Ask Me Help Desk - The IRS scandal

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Again, we don't have space to post everything but I linked the source and quoted the whole article so don't give me that nonsense.

It's obvious the agent called, and no the agent does not have a right to force their personal opinion on the applicant - they are supposed to be NEUTRAL - which is the whole issue here, Tal.

The link I provide was from your article and the transcript pointed out that she needed advice from her lawyer, and get back to the IRS with more information.

As the agent points out there is a difference in the tax law between education, and social activism that includes protesting. Protest organizers are not eligible for tax exemptions, and often a permit has to be obtained for a fee to even hold one.

The lawyer used this as an event to make this winger female a victim and she was in fact ignorant of the law. She did good getting a lawyer, but that victim stuff was a bit overboard and had no basis in facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

The link I provide was from your article and the transcript pointed out that she needed advice from her lawyer, and get back to the IRS with more information.

As the agent points out there is a difference in the tax law between education, and social activism that includes protesting. Protest organizers are not eligible for tax exemptions, and often a permit has to be obtained for a fee to even hold one.

The lawyer used this as an event to make this winger female a victim and she was in fact ignorant of the law. She did good getting a lawyer, but that victim stuff was a bit overboard and had no basis in facts.

Well duh, after that call who wouldn't need counsel? You're also ignoring the fact I stated at the beginning, it took her TWO YEARS while liberal groups weren't enduring any such delays. Is the government supposed to be neutral or not, Tal?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdad

No doubt that in politics today there has never been more polarization then what we are seeing in these times we live in. That is why I keep trying to advocate to throw the bums out. Any one of them that has been there for more then 2 terms needs to go so they can live under the laws they have created. We need fresh ideas to move this country back into a position that is once was. That of greatness. I believe there is balance and it can be found in the system but not in this system we have today with such great entrenchment.

I kind of agree with you, but a better informed society as a whole would certainly help to perfect a better union and we could all thrive and survive, and achieve a balance between our idealogical differences.

As to how ridiculous this is, the National Organization for Marriage, which had its donors' names leaked by the IRS to its enemy putting those donors at risk, asked the IRS for an investigation. Their response as interpreted by Ace of Spades:

Quote:

NOM: I want to know who broke the law protecting confidentiality of taxpayer information.

IRS: We can’t tell you that.

NOM: Why not?

IRS: The law protecting the confidentiality of taxpayer information protects the confidentiality of those who break the law of protecting the confidentiality of taxpayer information.

That’s the joke version. It also happens to be the actual account of the IRS’ position.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Quote:

You just can't make this stuff up

Yes you can - what you quoted is indeed made up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Yes you can - what you quoted is indeed made up.

OK genius, what part of "Their response as interpreted by Ace of Spades" do you not understand, and how exactly does it differ in meaning from reality? From the link provided:

Quote:

For the next 14 months they heard nothing about an investigation. By August 2012, the NOM was filing Freedom of Information Act requests trying to find out if there was one. The IRS stonewalled. Their "latest nonresponse response," said Mr. Eastman, claimed that the law prohibiting the disclosure of confidential tax returns also prevents disclosure of information about who disclosed them. Mr. Eastman called this "Orwellian."

Compare to the "made up version": The law protecting the confidentiality of taxpayer information protects the confidentiality of those who break the law of protecting the confidentiality of taxpayer information.

Do you need someone to help you recognize humor, satire, sarcasm, etc. or more likely, to get over your obsession with me? Just trying to help dude, but you seem bent on forcing me to make you look stupid. I'm glad to oblige, though.

Quote:

as interpreted by Ace of Spades"

Who the hell is "ace of spades'?

You have to ask?

A notorious blogger.

Let me google that for you

Lol!!

Hahahhaa... a notorious blogger... yes, there aren't many bloggers out there.
You just can't make this stuff up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

hahahhaa... a notorious blogger... yes, there aren't many bloggers out there.
You just can't make this stuff up.

Nice try but Ace is no slouch.

Quote:

Ace of Spades HQ, Ace of Spades, or AoS is a conservative and humor-driven U.S.-based Political Blog covering current events, legal issues, military hardware, and salacious topics in popular culture. The blog was first launched in 2003. It has been quoted, mentioned, referenced or linked by the Wall Street Journal,[1]Fox News,CNN,[2]National Review, The Weekly Standard, and many notable online magazines/blogs. The site's leading blogger, "Ace of Spades," has also appeared as a guest expert on Fox News, although it is quite rare for him to make media appearances.Ace's co-bloggers include: "Dave in Texas," "DrewM.," "LauraW.," "Gabriel Malor," "Andy," "JohnE.," "BenK.," "CAC," "Jack M.," "Slublog," "rdbrewer," "Maetenloch," "Monty," "Russ in Winterset", and "Purple Avenger,". In addition to these main contributors, other readers of his are able to post to the weblog via its "open blog" mechanism.

Public recognition

Ace of Spades HQ has in the past won "Webbies" for "Best Conservative Blog" (2005 and 2007), Blog of the Year at the 2013 CPAC, and has also won accolades as the "Most Obscene Conservative Blog" in years past.[citation needed] When Ace himself was honored as the "Blogger of the Year" at the Conservative Political Union's Conservative Political Action Conference in March 2008, Brian Faughnan of The Weekly Standard wrote that "Ace has a gift for cutting through political BS, for dissecting the fatal flaws behind liberal arguments, and for doing so with humor.. . [H]e gave an incisive speech on the death of democracy and the rise of tyranny, accompanied by an analysis of how Ronald Reagan re-invigorated the two-party system. Seriously You Guys."[3] Joy McCann of Little Miss Attila wrote of Ace's speech that "AoS gave a rather thoughtful set of remarks on the why New Media is an important part of policy-making, and drew a straight line between the history of policy debate in a town-hall setting and the Reagan Revolution, which rejected the notion—now so prevalent in Europe and elsewhere—that the political class can consider itself our 'betters,' and simply make policy decisions on our behalf. We have, he reminded us, not simply an opportunity to inform ourselves about politics, but a 'duty' to do so. Naturally, alternative streams of information will play a large role in that process." [4]In a 2007 editorial for the Washington Times, editor Tony Blankley described Ace of Spades HQ as a "very smart military blog",[5] which became a catchphrase at the blog.

Ace of Spades HQ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hint, saying ha ha ha doesn't make anyone take you seriously. You never learn.

Quote:

"Most Obscene Conservative Blog"

Guess that's right up your alley.
Perfect for the righty fanatics... not so much for anyone else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Guess that's right up your alley.
Perfect for the righty fanatics...not so much for anyone else.

Too biting and witty for prudes and dullards like you, I understand.

Yep I guess so. Enjoy your Purple Avenger.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

OK genius, what part of "Their response as interpreted by Ace of Spades" do you not understand, and how exactly does it differ in meaning from reality? From the link provided:

Compare to the "made up version": The law protecting the confidentiality of taxpayer information protects the confidentiality of those who break the law of protecting the confidentiality of taxpayer information.

Actually, I would argue that the two statements do differ in meaning.

It would seem to me that the provisions for that particular tax law would come under- Confidentiality and disclosure. Clearly there are certain instances where disclosure of taxable information is within the boundaries of the law. The most obvious example that springs to mind is that taxable information can be used for research purposes.

Mr Eastman got it pretty right when he used the term, "disclosure" to highlight the problem. The second formulation is inaccurate because it is not a confidentiality issue.

The tax act probably allows the IRS not to disclose certain relevant documents pertaining to the investigation. In other words, it is a refusal to disclose information to the investigators based on some type of inclusive provision contained within the Act. If it were a confidentiality issue then it would need to be recognized as a non-disclosure issue.

The IRS has obviously worked out that that by refusing to disclose relevant information to the investigation they are protecting the confidentiality of the public in terms of tax information. In this particular instance, from the eyes of the investigators.

The benefits of this move are fairly obvious. It means that by protecting the tax information of the public they are also benefiting from an important spin off. Protecting themselves from being exposed.

I'd call it stonewalling

Hello again,

Quote:

I'd call it stonewalling

I'd call it a last ditch effort to find a scandal where there in none.

Excon

Yes ,well you have a long record of it, started with a guy called Jackson, I hear, I hear he used stone walls to some effect

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'd call it stonewalling

I would too. I would call it prudent to sift through information supplied by bloggers.

In fact, I would say that it is prudent to sift through information supplied by all of the media.