Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Are you saying that the IRS was mistaken and that these groups were not unfairly targetted? That the head of the section responsible was incorrect in what she said?

No, I'm saying that the IRS's apology was probably not genuine as it is a supplicant organization.

ninja'd by Dogma

Everybody is sorry when they get caught.

 azazel the cat wrote:
A fair point.

Back on track here, I think it was Dogma that suggested the conservative groups were not unfairly targeted- this is perhaps a good point, depending on what the claims submitted from the groups entailed. That is, any tax-exempt group that included terms like "tea party" and "patriot" likely would have hit some radar, as those terms are politically charged and thus would immediately alert suspicions as to the tax-exempt status of the group.

The real question that puts forward, then, should be whether it was just tax-exempt groups who were targeted (which is good) or if it was any group with those keywords, regardless of their application for tax exemption or not (this would be not so good)

I know I've quoted this before but I think that it bears repeating, especially as the IRS have confirmed that these actions were wrong;
"IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications"
"In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases"

"Lerner acknowledged it was wrong for the agency to target groups based on political affiliation.

"That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review," Lerner she heads the [RS division that oversees tax-exempt groups] said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association."

"Many conservative groups complained during the campaign that they were being harassed by the IRS. They accused the agency of frustrating their attempts to become tax exempt by sending them lengthy, intrusive questionnaires.
The forms, which the groups have made available, sought information about group members' political activities, including details of their postings on social networking websites and about family members."

"As part of this process, agents in Cincinnati came up with a list of things to look for in an application. As part of the list, they included the words, "tea party" and "patriot," Lerner said.
"It's the line people that did it without talking to managers," Lerner told The AP. "They're IRS workers, they're revenue agents.""

Furthermore - http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/irs-investigation-groups-targets-91243.html#ixzz2TCpOTwAE
Tea party groups on Monday are threatening to sue the Internal Revenue Service after the agency admitted last week that it wrongly targeted conservative groups applying for nonprofit status.

The IRS said on Friday that it inappropriately subjected groups applying for nonprofit status to extra scrutiny if their applications included terms such as “tea party” or “patriot.”

As early as March 2010, the agency’s so-called determinations unit began targeting conservative groups. Lois Lerner, the IRS official in charge of nonprofits, told reporters Friday that the decision to include “tea party” and “patriot” as search terms was made by low-level field reporters in Cincinnati.
But a few months after the targeting program began, a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report found that the “determinations unit management requested its specialists to be on the lookout for tea party applications.”

No one is saying that tax-exempt groups should not be investigated where there is just cause. What people are objecting to is what appears to be the de facto targeting of certain groups because of their legitimate political beliefs based on keywords. Why were these phrases used, given that they are so specific and most likely to occur on one side of the political spectrum?

If you are going to investigate tax-exempt groups then do so, but do it fairly, without passion and without prejudice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
No, I'm saying that the IRS's apology was probably not genuine as it is a supplicant organization.

In my personal experience I have yet to hear an apology from a public body that was sincere

What is a "supplicant organization"? Its not a phrase I'm familiar with

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

What is a "supplicant organization"? Its not a phrase I'm familiar with

It isn't a phrase, its me using the adjective "supplicant" to describe the noun "organization".

Basically an organization that, when questioned, bows its head and gets on with its work in fear of further questioning.

 dogma wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

What is a "supplicant organization"? Its not a phrase I'm familiar with

It isn't a phrase, its me using the adjective "supplicant" to describe the noun "organization".

Basically an organization that, when questioned, bows its head and gets on with its work in fear of further questioning.

Do you really think it's "supplicant organization"?

How so? Because I think public perception is that the IRS is the big, scary boogy man.

Which is why I think it's resonating now.

"IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications"

See, this is what I'm having some trouble with. If tax-exempt groups are not allowed to be partisan, and a group applies for tax-exemption status with a term like "tea party" in their application, then why would an examination of those records be considered unfair? What am I missing?

 dogma wrote:
It isn't a phrase, its me using the adjective "supplicant" to describe the noun "organization".

Basically an organization that, when questioned, bows its head and gets on with its work in fear of further questioning.

Thank you for the clarification. When I worked in the public sector there were a lot of different bodies, all with different relationships and I wondered if it was a term that I'd simply never heard of before.

While their apology may not be sincere, I believe that the concerns raised by these allegations may very well be.

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

What is a "supplicant organization"? Its not a phrase I'm familiar with

It isn't a phrase, its me using the adjective "supplicant" to describe the noun "organization".

Basically an organization that, when questioned, bows its head and gets on with its work in fear of further questioning.

Do you really think it's "supplicant organization"?

How so? Because I think public perception is that the IRS is the big, scary boogy man.

Which is why I think it's resonating now.

having dealt with the IRS, there was nothing "supplicant" about them.

 azazel the cat wrote:
"IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications"

See, this is what I'm having some trouble with. If tax-exempt groups are not allowed to be partisan, and a group applies for tax-exemption status with a term like "tea party" in their application, then why would an examination of those records be considered unfair? What am I missing?

- The IRS singled them out solely on their supposed political views from a few key words.
- The IRS did not appear to extend similar critical examinations to other bodies based on their political views. This is important as according to AP "There has been a surge of politically active groups claiming tax-exempt status in recent elections — conservative and liberal". Why the discrpancy in treatment?
- There is no mention that there was reasonable suspicion of wrong doing i.e. was the body applying no longer engaged in social welfare as their prime function
- They deliberately mis-apply their own rules (including asking for details of their postings on social networking websites and about family members) when dealing with these bodies

It should be apparent then that the treatment was unfair.

 azazel the cat wrote:
"IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications"

See, this is what I'm having some trouble with. If tax-exempt groups are not allowed to be partisan, and a group applies for tax-exemption status with a term like "tea party" in their application, then why would an examination of those records be considered unfair? What am I missing?

If that's true, where's the information that they performed the exact same scrutiny/standards on organizations like:
The Tide Foundation
Secretary of State Project (SOSP)
Media Matters

See what I mean.

If the IRS can say, BLAMO! We looked at them too!

But, can they?

Think "application" process Whembly

 whembly wrote:

Do you really think it's "supplicant organization"?

There are many 501(c)(3)s that, under current law, should be denied tax exemption.

 whembly wrote:

Because I think public perception is that the IRS is the big, scary boogy man.

Which is why many 501(c)(3)s are given tax exemptions.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

While their apology may not be sincere, I believe that the concerns raised by these allegations may very well be.

I believe they're misdirected. They should be aimed at the tax code itself, not the people administrating it.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
"IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications"

See, this is what I'm having some trouble with. If tax-exempt groups are not allowed to be partisan, and a group applies for tax-exemption status with a term like "tea party" in their application, then why would an examination of those records be considered unfair? What am I missing?

- The IRS did not appear to extend similar critical examinations to other bodies based on their political views. This is important as according to AP "There has been a surge of politically active groups claiming tax-exempt status in recent elections — conservative and liberal". Why the discrpancy in treatment?

This is the only one fo those that matters in answer to my question; but it's a good point that I'd agree with.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
"IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications"

See, this is what I'm having some trouble with. If tax-exempt groups are not allowed to be partisan, and a group applies for tax-exemption status with a term like "tea party" in their application, then why would an examination of those records be considered unfair? What am I missing?

- The IRS did not appear to extend similar critical examinations to other bodies based on their political views. This is important as according to AP "There has been a surge of politically active groups claiming tax-exempt status in recent elections — conservative and liberal". Why the discrpancy in treatment?

This is the only one fo those that matters in answer to my question; but it's a good point that I'd agree with.

It's a huge issue that's going nuclear in the news today. My question is, will there actually be blood? Or will everything be tossed in a closet until forgotten about like so many other scandals?

I remain impressed with people's eagerness to explain away blatantly unethical or illegal behavior on the part of the government so long as it only appears to affect people they disagree with.

 Ouze wrote:
Not that this is at all what you said, but I'd also like to point out it's a hell of a lot different to lobby for lower taxes then it is to break existing tax laws. For example when Warren Buffet was saying he'd like to raise taxes on his bracket and end some tax loopholes, people pointed out he himself used some loopholes and so was hence a hypocrite. Not so - there is nothing wrong with following the rules as written while simultaneously pointing out the rules could work better.

Oh absolutely, and I think its something us gamers should understand better than most. You talk about the rules, and how they might work better, but when you play you play by the rules as they're written.

I mean right now in Australia we've got paid parenting leave, and the opposition (who is very likely to win the next election) are talking about expanding it massively, so that you don't just get a welfare allowance, but actually get paid at your current wage. So that if you earn $120,000 a year, if you have a child and take six months off to raise it you get paid $60,000 by the government. It's the single most ridiculous piece of poor little middle class welfare I've ever seen... but if they win and the legislation passes, you better believe my wife and I are taking every penny of that we can get out hands on


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I'm not so sure you should be ascribing motivation so freely. For all you know, Tea Partiers were targeted due to their allegiance to the Koch brothers or any other reason, rather than their criticisms of Obama. I think you should get some more facts before assuming you understand the why of it.

Or far more likely, because they were newcomes to the political scene, and the establishiment does not react kindly to that.

And while I'm speculating a lot here, I wonder if the Tea Party hadn't just folded in to being a particularly noisy wing of the Republican Party if this stuff might still be going on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
talk talk talk talk.
Who's been fired?

Yeah, that's what we need - snap decisions made without following due process.

I mean for feth's sake, that's the whole fething point here - there is a right way and a wrong way to do things.

Paid Parenting leave, the rest of the world is so spoiled...

Wow... it's actually worst than I thought.
http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs

The same IRS office that deliberately targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 election released nine pending confidential applications of conservative groups to ProPublica late last year.

The IRS did not respond to requests Monday following up about that release, and whether it had determined how the applications were sent to ProPublica.
...
...
...
In response to a request for the applications for 67 different nonprofits last November, the Cincinnati office of the IRS sent ProPublica applications or documentation for 31 groups. Nine of those applications had not yet been approved—meaning they were not supposed to be made public. (We made six of those public, after redacting their financial information, deeming that they were newsworthy.)

It’s amazing that ProPublica is willing to come out and admit this...

This shows that the aggressive actions from this office were obviously political (how could it not be?). All nine of the confidential files involved conservative groups, not just a cross-section of 501(c)4s applying for exemptions (looking at you dogma ).

This was a coordinated effort to attack conservative groups, which ProPublica ran this article after the election.... imagine that huh.

Looks like they're trying to distance themself as far as they can.

 whembly wrote:
How so? Because I think public perception is that the IRS is the big, scary boogy man.

Which is why I think it's resonating now.

Yeah, that's the common perception of tax collection agencies by people who's dealings with the tax code are basically to hand their documents over to an accountant once a year.

To folk who contact the ATO regularly, the perception is very different. I wouldn't go so far as to say 'supplicant', but that's probably because I didn't know what that word meant. But I would say that they are remarkably permissive to all manner of tax based shenanigans, and even if you are found pushing the envelope too far, as long as you come on board and don't keep fighting they won't look to cripple you over it.

Okay... admit... this is funny:


Seriously... this is going to Defcon 5 now... o.O

The Means & Way comittee is having a review of this on Friday. That.Was.Fast!

o.O

EDIT: For those claiming impeachment... just, NO.

And a little more info, from Politico:

The then-director of the IRS and the current acting director were informed in May 2012 of the practice, two months after the then-director testified that no such targeting was taking place. Letters from the IRS to Congress on the issue after May 2012 made no mention of the targeting.

Employees in D.C. and California appear to have been involved as well, making the "only low-level employees in Ohio" claim seem a little less-than-truthful.

John Stewart absolutely tears into this one: (Caution Censored Language)

 whembly wrote:
Wow... it's actually worst than I thought.
http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs

The same IRS office that deliberately targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 election released nine pending confidential applications of conservative groups to ProPublica late last year.

The IRS did not respond to requests Monday following up about that release, and whether it had determined how the applications were sent to ProPublica.
...
...
...
In response to a request for the applications for 67 different nonprofits last November, the Cincinnati office of the IRS sent ProPublica applications or documentation for 31 groups. Nine of those applications had not yet been approved—meaning they were not supposed to be made public. (We made six of those public, after redacting their financial information, deeming that they were newsworthy.)

It’s amazing that ProPublica is willing to come out and admit this...

This shows that the aggressive actions from this office were obviously political (how could it not be?). All nine of the confidential files involved conservative groups, not just a cross-section of 501(c)4s applying for exemptions (looking at you dogma ).

This was a coordinated effort to attack conservative groups, which ProPublica ran this article after the election.... imagine that huh.

Looks like they're trying to distance themself as far as they can.

That has been suspected for a long time, with critics just calling them crazy rabid right wing conspiracists. Remember boys and girls, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
How so? Because I think public perception is that the IRS is the big, scary boogy man.

Which is why I think it's resonating now.

Yeah, that's the common perception of tax collection agencies by people who's dealings with the tax code are basically to hand their documents over to an accountant once a year.

To folk who contact the ATO regularly, the perception is very different. I wouldn't go so far as to say 'supplicant', but that's probably because I didn't know what that word meant. But I would say that they are remarkably permissive to all manner of tax based shenanigans, and even if you are found pushing the envelope too far, as long as you come on board and don't keep fighting they won't look to cripple you over it.

Thats not correct. I don't know about the country YOU live in, but here, the IRS is the boogie man up and down the chain.

Another little write-up:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/13/news/economy/irs-faq-tea-party/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

The Internal Revenue Service is under fire for targeting the tea party and other conservative charity groups for extra scrutiny.

The IRS watchdog is set to release documents this week that will reveal fresh details on why the IRS picked on conservative groups that were seeking tax-exempt status. The tax agency has apologized and given a rudimentary explanation.

Tere are some questions and answers that throw light on what happened.

What does the IRS have to do with charities anyway?

The IRS has to make sure that charitable, education and religious groups -- that don't have to pay taxes on their operations -- are not scamming the federal government. The IRS gets 60,000 requests each year from such groups seeking tax-exempt status, according to Lois Lerner, director of the IRS's exempt organizations office.

Most charities are tax exempt under the 501(c)(3) category. The classification prevents groups from getting directly involved in politics, because donors can deduct contributions from their income taxes.

Groups that want to dabble in politics can also apply for tax-exempt status under a different category called a 501(c)(4). This status allows the groups to campaign and participate in elections, as long as it's not their main purpose.

It doesn't allow donors tax breaks. And as with most charities, donors are intended to be kept secret by the IRS.

So why was the IRS digging into these groups?

The number of 501(c)(4) applications more than doubled to over 3,400 in 2012, compared to 1,500 in 2010. The abnormally large number of applications was a red flag to the IRS.

Why so many?

It goes back to 2010, when a "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling allowed unlimited spending by corporations and labor unions on political campaigns. It also said that political donors should be disclosed. That case prompted a slew of politically-affiliated groups, including Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, to become charitable organizations under 501(c)4, which allows donors to be kept secret.

How many groups were targeted?

The IRS says that 300 groups were set aside for extra review. About 75 of them had the words "tea party" or "patriot."

Why did the IRS target conservative groups?

We'll find out more when the audit becomes public this week. The IRS targeted conservative organizations, applying extra scrutiny to applicants seeking tax exempt status whose applications contained the words "tea party" or "patriot." However, so far it appears IRS officials didn't do the same thing for left-leaning charitable groups.

What's the fallout?

The IRS has some more explaining to do. A House committee has called a hearing this Friday to investigate the agency's actions. Republicans and Democrats, who lately can't seem to agree on anything, are joining hands in decrying the IRS.

 whembly wrote:
Wow... it's actually worst than I thought.
http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs

The same IRS office that deliberately targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 election released nine pending confidential applications of conservative groups to ProPublica late last year.

The IRS did not respond to requests Monday following up about that release, and whether it had determined how the applications were sent to ProPublica.
...
...
...
In response to a request for the applications for 67 different nonprofits last November, the Cincinnati office of the IRS sent ProPublica applications or documentation for 31 groups. Nine of those applications had not yet been approved—meaning they were not supposed to be made public. (We made six of those public, after redacting their financial information, deeming that they were newsworthy.)

It’s amazing that ProPublica is willing to come out and admit this...

This shows that the aggressive actions from this office were obviously political (how could it not be?). All nine of the confidential files involved conservative groups, not just a cross-section of 501(c)4s applying for exemptions (looking at you dogma ).

This was a coordinated effort to attack conservative groups, which ProPublica ran this article after the election.... imagine that huh.

Looks like they're trying to distance themself as far as they can.

The more information like this that becomes public, the less the IRS can say it was not politically motivated.

 Valion wrote:
And a little more info, from Politico:

The then-director of the IRS and the current acting director were informed in May 2012 of the practice, two months after the then-director testified that no such targeting was taking place. Letters from the IRS to Congress on the issue after May 2012 made no mention of the targeting.

Employees in D.C. and California appear to have been involved as well, making the "only low-level employees in Ohio" claim seem a little less-than-truthful.

So that means that so far we have offices in Ohio, Cincinnati, DC and California all targeting right leaning groups at the same time. And all supposedly done by low level employees? If no managers, of any level, knew about this then it raises very serious questions about the culture of the IRS and its lack of oversight into staff activities

 d-usa wrote:
Another little write-up:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/13/news/economy/irs-faq-tea-party/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

So why was the IRS digging into these groups?

The number of 501(c)(4) applications more than doubled to over 3,400 in 2012, compared to 1,500 in 2010. The abnormally large number of applications was a red flag to the IRS.

Why so many?

It goes back to 2010, when a "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling allowed unlimited spending by corporations and labor unions on political campaigns. It also said that political donors should be disclosed. That case prompted a slew of politically-affiliated groups, including Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, to become charitable organizations under 501(c)4, which allows donors to be kept secret.

How many groups were targeted?

The IRS says that 300 groups were set aside for extra review. About 75 of them had the words "tea party" or "patriot."

Why did the IRS target conservative groups?

We'll find out more when the audit becomes public this week. The IRS targeted conservative organizations, applying extra scrutiny to applicants seeking tax exempt status whose applications contained the words "tea party" or "patriot." However, so far it appears IRS officials didn't do the same thing for left-leaning charitable groups.

The results of this audit could make for very interesting reading

Well, everyone at real high levels of Dems and Repubs seem to be on the same page; they are all saying this is bad.

Now, we will see if there is any accountability. If the President handles this right, it might not impact him at all. he can look really non-partisan here by "Cleaning House" at the IRS and taking care of business. Of course, if it is linked the the Presidnet (which would be hard to do conclusively, I doubt he sent an Email saying go after the 501(c)(3) status of Tea Party groups) then things could get really rough for him.

No matter what he does, it won't be enough for partisan Republicans, but what would the general public need to see in order to think that the President is taking this seriously? How will this scandal impact the Presindet's efforts to get a "Grand Bargain" on the Budget out of House Republicans?

Fire everyone.

Since Carney already said 'wo hold on here" and Obama said the same, I'm interpreting that as "no one will be punished."

Considering no one was punished from selling guns to cartels, why would I expect a difference here?

I would love to be pleasantly surprised though.

 Frazzled wrote:

Thats not correct. I don't know about the country YOU live in, but here, the IRS is the boogie man up and down the chain.

Not for nonprofits it isn't.

 Frazzled wrote:
Obama said the same, I'm interpreting that as "no one will be punished."

I guess I missed that part of what he said.