[excon]

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

[tomder55]

Hello again, Steve:

You don't LOSE your rights - EVER. That's why we call 'em RIGHTS! A congressional hearing is different than court.. In court, you don't have to take the stand... In a hearing, if you've been subpoenaed, you MUST appear, but you may invoke your 5th Amendment rights ANYTIME during questioning.. What you CAN'T do, is selectively answer questions. You can make ANY statement you like..

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.

[speechlesstx]

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

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.

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.

[tomder55]

It goes way beyond "audit" .

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.

IRS targeted anti-abortion groups too

[speechlesstx]

Now that you mention it there does seem to be a little bit of targeted auditing by the IRS:

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.

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.

Seriously.

[speechlesstx]

While you're parsing, or avoiding the last two posts, Alan Dershowitz has weighed in...

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!

I certainly did not think you could just give your side of the story and expect that to be the end of it.

[tomder55]

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.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

I certainly did not think you could just give your side of the story and expect that to be the end of it.

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.

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

[talaniman]

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.

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.

I can dig being fair under the law, a long a we are clear what the law really say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)

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:

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?

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! :)

[speechlesstx]

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.

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.

[speechlesstx]

I can dig being fair under the law, a long a we are clear what the law really say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)


So my question is how do you tell how the TParty uses it status since they publically back candidate and contribute to campaigns? How would you even go about investigating them?

See also, Publication 78 Help

and

GuideStar nonprofit reports and Forms 990 for donors, grantmakers and businesses

Most of the organization that have been approved for this status left or right, do NOT qualify, and may owe the taxpayer BIG BUCK! :)

Asked and answered.

[talaniman]

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.

[talaniman]

Asked and answered.

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?

If you are saying groups cannot be investigated by googling and tracing their websites then you are in error.

[tomder55]

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 .

[speechlesstx]

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?

If you are saying groups cannot be investigated by googling and tracing their websites then you are in error.

[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.

[tomder55]

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.

[tomder55]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

Sigh, amazing.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

Whether there is a flaw in the language of the law is a completely irrelevant issue.

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.

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