined. This was a news story about applications and
recently established organizations having additional information requested.

And yes, they do qualify as nonprofits.

The exempt function is accepting contributions and making expenditures for
the purpose of influencing an election for public office (but not a
referendum). A political organization is not taxed on its exempt function.
A 501(c)(4) - Civic Leagues and Social Welfare Organizations and a 501(c)(6)
- Business Leagues with political activities are taxed on the exempt function
but not on their primary purpose.

A political organization must give notice that it is to be treated as a
political organization described in Section 527, either under tax law or
Federal Election Campaign Act or comparable state campaign disclosure law,
depending on which is applicable.

Donors who make contributions in aggregate of more than $200 a year to
influence an election are disclosed. The potential tax law violation was
failure to make campaign disclosure.

Political activist groups? Uh, to the extent that they aren't influencing an
election for public office, those are lobbies. Yes, lobbies would be either
501(c)(4)'s or (6)'s. No, their donors are NOT disclosed to the extent that
there are no excess benefit transactions.

>Meanwhile, I'll wait for the reporters to mine out some real details on the
>total applications, and how many were scrutinized based upon perceived
>political affiliation. If 9 out of 10 new 'non-profit' groups are
>conservative in nature (which I can easily believe for the last election),
>then it makes perfect sense for 9 out of 10 'scrutinized' groups would be
>from the conservative end. Sadly, I doubt the news will do any real level
>of investigating on this since it looks like another case of the news doing
>no more work than to act as infomercial...and I sure don't expect them to
>stand up and ask why the IRS isn't scrutinizing every new non-profit to make
>sure that it is at least established initially with the proper aim that it
>is more than just a political organization trying to sway elections.

Because it's not worth it.

[1,969 murdered in Obama's organized communities]

DemocRats, hands down. Truth ~does~ hurt.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration finally released the
report.
http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf

I guess I'll read it when I get a chance in the next few days. In the
meantime, a summary from the Washington Post included this bit:

"Five takeaways from the IRS report"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/05/15/five-takeaways-from-the-irs-report/

When the head of the tax-exempt organizations division,
Lois G. Lerner, objected to the criteria being used by the
Cincinnati office in late June 2011, it jettisoned that
approach and adopted a broader definition focused on the
"political, lobbying, or [general] advocacy" activities of
applicants. But six months later, the unit adopted a new set of
criteria - including targeting groups that sought to educate
Americans on the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights -
"without executive approval because they believed the July
2011 criteria were too broad."

That's not defensible. Lobbying and advocacy would be legitimate primary
purposes of a 501(c)(4). Political would be the only criterion that could be
questioned, and only to the extent of influencing an election for public
office.

[Adam H. Kerman]

It was so late when I downloaded TIGTA's report, I didn't read it for myself
last night, but the Washington Post got something very, very wrong. Some of
the organizations in question applied for recognition as 501(c)(3)s, so it's
perfectly legitimate for IRS supervisors to instruct the agents to review
those applications for political, lobbying, and advocacy, not the legitimate
primary purpose of a 501(c)(3).

Sounds like some large donor wanted to take a charitable deduction.

[trotsky]

It took you days to come up with that?

[RichA]

How high is that rug in the Oval Office from sweeping SO much stuff
under it?

[opel]

On 5/18/2013 5:36 PM, trotsky wrote:
>> I'm starting to wonder if IRS did anything wrong at all.
>
> It took you days to come up with that?

Your handle is apt, you raving commie traitor.

[Adam H. Kerman]

It took you twice as long to come up with that lame, trots.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Uh, please establish with whom trots was ever allied with that he
might have betrayed.

[1,975 murdered in Obama's organized communities]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 16:41:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Surely there is still room for Obama under there?

[BTR1701]

In article <kn9gcv$kbr$3...@news.albasani.net>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

Frito Lay?

[trotsky]

I had a question for you, Thanny. When Tea Party members have children,
are the first words out of their mouths "I am outraged!"?

Just curious.

[opel]

On 5/19/2013 12:59 PM, trotsky wrote:
> On 5/19/13 11:42 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <kn9gcv$kbr$3...@news.albasani.net>,
>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> opel <ad...@novalid.org.> wrote:
>>>> On 5/18/2013 5:36 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I'm starting to wonder if IRS did anything wrong at all.
>>>
>>>>> It took you days to come up with that?
>>>
>>>> Your handle is apt, you raving commie traitor.
>>>
>>> Uh, please establish with whom trots was ever allied with that he
>>> might have betrayed.
>>
>> Frito Lay?
>
>
> I had a question for you, Thanny. When Tea Party members have children,
> are the first words out of their mouths "I am outraged!"?
>
> Just curious.
>
>
>

Do commie babies some out pink and then stay that way, traitor?

[trotsky]

Oh, my bad. But, of course, my analysis of the IRS "scandal" was johnny
on the spot. And you know so much about the tax code!

[trotsky]

Buddying up with anonyshits won't make you look less silly, Kermie. And
don't kill the messenger.

[Adam H. Kerman]

trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>On 5/18/13 10:19 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>opel <ad...@novalid.org.> wrote:
>>>On 5/18/2013 5:36 PM, trotsky wrote:

>>>>>I'm starting to wonder if IRS did anything wrong at all.

>>>>It took you days to come up with that?

>>>Your handle is apt, you raving commie traitor.

>>Uh, please establish with whom trots was ever allied with that he
>>might have betrayed.

>Buddying up with anonyshits won't make you look less silly, Kermie. And
>don't kill the messenger.

I'm not anyone's buddy, trots. I pointed out that his comment was
inappropriate. You have no one to betray. Get that reading comprehension
problem fixed soonest.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Your analysis consisted of paranoia and copy-n-paste of what others wrote.
You know shit about the tax code and still don't understand any of the
issues involved despite the number of times I've tried to explain it to you.

[trotsky]

On 5/19/13 2:10 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>> On 5/18/13 10:19 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> opel <ad...@novalid.org.> wrote:
>>>> On 5/18/2013 5:36 PM, trotsky wrote:
>
>>>>>> I'm starting to wonder if IRS did anything wrong at all.
>
>>>>> It took you days to come up with that?
>
>>>> Your handle is apt, you raving commie traitor.
>
>>> Uh, please establish with whom trots was ever allied with that he
>>> might have betrayed.
>
>> Buddying up with anonyshits won't make you look less silly, Kermie. And
>> don't kill the messenger.
>
> I'm not anyone's buddy, trots. I pointed out that his comment was
> inappropriate.

On the internet we call that "feeding the troll." Piggyback that to
your brain, Kermie.

[trotsky]

I accept your apology.

[opel]

On 5/19/2013 1:05 PM, trotsky wrote:
> my analysis of the IRS "scandal" was johnny on the spot

You lie like a rug.

[opel]

On 5/19/2013 1:14 PM, trotsky wrote:
>> I pointed out that his comment was
>> inappropriate.
>
>
> On the internet we call that "feeding the troll."

Yes, you ARE A TROLL.

[opel]

On 5/19/2013 1:15 PM, trotsky wrote:
>> Your analysis consisted of paranoia and copy-n-paste of what others
>> wrote.
>

It truly did.

[trotsky]

Anonyshit alert.

[opel]

On 5/19/2013 3:46 PM, trotsky wrote:
> On 5/19/13 3:00 PM, opel wrote:
>> On 5/19/2013 1:05 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>> my analysis of the IRS "scandal" was johnny on the spot
>>
>> You lie like a rug.
>
>
> Anonyshit alert.
>
>

Well yeah, I figured your real name wasn't "Trotsky"...

[1,976 murdered in Obama's organized communities]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 13:59:39 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:

>On 5/19/13 11:42 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <kn9gcv$kbr$3...@news.albasani.net>,
>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> opel <ad...@novalid.org.> wrote:
>>>> On 5/18/2013 5:36 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I'm starting to wonder if IRS did anything wrong at all.
>>>
>>>>> It took you days to come up with that?
>>>
>>>> Your handle is apt, you raving commie traitor.
>>>
>>> Uh, please establish with whom trots was ever allied with that he
>>> might have betrayed.
>>
>> Frito Lay?
>
>
>I had a question for you, Thanny. When Tea Party members have children,
>are the first words out of their mouths "I am outraged!"?

At least they get to live long enough to ask...

[1,976 murdered in Obama's organized communities]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 14:06:09 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:

>On 5/18/13 10:19 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> opel <ad...@novalid.org.> wrote:
>>> On 5/18/2013 5:36 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>
>>>>> I'm starting to wonder if IRS did anything wrong at all.
>>
>>>> It took you days to come up with that?
>>
>>> Your handle is apt, you raving commie traitor.
>>
>> Uh, please establish with whom trots was ever allied with that he
>> might have betrayed.
>
>
>Buddying up with anonyshits won't make you look less silly, Kermie. And
>don't kill the messenger.

Well, unless the "messenger" is an inconvenient fetus, that is.

[1,976 murdered in Obama's organized communities]

And we've been feeding it 'Rat poison...

[1,976 murdered in Obama's organized communities]

Your "analysis" was pulled steaming from the john.

[Charles H. Sampson]

To anyone interested, the L. A. Times has a good summary of this
whole mess this morning:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-irs-conservatives-2
0130519,0,4833667.story. (Something has happened to tinyurl and I wasn't
able to figure out how to use it now after looking at a dozen or so
pages. Sorry.)

Of course, the Time is a liberal paper, so that disqualifies it for
a lot of those following this thread.

Charlie
--
Nobody in this country got rich on his own. You built a factory--good.
But you moved your goods on roads we all paid for. You hired workers we
all paid to educate. So keep a big hunk of the money from your factory.
But take a hunk and pay it forward. Elizabeth Warren (paraphrased)

[Adam H. Kerman]

Charles H. Sampson <csam...@inetworld.net> wrote:

> To anyone interested, the L. A. Times has a good summary of this
>whole mess this morning:

>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-irs-conservatives-2
>0130519,0,4833667.story.

^

Dude, if you add punctuation to the end of a URL, you'll screw with a
reader trying to copy-n-paste into the address bar of his browser.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-irs-conservatives-20130519,0,2790588,full.story

> Of course, the Time is a liberal paper, so that disqualifies it for
>a lot of those following this thread.

It's been owned by Chicago Tribune (Republican) for many years. You
may have heard about its financial difficulties, in part due to this
acquisition.