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.

 dogma wrote:

 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.

Evidently it is actually.

 Frazzled wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 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.

Evidently it is actually.

And its for the best. This is a change, a good change. A case of the IRS actually using the legal tools at its disposal.

I'm actually a bit sad that so many people have been assuming the IRS is at fault here.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 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.

Evidently it is actually.

And its for the best. This is a change, a good change. A case of the IRS actually using the legal tools at its disposal.

I'm actually a bit sad that so many people have been assuming the IRS is at fault here.

SO you believe they're totally, 100% blameless?

Or, are you one of those "Blame the System" crowd?

 whembly wrote:

SO you believe they're totally, 100% blameless?

Or, are you one of those "Blame the System" crowd?

So you think you can get away with a false dichotomy?

I believe that the IRS should use all of the legal tools at its disposal, that some of those legal tools are poorly designed, and that many critics of the organization know nothing about its legal powers or structure. I further believe that there exists an unfair bias against the IRS because of its role in collecting federal taxes from individuals.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

SO you believe they're totally, 100% blameless?

Or, are you one of those "Blame the System" crowd?

So you think you can get away with a false dichotomy?

Sure...

I believe that the IRS should use all of the legal tools at its disposal, that some of those legal tools are poorly designed, and that many critics of the organization know nothing about its legal powers or structure.

That I can understand.

I further believe that there exists an unfair bias against the IRS because of its role in collecting federal taxes from individuals.

Oh... absolutely.

But, here's what is at stake here... even if the assumption is wrong, but any perception of wrong doing in the IRS must be aggressively defended. That's all shot now that the head of the IRS openly admitted to the wrong doing. Now, the IRS has a PR disaster on it's hand that may necessitate a major organizational overhaul. Now THAT'S a scary prospect since we wouldn't know what the end result of this would be.

 dogma wrote:
And its for the best. This is a change, a good change. A case of the IRS actually using the legal tools at its disposal.

I'm actually a bit sad that so many people have been assuming the IRS is at fault here.

It used the legal tools at its disposal, but only to target certain groups with what appears to be no other basis than their political views, and then not following their own policies. That is hardly acting in good faith.

As far as blaming the IRS my opinion is this. Based on the disclosures to date the argument can be made that they either;
1. Gave permission to employees to carry out this unwarranted interference based on how widespread the abuse has been (Ohio, Cincinnati, DC and California)
2. Provided a culture in which this harassment was seen as acceptable in multiple offices around the country, and did not have the necessary mechanisms in place to prevent such abuses of power.

Whatever way you want to cut it these are serious accusations.

It also is now being reported that it gave some of these files to interested Democratic parties.

If that went to the President, thats impeachable.

 Frazzled wrote:
It also is now being reported that it gave some of these files to interested Democratic parties.

If that went to the President, thats impeachable.

If its proved that they did pass on files then it is very clearly politically motivated.

As far as impeachment is concerned I think it should only be seriously talked about in the event there is evidence to support it. I fear the genuine issue getting sidetracked by loose talk that this is another attempt to desperately find something to impeach the President.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It also is now being reported that it gave some of these files to interested Democratic parties.

If that went to the President, thats impeachable.

If its proved that they did pass on files then it is very clearly politically motivated.

As far as impeachment is concerned I think it should only be seriously talked about in the event there is evidence to support it. I fear the genuine issue getting sidetracked by loose talk that this is another attempt to desperately find something to impeach the President.

Fair point and I agree with that. In this instance I'm denoting the gravity of the situation. This is banana republic stuff now.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/14/Progressive-Group-Says-IRS-Gave-Them-Confidential-Docs-On-Conservative-Groups

 Frazzled wrote:
Fair point and I agree with that. In this instance I'm denoting the gravity of the situation. This is banana republic stuff now.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/14/Progressive-Group-Says-IRS-Gave-Them-Confidential-Docs-On-Conservative-Groups

Thank you, as long as you don't think that I'm being a d*ck I think everyone should be able to agree that this situation is pretty serious, and I'm sure that some quarters would love nothing more than a distracting issue to take some of the wind out of the sails of this accusation and make it partisan. I think that the American public deserve better than that at this stage.

Reading that link I could almost hear another proverbial nail going into the coffin.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Fair point and I agree with that. In this instance I'm denoting the gravity of the situation. This is banana republic stuff now.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/14/Progressive-Group-Says-IRS-Gave-Them-Confidential-Docs-On-Conservative-Groups

Thank you, as long as you don't think that I'm being a d*ck I think everyone should be able to agree that this situation is pretty serious, and I'm sure that some quarters would love nothing more than a distracting issue to take some of the wind out of the sails of this accusation and make it partisan. I think that the American public deserve better than that at this stage.

Reading that link I could almost hear another proverbial nail going into the coffin.

Yeah... but I seriously doubt that any directive came from Obama or other cabinet level.

At this point I agree with you.

Reports are coming out of the woodworks now....

http://danaloeschradio.com/reporter-claims-irs-harassment-after-tough-obama-interview/

St. Louis Reporter Larry Conners revealed via Facebook yesterday that he has been “hammered” by the IRS since his much-discussed interview with President Obama. Conners, a veteran reporter, asked tough, but fair question during the interview which was slammed by progressives in media. Conners says:

Shortly after I did my April 2012 interview with President Obama, my wife, friends and some viewers suggested that I might need to watch out for the IRS.

I don’t accept “conspiracy theories”, but I do know that almost immediately after the interview, the IRS started hammering me.
At the time, I dismissed the “co-incidence”, but now, I have concerns … after revelations about the IRS targeting various groups and their members.

Originally, the IRS apologized for red-flagging conservative groups and their members if they had “Tea Party” or “patriot” in their name.
Today, there are allegations that the IRS focused on various groups and/or individuals questioning or criticizing government spending, taxes, debt or how the government is run … any involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, or social economic reform/movement.

In that April 2012 interview, I questioned President Obama on several topics: the Buffet Rule, his public remarks about the Supreme Court before the ruling on the Affordable Care Act. I also asked why he wasn’t doing more to help Sen. Claire McCaskill who at that time was expected to lose. The Obama interview caught fire and got wide-spread attention because I questioned his spending.

I said some viewers expressed concern, saying they think he’s “out of touch” because of his personal and family trips in the midst of our economic crisis.

The President’s face clearly showed his anger; afterwards, his staff which had been so polite … suddenly went cold.
That’s to be expected, and I can deal with that just as I did with President George H. Bush’s staff when he didn’t like my questions.
Journalistic integrity is of the utmost importance to me. My job is to ask the hard questions, because I believe viewers have a right to be well-informed. I cannot and will not promote anyone’s agenda – political or otherwise – at the expense of the reporting the truth.
What I don’t like to even consider … is that because of the Obama interview … the IRS put a target on me.

Can I prove it? At this time, no.

But it is a fact that since that April 2012 interview … the IRS has been pressuring me.

Conners had asked questions such as:

“The economy is a big concern for folks, I mean the unemployment, trying to make ends meet, gas prices, food prices going up. Some of our viewers are complaining that they get frustrated and angered when they see the first family jetting around different vacations and so forth …”

Now that the IRS has admitted to persecuting tea party groups, now that the DOJ has seized phone records of AP reporters, has the admin targeted individual journalists as well?

For those who don't know... Larry Conners has always been a fair (albeit liberal leaning) reporter who's been around here forever.

 dogma wrote:
And its for the best. This is a change, a good change. A case of the IRS actually using the legal tools at its disposal.

I'm actually a bit sad that so many people have been assuming the IRS is at fault here.

Well. There's carrying the water, and then there's outright saying it's a good thing the IRS specifically went after perceived enemies of the current administration for nothing more than political reasons.

Wow, just wow.
So far we have multiple offices targeting conservatives and disbelievers of the agenda.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/politics/irs-conservative-targeting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


Pro Israeli groups were also targeted:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/israel-related-groups-also-pointed-to-irs-scrutiny-91298.html


Now there's a reporter saying the IRS starting going after him after he interviewed Obama in a moderately hard ball fashion.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/kmov-anchor-the-irs-is-targeting-me-163945.html

Dude…

So, what would it take for you guys to think the Administration HAS dealt with the problem? I'm genuinely curious.

Will this impact Obama's "Grand Bargain" on the Budget withthe GOP? Would you trust fair dealing from the President on the Budget?

 Easy E wrote:
So, what would it take for you guys to think the Administration HAS dealt with the problem? I'm genuinely curious.

Will this impact Obama's "Grand Bargain" on the Budget withthe GOP? Would you trust fair dealing from the President on the Budget?

The scalp of every IRS agent in those offices, their boss and his/her boss.
If there's even a hint it goes higher fire everyone remotely connected.
Jail time for the agents who released tax information to the Democrats.

 Easy E wrote:
So, what would it take for you guys to think the Administration HAS dealt with the problem? I'm genuinely curious.

Well, that's in the future, since you used past tense. However, to believe they are dealing with the problem, I posted earlier I'd like to see (among other things) a criminal investigation opened. It looks like that is happening.

 Ouze wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
So, what would it take for you guys to think the Administration HAS dealt with the problem? I'm genuinely curious.

Well, that's in the future, since you used past tense. However, to believe they are dealing with the problem, I posted earlier I'd like to see (among other things) a criminal investigation opened. It looks like that is happening.

The DoJ and the House committee will be investigating.

 Frazzled wrote:
Wow, just wow.
So far we have multiple offices targeting conservatives and disbelievers of the agenda.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/politics/irs-conservative-targeting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


Pro Israeli groups were also targeted:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/israel-related-groups-also-pointed-to-irs-scrutiny-91298.html


Now there's a reporter saying the IRS starting going after him after he interviewed Obama in a moderately hard ball fashion.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/kmov-anchor-the-irs-is-targeting-me-163945.html

Dude…

That any government body should abuse its powers so is beyond contempt.

 Easy E wrote:
So, what would it take for you guys to think the Administration HAS dealt with the problem? I'm genuinely curious.

Just off the top of my head;
- A full and impartial investigation, with a sufficient remit to fully investigate the accusations made and all available evidence, including the power to call and compel witnesses
- For staff who knowingly took part in this, concealed this, gave material support to this etc., at whatever level, to be held accountable for their actions, up to and including losing their jobs and/or jail depending on the crime(s) committed
- The firing of those people who should have been accountable for the sections of the IRS that conducted this harassing behaviour. If they are in a position of authority and employed to be responsible then they should take responsibility for the failings that occurred on their watch
- An overhaul of the IRS culture, procedure and practices that allowed these abuses to occur unchecked and on a wide scale (4 offices to date)
- A formal apology to all groups that were affected by this untoward conduct from the IRS
- An investigation into the bodies who received this information from the IRS, and whether it was distributed further by these same bodies.

Dread summed it up nicely

People have been calling for any reason to impeach since 2009, it's getting pretty stupid.

 d-usa wrote:
People have been calling for any reason to impeach since 2009, it's getting pretty stupid.

Which is why I 'm saying that we shouldn't be talking about it unless there is actual evidence that would support the claim.

 d-usa wrote:
People have been calling for any reason to impeach since 2009, it's getting pretty stupid.

And we listened to the gak for 8 years with Bush. You've not been putting up with it for 5 years yet, so grow some thicker skin.

I think it's a little too early to get into any of that. Let's let the process work, see what the investigations come up with.

 Valion wrote:

Well. There's carrying the water, and then there's outright saying it's a good thing the IRS specifically went after perceived enemies of the current administration for nothing more than political reasons.

Is that what I said? Because that doesn't seem like what I said.

I guess that might be how you interpreted my statement, but I certainly never explicitly claimed that it was a good thing that the IRS targeted conservative groups.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

It used the legal tools at its disposal, but only to target certain groups with what appears to be no other basis than their political views, and then not following their own policies.

I've not heard anything about the IRS not following its own policies*, and I've already explained why reviewing groups due to their political views is acceptable.



*Note: the tax code is federal law, not IRS policy.

 dogma wrote:
Is that what I said? Because that doesn't seem like what I said.

I guess that might be how you interpreted my statement, but I certainly never explicitly claimed that it was a good thing that the IRS targeted conservative groups.

Well, you said it was good that the IRS is using all the tools at their disposal, and then lamented the fact that so many people think the IRS is at fault here. When the IRS itself has admitted it's at fault, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make if it's not, "Hey, this situation's cool."

 dogma wrote:
I've not heard anything about the IRS not following its own policies*, and I've already explained why reviewing groups due to their political views is acceptable.

*Note: the tax code is federal law, not IRS policy.

From the opening post - http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups
"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"

And has been explained in detail by many posters and as detailed in various links it would appear that what the IRS did went well beyond what is acceptable. Even the IRS acknowledge that themselves. Unless you think you are in a better position than the IRS (including senior staff) to determine whether what they did was wrong.
If these groups were targeted on the basis of political opinion alone, with no evidence of any wrong doing then they are abusing their powers and are not acting in good faith. You can attempt to rationalise this as much want but the evidence that has been emerging in the past few days, never mind the revelations to come, do not support your assertions. No matter how much you may wish otherwise.

- What is your opinion on the allegations that the documents of these groups that were given, according to you, "acceptable" reviews being passed to private bodies outside the IRS?
- Are the Department of Justice and House Committee wrong in deciding to investigate this manner?

 Valion wrote:
Well, you said it was good that the IRS is using all the tools at their disposal, and then lamented the fact that so many people think the IRS is at fault here. When the IRS itself has admitted it's at fault, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make if it's not, "Hey, this situation's cool."

Well said

 Valion wrote:

Well, you said it was good that the IRS is using all the tools at their disposal, and then lamented the fact that so many people think the IRS is at fault here. When the IRS itself has admitted it's at fault, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make if it's not, "Hey, this situation's cool."

I explained my position throughout the thread but, to summarize:

The IRS is a supplicant organization. It admitted to wrong-doing because it was expected of it. This annoys me because the federal tax code regarding nonprofits is horribly designed, and effectively requires the IRS to note the political behavior* of any group applying for certain sorts of nonprofit status. It is a good thing that the IRS is using the legal tools at its disposal, because it has failed to do so for many years. It is a bad thing that the onus of popular ire is focused on the IRS itself, as it should be focused on the nonprofit component of the tax code.

It is also a bad thing if the IRS did engage in unfairly discriminatory practices, but I consider that way less important than the nonprofit section of the federal tax code.



*And therefore leanings.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

'In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases"

Most, not all. They're different words.

Additionally there are several kinds of 501(c) groups that must disclose their donors, and the article you're quoting wasn't clear regarding the application status of the organizations which were, and were not solicited regarding such. Indeed, it would violate federal law if the IRS did not ask in some cases.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

- What is your opinion on the allegations that the documents of these groups that were given, according to you, "acceptable" reviews being passed to private bodies outside the IRS?

The review is probably justifiable according to internal criteria (because that's all that matters with 501(c)s), but any surrender of confidential documents to third parties is not.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

- Are the Department of Justice and House Committee wrong in deciding to investigate this manner?

No, because suspect cases require investigation.

 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.

I'm gonna back my experience with our tax authority and the American tax agents I've spoken to over, you know, the guy who posts a lot of stuff on the internet that's just completely wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
I believe that the IRS should use all of the legal tools at its disposal, that some of those legal tools are poorly designed, and that many critics of the organization know nothing about its legal powers or structure. I further believe that there exists an unfair bias against the IRS because of its role in collecting federal taxes from individuals.

I think that's all very true, and in general it makes good sense. But we're talking about a specific instance here, in which the IRS didn't just crack down on not for profits, but on not for profits with a specific ideological bent.

And so, whether the IRS in general suffers a general bias from the general population, and whether it could use its powers more forcefully... the issue here is the use of government sanctioned power for partisan political ends. And that is straight undemocratic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
It also is now being reported that it gave some of these files to interested Democratic parties.

If that went to the President, thats impeachable.

And if the president is selling Republican children to North Korea that's also impeachable.

But when you guys have a serious impeachment boner going on, I guess any kind of wild speculation is cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... but I seriously doubt that any directive came from Obama or other cabinet level.

Yeah, this is nuts and bolts political machine establishment hack work.

Simply put, the President has a lot bigger priorities than to control or oversee some nasty but very minor political shenanigans around some tea party start up groups, and anyone who doesn't understand that should be laughed out of the conversation.

Unless, of course, the Republicans have another impeachment boner going, in which case all kinds of crazy speculation is welcomed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
And we listened to the gak for 8 years with Bush. You've not been putting up with it for 5 years yet, so grow some thicker skin.

No, feth that.

bs calls for impeachment are no less disruptive and no less bs just because some idiots claimed the same thing about your guy 6 years ago.

That's the whole fething point of this. You need to value what good government is, and what good government practice is. The alternative is just more and more partisan bs, and that will only lead to more abuse of government power, whether its IRS misusing it's power for partisan ends, or ridiculous calls for impeachment.