Republicans Call for IRS Inquiry After Disclosure

[alp227]

Source: New York Times

Republican lawmakers on Sunday called for a full investigation of actions by the Internal Revenue Service, which apologized Friday for singling out Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations for heightened scrutiny in applications for tax-exempt status.

Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said the revelations eroded trust in the government and accused the I.R.S. of not being forthcoming with Congress about the episode.

“This is truly outrageous,” she said on CNN’s State of the Union. “It is absolutely chilling that the I.R.S. was singling out conservative groups for extra review. And I think that it’s very disappointing that the president hasn’t personally condemned this and spoken out.”

Lois Lerner, the director of the I.R.S. division that oversees tax-exempt groups, acknowledged on Friday that the agency had singled out nonprofit applicants with the terms “Tea Party” or “patriots” in their titles in an effort to respond to a surge in applications for tax-exempt status from 2010 to 2012. She described it as a bureaucratic mistake carried out by low-level agency employees.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/us/politics/republicans-call-for-irs-inquiry-after-disclosure.html

---

"Why is the IRS apologizing for doing its job?" asked Thom Hartmann on his Friday "On the News" video at 3:55:

[still_one]

1. Susan Collins, what a loser /nt

[dsc]

2. for the same reason that we would be screaming if

the IRS under W targeted groups with progressive in their name. Even handed strict enforcement would be one thing, and a great thing, but this isn't even handed enforcement.

[still_one]

5. True, but I have a solution, get rid of all tax exempt status for ANY group religious, political or

otherwise.

[former9thward]

41. So you would like to see the Red Cross destroyed.

Great solution.

[still_one]

49. Why would that destroy the Red Cross? I donate to a fair number of charities, but I do not do it

For the tax breaks. Is pat Roberson and the like truly charitable organizations?

[former9thward]

52. I was posting about Red Cross.

I don't know shit about Roberson. The Red Cross would be first to tell you they would cease to exist without the deduction.

[still_one]

54. Red Cross and like have no political agenda. Let me rephrase, why would we allow any group with a

Political agenda, left or right be tax deductible.

Your point by the way is well taken

[zbdent]

12. This is likely only being brought to the attention of the media becuase it's a Dem in

the White House and it was against "Republican" orgs.

Lord knows how much it was done since 1/3/1995 against Democratic-leaning orgs, and nobody bothered to alert the media and the "outrage police" ...

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

16. The same people who hounded ACORN into extinction...

are concerned the that IRS did its job in reviewing non-profit status from a flood of new organizations -- many of which were bankrolled by the same set of a dozen or so billionaires.

Yes. Let's have an inquiry. By all means.

Let's have a long and very in-depth inquiry about where the money comes from.

Please proceed, Congressmen.

[treestar]

19. It is - progressive groups don't whine about taxes

Call them illegal, call them "stealing" and so on. Right wingers are more likely to cheat. How many times do we see the call on DU to stop the churches not being taxed when they use the pulpits to support Republicans and urge votes for them? They are not eligible if they do that, and if Tea Party is in their title it is very likely they are not neutral as they are supposed to be in order to receive the tax exemption.

[former9thward]

39. 501(c)4s do not have to be neutral about anything.

They are allowed to engage in some political activity.

[treestar]

46. Whatever the standard, it is to be applied for every applicant organization

Those with tea party in the title are more likely to cross the line. No one said they were improperly denied the status if the organization qualified. Just that they were scrutinized more.

[former9thward]

53. I agree with President Obama.

He said today at the press conference that it was "outrageous".

[loyalsister]

38. True

This one is hard to defend

[Iliyah]

3. Until 2016, the GOPers are going to

have non-stop investigation hearings on anything and everything Pres O and his Adm.

[BlueJazz]

4. A spokesman for the IRS also said: What do you expect us to do ?

The Republicans and their associates, the Tea Party, are known as a pack of lying Fucks anyway.

We just figured since they go on Fox news and "say anything" about anything, that they would not tell the truth about their taxes. So...excuuuuuse us !

[Half-Century Man]

6. Profiling bad when aimed at you, huh?

You argue for stop and frisk of off white people citing they are more likely to commit street crimes. Yet, don't like IRS examinations of pale brown people because they are more likely to office crimes?
Double standard much?.......Oh wait

[hughee99]

20. Yes, and profiling when aimed at our opponents seems to be okay.

Seems to be double standards all around.

[OnyxCollie]

26. It is the responsibility of the IRS

to investigate whether a tax-exempt 501(c)3 group is violating the law by being politically active.

Contributions to 501(c)4's are not tax-deductible.

Contributions to 501(c)3's may be tax-deductible.

501(c)3's may not be politically active. (Do you really believe a 501(c)3 group with "Tea Party" in its name isn't politically active?)

501(c)4's may be politically active.

Contributions to 501(c)4's do not have to be disclosed. (Most of the big money groups that came out before the 2012 election were 501(c)4's.)

It is also the responsibility of the IRS to investigate whether groups are using tax-exempt image advertising or taxable issue advertising. The IRS is not really suited to do this effectively, however.

You are helping the conservative cause by claiming it is a double standard. Congratulations.

[hughee99]

29. This is certainly their job.

Though one might argue that specifically targeting any group with "patriot" or "tea party" in the name, is, in fact, profiling a group based on nothing other than their political leanings. Did they have a list of 20 or 30 terms that were key-words, or was it just the two? Did the find a whole bunch of groups with "patriot" or "tea party" in the name breaking the law that would cause them to target such groups?

IF they had decided to target groups specifically with "progressive" or "green" on the name (or a more progressive "keyword&quot , I'm SURE everyone here would be pissed (especially if a repuke were in office). I'm not sure of the exact circumstances, but I don't have an issue looking into it further. If you're suggesting that we should be willing to whitewash some possible government abuse (major or minor) simply because it happened to our opponents and now they're trying to make a big deal of it, you're barking up the wrong tree here.

You know who doesn't have a double standard? The person who thinks this sort of thing is wrong regardless of which side is being targeted.

[OnyxCollie]

30. Frankly, I think investigating groups with "Tea Party" in their name

is going after low-hanging fruit.

If they really wanted to do something productive, they could go after ALEC.

Careful you don't fall off your high horse as you take a swipe at me. I wouldn't want you to get hurt.

[John2]

32. The first question,

that needs to be answered was there reasons to give them heightened scrutiny. If the answer is yes, then why is the IRS apologizing for doing their jobs. The second question needs to be asked, has the IRS given other groups heightened scrutiny. If that answer is yes also, then the IRS isn't treating them differently than anybodyelse. Have they apologized to anybodyelse that they gave heightened scrutiny? If they have not, then why are they giving this particular group preferential treatment?

[Sunlei]

7. you can not run a tax free charity for politics..and that is what the tea party does.

thousands of republican tax free, political charities.

You know the IRS has a reward page on their website, how do you know some of your club members aren't gaining the huge rewards?

[SoapBox]

8. Stop with the stupid fucking "investigations" already...

sheesh assholes...stop wasting my money and your time with these frivolous "trials".

[Turbineguy]

9. Uhhh...... let's see....

Senator Collins said that checking the taxes of people who don't trust the government erodes trust in the government... OK, I think I got it.

[aquart]

10. +1

[humbled_opinion]

11. Oh My Word...

The teaheads at my job are now claiming that the repubs are going to open up a new attack front on Obamacare using this malefeasance of the IRS as justification to end the program which allows too much government control over medical decisions i.e. attack line something like, is this what conservatives have to look forward to with their medical care, denied care or enhanced fines from the IRS Obama attack dogs simply because of their political affiliation, government abusing this power justifies removing our healthcare decisions from government...

[Politicub]

34. Your post is dripping with bias

Rumor mongering is a tried and true tactic employed by the right to attack its opponents.

There is zero proof that Obama had knowledge of this issue at the IRS. If you have evidence, by all means cite it or present it.

But spare us the concern trolling about " Obama attack dogs." This is loaded language and you know that.

I'm sure the tea party will rally around anything that reflects poorly on government or its institutions.

What kind of job do you have? Must be a miserable place to work if the teapublicans as you say saunter around like mewling cats.

But I'm glad I came across your post since it reveals another line of the right's attack about criticizing the AFA prior to the year the pre-existing conditions rules get fully implemented. I'm sure the right is freaked out about the people having equal access to insurance.

[humbled_opinion]

36. No concern trolling here...

I work for a military contractor and yes there is heavy political discussion, but I give as much as I take, I come armed with facts that I gather mainly on boards like DU, so occasionally I post what the hot topic of the day is at my job so that I can gather some counterpoints.... I never said Obama had knowledge of the what the IRS was doing and yes I agree that this is loaded language, anyway just giving my position on it hope you understand it...

[blm]

51. I'd bet GOP lawmakers ASKED Bush's IRS head to target their primary TeaParty opponents.

Lugar's ad in 2012 primary attacked Mourdock as a tax cheat.

And McConnell and Rove have actively worked to undermine TeaParty challengers of current GOP lawmakers.

No one is MORE scared of TeaParty activists than GOP lawmakers.

CINCINNATI (AP) — A tea party activist is challenging U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (BAY'-nur) in the 2012 Republican primary.

The Cincinnati Enquirer (http://bit.ly/o5hTXQ) reports that David Lewis announced his candidacy on Friday.>>>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/09/mitch-mcconnell-karl-rove_n_2652927.html

Mitch McConnell Had Previously Floated Karl Rove Idea To Target Weak Tea Party Candidates

[humbled_opinion]

55. Excellent.... thanks .. n/t

[YOHABLO]

13. Just more fluff from these Republican freaks .. stupid stupid stupid people.

[louis-t]

14. Yes, and repugs would NEEEEVER do anything like that.

ACORN, US Attorney firings, outing CIA agents, singling out Democrats and trying to stop them from voting, instructing GOTV people to only accept registrations that say 'Republican'....

poor, poor, abused teabaggers.

I also would like to know how many of those 'non-profits' actually were cheating. Media, DO YOUR JOB!

[marble falls]

15. Hey if there's nothing wrong with their taxes - no harm, no foul, right?

[Kelvin Mace]

17. Right after the Bush War Crimes trial

We'll get right on it.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Isnt' there enormous overlap between the tea party and the '16th amendment wasn't ratified' clowns?

[christx30]

56. Yeah.

The Venn diagram would just be a circle.

[TomCADem]

21. Republicans Are Circling The Wagons Around Rove's Crossroads GPS 501(c)(4)

The IRS absolutely needs to examine political groups that are being formed as tax-exempt 501(c)(4) social welfare entities. The fact of the matter is that the Republican attack on the IRS is really an attack on campaign finance laws in general, which generally require the disclosure of donors. However, many right wing groups utilize 501(c)(4) groups to hide the identity of their donors, as well as avoid contribution limits. We really need to crack down on all this dark money. Yes, there are legitimate 501(c)(4)'s, but it should be pretty easy to call Crossroads GPS as a fraudulent social welfare entity that just launders campaign contributions.

[drm604]

22. I'm pretty sure that political organizations aren't allowed to have tax-exempt status.

Am I wrong about that?

If that's the case, then looking at groups with "tea party" in their name makes sense because "tea party" indicates that they are likely a political group.

[OnyxCollie]

24. Contributions to 501(c)4's are not tax-deductible.

Contributions to 501(c)3's may be tax-deductible.

501(c)3's may not be politically active.

501(c)4's may be politically active.

Contributions to 501(c)4's do not have to be disclosed.

[drm604]

27. But this doesn't appear to be about donations being deductible.

It appears to be about whether or not organizations have to pay taxes on their income. A 501(c)4 does not have to pay taxes on income; but to qualify as a 501(c)4 you must be acting for the public welfare and not simply as a political organization.

[loyalsister]

40. "501(c)3's may not be politically active"

Not true. They can't donate to campaigns, but they can be and politically active. Planned Parenthood and NARAL are very active politically. They have legislative agendas that currently are about fighting proposed legislation. The one I have worked with has a policy specialist.

[OnyxCollie]

43. Exemption requirements: 501(c)(3) organizations

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exemption-Requirements-Section-501(c)(3)-Organizations

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

[loyalsister]

50. I have spent years lobbying in favor or against legislation

at the suggestion of 501c3 groups. I "call your legislator" emails and phone calls regarding legislation all the time. "Lobbying" is not limited to paid lobbyists. The difference is the commitment level of the people who don't have the $ incentive.

[TriplD]

23. If they are a legitimate non-profits without a political agenda..

...then how can they be targeted for their politics?

Did the GOP just out them as political groups?

[bemildred]

28. Why yes, yes they did. That is the basis of their complaint. nt

[former9thward]

42. You are mixing up tax law.

501(c)4s are allowed to be political. Organizing for America, the former Obama for America group, is a 501(c)4.

[bemildred]

44. No I am not, it is the IRS job to scrutinize all such groups.

And to go where the money is.

[former9thward]

45. They are allowed to engage in politics.

You don't know what you are talking about but keep digging.

[bemildred]

47. Yes they are, and the IRS is allowed to scrutinize them. nt

[elleng]

25. Quickly heard on radio news today, Sunday talk show?

IRS Commissioner was Repub through (I think) 2011.

And Napoleon said: Never ascribe to malice what which is adequately explained by incompetence.

[blkmusclmachine]

31. Meh.

The IRS is doing its job.

[John2]

33. The IRS

should do their job, the left should organize against the Right and their media cohorts. Did not the Republicans target Democratic organizations? Go back in time and check against certain Democratic organizations the Republicans targeted. Where was this out cry then? As long as they are crying, lets hear about the groups that the IRS found broke the law? Are they claiming all these groups were legit?

[CapnSteve]

35. One more bright line between Us and Them...

Mother Jones and the ACLU have risen in defense of the Tea Party wackos and AstroTurfers in this IRS story.

Do you think the right wing loons would rise to defend the ACLU?

Our fair-mindedness has been our undoing, but I refuse to become like Them...

[marshall]

37. Why on earth did they blab?

Nobody was asking any questions. Nobody was looking their way. Now they've no doubt ruined numerous careers and shone a harsh light on this administration. And to what end?

[Seeking Serenity]

48. The IRS apologized ahead of an Inspector General's

report due out soon.

Oh yeah, people were asking questions.