Page 4 of 27 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 268

Thread: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases [W:127]

  1. #31
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,736

    Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

    So Pete, MG, whats it say when the incompetence and mistakes and delays are only hitting one side of the political fence?

    Do you say "oh well" or do you find out why? I think we should find out why and make the people making policy and decisions about what happened never work in government again at any level.

    Things we dont know:
    Who made the word association policy
    Who was the communication link in Washington that forwarded items to Lerner
    Who Lerner was talking to above her on these issues
    Who was allowing the applications to be delayed for months
    Which agents were doing this per procedure and which were under orders
    Who was giving those orders if anyone
    Who set procedures to allow agents to indefinitely delay tax determinations

    Before we can do anything we need to know all those things. If we cannot find all of those things, its time to start contempt citations---starting with Lerner.

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Fabulous View Post
    It is my understanding that the reason some of these applications sat for so long is because they literally did not know what tho do with them. In 2010, right after the Citizens United ruling(you remember when Obama scolded the SCOTUS during the 2010 State of the Union address?) it became advantageous for political groups to file 501c4 instead of 527. 527s have to disclose their funding sources where, because of Citizens United, 501c4s no longer had to. Starting in 2010, the IRS began to get flooded with 501c4s to process and many of those applications really didn't meet "the spirit" of what 501c4 designation was supposed to be all about.

    This scandal, at least to me, has nothing to do with whether or not some Tea Party groups got unfairly targeted. The fact of the matter is that they shouldn't have been filing 501c4 in the first place. The part that needs investigation is, was the IRS being used as a tool for information laundering? Remember, 501c4s no longer have to reveal their donors. At the same time, there were attack ads and op-eds galore during the 2012 campaign which focused on corporate money and who was donating to what to who. If all or at least some of this information was technically supposed to be anonymous, where was it all coming from?
    "It is my understanding .......... " !!! How about you get edumacated then ? The liberal 501's got swift approvals. The liberal ones did not get the bogus questionnaires. How about you show us those applications that "shouldn't have been applying" ? That would be those that were disapproved on the merit that you cite ?

    Edit In: Further, you make this claim:

    Starting in 2010, the IRS began to get flooded with 501c4s to process and many of those applications really didn't meet "the spirit" of what 501c4 designation was supposed to be all about.
    That is 4 Pinnochio BS right there.

    But it turns out that these are federal fiscal-year figures, meaning “2010” is actually Oct. 1, 2009 to Sept. 30, 2010, so the “2010” year includes more than three months before the Supreme Court decision was announced.
    Astonishingly, despite Lerner’s public claim, an IRS spokeswoman was not able to provide the actual calendar year numbers. By allocating one-quarter of the fiscal year numbers to the prior year, we can get a very rough sense of the increase on a calendar-year basis. (Figures are rounded to avoid false precision; 2012 is not possible to calculate.)
    2009: 1745
    2010: 1865
    2011: 2540
    In other words, while there was an increase in 2010, it was relatively small. The real jump did not come until 2011, long after the targeting of conservative groups had been implemented. Also, it appears Lerner significantly understated the number of applications in 2010 (“1500”) in order to make her claim of “more than doubled.
    A bushel of Pinocchios for IRS’s Lois Lerner - The Washington Post
    501C4's can participate in political activities, btw.
    Last edited by Eighty Deuce; 06-17-13 at 12:11 PM.

  3. #33
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,971

    Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    "It is my understanding .......... " !!! How about you get edumacated then ? The liberal 501's got swift approvals. The liberal ones did not get the bogus questionnaires. How about you show us those applications that "shouldn't have been applying" ? That would be those that were disapproved on the merit that you cite ?
    Is there any evidence that this was standard practice at every IRS office?

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    Is there any evidence that this was standard practice at every IRS office?
    Read post 30. Its not that long of a thread.

    The "Cincinnati Office" is the main 501C processing office for the entire country.

  5. #35
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,264

    Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

    Heh. Should've said "the phrase", or something.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    You probably could have phrased that better

  6. #36
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,971

    Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    Read post 30. Its not that long of a thread.

    The "Cincinnati Office" is the main 501C processing office for the entire country.
    I highly doubt that one office can handle requests coming from all 50 states, this is the IRS we are talking about after all. I imagine that the IRS has local offices for each state.

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    I highly doubt that one office can handle requests coming from all 50 states, this is the IRS we are talking about after all. I imagine that the IRS has local offices for each state.
    Not for processing the 501C's. The Ohio office handles most of them. What is your expertise here ?

    The home of the IRS scandal rocking the Obama administration is located on the fourth floor of the John Weld Peck Federal Building in Cincinnati, a division that handles 60,000 applications a year from organizations seeking one of the tax code's many exemptions.

    IRS Division in Dispute Followed Own Course - WSJ.com
    Is the truth that difficult to handle ?

    The seeds of dysfunction were planted a decade ago, current and former agency officials said, with a plan whose goal was improving efficiency.

    In 2003, amid complaints that applications for tax-exempt status were being reviewed twice, by a district office and headquarters, IRS officials decided to make Cincinnati the hub for a niche part of the agency—scrutinizing groups with political ties that wanted to be tax exempt.

    Cincinnati's rise fed a long-held criticism that the agency was "stove piped," meaning it had a number of divisions that seemed to work independently with little oversight.

    It is "an internalized operation focused on moving that pile of applications in the door and out the door," said Marcus Owens, a former top IRS official who oversaw the exempt-organizations division until 2000.

    The Cincinnati tax-exempt determinations unit, which employees refer to as "determs," is considered by employees one of the less-attractive IRS posts. Government employees who aspire to join the private sector seek positions that review corporate filings, among other things, former employees said.
    Last edited by Eighty Deuce; 06-17-13 at 12:28 PM.

  8. #38
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

    ms paz, who sat in on 36 of 41 interviews conducted by the ig's office, which was news (he says, in sworn testimony in the house) to the ig, is also evil issa's source for the internal irs review---independent of tigta---which found the same "significant problems" and "substantial bias" uncovered by ig george

    In late March 2012, IRS deputy commissioner Steven Miller–who resigned his post as acting commissioner last week at President Obama’s request–directed senior technical advisor Nancy J. Marks to investigate allegations of political targeting of groups seeking tax exempt status, agency officials told congressional aides. Holly Paz, acting director of ruling and agreements, worked with Marks on the probe, and both traveled to Cincinnati to conduct interviews.

    On May 3, 2012. Marks gave what IRS officials described as a “presentation” to Miller describing her findings. Marks said the investigation had found significant problems in the review process and a substantial bias against conservative group, [House Oversight spokesman] Ahmad said. No written findings were produced as a result, the aide said, and it does not appear the internal review led to any disciplinary actions against IRS employees.
    Internal IRS probe cited same problems with approach to conservative groups in May 2012 - WaPo

  9. #39
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,971

    Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    Not for processing the 501C's. The Ohio office handles most of them. What is your expertise here ?



    Is the truth that difficult to handle ?
    I can freely admit that I know nothing about how the IRS is orginized. I still think that I can offer a oppinion based on what facts I know and preconceived notions.

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    I can freely admit that I know nothing about how the IRS is orginized. I still think that I can offer a oppinion based on what facts I know and preconceived notions.
    And you were completely wrong. See my edit in, where I added more proof. So what are your "facts and preconceived notions" that made you be so wrong ? Does it bother you ?

Page 4 of 27 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •