Page 8, Figure 4: Breakdown of Potential Political Cases by Organization Name
Page 10, Lines 9-10, including footnote 28.
Error is not discrimination. The IRS did the right thing 94% of the time, 4% of the time they didn't investigate enough, and 2% of the time they investigated too much. They should do better, but it's an understandable error rate for an understaffed, underpaid, and overworked department. Discriminatation is when error is concentrated among a certain class of groups. If tea party groups made up 60 of the 91 groups investigated unfairly, then there would be a clear case of discrimination. However, that's not the case.
We dont know concretely the numbers you are referring to, as far as I know. The more information that comes out the more we find out this was the norm. So I doubt the info you are using for numbers will remain accurate even if it is now.
Hey everybody, wake up! This is no big deal!
The IRS was violating the law, sure. But this is selective outrage. They were not trying to harass conservatives for being conservative they were harassing conservatives for being tax cheats. That is their job. Frankly I am surprised the IRS didn't stick to their guns on this one. This is the kind of thing that they would have taken to the supreme court if it had been Wiccans instead of the Tea Party.
Think about it. The IRS gets a flood of dubious tax exemption applications and other when shennanigans, all from tea party groups, all at once. Why wouldn't they give that group extra scrutiny? Their job is to make sure people don't evade taxes!
So sure, this type profiling is probably unlawful policy. But the selective outrage is painfully transparent coming from people who couldn't give two hoots when the profiling is against any other group.
Last edited by Guy Incognito; 05-21-13 at 09:29 AM.
IRS's Lerner Had History of Harassment, Inappropriate Religious Inquiries at FEC | The Weekly Standard
Lerner was questioning about whether or not people were praying for someone, during a depostion. Not now, but back when she was head of the FEC. Lerner is a perfect example of a bureaucrat that abuses authority and NEEDS to be removed from government service.The Christian Coalition was ultimately absolved of any FEC wrongdoing in 1999, and Lerner was promoted to acting General Counsel at the FEC in 2001 before eventually moving on to the IRS. Bopp, who's all too familiar with the aggressive and inappropriate tenor she set leading the FEC's Enforcement Division, says he became concerned about what would happen as soon as Lerner joined the IRS. "When she left the FEC, I thought, 'Wow, this means the not for profit division is gearing up politically,'" he said. "It didn't bode well, because of the way [the FEC] approached cases."
Religious activities, membership lists and political afiliations are off limits to government inquiry into tax status. There is no legitimate reason to engage in this other than to persecute those you disagree with and widen the net to abuse power more. Its behavior that government oversight is created to destroy.
Now Im going to shred the other half of your argument that its limited to the IRS.
Treasury consulted on multiple occasions about timing of IRS disclosure, source says
Treasury knew. IRS general counsel knew. Schuler knew. The ONLY reason to believe Obama didnt know what was going on was because someone within his cabinet decided to give him plausible deniability. Its my belief that someone close to Obama like Jarrett or Holder knew what was going on and the coverup is going to lead to more problems than the actual incident.The Treasury Department was informed on three separate occasions that the Internal Revenue Service planned to disclose that it targeted conservative groups for scrutiny, and on one occasion, Treasury expressed concern about the form of the disclosure, a Treasury official said on Monday night.
In all cases, the official said, Treasury ultimately deferred to the IRS.
In late April, the IRS told the Treasury that senior tax official Lois Lerner was considering making a speech in which she would make a public apology for inappropriate conduct at the IRS in advance of an inspector general report documenting how tax agency officials gave extra scrutiny to conservative groups.
If you want to argue that the IRS was harassing conservative groups because they are conservative, not because they are tax cheats, you have a heavy burden that you have not met with you meager circumstantial evidence. The fact of the matter is that there were numerous tea party groups trying to get tax exemptions they were not entitled to.
From the IG report.
Figure 4: Breakdown of Potential Political Cases by Organization Name
Tea Party: 72, 9/12: 11, Patriots: 13, Other 202.
Applications That the IRS Determined Required Minimal or No Additional Information for Processing
We reviewed a statistical sample of 94 I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) cases closed from May 2010 through May 2012 from a universe of 2,051 applications that the IRS determined required minimal or no additional information from the organizations (also referred to by the EO function as merit closures). We determined that two (2 percent) of 94 approved applications had indications of significant political
campaign intervention and should have been forwarded to the team of specialists. Based on our statistical sample, we project an estimated 44 merit closure applications were not appropriately identified as potential political cases during this time period.
Applications Identified by the IRS That Required Additional Information for Processing
We reviewed a statistical sample of 244 I.R.C.§ 501(c)(4) cases closed from May 2010 through May 2012 or open as of May 31, 2012, from a universe of 2,459 applications that the IRS determined required additional information from the
organizations applying for tax-exempt status (also referred to by the EO function as full development applications) but were not forwarded to the team of specialists. For the applications that were available for our review, we found that 14 (6 percent) of 237 applications included indications of significant political campaign intervention and should have been processed by the team of specialists. We project an estimated 141 full development applications were not appropriately identified as potential political cases during this time period.
We reviewed all 298 applications that had been identified as potential political cases as of May 31, 2012. In the majority of cases, we agreed that the applications submitted included indications of significant political campaign intervention. However, we did not identify any indications of significant political campaign intervention for 91 (31 percent) of the 296 applications that had complete documentation. (footnote: Seventeen (19 percent) of the 91 applications involved Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 organizations.)
17 of the 96 Tea Party, 9/12/, and Patriot Groups were investigated unnecessarily. (17/96= 17.7%)
74 of the 202 “Other” groups were investigated unnecessarily. (74/202=36.6%)
36.6% / 17.6% = 2.07. Of the groups investigated, other groups were twice as likely to be unnecessarily investigated.
2,051+2,459 = 4510 Organizations evaluated.
(44+141)/4510 = 4.1% of applications not scrutinized enough
(91/4510) = 2.0% of applications scrutinized too much.
(4510-44-141-91)/4510=93.8% of applications correctly processed.