WaPo: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 2012 election

[Burgold]

Sorry I missed that.

So you are saying racial profiling is wrong, but while I am at it what is the hit rate? See your previous posts.

As odd as it sounds that is exactly what I was wondering. I believe political profiling as well as racial profiling is wrong, even dangerous, but I was also curious what the IRS found. I don't believe that finding a lot of rot justifies what they did. In fact, I'll state bluntly that it does not. I just think it would be interesting to know in a purely academic sense.

I also wonder exactly what is the formula the IRS uses to determine who gets audited in general. What's the calculus? Is it based on a big change in revenue? Are there certain key words they hunt for? Is it in the donations? The write-offs? The date the forms are received?

The process is interesting to me outside of politics. We know that the IRS is sometimes directed to try to get people. We applaud it when it famously was the tool used to catch mobsters. That certainly was not random chance. This use could be the ugliest side of it though because Tea Party members or groups aren't bad guys. Conservatives aren't bad guys. Which means that our government in hunting them out has become the bad guy.

I don't think there is a lot of meet to the Benghazi witch hunt. I think this IRS story and the AP fishing story are very troublesome. I don't know how high the rot is, but it is an ugly thing that ought to be examined carefully and dealt with.

[twa]

since they say none were rejected ,even after years of delay and improper requests/harassments, there must not have been rot to find Bur.

a witch hunt by the IRS and a coverup of it.

[Burgold]

since they say none were rejected ,even after years of delay and improper requests/harassments, there must not have been rot to find Bur.

a witch hunt by the IRS and a coverup of it.

Which makes it that more worse

[twa]

Which makes it that more worse

probably depends on who you ask. :evilg:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/14/irs-gave-progressives-a-pass-tea-party-groups-put-on-hold/2159983/

One must remember that many liberals and leftists see their actions as non-partisan. After all, they are only serving the public interest by stopping conservatives from organizing and expressing their views...Ron Radosh

http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2013/05/15/why-the-irs-targets-conservatives-the-apparent-reasoning-behind-their-actions/2/

[Burgold]

Very few people think they are the bad guy or that their evil is evil. Conservatives justify killing millions every year through their environmental practices or lack thereof, but they argue fraudulantly about proof or cost/basis for example. The incredible increase in the cancer rate, autism rate, and many other conditions are just inconvenient... Liberals are guilty of the same thing in different areas whether through overzealousness or neglect.

[twa]

evil is a interesting choice of words Bur....and the reason impartial treatment is required by the IRS

[Larry]

since they say none were rejected ,even after years of delay and improper requests/harassments, there must not have been rot to find Bur.

1) I think that's a valid point.

It's a funny thing. If, say, half of the Tea Party applications had been rejected, that isn't proof that the profiling was justified or moral.

But if none of them were rejected, it's pretty good proof that the profiling wasn't justified.

(Yeah, even in this case, I can imagine alternative explanations. IMO, it's still not absolute proof. But, to me, it's certainly enough evidence to make that conclusion reasonable. It's enough proof for me.)

2) OTOH, I will observe that, if none of them were rejected, then it also says that the only "loss" they suffered was that maybe their applications were subject to more time and paperwork than they should have.

The IRS? More time and paperwork? Inconceivable!

3) I will also observe that I seem to recall being informed, on multiple occasions, that the large number of people we released from GTMO did not in any way so much as imply that they shouldn't have been there in the first place. In fact, the fact that we released all of those people was absolute proof that the system was working and everything was great and keep it up, boys, and Go Team!!!

a witch hunt by the IRS and a coverup of it.

Apparently, discovering that some people used to be doing something improper, but we've already ended it, months ago, and we're conducting an investigation of it, anyway, is now called "a coverup". (Apparently, any investigation in which you fail to notify politicians, so that they can use the fact that an investigation is happening as the jumping off point for a bunch of inflated political grandstanding, is a coverup.)

[Burgold]

We ain't disagreeing (I think)

[Larry]

One must remember that many liberals and leftists see their actions as non-partisan. After all, they are only serving the public interest by stopping conservatives from organizing and expressing their views...Ron Radosh

Certainly true of at least the bottom rung of the political parties. Many of the voters, themselves.

We may all agree that the Birthers are loons. But I have no doubt that a great many Birthers are at least being honest, and think of themselves as stalwart defenders of Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

(My personal belief is that most of the loons that you actually see, the ones on the talk shows and the newspaper interviews and running for office and stuff? They know it's a crock, and they're just playing to the suckers. But, I will confess that my Vulcan telepathic powers aren't 100% guaranteed.)

[twa]

Apparently, discovering that some people used to be doing something improper, but we've already ended it, months ago, and we're conducting an investigation of it, anyway, is now called "a coverup". (Apparently, any investigation in which you fail to notify politicians, so that they can use the fact that an investigation is happening as the jumping off point for a bunch of inflated political grandstanding, is a coverup.)

denying what you know has happened during a congressional inquiry is indisputably covering it up.

unless you consider the targeting justified and allowed in their job description/requirement of fair and impartial.

the fact it was known to occur and not disclosed immediately is a coverup, the fact it was not disclosed despite a official inquiry only makes it look worse.

add

that you use what someone might do with the information as the reason for not fulfilling obligations under the law and rules leaves me shaking my head

[SWFLSkins]

We ain't disagreeing (I think)

I think, therefore I am. lol. wrap around that for a minute.

[visionary]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/05/19/saturday-night-live-on-the-irs-scandal-with-a-dana-milbank-appearance-video/

“Saturday Night Live” on the IRS scandal — with a Dana Milbank appearance! (VIDEO)

Saturday Night Live's take on the issue...and Al Sharpton.

[Burgold]

I think, therefore I am. lol. wrap around that for a minute.

I think therefore I'm not would be a more interesting conundrum. Descartes updated!

[twa]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/report-irs-denied-tax-exempt-status-to-pro-lifers-on-behalf-of-planned-parenthood/article/2529750

“In one case, the IRS withheld approval of an application for tax exempt status for Coalition for Life of Iowa. In a phone call to Coalition for Life of Iowa leaders on June 6, 2009, the IRS agent ‘Ms. Richards’ told the group to send a letter to the IRS with the entire board’s signatures stating that, under perjury of the law, they do not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood,” the Thomas More Society announced today. “Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved.”

https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/2013/05/17/congress-receives-irrefutable-evidence-of-irs-harassment-of-pro-life-organizations/

(May 17, 2013 – Chicago) Today, the Thomas More Society offered over 150 pages of analysis and evidence to the House Ways and Means Committee about repeated IRS harassment of pro-life organizations. At the request of Congressman Aaron Schock (R-IL), Thomas More Society President Thomas Brejcha, Executive Director Peter Breen, and Special Counsel Sally Wagenmaker, prepared the legal memorandum with solid evidence of IRS harassment of pro-life organizations dating back to 2009.

The memo details the history of IRS misconduct in the cases of three organizations represented by the Thomas More Society. The abuse dates back further than the now publicized 2010 complaints and extends beyond the IRS’s recently exposed Cincinnati office to also include the tax agency’s California operations in the charges of blatant bias.

[Larry]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/report-irs-denied-tax-exempt-status-to-pro-lifers-on-behalf-of-planned-parenthood/article/2529750

“In one case, the IRS withheld approval of an application for tax exempt status for Coalition for Life of Iowa. In a phone call to Coalition for Life of Iowa leaders on June 6, 2009, the IRS agent ‘Ms. Richards’ told the group to send a letter to the IRS with the entire board’s signatures stating that, under perjury of the law, they do not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood,” the Thomas More Society announced today. “Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved.”

Assuming they were applying for c4 status. (I think the rules are quite a bit stricter for c3 organizations. But I think this thread has only been about the rules for c4, and those are the ones I've been reading up on.)

I don't think picketing counts as the kind of political activity that's prohibited for c4 organizations. (Since it wouldn't necessarily involve any mention of individual candidates.)

In short, I don't think that question was appropriate. (Based on the vast legal knowledge I've acquired over the last week of reading a few web sites.)

Edit:

Looks like my assumption was wrong.

At least now, the organization's web site opens up with

With national media now learning of the circumstances surrounding our application for 501c3 tax-exempt status in 2009, we have issued the following press release.

Now, I haven't been paying attention to the rules for c3 organizations, during this thread.

The big difference between the two is that c4 is for issue advocacy groups (I mentally think of it as being for groups like the NRA), whereas c3 is for charitable groups: Groups whose primary purpose is to feed the homeless or some such. (I think if them as associated with the Salvation Army or Red Cross.)

c3 is for groups whose primary purpose it to give away the money they collect.

The money that people give to c3 groups is tax deductible. The money giver to c4 groups is not.

c4 groups are expected to engage in issue advocacy. And are allowed to actually campaign for individual candidates. (But if they do, then whatever money they spend, campaigning, is taxed. And I think there's some rule that it has to be incidental to the organization's primary purpose, or some such.)

Whereas c3 groups (the classification which this group was, and apparently still is, applying for), are forbidden from political activity (campaigning for or against individual candidates). And I'm not sure if they're allowed to engage in issue advocacy. (Things like "Abortion is bad", which, while it may be "political" according to the English language, doesn't mention individual candidates.)

Going to a source I've used, before, for other matters on these laws. (It's the web site of a law firm that seems to specialize in helping people set up tax exempt organizations, so I assume that they're rather neutral, and that they are accurately telling us what is and isn;t allowed to these organizations.)

Political Aspects of §501©(3) Charitable Organizations

Says that they're forbidden from any effort to affect any election. (And I don't think picketing abortion clinics counts as that.)

That lobbying (which seems to be defined as any attempt to influence legislation), is allowed, but they "may not devote a substantial part of [their] activities" to it. (Looks like, if they spend 10% of their money, or less, on lobbying, they're OK.)

I don't see any mention of whether picketing is allowed or not.

Nor do I see anything that says that if an organization's primary purpose is protesting outside abortion clinics, that that violates any of the rules. I observe that one of the allowed purposes for a c3 organization is "education", and I could see an abortion clinic protestor making that claim with a straight face.

----------

In short, I don't see anything that says that picketing outside an abortion clinic means that an organization can't qualify as a c3 organization, either.

(I think I could argue that they shouldn't be allowed that status. But that's another matter.)

Looks like the question was still inappropriate.

(Unless you think you can make a case that picketing abortion clinics isn't "serving the public good". A claim that I could see being made, but I really don't want us to be going down that rabbit hole.)

---------- Post added May-19th-2013 at 01:27 PM ----------

Yahoo/ABC: Republicans Informed of IRS Investigation Last Year

Much has been made of the fact that senior Treasury Department officials were told about the investigation into the treatment of tea party groups in June 2012 - months before last year's the Presidential election. Republicans who requested the investigation were also told about it at approximately the same time.

In a letter dated July 11, 2012, the man who conducted the investigation - IRS inspector general J. Russell George - wrote to Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, telling him that he was investigating the issue and offering to keep him updated as the investigation progressed.

"The Oversight Committee knew about the audit because it requested it," an Issa aide told ABC News. Issa released the letter, along with his own letter dated June 28, 2012 requesting the investigation, last week.

"We would be happy to provide a status update to the Subcommittee staff and provide a copy of our interim and final reports on the matter when they are issued," George wrote in the letter to Issa. An identical letter was also sent the Rep. Jim Jordan, who, like Issa had raised the issue with the IRS.

More at the link.

(But really not much more. Not a lot of details.)

[twa]

who knew what, when will be fun..... who knew and withheld the knowledge of improper targeting despite a congressional inquiry as well.

especially since the IRS grunts are claiming it was policy dictated to them(in other words easily discovered and a paper trail)

[chipwhich]

who knew what, when will be fun..... who knew and withheld the knowledge of improper targeting despite a congressional inquiry as well.

especially since the IRS grunts are claiming it was policy dictated to them(in other words easily discovered and a paper trail)

Oh this is going to get really interesting.

As things come out it's obvious it's a lot worse than originally thought.

[Larry]

Loving the progression.

Word gets out that SecTreas was told that there was an investigation being conducted into this matter.

"coverup!"

"coverup!"

"coverup!"

"Lying to a Congressional investigation!"

"We must have more investigation!"

(It's revealed that Congress got the same information, at the same time)

"We must have an investigation as to who (in the administration) knew what, and who withheld it"

"As things come out it's obviously a lot worse".

We must save our phoney baloney jobs!

[twa]

Larry, knowledge there is a investigation that you initiated differs greatly from knowledge improprieties were dictated.

see if you can tell what the difference is here...

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Money-tangle-The-IRS-and-its-tea-party-tempest-4525815.php?cmpid=hpfsln

STONEWALLING?

Hearing complaints of IRS harassment from constituents, lawmakers began asking a lot of questions of the agency starting in mid-2011. They got a lot of answers — just not answers revealing what was going on.

In multiple letters, some as long as 45 pages, as well as in meetings and congressional hearings, senior IRS officials laid out in painstaking detail the process of checking tax-exempt applications but did not disclose what they had come to learn of the flagging.

Miller, for example, was told by staff in May 2012 about the inappropriate screening but did not pass that on in communications with inquiring members of Congress or in his appearance two months later with the House panel most concerned about the reports.

Lois G. Lerner, in charge of overseeing tax-exempt organizations at the IRS, was briefed about the screening a year earlier and ordered an end to explicit tea party-type flagging. But she did not tell lawmakers about that when asked about the constituent complaints.

added

you should thank the congresscritters for insisting on a investigation,as well as the legal teams representing those denied their rights

[Wrong Direction]

This is 3 pages and worth reading. I've tried to provide the right snippets here. Chilling stuff.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348756/true-scandal-jillian-kay-melchior

True Scandal

...

But the 2008 elections left Catherine feeling frustrated about the debates, which seemed to be a string of superficial talking points. So she began attending tea-party meetings, enjoying the political discussion. A spunky woman known for her drive, Catherine soon wanted to do more than just talk. She joined other tea partiers and decided to volunteer at the ballot box. Working as an alternate judge at the polls in 2009 in Fort Bend County, Texas, Catherine says, she was appalled and dismayed to witness everything from administrative snafus to outright voter fraud.

These formative experiences prompted her to found two organizations: King Street Patriots, a local community group that hosts weekly discussions on personal and economic freedoms; and True the Vote, which seeks to prevent voter fraud and trains volunteers to work as election monitors. It also registers voters, attempts to validate voter-registration lists, and pursues fraud reports to push for prosecution if illegal activity has occurred.

...

In July 2010, Catherine filed with the IRS seeking tax-exempt status for her organizations. Shortly after, the troubles began.

That winter, the Federal Bureau of Investigation came knocking with questions about a person who had attended a King Street Patriots event once. Based on sign-in sheets, the organization discovered that the individual in question had attended an event, but “it was a come-and-go thing,” and they had no further information on hand about him. Nevertheless, the FBI also made inquiries about the person to the office manager, who was a volunteer.

The King Street Patriots weren’t the only ones under scrutiny. On January 11, the IRS visited the Engelbrechts’ shop and conducted an on-site audit of both their business and their personal returns, Catherine says.

...

Two months later, the IRS initiated the first round of questions for True the Vote. Catherine painstakingly answered them, knowing that nonprofit status would help with the organization’s credibility, donors, and grant applications. In October, the IRS requested additional information. And whenever Catherine followed up with IRS agents about the status of True the Vote’s application, “there was always a delay that our application was going to be up next, and it was just around the corner,” she says,

As this was occurring, the FBI continued to phone King Street Patriots. In May 2011, agents phoned wondering “how they were doing.” The FBI made further inquiries in June, November, and December asking whether there was anything to report.

The situation escalated in 2012. That February, True the Vote received a third request for information from the IRS, which also sent its first questionnaire to King Street Patriots. Catherine says the IRS had “hundreds of questions — hundreds and hundreds of questions.” The IRS requested every Facebook post and Tweet she had ever written. She received questions about her family, whether she’d ever run for political office, and which organizations she had spoken to.

...

On the same day they received the questions from the IRS, Catherine says, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) launched an unscheduled audit of their machine shop, forcing the Engelbrechts to drop everything planned for that day. Though the Engelbrechts have a Class 7 license, which allows them to make component parts for guns, they do not manufacture firearms. Catherine said that while the ATF had a right to conduct the audit, “it was odd that they did it completely unannounced, and they took five, six hours. . . . It was so extensive. It just felt kind of weird.”

That was in February. In July, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration paid a visit to Engelbrecht Manufacturing while Bryan, Catherine, and their children were out of town.

...

Not long after, the tab arrived. OSHA was imposing $25,000 in fines on Engelbrecht Manufacturing. They eventually worked it down to $17,500, and Bryan says they may have tried to contest the fines to drive them even lower, but “we didn’t want to make any more waves, because we don’t know [how much further] OSHA could reach.”

“Bottom line is, it hurt,” he says. ... so instead of giving an employee a raise or potentially hiring another employee, I’m writing a check to our government.”

A few months later, True the Vote became the subject of congressional scrutiny. In September, Senator Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) wrote to Thomas Perez, then the assistant attorney general of the civil rights division at the Department of Justice (who has now been nominated for labor secretary). “As you know, an organization called ‘True the Vote,’ which is an offshoot of the Tea Party, is leading a voter suppression campaign in many states,” Boxer wrote, adding that “this type of intimidation must stop. I don’t believe this is ‘True the Vote.’ I believe it’s ‘Stop the Vote.’”

...

Catherine now says that she “absolutely” thinks that because she worked against voter fraud, the Left was irked and decided to target her.

The next month, in November 2012, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state’s environmental agency, showed up for an unscheduled audit at Engelbrecht Manufacturing. Catherine says the inspector told her the agency had received a complaint but couldn’t provide any more details. After the inspection, the agency notified the Engelbrechts that they needed to pay for an additional mechanical permit, which cost about $2,000 per year.

...

Since then, the IRS has sent two further rounds of questions to Catherine for her organizations. And last month, the ATF conducted a second unscheduled audit at Engelbrecht Manufacturing.

Catherine says she still hasn’t received IRS approval for her nonprofits, though she filed nearly three years ago. And “the way all of these personal instances interweave with what was going on on the nonprofit side . . . it amounts to something. You can’t help but think that statistically, this has to be coordinated on some level.”

On behalf of the True the Vote and King Street Patriots, Representative Ted Poe (R., Texas) sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI, OSHA, and the ATF, inquiring whether the organizations were under criminal investigation. A statement on Poe’s website states that “the reply from these agencies was that none of these individuals were under criminal investigation. Well, if they’re not, why are they being treated like criminals? Just because they question government.”

...

And other Tea Party groups decided not to form nonprofits at all after learning about her experience, she says. “They were scared,” she explains, “and you shouldn’t be scared of your government.”

...

[Duckus]

This is 3 pages and worth reading. I've tried to provide the right snippets here. Chilling stuff.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348756/true-scandal-jillian-kay-melchior

Probably the worst example one could use in the entire country for this scandal.

I am extremely similar with the King Street Patriots. Been following them for years. They are an absolute abomination of an organization. A disgusting organization who has been a black eye to conservatives in Texas.

Someone at the National Review realllllly should have done more research.

[Kilmer17]

Probably the worst example one could use in the entire country for this scandal.

I am extremely similar with the King Street Patriots. Been following them for years. They are an absolute abomination of an organization. A disgusting organization who has been a black eye to conservatives in Texas.

Someone at the National Review realllllly should have done more research.

Even if that's true, does that make it okay for them to to be targetted in this fashion?

[twa]

Ya might wanna edit the S to a F then Duckus .

[Larry]

Probably the worst example one could use in the entire country for this scandal.

I am extremely similar with the King Street Patriots. Been following them for years. They are an absolute abomination of an organization. A disgusting organization who has been a black eye to conservatives in Texas.

Someone at the National Review realllllly should have done more research.

Yeah, I have to confess that I have trouble sympathizing with True the Vote having trouble applying for a tax exemption status which is forbidden from engaging in anything related to elections, on behalf or any candidate or party.

Granted, the only thing I know about this individual group is simply things I've read, probably about other groups with similar names. And the only think I know about the individual people is that they were founders of one branch of an organization with that name.

But, that disclaimer having been said?

My personal opinion is, show me somebody associated with True the Vote, and I'll show you a liar who will tell any lie if it will help the Republican Party. And not only help them, but to do so by the most despicable method possible: By doing anything possible to prevent legitimate voters from successfully voting for the opposition party.

If they were willing to advocate for non-partisan things to improve the reliability of our electoral system, then I'd at least respect their integrity, even if I might disagree with their positions. (And, if they were truly non-partisan, I might even support their positions.)

But, at least the ones I read about? They don't. Instead, their position on every single matter regarding election rules, is whichever position will most help the Republican Party.

Apologies for what's hopefully an off-topic rant.

----------

And, all of that said: The FBI? OSHA?

I sincerely hope that those agencies were involved for actual, legitimate, reasons.

I wish I could be 100% certain that they weren't examples of political harassment. But I have to admit, I'm not.

[Wrong Direction]

Yeah, and we should all recognize that there are people who are incented to minimize this for the administration just like there are people who are incented to derail Obama's second term. Drawing conclusions about any political person/group in today's political/media environment is very difficult. The motivations of the news makers and news writers simply aren't in line with the motivations of the news consumers.