 |
Hello again,
Seems like every Republican who's been audited now thinks they've been targeted... I guess if you think Obama was running his enemy's list, you'd think that..
Frankly, I can't imagine even the most hard core righty believing that... Or, maybe I can.
excon
No she doesn't lose rights .But she did waive them when she made an opening statement . However ; I would've made her invoke the 5th over and over again in an 8 hr questioning session.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I believe the issue is not auditing (yet), it's politically motivated targeting of conservative groups for unreasonable, unconstitutional scrutiny by the IRS. It's about equal protection, it's about free speech, it's about using the government machine to not only influence the election but harass and intimidate conservatives - possibly by multiple government agencies - for nothing more than being concerned citizens exercising their rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I have no doubt there were probably targeted audits as well, it's difficult to imagine there weren't some. Even the most hardcore lefty probably realizes that.
It goes way beyond "audit" .
IRS targeted anti-abortion groups tooQuote:
Any doubt the IRS scrutinized groups because of their political leanings was cleared up Tuesday. At a Senate hearing about IRS abuses, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., asked ousted IRS Commissioner Steven Miller whether his agency's targeting of tea party groups was partisan.
"It absolutely was," Miller said.
The IRS also targeted religious groups that took issue with Obamacare. The agency's actions have already had a chilling effect on free speech, based on one conversation The Gazette had with author and professor Anne Hendershott, a renowned scholar and sociology professor at The King's College in New York.
Hendershott began writing articles critical of Obamacare for the Catholic Advocate in March of 2010. She documented how Obamacare will fund abortions. In May of that year, the IRS wanted to talk. Agent Michael Iannotti, who works in the New Haven, Conn., IRS office gave her a time, date and place to show up for an audit. Even though Hendershott files jointly with her husband, Iannotti wanted to see her alone. He told her not to bring the couple's CPA.
Hendershott said the IRS wanted to know about her articles, most of which she had written for free. She said the IRS continued calling and demanding information about articles for the next six month. If they wanted to silence Hendershott, their tactics worked. She quit writing for the Advocate and refrained from criticizing President Barack Obama.
"I have a husband and children who have jobs and share my last name. When you think the IRS has the power to destroy your family, your livelihood and to take away your property, you don't want to make them mad. You do what you think will make them go away. That's what I did," said Hendershott, as quoted Tuesday in the National Catholic Register.
Sue Martinek heads Coalition for Life of Iowa, a tiny anti-abortion group with an annual budget of $1,000. She petitioned the IRS for 501(c)(3) status in 2008. After an absurd amount of scrutiny, the IRS demanded all board members sign a statement declaring they would never protest Planned Parenthood abortion clinics.
"This was disturbing, content-based scrutiny," said Sallie Wagenmaker, a Chicago-based lawyer who got the IRS to back off. "We have freedom of speech. We have religious freedom, and we have the right to peaceable assembly, and they seemed determined to deprive this organization of all of those protections."
Texas-based Christian Voices for Life had a similar experience in 2011. IRS agent Tyrone Thomas, in El Monte, Calif., demanded piles of paperwork and told McCoy her organization would not qualify for tax-exempt status unless it vowed to educate on both sides of the abortion issue.
"That's not the law," said Wagenmaker. "The law allows a 501(c)(3) to engage in advocacy. You can teach that smoking kills without having to advocate the benefits of smoking."
Chapman University law professor John Eastman, who has worked on 75 cases that went before the Supreme Court, said IRS agents probably committed felony offenses against an organization he heads called National Organization for Marriage. Eastman claims he will prove the IRS sent his organization's private tax documents - containing information about donors - to an another nonprofit that advocates for same-sex marriage. That group, The Human Rights Campaign, published Eastman's documents on the Internet. The Human Rights Campaign was headed by Joseph Salmonese, who had just been named co-chair of Obama's re-election campaign.
More information emerges daily that indicates the IRS tried to punish and silence Americans for political reasons. University of Denver adjunct law professor David Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute, said at least one motive could explain abuses against anti-abortion groups.
"Obamacare gives to the IRS the most significant addition to its power since creation of the income tax," Kopel said. "So we can set aside ideology and see that from the IRS perspective these pro-life groups are a threat because they want to stop Obamacare."
These abuses jeopardize freedom of religion and speech, which government was created to defend. Moreover, this scandal may constitute the most egregious abuse of federal authority since McCarthyism or Watergate - and it may prove even worse. If we allow government this power, our country won't remain free.
Now that you mention it there does seem to be a little bit of targeted auditing by the IRS:
That's just insane but then nothing surprises me when it comes to the left's attitude toward children. Kill 'em before they're born at any time and when someone does try and adopt that WANTED child, put 'em through hell and zap their resources for doing so.Quote:
IRS Morality: Defend Planned Parenthood, Deluge Adoptive Families with Audits
Earlier this week, in a feeble attempt at humor on Facebook, I posted: “If you haven’t been audited by the IRS during the Obama administration, can you even call yourself a conservative?” Given the scale of the abuses, I should probably just shorten it and say, “Only RINOs don’t get audited.” My wife and I got audited in 2011, with the IRS examining every inch of our adoption the previous year. The process was painful, but we got through it, and our refund may have been adjusted by a few dollars (the amount of the adjustment was so small, I don’t actually remember). In other words, the audit was a gigantic waste of time — for the IRS and for our family. A Facebook commenter, however, pointed me to a report that made me rethink the experience.
As we get word that the IRS has harassed a number of pro-life groups, including at least one alleged demand that a pro-life group not picket Planned Parenthood, check out this statistic: In 2012, the IRS requested additional information from 90 percent of returns claiming the adoption tax credit and went on to actually audit 69 percent. More details from the Taxpayer Advocate Service:
During the 2012 filing season, 90 percent of returns claiming the refundable adoption credit were subject to additional review to determine if an examination was necessary. The most common reasons were income and a lack of documentation.
■ Sixty-nine percent of all adoption credit claims during the 2012 filing season were selected for audit.
■ Of the completed adoption tax credit audits, over 55 percent ended with no change in the tax owed or refund due in fiscal year 2012. The median refund amount involved in these audits is over $15,000 and the median adjusted gross income (AGI) of the taxpayers involved is about 64,000. The average adoption credit correspondence audit currently takes 126 days, causing a lengthy delay for taxpayers waiting for refunds.
While many returns had missing or incomplete information (more on that in a moment), what was the outcome of this massive audit campaign? Not much:
Despite Congress’ express intent to target the credit to low and middle income families, the IRS created income-based rules that were responsible for over one-third of all additional reviews in FY2012.
■ Of the $668.1 million in adoption credit claims in tax year (TY) 2011 as a result of adoption credit audits, the IRS only disallowed $11 million — or one and one-half percent — in adoption credit claims. However, the IRS has also had to pay out $2.1 million in interest in TY 2011 to taxpayers whose refunds were held past the 45-day period allowed by law.
So Congress implemented a tax credit to facilitate adoption – a process that is so extraordinarily expensive that it is out of reach for many middle-class families — and the IRS responded by implementing an audit campaign that delayed much-needed tax refunds to the very families that needed them the most. Oh, and the return on its investment in this harassment? Slightly more than 1 percent.
This audit wave got almost no media coverage, but what was the experience like for individual families? In a word, grueling. Huge document requests with short turnaround times were followed by lengthy IRS delays in processing, all with no understanding for the unique documentation challenges of international adoption. Here’s how one adoptive family described the experience:
It was early June when a letter arrived from IRS explaining that we (and lots of other adoptive parents, as it turns out) were being audited re: our adoption tax credit. The folks at IRS gave us 30 days to gather our receipts, invoices, cancelled checks, etc. to document our expenses and submit said documents to their tax examiner. If we couldn’t comply within the time limit, they would set aside our request for a credit and we would be out of luck, meaning no more of our money would be refunded to us. If we got them the paperwork, then they would review our records and decide how much more of our money they would refund to us. (Am I bitter? Just a tad bit . . .)
Anyway, this might seem to be an easy fix to those unfamiliar with foreign adoption. After all, if you adopt, you work with an agency and that’s a business, right? Businesses give receipts and invoices, right? And everyone has cancelled checks, rights? Um, not so much. See, we adopted from Kazakhstan…on the other side of the freakin’ earth…and it’s a cash economy…that uses its own currency…and English isn’t the language of Kazakhstan. The aforementioned issues presented a teensy problem to securing what IRS needed in a timely manner
She went on to explain the challenges of documenting expenses (challenges we shared in our own audit, when I ultimately decided it was simply futile trying to document how we spent all the cash we took to Ethiopia). Her post concluded as she wrapped up the audit and waited for the IRS to respond:
Anyway, here we are, 30 days later. For the last several days, my dining room table has been covered with documents. I’ve been reliving my bad old times of adoption dossier preparation but in reverse this time. I finally got it all compiled, copies made, and the huge package of receipts, invoices, translations and conversions sent off to the IRS via Express mail. Now we wait for an answer…to see how much of our money the IRS will give us back. Let’s see if they can turn it around in 30 days like I had to. Bitter??? Nooooo, not me.
Is it the IRS’s job to frustrate and obstruct the intent of Congress by targeting vulnerable families? Once again, here’s the Taxpayer Advocate Service:
With respect to the Adoption Credit, and in particular the credit for adoption of special needs children, the IRS has failed abysmally to take into account that over 45 percent of adopting families are at or below 200 percent federal poverty level, presenting particular communication and functional literacy challenges even as they are desperately in need of the funds which Congress has sought to deliver to them.
As an adoptive family, it’s sometimes difficult to describe the immense challenges in gathering paperwork, opening your lives to social workers for home studies, then expensive travel to sometimes-corrupt foreign locales to then launch a new life with a child you love immensely but who is also experiencing his or her own culture shock and adjustment. All of this places a great strain on family finances and emotions. To then face an audit on the other side? All so the IRS can collect a whopping 1 percent additional revenue? It’s beyond the pale. If the IRS is concerned about fraud, it can audit random samples, not the vast majority of adoptive families claiming the credit.
The IRS is a broken institution. Yet despite its moral and legal corruption, it still wields immense power. As Congress investigates wrongdoing, it’s past time to consider fundamental tax reform. In other words, starve the beast. It has proven it can’t be trusted with power.
Seriously.
While you're parsing, or avoiding the last two posts, Alan Dershowitz has weighed in...
I certainly did not think you could just give your side of the story and expect that to be the end of it.Quote:
Lois Lerner, the Internal Revenue Service’s embattled director of Exempt Organizations, could be held in contempt of court and jailed for refusing to testify before Congress, civil-rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz says.
"She's in trouble. She can be held in contempt," Dershowitz told "the Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
"Congress . . . can actually hold you in contempt and put you in the Congressional jail."
Lerner, grilled Wednesday on the IRS' targeting of conservative organizations, invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination — but not before insisting "I have done nothing wrong."
Her brief statement of innocence has opened a legal Pandora's Box, according to Dershowitz.
"You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," the renowned Harvard Law professor said.
"Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right . . . you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter."
He said the fact that Lerner went ahead with her proclamation of could be considered malpractice on the part of her attorney — although it's possible she overruled the advice she received.
"It should never have been allowed. She should have been told by her attorney that the law is clear, that once you open up an area of inquiry for interrogation, you have to respond," he said.
"Now she may have made a political decision that it's worth it to take the risk . . . That's just not the way the law works. It may be the way politics works . . . but she can't invoke the Fifth."
He said the issue goes back to the "bad old days" of McCarthyism, during hearings in which suspected Communists were grilled by the House on American Activities Committee and Senate committees.
"[They] tried to trap people by saying, look, you're a Fifth Amendment communist, you won't answer any questions," he said.
"And the people would say we'd love to answer your questions but we can't because if we do, we waive [our rights] and then you'll ask us who our friends are and who else was a member of the Communist Party.. .
"The law is as clear as could be, that once you open up an area of inquiry, you can't shut off the spigot – that's the metaphor that the Supreme Court has used."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com Alan Dershowitz: IRS Chief Lerner 'Can Be Held in Contempt'
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
She was poorly served by council . As I understand it ;her lawyer is politically connected to the Obots so perhaps this was a set up so she can take the fall.
Hello again, Steve:
If that's what she did, then you'd be right... However, I don't believe saying you're innocent qualifies as telling your side of the story.Quote:
I certainly did not think you could just give your side of the story and expect that to be the end of it.
But, it looks like Issa is going to get himself bogged down into THAT morass. He's more like Inspector Clouseau, than he is Sam Irvin.
Excon
I can dig being fair under the law, a long a we are clear what the law really say.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)
So my question is how do you tell how the TParty uses it status since they publicly back candidate and contribute to campaigns? How would you even go about investigating them?Quote:
Political activity [edit]
Section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from supporting political candidates, and are subject to limits on lobbying. They risk loss of tax exempt status if these rules are violated.[30][31]
Elections [edit]
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office.[32] The Internal Revenue Service website elaborates upon this prohibition as follows:
See also, http://irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profi...cation-78-Help
And
http://www.guidestar.org/
Most of the organization that have been approved for this status left or right, do NOT qualify, and may owe the taxpayer BIG BUCK! :)
I would laugh but I'm just going to assume you haven't seen her testimony. She laid out her defense, addressed the presumed charges and declared her innocence. If that isn't opening the spigot I don't know what is.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Asked and answered.
You don't need her testimony, if you subpoena the actual documents. That will tell you who did the work, and how they proceeded at an office level on a case by case basis, it would also reveal the instructions given, and by whom.
Congress can still offer her immunity which in no way prohibit action for prosecutions later. If you didn't holler for her head from the get go, she may have not thrown the 5th amendment at you.
Whether her 5th amendment claim is valid is something a judge may have to decide.
Elaborate on your answer as it lacks guidelines for a procedure that properly categorizes the so called TARGETED organizations. If you don't know it, then how can you holler they were indeed targeted and suffered harm?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
If you are saying groups cannot be investigated by googling and tracing their websites then you are in error.
Amazing!! The only thing that has happened in a bipartisan manner in the last 5 years is the consensus outrage over the conduct of the IRS in it's review process of the exemption applications . From the President on down ,the conduct has been called outrageous and unacceptable . Just yesterday a Dem Congressman on the Issa Committee ;Rep. Stephen F. Lynch of Massachusetts ,raised the specter of a special prosecutor over the stonewalling by senior IRS staff. The Treasury inspector general for tax administration's audit.. clearly reports that conservative groups were targeted .
And yet there are still apologists who insist it didn't happen .
http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4568136834220869&pid=1.7Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Let me be clear Tom, since this practice has years of history, and abuse screw the investigation as congress should act to bring clarity to the matter. Then we can review, and proceed accordingly.
They have refused actions on this problem for decades, and now it's an outrage because the right is a victim? That's my outrage. Seniors losing a meal is a bigger scandal, not watching congress and the right be outraged over a intentional semantic tiff, with a public farce of an investigation by amateurs.
It was never a problem until the Nixonian decision to target political opponents with the power of the IRS . Whether there is a flaw in the language of the law is a completely irrelevant issue.
Make a deal with Lois Lerner . Immunity if she truthfully testifies about the true source of the orders to the IRS to target conservative and Tea Party groups.
Sigh, amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again, tom:
There's no flaw. There's what congress ORDERED.. And, there's what the IRS CHANGED it to... In fact, mandating that the IRS obey the law as written by congress is a simple, and QUICK fix. The IRS can NEVER do this again.Quote:
Whether there is a flaw in the language of the law is a completely irrelevant issue.
I talked about this the other day, but Steve kept insisting the law used the word PRIMARILY, when in fact, it uses the word EXCLUSIVELY.. It makes a BIG difference.
That doesn't solve the problem of who was doing the targeting, USING this little weapon the IRS granted itself, if they were, and how high up the food chain it goes.. But that's another matter.
Excon
No actually it is the only matter . Gee what a surprise that laws are written vague and subject to interpretation ! Since when is any law written in plain unambiguous language ?Quote:
USING this little weapon the IRS granted itself, if they were, and how high up the food chain it goes.. But that's another matter.
The only issue here is the uneven application of the law . And using the law targeting of political opponents. THE IRS ADMITS THIS FUNAMENTAL BASIC FACT. But you are hung up on the language of the law . It is irrelevant to the basic facts that the constitutional rights of many organizations and individuals were denied because of their political and /or religious associations.
While you lefties are still arguing this is Congress' fault and/or ignoring the plain fact of the law, Pelosi adds another passing excuse to relieve Obama from any responsibility in this, beyond the other excuse of Shulman being a Bush appointee (and DNC donor). It could just as well have been Boehner's fault!
Nope, the buck never stops at Obama's desk.Quote:
The president doesn't know about everything that is going in every agency in government. Should Mr. Boehner have known because this is the neighborhood in Cincinnati where the IRS office is.
There's a problem understanding the difference between "exclusively" and "primarily"?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I read tomder's posts exclusively (i.e. I read ONLY his posts) OR I read tomder's post primarily (i.e. I read his but I also read other posts).
And ? What has that to do with the uneven application of the law and the specific targeting of TP ,Christian,and conservative groups ? AGAIN the IRS admits that's what they did.
Hello tom:
You talk about the words exclusively and primarily having nothing to do with this fiasco.. And, you SAY the IRS used the word "targeted", but I wonder if that's REALLY the word they used or the word you think they used.Quote:
and the specific targeting of TP ,Christian,and conservative groups ? AGAIN the IRS admits that's what they did.
I've never really seen the statement.. Can you link me?
Excon
And they have done it to liberal groups too. They need to be spanked and the tax code adjusted back to the original language and everyone get a course in how to run the IRS fairly. And then remind groups wanting non-profit status to avoid giving the organization's name a political odor.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Which animal shelter name sounds political? Little Paws or Dem Little Paws
They admitted Googling 300 applicants and a fourth had TParty, and patriots in there name. That's why I will hold my outrage for after the investigation and have facts. Opinions and feelings are not enough.
The only problem here is thus far every excuse thus far ranges somewhere between irrelevant and ridiculous. Kimberly Strassel demolished the SCOTUS blame game and pointed out that conservative groups:have been targeted since 2008 - the Obama campaign invented the tactic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
So if you want to know how we got here there you go, it started with the Obama campaign.Quote:
The White House insists President Obama is "outraged" by the "inappropriate" targeting and harassment of conservative groups. If true, it's a remarkable turnaround for a man who helped pioneer those tactics.
On Aug. 21, 2008, the conservative American Issues Project ran an ad highlighting ties between candidate Obama and Bill Ayers, formerly of the Weather Underground. The Obama campaign and supporters were furious, and they pressured TV stations to pull the ad—a common-enough tactic in such ad spats.
What came next was not common. Bob Bauer, general counsel for the campaign (and later general counsel for the White House), on the same day wrote to the criminal division of the Justice Department, demanding an investigation into AIP, "its officers and directors," and its "anonymous donors." Mr. Bauer claimed that the nonprofit, as a 501(c)(4), was committing a "knowing and willful violation" of election law, and wanted "action to enforce against criminal violations."
AIP gave Justice a full explanation as to why it was not in violation. It said that it operated exactly as liberal groups like Naral Pro-Choice did. It noted that it had disclosed its donor, Texas businessman Harold Simmons. Mr. Bauer's response was a second letter to Justice calling for the prosecution of Mr. Simmons. He sent a third letter on Sept. 8, again smearing the "sham" AIP's "illegal electoral purpose."
Also on Sept. 8, Mr. Bauer complained to the Federal Election Commission about AIP and Mr. Simmons. He demanded that AIP turn over certain tax documents to his campaign (his right under IRS law), then sent a letter to AIP further hounding it for confidential information (to which he had no legal right).
The Bauer onslaught was a big part of a new liberal strategy to thwart the rise of conservative groups. In early August 2008, the New York Times trumpeted the creation of a left-wing group (a 501(c)4) called Accountable America. Founded by Obama supporter and liberal activist Tom Mattzie, the group—as the story explained—would start by sending "warning" letters to 10,000 GOP donors, "hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions." The letters would alert "right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives." As Mr. Mattzie told Mother Jones: "We're going to put them at risk."
The Bauer letters were the Obama campaign's high-profile contribution to this effort—though earlier, in the spring of 2008, Mr. Bauer filed a complaint with the FEC against the American Leadership Project, a group backing Hillary Clinton in the primary. "There's going to be a reckoning here," he had warned publicly. "It's going to be rough—it's going to be rough on the officers, it's going to be rough on the employees, it's going to be rough on the donors. . . Whether it's at the FEC or in a broader criminal inquiry, those donors will be asked questions." The campaign similarly attacked a group supporting John Edwards.
American Leadership head (and Democrat) Jason Kinney would rail that Mr. Bauer had gone from "credible legal authority" to "political hatchet man"—but the damage was done. As Politico reported in August 2008, Mr. Bauer's words had "the effect of scaring [Clinton and Edwards] donors and consultants," even if they hadn't yet "result[ed] in any prosecution."
As general counsel to the Obama re-election campaign, Mr. Bauer used the same tactics on pro-Romney groups. The Obama campaign targeted private citizens who had donated to Romney groups. Democratic senators demanded that the IRS investigate these organizations.
None of this proves that Mr. Obama was involved in the IRS targeting of conservative nonprofits. But it does help explain how we got an environment in which the IRS thought this was acceptable.
The rise of conservative organizations (to match liberal groups that had long played in politics), and their effectiveness in the 2004 election (derided broadly by liberals as "swift boating"), led to a new and organized campaign in 2008 to chill conservative donors and groups via the threat of government investigation and prosecution. The tone in any organization—a charity, a corporation, the U.S. government—is set at the top.
This history also casts light on White House claims that it was clueless about the IRS's targeting. As Huffington Post's Howard Fineman wrote this week: "With two winning presidential campaigns built on successful grassroots fundraising, with a former White House counsel (in 2010-11) who is one of the Democrats' leading experts on campaign law (Bob Bauer), with former top campaign officials having been ensconced as staffers in the White House.. . it's hard to imagine that the Obama inner circle was oblivious to the issue of what the IRS was doing in Cincinnati." More like inconceivable.
And this history xeposes the left's hollow claim that the IRS mess rests on Citizens United. The left was targeting conservative groups and donors well before the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling on independent political expenditures by corporations.
If the country wants to get to the bottom of the IRS scandal, it must first remember the context for this abuse. That context leads to this White House.
Um, I don't know where you keep coming up with this lame line but why would the IRS need to Google "applicants" for their name, it's on the application.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
And before 2008? Since 1959? (lotta years in between those two dates)
Hello again, Steve:
Context, schmontext. Show me PROOF. Until then, all we got is a lot of right wing gums flapping...Quote:
If the country wants to get to the bottom of the IRS scandal, it must first remember the context for this abuse. That context leads to this White House.
Excon
Obama wasn't running for president in 1959. Can we stick to what's relevant to the current scandal and not silly diversions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Lol that's what the Repubics said in 1973... up until the day they walked to the White House and told Nixon he had no support on Capitol Hill .
Feel free to dispute the facts that Strassel laid out, until then all we got is some left-wing gums flappin'.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
That's the first thing anyone does to learn more about the organization. Didn't you read my links I provided about the websites for donors, and the IRS lists of exempt entities?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
If you had then you would know that everyone Google's to find out more and it's the tool of choice for verifying what's on the application. You should also know from he links I provided that more forms are needed for the IRS to fully evaluate any applicant and its spelled out pretty clearly what those forms are.
How would you verify facts on an application?
You seem to think Obama invented these loopholes and how to exploit the power of the presidency and ignore the fact it been done in some form or another by virtually every president in history.
As technology becomes more advanced and you learn more about what use to be not in the public eye I expect the right to holler much louder in the future than they do now, because most of this is old hat. Its been done before and nothing new.
There was no precedent set for the current IRS?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Which animal shelter name sounds political? Little Paws or Dem Little Paws
Which one would you, as an IRS employee, check up on?
Sigh, your words:Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Their name is on the application, they don't need to Google it.Quote:
They admitted Googling 300 applicants and a fourth had TParty, and patriots in there name.
Hello again, Steve:
Couple things.
DEMANDING an investigation is substantially different than ORDERING one. Unless you can PROVE Obama ORDERED the IRS to do ANYTHING, you got NOTHING.
You got NOTHING on ANY of the so called scandals you wingers created... I'm bored... Call me when you find the smoking gun.
excon
Sure this is just from the summary of the IG audit :Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditr...01310053fr.pdfQuote:
HIGHLIGHTS
INAPPROPRIATE CRITERIA WERE
USED TO IDENTIFY TAX-EXEMPT
APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW
Highlights
Final Report issued on May 14, 2013
Highlights of Reference Number: 2013-10-053
To the Internal Revenue Service Acting
Commissioner, Tax Exempt and Government
Entities Division.
IMPACT ON TAXPAYERS
Early in Calendar Year 2010, the IRS began
using inappropriate criteria to identify
organizations applying for tax-exempt status to
review for indications of significant political
campaign intervention. Although the IRS has
Taken some action, it will need to do more so
That the public has reasonable assurance that
Applications are processed without
Unreasonable delay in a fair and impartial
Manner in the future.
WHY TIGTA DID THE AUDIT
TIGTA initiated this audit based on concerns
Expressed by members of Congress. The
overall objective of this audit was to determine
whether allegations were founded that the IRS:
1) targeted specific groups applying for
tax-exempt status, 2) delayed processing of
targeted groups' applications, and 3) requested
unnecessary information from targeted groups.
WHAT TIGTA FOUND
The IRS used inappropriate criteria that
identified for review Tea Party and other
organizations applying for tax-exempt status
based upon their names or policy positions
instead of indications of potential political
campaign intervention. Ineffective management:
1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed
and stay in place for more than 18 months,
2) resulted in substantial delays in processing
certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary
information requests to be issued.
Although the processing of some applications
With potential significant political campaign
Intervention was started soon after receipt, no
Work was completed on the majority of these
Applications for 13 months. This was due to
Delays in receiving assistance from the Exempt
Organizations function Headquarters office.
For the 296 total political campaign intervention
Applications TIGTA reviewed as of
December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved,
28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had
Been denied, and 160 were open from 206 to
1,138 calendar days (some for more than
Three years and crossing two election cycles).
More than 20 months after the initial case was
Identified, processing the cases began in
Earnest. Many organizations received requests
for additional information from the IRS that
included unnecessary, burdensome questions
(e.g., lists of past and future donors). The IRS
later informed some organizations that they did
not need to provide previously requested
information. IRS officials stated that any donor
information received in response to a request
from its Determinations Unit was later destroyed.
This only scratches the surface. Like I said already ;the IRS has apologized for the inappropriate criteria for review that was used specifically for targeted groups. There is no denying this basic fact. The only thing left to find out is how high up the food chain this goes.
Hello again, tom:
That's what the IG said - NOT the IRS. I want to know if anybody from IRS said they "targeted" conservative organizations.Quote:
Sure this is just from the summary of the IG audit :
Excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:48 PM. |