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.

Of course we also have "whoever was responsible for making sure there are backups should be fired" followed by "the people responsible for making sure there are backups have been fired. That's really suspicious...".

 Ouze wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The only coincidence is your appalling grammar.

Seriously, at this point it's just hilarious to continue seeing the witch hunt ongoing.

While I do think that the Republicans are using this as a political hammer, I don't think it matters because even a bad tool can sometimes be used to do a good job. I think there are legitimate concerns and I think those are good questions. "We lost all the emails" has been the go-to excuse for 2 administrations now, and it's time that we finally put a stake through that; because although there are lots of reasons and excuses for why it could legitimately happen, there aren't really any for why it should happen.

Emails disappearing is only possible through truly poor IT policy or intentional malfeasance, and with the level of spending the IRS does on IT infrastructure, neither explanation is satisfactory, not in 2014. The timelines alone are so suspicious that an investigation truly is warranted.

Yeah... I'll admit that my zeal to fight that this is a big deal can get out of hand...

I just hope that the partisan attackers/defenders step back and consider the implications here...

It's not about who was targeted. I realize some of you don't care it was the tea party, and frankly I'm not going to lose any sleep over the tea party being targeted for anything either... *shrug*

But that's not what's at stake here. What's at stake is that ANY group was targeted for what appears to be political reasons.

This sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations.

Now we don't know for sure it was political......but that's because we can't see what was in the emails.

Did you really just try to pretend that you are somehow above the "partisan attackers/defenders"?

Must be a nice view from that high horse.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Did you really just try to pretend that you are somehow above the "partisan attackers/defenders"?

Must be a nice view from that high horse.

Did you just ignore the first sentence?

Nope. I just find it hilarious that in the same post you try the whole 'appeal to reason' and then act as though you are somehow the only person being objective in this instance.

It's also hilarious how you say "I don't care that this is the Tea Party" but then you talk about how "What's at stake is that ANY group was targeted for what appears to be political reasons."

Of course a group with political leanings is targeted "for what appears to be political reasons".

 Kanluwen wrote:
Nope. I just find it hilarious that in the same post you try the whole 'appeal to reason' and then act as though you are somehow the only person being objective in this instance.

Que I'm not the only one.

It's also hilarious how you say "I don't care that this is the Tea Party" but then you talk about how "What's at stake is that ANY group was targeted for what appears to be political reasons."

Are you telling me that you're okay with what happened... and if a Republican administration does this same thing to progressive groups, you'd be okay with it as well?

Of course a group with political leanings is targeted "for what appears to be political reasons".

Which is wrong when only one side is targeted.

One side wasn't advocating that "income tax is illegal".

 Kanluwen wrote:
One side wasn't advocating that "income tax is illegal".

That be silly though. We imposed it on ourselves. Though the cash amount of the tax and the number of taxes are a bit much

 Kanluwen wrote:
One side wasn't advocating that "income tax is illegal".

Erm... what?

You're missing the point. Let me try again.

Only conservative groups were targeted in an apparent political attempt to mitigate these groups impact during an election cycle. Arguments were made that Progressive groups received the same sort of scrutiny as the conservative groups, which is a patently false:
Treasury IG: Liberal groups weren't targeted by IRS like Tea Party

...
“Our audit did not find evidence that the IRS used the ‘progressives’ identifier as selection criteria for potential political cases between May 2010 and May 2012,” George wrote in the letter obtained by The Hill.

The inspector general also stressed that 100 percent of the groups with “Tea Party,” “patriots” and “9/12” in their name were flagged for extra attention.

“While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of Tea Party and other related criteria we described in our report, including employee interviews, e-mails and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that ‘progressives’ was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention,” George wrote to Levin, the top Democrat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee…

George’s letter says that the “progressive” identifier on BOLO lists was not in a section used for selecting potential political cases, and that the IRS had developed inappropriate criteria to flag Tea Party applicants as potentially political.
...

So here's my simple question to you: During a Republican administration, would you be okay if the IRS exclusively performed extra scrutiny to progressive groups?

Here's my simple question to you:
During a Republican administration, would you be okay if the IRS exclusively performed extra scrutiny to progressive groups that advocate income tax evasion?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Here's my simple question to you:
During a Republican administration, would you be okay if the IRS exclusively performed extra scrutiny to progressive groups that advocate income tax evasion?

Would they say how?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Here's my simple question to you:
During a Republican administration, would you be okay if the IRS exclusively performed extra scrutiny to progressive groups that advocate income tax evasion?

A) you're deflecting.

B) are you actually arguing that all those groups the IRS looked at advocated tax evasion?

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Here's my simple question to you:
During a Republican administration, would you be okay if the IRS exclusively performed extra scrutiny to progressive groups that advocate income tax evasion?

A) you're deflecting.

B) are you actually arguing that all those groups the IRS looked at advocated tax evasion?

It's not deflection, Whembly. It's called CONTEXT.


And again, phrasing.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Here's my simple question to you:
During a Republican administration, would you be okay if the IRS exclusively performed extra scrutiny to progressive groups that advocate income tax evasion?

A) you're deflecting.

B) are you actually arguing that all those groups the IRS looked at advocated tax evasion?

It's not deflection, Whembly. It's called CONTEXT.


And again, phrasing.

Okay... show me that the groups that the IRS scrutinized (ie, truth to vote, Albuquerque Tea Party, etc...) advocated tax evasion.

 whembly wrote:

Unfortunately, given how partisan John Koskinen is... I believe the IRS' credibility is at stake here.

How does being an official within a particular political party invalidate an Official decision, if said decision was within the scope of the law?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Unfortunately, given how partisan John Koskinen is... I believe the IRS' credibility is at stake here.

How does being a donor to a particular political party invalidate an official decision, if said decision was within the scope of the law?

Being a donor to your favored party isn't a bad thing in a general sense... however...

When the head of the exempt organization plead the 5th and resigned...

AND, when the commissioner during the time in question resigned...

There's a credibility issue...

The logical thing would be to nominate a non-partisan commish.

You see... credibility is everything for this agency. It absolutely depends on trust, and of course the threat of an audit to get Americans to file their taxes on time and honestly.

 whembly wrote:

The logical thing would be to nominate a non-partisan commish.

Such a thing does not exist within the narrative you have expressed across several threads.

 whembly wrote:

You see... credibility is everything for this agency. It absolutely depends on trust, and of course the threat of an audit to get Americans to file their taxes on time and honestly.

No, it depends on the authority of the Federal Government. And I don't think that sort of authority has been abrogated en masse, at least as a result of this case.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

The logical thing would be to nominate a non-partisan commish.

Such a thing does not exist within the narrative you have expressed across several threads.

All I'm saying is that if the IRS/White House believes that this is a phoney scandal, then they could've found someone else who didn't contribute nearly $100,000 to Democratic candidates and groups over his career.

It raises the red flag a bit dude.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You see... credibility is everything for this agency. It absolutely depends on trust, and of course the threat of an audit to get Americans to file their taxes on time and honestly.

No, it depends on the authority of the Federal Government. And I don't think that sort of authority has been abrogated en masse, at least as a result of this case.

It's a voluntary compliant system... no?

 whembly wrote:

All I'm saying is that if the IRS/White House believes that this is a phoney scandal, then they could've found someone else who didn't contribute nearly $100,000 to Democratic candidates and groups.

That contribution would not be significant to any party, or Party running in the current climate.

 whembly wrote:

It's a voluntary compliant system... no?

No. Where did you get that idea?

 dogma wrote:


No. Where did you get that idea?

 whembly wrote:

It's the manner in which people submit their own taxes.

The Federal/Treasure don't tell you exactly what you owe (unless you're audited).

I still do not follow. People are legally compelled to follow Federal tax laws according to a series of regulations.

Simply because a person is not audited does not make the law subject to voluntary compliance.

They also tell you what you owe, because they already get a copy of (most) your income before you even file your taxes.

They get a copy of your W2 from your employer, so the IRS knows if you claimed all your income on your tax forms without having to audit you.

If I get audited I'm going to let them know my computer crashed. In this case it really did crash. I lost everything.

Wonder how fast they'd tell me they don't give a gak and demand my money

Johnnytorrance wrote:
If I get audited I'm going to let them know my computer crashed. In this case it really did crash. I lost everything.

Wonder how fast they'd tell me they don't give a gak and demand my money

your really up Crap Creek in a inner tube with no current if they subpoena you

In other news related to IRS wrongdoing: (complete with the perp taking the 5th, the IRS withholding documents, and Eric Holder’s DOJ refusing to prosecute)

The following excerpt is from Ken McIntyre at The Daily Signal:

Two years after activists for same-sex marriage obtained the confidential tax return and donor list of a national group opposed to redefining marriage, the Internal Revenue Service has admitted wrongdoing and agreed to settle the resulting lawsuit.
The Daily Signal has learned that, under a consent judgment today, the IRS agreed to pay $50,000 in damages to the National Organization for Marriage as a result of the unlawful release of the confidential information to a gay rights group, the Human Rights Campaign, that is NOM's chief political rival.

"Congress made the disclosure of confidential tax return information a serious matter for a reason," NOM Chairman John D. Eastman told The Daily Signal....

In February 2012, the Human Rights Campaign posted on its web site NOM’s 2008 tax return and the names and contact information of the marriage group's major donors, including soon-to-be Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney....

HRC's president at the time, Joe Solmonese, was tapped that same month as a national co-chairman of President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.

A gay rights activist named Matthew Meisel apparently delivered the leaked tax forms to HRC. He wrote in a discovered email that he had a "conduit" who passed him the information. However, when asked about this under oath, he invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination (sound familiar?), and also refused to say who his "conduit" was.

NOM is demanding that Eric Holder grant Meisel immunity so that he can be compelled to reveal the name of his "conduit."

For some reason, Eric Holder is refusing to take the steps necessary to find the actual lawbreaking parties at the IRS.

 d-usa wrote:
They also tell you what you owe, because they already get a copy of (most) your income before you even file your taxes.

They get a copy of your W2 from your employer, so the IRS knows if you claimed all your income on your tax forms without having to audit you.

This is incorrect, we do not receive income information until around May/June, most returns are accepted after they pass some scrutiny for obvious frivilous returns. This is why some audits can take 6 months, like one from AUR, where you forget income on your return, we come along after and correct the return for you to include the forgotten income (arnt we nice?).

More to come, dont know how to multi-quote..

IronWarLeg wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
They also tell you what you owe, because they already get a copy of (most) your income before you even file your taxes.

They get a copy of your W2 from your employer, so the IRS knows if you claimed all your income on your tax forms without having to audit you.

This is incorrect, we do not receive income information until around May/June, most returns are accepted after they pass some scrutiny for obvious frivilous returns. This is why some audits can take 6 months, like one from AUR, where you forget income on your return, we come along after and correct the return for you to include the forgotten income (arnt we nice?).

More to come, dont know how to multi-quote..

Just press the multi-quote button on each post you want, and than press the post reply button on the bottom. All the quotes should be already in the typing area then.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

It's the manner in which people submit their own taxes.

The Federal/Treasure don't tell you exactly what you owe (unless you're audited).

I still do not follow. People are legally compelled to follow Federal tax laws according to a series of regulations.

Simply because a person is not audited does not make the law subject to voluntary compliance.

This is true. There is a legal obligation to file taxes and claim your earned income, stemming from the 16th Amendment:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

So Congress passed law for taxes, which are not voluntary.

Audits are not used to "force" people to file, if we see a return thats not filed and it shows as a refund when calculated at single/1 then we dont care, your loss after 3 years when the refund statute expiration date runs up. If we see a missing return that shows a potential for a balance, then we file it for you. Only thing is, when we do it, its Single/1 and thats it, no credits no itemized deductions, nothing, single with 1 exemption because legally all we can be sure of is that you are a person. (Yes you can file your own later to replace ours)

Edit for clarification

IronWarLeg wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
They also tell you what you owe, because they already get a copy of (most) your income before you even file your taxes.

They get a copy of your W2 from your employer, so the IRS knows if you claimed all your income on your tax forms without having to audit you.

This is incorrect, we do not receive income information until around May/June, most returns are accepted after they pass some scrutiny for obvious frivilous returns. This is why some audits can take 6 months, like one from AUR, where you forget income on your return, we come along after and correct the return for you to include the forgotten income (arnt we nice?).

More to come, dont know how to multi-quote..

It is automatically figured out though.

I found out the hard way a couple years after my job switched payroll processor and I only got one W2 instead of two. I didn't even know that my second one was missing until 3 years later when the IRS had it and I didn't and they send me an updated "by the way, this was your correct income so you owe us $X,XXX in taxes".

@IronWarLeg: I meant that we have obligations to file taxes and that the process is voluntary.

It's like we know we're supposed to obey traffic lights, but some folks choose to ignore them at their own peril.