IRS Targets Tea Party Groups applying for non profit status

[JoeTheJuggler]

4) The IRS agents involved were lazy and thought that looking for keywords like "Tea Party" would be an easy way to limit the number of applications that they would have to go through in detail.

You don't think if a valid shortcut were found it would a more efficient use of taxpayer-funded resources? I don't think it's fair to spin this possibility as "lazy". It's possible that it was an honest and well intentioned mistake to use these as flags.. . just as it's possible that it was political axe-grinding.

 

[applecorped]

You don't think if a valid shortcut were found it would a more efficient use of taxpayer-funded resources? I don't think it's fair to spin this possibility as "lazy". It's possible that it was an honest and well intentioned mistake to use these as flags.. . just as it's possible that it was political axe-grinding.

So, profiling is okay for the IRS?

 

[applecorped]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130513/DA68MMQ82.html

[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif] "The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.
The records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, for general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and for the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. It was not clear if the records also included incoming calls or the duration of the calls."




Second term blues taken to a new level.

[/FONT]

 

[SezMe]

So, profiling is okay for the IRS?

Of course .... as long as the profiling has some factual basis. Profiling, per se, is not bad, but politically-based profiling is sa great big no-no.

 

[Lowpro]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130513/DA68MMQ82.html

[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif] "The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.
The records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, for general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and for the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. It was not clear if the records also included incoming calls or the duration of the calls."




Second term blues taken to a new level.

[/FONT]

by secretly they mean not secretly at all, right? We'll see how it plays out. Holder isn't really good at painting himself as a good guy ever it seems =x

 

[Lowpro]

Of course .... as long as the profiling has some factual basis. Profiling, per se, is not bad, but politically-based profiling is sa great big no-no.

Depends. Apparently they were profiled based on words like "Patriot" and "Tea Party". That seems bad...mostly because it seems other groups didn't seem to have those words in their name; dunno if that's an indictment of tax exempt groups in general, they must not be patriots...

However it seems conservative groups were not singled out; groups with those names happened to be...along with a list of OTHER groups. This is a case of variation and the upset is unwarranted. It's Jesus in the toast.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Despite, it seems to be gaining traction in the 'liberal' media. The USA Today called for Obama to personally apologize, for whatever reason.

 

[ravdin]

Despite, it seems to be gaining traction in the 'liberal' media. The USA Today called for Obama to personally apologize, for whatever reason.

Because it's outrageous? Or possibly because many in the 'liberal' media realize can happen to the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, or even to themselves if it can happen to Tea Party groups?

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Because it's outrageous? Or possibly because many in the 'liberal' media realize can happen to the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, or even to themselves if it can happen to Tea Party groups?

That still doesn't explain why Obama must apologize. Surely no one thinks a sitting President micromanages every single government department, or that the President even should?!

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

You don't think if a valid shortcut were found it would a more efficient use of taxpayer-funded resources? I don't think it's fair to spin this possibility as "lazy". It's possible that it was an honest and well intentioned mistake to use these as flags.. . just as it's possible that it was political axe-grinding.

I didn't say that it was an efficient, effective, or proper thing to do. I was just throwing out the possibility that the agents, based perhaps on prejudice, decided that keying on certain words would allow them to scrutinize enough applications to be able to report to their superiors that they were doing their jobs. People have been known to do stupid things at their jobs. People have been know to cut corners, especially when confronted with a sudden increase in their workload.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Am I missing something here? I would think everybody claiming tax exemption for being "non-profit" would and should be subjected to extremely rigorous scrutiny, constantly and repeatedly. If anything's scandalous it's not that certain groups may have been investigated harshly, it's that other groups may not have been.

Were I in charge, tax-exempt status would require a great deal of effort, be subject to constant monitoring, and abuse of that status would occur draconian penalties starting with public execution and getting progressively harsher with each offense.

 

[maxpower1227]

Am I missing something here? I would think everybody claiming tax exemption for being "non-profit" would and should be subjected to extremely rigorous scrutiny, constantly and repeatedly. If anything's scandalous it's not that certain groups may have been investigated harshly, it's that other groups may not have been.

Were I in charge, tax-exempt status would require a great deal of effort, be subject to constant monitoring, and abuse of that status would occur draconian penalties starting with public execution and getting progressively harsher with each offense.

I think the scandal here is that the IRS demanded long-form birth certificates from every member of the Tea Party groups.

 

[eeyore1954]

That still doesn't explain why Obama must apologize. Surely no one thinks a sitting President micromanages every single government department, or that the President even should?!

Didn't you watch the Undercover Boss episode where President Obama disguised himself and worked at the Cincinnati IRS office and set new rules for handling non profit applications?

 

[AlBell]

Was he winking when he said it.

Since his lips were moving he was lying, as usual.

 

[AlBell]

Because it's outrageous?
...

Illegal. Still unknown if Obama can be implicated in current IRS mess.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...f03660-bbf1-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html

“He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to . . . cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.”

— Article II, Section 1, Articles of Impeachment against Richard M. Nixon, adopted by the House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/13/l...lishment-bought-into-kooky-tea-party-slander/

House republicans should have been on this years ago but apparently chose not to do so.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So, profiling is okay for the IRS?

Part of the task of screening these 501(c) 3 non-profit organizations for tax exempt status is to make sure they aren't endorsing candidates. Yes, profiling by name is not an unreasonable way of deciding which organizations might merit closer scrutiny.

IMO, calling overtly political organizations "social welfare" organizations is a sham anyway.

If, as I've said, it turns out that you've flagged several of them this way for closer scrutiny, and none of them had any problems, then it would be improper to continue using the words "tea" and "patriot" to flag for closer scrutiny.

If you're claiming that this was done strictly to hassle organizations based on politics, then it's your burden of evidence. And it's going to be a pretty tough burden to carry since in making this allegation, you've admitted that these are in fact political organizations.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Illegal. Still unknown if Obama can be implicated in current IRS mess.

“He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to . . . cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.”

— Article II, Section 1, Articles of Impeachment against Richard M. Nixon, adopted by the House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974

But we're not talking about income tax audits or "tax investigations" other than what is actually required by law.

From the 501 c (3) statute:

"no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

When an organization applies for this status, they are initiating the process. It's not like Obama ordered the IRS to audit the personal taxes of his political enemies.

It's not remotely like that.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I didn't say that it was an efficient, effective, or proper thing to do. I was just throwing out the possibility that the agents, based perhaps on prejudice, decided that keying on certain words would allow them to scrutinize enough applications to be able to report to their superiors that they were doing their jobs. People have been known to do stupid things at their jobs. People have been know to cut corners, especially when confronted with a sudden increase in their workload.

I still don't understand what your "laziness" criticism is. I know you didn't say it was "efficient, effective or proper". But flagging some applicants for closer scrutiny can in fact be more efficient, effective and proper use of limited resources than subjecting ALL applicants to that level of scrutiny (something I assume is impossible without increasing IRS funding).

You were listing all the possibilities, and I pointed out that it's possible that it was done with perfectly good intentions and not out of laziness.

It's also possible that it was done just to hassle organizations of a certain political stripe, but as I pointed out above, ascertaining whether or not these are political organizations is part of the IRS's job in processing 501 c (3) applications. So noting that the organizations are likely political ("social welfare" organizations!) argues that extra scrutiny was in fact proper.

 

[eeyore1954]

But we're not talking about income tax audits or "tax investigations" other than what is actually required by law.

From the 501 c (3) statute:

"no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

When an organization applies for this status, they are initiating the process. It's not like Obama ordered the IRS to audit the personal taxes of his political enemies.

It's not remotely like that.

But the political enemies of President Obama were subject to much closer scrutiny and hurdles than his political friends. If I believed it was ordered by the president I would not see much difference from this than your example.

 

[eeyore1954]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but aren't nonprofits supposed to have no stated political leanings in order to keep their nonprofit status (or at least refrain from endorsing anybody)?

I know churches are supposedly that way, last I heard. It seems like I remember a church being in danger of having its nonprofit status yanked because of this sort of thing, but I don't remember the result.

Of course, this wouldn't mean that the organization couldn't preach basically the same morals as the Tea Party... and that's the way out of it, but to actually mention any political party (or subgroup thereof) in the request for nonprofit status would almost certainly ensure your denial if I'm right about this. There's a huge difference between saying we should have lower taxes, for instance, and explicitly endorsing a political group like The Tea Party.

I believe as long as the major activity is not political they are allowed the status.