The real IRS abuse was back when they targeted the gay

[ProSense]

The real IRS abuse was back when they targeted the gay

by Joan McCarter

David Cay Johnston at Columbia Journalism Review has what should be required reading for every pundit and politician before they start in screaming scandal over the IRS doing its job in requiring political organizations to provide information about their political and non-political activities when applying for non-profit status. Johnston points out that Congress requires that the IRS weed out the groups that are overtly political, but has given precious little direction in precisely how the IRS is supposed to make those distinctions.

Turns out, it's been that way for a while. At the Washington Post Neil Irwin writes about when it was gay rights groups that were targeted by the IRS, and how little has changed in the IRS's directive, despite previous problems, including federal court rulings against the agency. The legal standards the IRS is supposed to meet are too vague, and that leaves too much to the discretion of individual IRS employees.

The Big Mama Rag case was about 501(c)3 tax status, the Tea Party scandal is about 501(c)4 social welfare organizations, but the original sin is the same: The standards for deciding whether a 501(c)4 is engaging in excessive political activity are impossibly vague, which inevitably assigns too much latitude to IRS staff to use their instincts and judgment. They are allowed to engage in political activity, but not as a “primary” activity. Which means the IRS has to decide what counts as political activity, and what counts as primary. As Brad Plumer notes here, the IRS itself calls this a “facts and circumstances” decision, which a whole range of factors are to be weighed against each other. “Politics is not an exact science,” the IRS’s own guidelines say, understating things.

But here’s a second similarity with the anti-gay IRS cases of the past, though this one is harder to prove. When standards are vague, it leaves too much room for IRS agents’ decisions to be colored by their own instincts. They’re human beings, after all. [...] If you’ve spent your life as a tax collector, you’re naturally going to be a little unsettled by a surge in anti-tax activism. And you thus are going to be less attuned to the possibility that you are screening cases in a way that puts an ideological bias into the tax code.

The word "Party" is in a mess of those organizations that were targeted for follow up (and none of which, by the way, have had their applications denied), which kind of gives a clue to the likely partisan activity of those groups. If the IRS employees weren't taking a closer look for political activity, then they would have been derelict in their duty. The real problem seems to be that they used "tea party" as a shortcut, but it doesn't mean that the additional scrutiny of these overtly political groups wasn't appropriate. That's where the comparison to the scrutiny and denial of status to gay groups ends. Because the gay groups were actually organizing to support their community, not to launder millions of big donor money to further a partisan political cause.

There's lots of talk about tax reform in congress, most of it Republican shorthand for more tax cuts for the rich. If Congress really wants to talk reform, they should work on making the rules for the IRS more concrete. But that would actually take work, something one of the two chambers (hint: it's the Republican House) has absolutely no interest in doing. Not when they think they can use this story ("scandal!&quot as a political cudgel to keep their tea party base in an Obama-hating froth.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/15/1209320/-The-real-IRS-abuse-was-back-when-they-targeted-the-gay

Reid Charges GOP With Hypocrisy Over IRS Outrage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022842505

On edit, President Obama has a perfect opportunity to fix a problem that has plagued the IRS for years.

[Dawson Leery]

1. There are several problems that have to be delt with.

The IRS should not target people based upon politics, at the same time, there must be accountability if political groups are abusing the laws/rules.

[ProSense]

2. Yes, and Republicans are

"The IRS should not target people based upon politics, at the same time, there must be accountability if political groups are abusing the laws/rules."

...using this latest controversy to give cover to conservative groups who are doing just that.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Of course all IRS law allows them to legally mistreat gay couples who are forced to file as single

and sign a form swearing that this is the truth. They overtax us, limit options the rest of you get, and this is just daily business, how things are. Those who criticize this are often told they 'want a pony' or that they are engaging in 'poutrage' Are we a convenient bit of rhetoric this week, Pro?

[ProSense]

4. Well, this OP sank fast. n/t