General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI still fail to see what the IRS did wrong
On the surface, it sounds really bad. But is it really?
When a group applies for tax exempt status, isn't it the duty of the IRS to check them out? When those groups are extreme conservatives who publicly state their opposition to any and all taxes - and even advocate ways to avoid taxes - I would hope they would get extra scrutiny.
Hate to see our own party caving in to the rethugs yet again. We're talking about a party who sat on their asses while the Bush administration ran roughshod over the Constitution, broke law after law resulting in actual death.
This is nothing more than a witch hunt, dredging up 'scandal' after 'scandal' in their quest to get Obama out of office.
ON EDIT:
Many of these Tea Party groups actively promote various candidates for office. That alone would disqualify their tax exempt request.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
markiv
(1,489 posts)this question was answered 40 years ago
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)You don't just hand out tax exempt status to anyone who asks for it.
If it's a group who advocates not paying taxes - and if they're promoting anti-tax candidates - then of course they should be scrutinized.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)I would be all for having every one scrutinized.
zerosumgame0005
(207 posts)that ONLY tealiban groups were put through this process perhaps it does raise the question of why a repthuglican't was the one to target them...
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)The hard left is at least as pissed off as the right.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Hoax is too strong.
In typical fashion, the critics pulled out some shards of truth and coated them with hyperbole and a lot of misleading crapola.
This doesn't rise to the level of scandal; it's just a diversion.
BeatleBoot
(7,111 posts)in my neighborhood they'd term it a hoax..."they're hoaxin' you..." they'll say...just sayin' it's all bullshit...
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)From the report:
According to the Director, Rulings and Agreements, the
fact that the team of specialists worked applications that did not involve the Tea Party, Patriots,
or 9/12 groups demonstrated that the IRS was not politically biased in its identification of
applications for processing by the team of specialists.
Note: it's not just that they worked on applications not involving those groups, it's that the majority of their applications didn't involve those groups. But this is even more interesting:
Based on our review of other BOLO listing criteria, the use of organization names on the BOLO listing is not unique to potential political cases.16
So there were other groups included as well. But they don't list them...hey, what's footnote 16?
16 We did not review the use of other named organizations on the BOLO listing to determine if their use was appropriate.
Why not? Why did they only look to see whether or not Tea Party groups were targeted?
Now if we look back to see why they started this investigation: "TIGTA initiated this audit based on concerns expressed by members of Congress." Ah, so that's why they only looked at whether or not the Tea Party groups were treated inappropriately!
markiv
(1,489 posts)and this has hit the fan as Nixonian
When you've lost jon stewart and rachel madow, it's over
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)The Left is so weak that they start apologizing to Republicans before they even look at the facts. Hell, not even apologizing - joining the witch hunt before even looking at the facts. Why does it seem like we're fighting a losing defensive war? Because we have horrible leadership across the board.
markiv
(1,489 posts)and attempting to show consistency/integrity, if perhaps a little premature
markiv
(1,489 posts)they are part of 'what the party stands for', and they were totally made by taking Nixon down over stuff like this, and to a degree, so was Hillary Clinton, who was a lawyer on the proceedings. W & B would be honored guests at nearly any Democratic party event anywhere in the USA
the administration hit a bi-partison 3rd rail here
treestar
(82,383 posts)We need to deal with reality in this country. It's become our issue that we think we can make things as we see them to be.
G_j
(40,366 posts)so we may never know what other groups were "targeted". Someone needs to demand some answers.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Are there substantiated allegations of political or other personal motivations behind this alleged "targeting"?
markiv
(1,489 posts)and as much as i prefer to go on details of issues of what's right, rather than who's right, i'm going to make an exception on this one and note that obama's lost jon stewart and rachel madow on this one - that's breathtaking
they're not exactly 'hard right fox news types'
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I don't believe the president or his team had anything to do with it.
But to target a group because of the political beliefs is wrong.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)The audit report is here and spells it out very clearly: http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf
From that report:
...
The mission of the IRS is to provide America’s taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all. According to IRS Policy Statement 1-1, IRS employees accomplish this mission by being impartial and handling tax matters in a manner that will promote public confidence. However, the criteria developed by the Determinations Unit gives the appearance that the IRS is not impartial in conducting its mission. The criteria focused narrowly on the names and policy positions of organizations instead of tax-exempt laws and Treasury Regulations. Criteria for
selecting applications for the team of specialists should focus on the activities of the organizations and whether they fulfill the requirements of the law. Using the names or policy positions of organizations is not an appropriate basis for identifying applications for review by the team of specialists.
...
The Determinations Unit developed and used inappropriate criteria to identify applications from organizations with the words Tea Party in their names. These applications (hereafter referred to as potential political cases)13 were forwarded to a team of specialists14 for review. Subsequently, the Determinations Unit expanded the criteria to inappropriately include organizations with other specific names (Patriots and 9/12) or policy positions. While the criteria used by the Determinations Unit specified particular organization names, the team of specialists was also processing applications from groups with names other than those identified in the criteria. The inappropriate and changing criteria may have led to inconsistent treatment of organizations applying for tax-exempt status.
If you read the report (it's about 18 page), you'll see that the audit does not object to the targeting of groups to review their applications, but they did object to the way the criteria were established and then changed.
On page 9 of the report, the IRS is chastised for having missed a significant number of groups that SHOULD have been either denied or investigated further or were not.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)It says that the auditors didn't like the use of just names and policy statements as criteria for reviews.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)... for special scrutiny. If the IRS has already admitted to it, then we cannot very well deny it. The IRS has not denied that the groups were improperly targeted. It has only disputed the allegation that such targeting was poloitically motivated. From The Washington Post:
By Zachary A. Goldfarb and Karen Tumulty,May 10, 2013
The Internal Revenue Service on Friday apologized for targeting groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names, confirming long-standing accusations by some conservatives that their applications for tax-exempt status were being improperly delayed and scrutinized.
Lois G. Lerner, the IRS official who oversees tax-exempt groups, said the “absolutely inappropriate” actions by “front-line people” were not driven by partisan motives.
Rather, Lerner said, they were a misguided effort to come up with an efficient means of dealing with a flood of applications from organizations seeking tax-exempt status between 2010 and 2012.
During that period, about 75 groups were selected for extra inquiry — including burdensome questionnaires and, in some cases, improper requests for the names of their donors — simply because of the words in their names, she said in a conference call with reporters.
< . . . >
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)That's for summarizing this subthread, complete with GOP talking points.
Have a good one!
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)The IRS admitted to the targeting, and admitted the targeting was wrong. The GOP says it was politically motivated. The IRS disputes that, and has offered an explanation. Those are facts, my friend, uncomfortable though they may be. I'm not suggesting we have to accept the GOP's argument that the targeting was politically motivated. The IRS' explanation is a reasonably credible one. I AM saying that it makes our party look like a bunch of fools when we insist the IRS did nothing wrong when it has already admitted it did something wrong.
Frankly, you can shove that "GOP talking points" remark where the sun don't shine.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Read the fucking thread. You are coming unprepared for this discussion. Read. Get yourself up to speed, and then we'll talk.
Did you read the full report of the audit of this incident? We did.
Lex
(34,108 posts)home-office write-offs.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)They are supposed to be concerned with actions and finances, not with what people believe. It is in fact very wrong for them to target groups or individuals because of what they believe. Belief is not a crime.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)They are to examine in detail applications for tax exemption based on political activities, not beliefs.
W_HAMILTON
(7,833 posts)...for the FBI/CIA/DHS (pick your favorite acronym!) to pay closer attention to someone that repeatedly espoused anti-American and extremist views than, say, you? Or should they pay equal attention to you and him both in order to refrain from targeting someone for their political beliefs?
The IRS is an organization that uses risk-based approaches to accomplish much of what they do because they do not have the resources to individually investigate every single tax return or, in this case, every single application for tax-exempt status. They used a certain criteria to identify what they believed to be riskier applications. If the targeting was politically motivated, why did the IRS not target all conservative groups instead of a specific subset?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)W_HAMILTON
(7,833 posts)...it is not wrong for them to target high-risk applications for further investigation.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)1. Inappropriate and changing "be on the lookout" criteria. The audit by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration actually was fine with targeting all "Tea Party" organizations.
2. Excessive delays. Some of the delays in reviewing applications exceeded three years, more than 10 times the "acceptable" maximum.
Once the applications are all cleared, the Inspector General has no more beef.
Pretty simple, and not exactly a horrifying abuse of power.
I tried reading the Inspector General's report, but my eyes are bothering me. Kinda got that impression.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)That report is not easy on the eyes. I'm happy to summarize.
LeftInTX
(25,106 posts)BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)The inspector general seems to be saying that looking at the organizations' names and policy positions is wrong:
The Determinations Unit developed and began using criteria to identify potential political cases
for review that inappropriately identified specific groups applying for tax-exempt status based on
their names or policy positions instead of developing criteria based on tax-exempt laws and
Treasury Regulations.
In their sample of about 300 applications that were sent for additional review, about a quarter turned out to be Tea Party cases. This fact by itself isn't that helpful, since we don't know what fraction of original applications were Tea Party cases. However, the report indicates that 70% of applications are approved without needing further review. The inspector general says, however, that based on a sample of these, they found that all of the Tea Party applications were sent for review, for a 0% pass rate.
The report does make it seem like this was all the doing of front-line employees and first-level management. When higher management got wind of this, they rewrote the rules to be more appropriate. However, the front-line staff sometimes reverted back to their own rules, possibly because they found the other rules unworkable.
Based on my reading, this seemed to be the actions of a few overburdened IRS employees trying to find ways to sift through all their applications. Partisanship may have influenced these employees-- it's hard to know without knowing more about them, but this part of it sounds like a local affair.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I quoted "Tea Party" to capture the language used by EO, but I didn't explain. The EO reviewers told the auditors that eventually "Tea Party" was used as a shorthand for any group with political activities. However, their criteria for determining "political activities" was horribly flawed, as you corrected pointed out.
Good post. Thanks for the correction.
BTW: I found Figure 6 on page 15 to be a clear testament of the total breakdown of the system. As of December 2012, every open case has been under review for 180 days or more. 
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)If I had to guess, things take so long because there just aren't enough people to work on these things.
I wish leading Democrats would argue that this was the mistake of a few people for which the IRS is regretful, rather than trying to outdo the Republicans in outrage. That just gives the impression that it's a much bigger deal than it is.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)
AndyA
(16,993 posts)These conservative no tax, no government, government is bad, get rid of all the government employees, etc., organizations should be under more scrutiny. They don't like or want government, yet they're willing to take advantage of whatever government provided benefits and savings they can.
I heard progressive groups were scrutinized as well, and that there were considerably more conservative groups applying, so it makes sense that more of them would have been checked.
The big thing is the guidelines and policies must be changed. If the organization does anything political, they shouldn't be tax exempt. If they truly are focused on the social aspects, then they qualify for tax exempt status.
Johonny
(20,817 posts)By selecting one subset of the political spectrum they set themselves up to be accused of pointless political biased (which they now are being accused of). The manager appears to have understood this and acted in an appropriate fashion to change the process to remove the appearance of biased and/or conflict. As people have said it seems unlikely anything illegal happened, but most people understand the appearance of biased is inappropriate and in this case management seemed to act upon this appearance and correct the situation.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Who were the rest and why aren't they bitching about it?
It seems to me that the IRS was merely doing their job.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)"16 We did not review the use of other named organizations on the BOLO listing to determine if their use was appropriate. "
Why isn't this the real scandal? Oh, right, because our media is so horrible they can't even be bothered to read a 18 page report before jumping on the propaganda bandwagon.
W_HAMILTON
(7,833 posts)There is a lot to that report that I would like to see expanded upon.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)1. They did not enforce tax laws and allowed too many political organizations to get non-profit status.
2. They apologized for scrutinizing the tax exempt status of groups that do not qualify for tax exempt status.
3. They showed political favoritism by only apologizing to the right-wing despite the fact that they were scrutinizing left leaning groups in the same way.
Skittles
(153,111 posts)now what the FUCK is Obama apologizing for?
rucky
(35,211 posts)
Owl
(3,638 posts)+1
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)
hack89
(39,171 posts)it is as simple as that.
It is perfectly legal for tax exempt groups to participate in elections. They just can't spend more than 50% of their money on elections.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/05/13/what-is-a-501c4-anyway/
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)If they were overwhelmed with all the applications, and most were Teabaggers, how do they not look at those. See how fast they scream discrimination. And see how fast everyone folds. Shame on us.
John1956PA
(2,654 posts)On another thread, I posted my longer summary of the issue as follows:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=63536
onpatrol98
(1,989 posts)You cannot pick a group and decide based on the name they pick for their organization and decide they need extra scrutiny. The people who did this, either knew better and didn't care or were clueless. Both scenarios are awful when you think of the level of responsibility they had. It would be different if they had picked some random sample and EVERYONE was subjected to the same level of scrutiny. But, even then some of the additional questions were stupid.
Skittles
(153,111 posts)but don't fuck with teabaggers claiming tax exemption because they're a social welfare group?
onpatrol98
(1,989 posts)Democrats shouldn't behave like Republicans. If we believe every American should be treated fairly, then the average village idiot knows you have to treat two groups APPLYING for something the same way. They complete the same forms, etc. With as much distrust as the average American has for the IRS, it doesn't take much to realize people in favor of a responsible government, should be appalled when foolishness gives it a black eye. I'm sorry. This was just dumb. This is a no-brainer. If I apply and you apply, we should be treated equally by our government. Isn't this the basis of marriage equality, voting rights issues, income inequality concerns, women rights, etc. The government has no right to erect barriers for some Americans. If this principle is difficult to understand, we have no love of true freedom for all and we are lying when we say we hold these principles dear.
It's time to walk the friggin walk. People who say they do not understand this are not being honest. They know these tea party people have dumb ideas AND they want to cut them off at the start. I sympathize. People have the right to tell others about their dumb ideas. We have to compete using better ones...not by trying to rig the system. That's what conservatives do.
Skittles
(153,111 posts)WHY ARE REPUBLICANS NEVER HELD ACCOUNTABLE?? They allowed the biggest terrorist attack in American history, started a war based on lies, crashed the economy yet I NEVER HEAR THE WORD 'SCANDAL', "APOLOGIZE' OR 'RESIGNED' from them. WHY is that?????
onpatrol98
(1,989 posts)I'm thinking that's more about chess than checkers. No administration is going to prosecute a previous administration because they already know they're going to do some iffy things themselves and they aren't going to want to be prosecuted themselves. That's a non-starter.
Do we seriously think there would not be another country who wouldn't want to call to question things done even by this President. What administration in its right mind would want to open that can of worms? That's why they get along so well AFTER they all leave office.
LeftInTX
(25,106 posts)Although as Democrats, we see taxes as our civic duty, other groups may not. A lot of Republicans hate the IRS. However, we can't hold that against them.
A similar argument could be made with the Endangered Species Act. If a state such as Texas is singled out because they are anti-Endangered Species Act, the federal govt can't use that as criteria. They have to use more objective criteria.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)hiding under the cover of public interests organizations. But, their methods were clownish. They should have spent more time defining what they were looking for before getting started.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)It is good to try to stop groups who break laws regarding political activity while under the tax-exempt classification, but singling certain groups out was a foolish way to do it. The only logic I can think of that made them think that would be ok to do is that they felt they had probable cause to look into groups that actively promote tips to help people avoid paying taxes. I don't even know if probable cause (I'm not a law expert at all) applies in this case or not, but it really does seem that the method they used was way too clumsy and erratic.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)To anyone?
SlimJimmy
(3,180 posts)A claim for damages *could* be made by these groups (including the progressive ones) that they were denied the benefit of donations because the process was way over the minimum acceptable time frame for approval.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Unless that delay coincided with someone's demonstrable political agenda.
SlimJimmy
(3,180 posts)
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Too many groups get tax-exempt status when they should not. This is a way of hiding donors.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)status was dubious - or if you prefer, unfamiliar and new, it would be investigated. This should be done even if there was some strange proliferation of a new liberal backed entity. Just because we aren't prone to bilking and don't have groups like theirs doesn't mean if we were we shouldn't be subject to review by tax authorities.
liberal N proud
(60,332 posts)These current batch of fabricated scandals are about forming public opinion ahead of mid-term elections and 2016.
They are attacking Obama now to make his coat-tails ineffective for the mid-terms and tying Hillary into the mess to minimize the risk of her running in 2016.
It is all politically motivated bullshit coming from the Rovian Right!
quaker bill
(8,223 posts)There are many ways to "do your job". However the law and regulations provide limits on the things you can do or ask for during review of an application. Another principle that it is very important to maintain is "equity in enforcement".
The circumstances under which you could pick a phrase like "tea party" and use it in a profile for extra scrutiny are quite rare, and would come with significant legal risk. The risk is to end up being found "arbitrary and capricious" by a judge, losing a case and perhaps your career.
Beyond that the rules themselves provide limits on what you can ask of an applicant. You can only ask for stuff needed to prove they qualify under the rule. So, asking for the names and tax IDs of their donors and attenders, when they are applying for a status that specifically exempts them from having to provide that information, is likely not allowed. Where I work, we avoid this by providing the specific statutory provision that authorizes each question we ask in the text of the letter asking questions. The author cannot find the provision in statute or rule to back up their request for more information, the question is never asked.
If you doubt the applicant's sincerity, but they have provided an application that qualifies, it is far better to issue and then tag for compliance review. With an application you can only speculate on what they might do that violates, with a compliance review the violations either exist or they don't.
The most amusing thing I have heard about this story, is that legally no one has to apply for 501C-4. You can just claim it in your tax return post-facto. They were applying and being hasseled over a status that is simply available without application.
SlimJimmy
(3,180 posts)during an internal inspection, we cite the appropriate regulation or rule that applies. That way they can't say that it's inappropriate to respond.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)and scrutinizing the yards of DUers for pot plants, on the grounds that many DUers have advocated the legalization of drugs?
alc
(1,151 posts)Rules and standards need to be set and followed. We do not want "lowly workers" (as some have called them) making decisions on a case-by-case basis using their political beliefs. I'm sure there are other workers who think liberal groups will do illegal things (e.g. getting around abortion restrictions or helping illegal aliens get food stamps) and deny them based on those beliefs.
The IRS has people who analyze organizations and set standards. If they identify words/phrases/etc that trigger extra scrutiny based on fraud/misuse they've seen, then the "lowly worker" can use "patriot" or "tea party" to give extra scrutiny. Of course they'd also get attacked for being political but they'd have statistics on their side.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . and in this country, that's a pretty big no-no. They didn't apply the same level of scrutiny to all applicants for tax exempt status. Instead, they singled out groups for special scrutiny for no other reason than that the groups who were targeted had the word 'patriot' or the phrase 'tea party' in their names. And even if you think it's just fine and dandy to single out conservative groups for special scrutiny, remember that this could just as easily be used against progressive groups. It is a VERY dangerous path to allow the IRS to go down that path, even if its targets (today) happen to be your political adversaries.
magellan
(13,257 posts)If you read the IRS report, you'll see that only 96 of the 298 applications reviewed as potential political cases were from TP or similarly named groups. There were 202 identified using the same process and classified as "Other".
That page in the report even says:
According to the Director, Rulings and Agreements, the fact that the team of specialists worked applications that did not involve the Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 groups demonstrated that the IRS was not politically biased in its identification of applications for processing by the team of specialists.
It'd be interesting to know how many progressive groups were pulled by keyword and are classified in the report as "Other". My understanding is that there was at least one in that category which, unlike the conservative groups, was denied tax-exempt status.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)... It has disputed that such targeting was politically motivated. See the linked article from the Washington Post in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022851819
magellan
(13,257 posts)There's a difference between that and targeting a group based on its political persuasion. It just so happened that a lot of rwers used similar political-sounding names for their organizations and flooded the IRS with unnecessary requests for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status. They could have been progressive or from the Raving Monster Loony Party and the result would have been the same.
The 202 "Other" applications pulled as potential political cases proves that it wasn't a matter of targeting conservatives.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . but the point I am making is to those who insist the IRS did "nothing wrong." Yes, they did, and they have admitted as much. What they have disputed is the GOP's assertion that such targeting was political. They have not disputed that the targeting itself occurred and that it was improper.
magellan
(13,257 posts)And I'd like to see the IRS equipped to investigate every application for tax-exempt status, rather than being forced to whittle down what gets a good look due to their being under-staffed.
As for the GOP, this is their usual MO of hypocritically taking advantage of a situation to further drive in their partisan wedge. I'm not at all sure there's nothing more behind it (there's been some scuttlebutt about Rove's Crossroads GPS and retribution), but the partisan whinging is classic rw persecution complex with IOKIYAR thrown in.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I don't see why the President just accepts it lock, stock and barrel. Maybe he thinks it easier to get it out of the news by declaring the investigation and "fixing" of the problem.
I heard Tweety or someone last night pointing out that none of the Tea Party groups were denied the status - so that makes it even more ridiculous. The media sucks. They prefer to stir up the shit than inform people.