• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show[W:249]

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

I would not know any democrats who would suggest that is highly unethical if not illegal...Hey Mr. Pot, the kettle called and said you are black.

Now care to put forth actual arguments rather than hypocritical one sided accusations of biased treatment?

Actually this is exactly what we should be talking about. Is it right to profile? Or rather, when is profiling justified?

Of course we should all be outraged if a guy pulls over a black guy just because he's black. But what if he pulls over a black guy just because he's black, driving a white bronco on I405 on June 17th 1994. Is that objectionable? Wouldn't it be far more objectionable to pull over every white truck just so we don't discriminate?

When can we use race, religion, sex, etc.. as a search criteria to investigate someone? I'd say that we need evidence that some wrongdoing has occurred and evidence that the wrongdoing was carried out by someone of a particular race, religion, sex etc...

So what was the situation here?

From 1990-2008 political spending by groups that didn't have to disclose their donors averaged 16.3%. Immediately after Citizens United it shot up to more than double its historic average (41.3%). This was significantly higher than the previous outlier (1994-30.1%). Here's the breakdown of spending by year.

Year
Liberal
Conservative
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
$6.5M
$0.6M
$17.9M
$10.7M
$34.1M
62%
12%
26%
8%
11%
$1.9M
$0.5M
$39.5M
$115.2M
$265.2M
18%
10%
57%
88%
85%

Based on historic norms, the IRS would have expected 501c groups to spend between 25 and 65 Million in 2010. Instead 501c spending was 130 million, more than double the highest possible value.

Clearly 501c organizations were no longer being used either exclusively or primarily for social welfare. This is clear evidence of abuse. Now looking at historical averages, it would be highly irregular if more than $30M was spent on a single side. Liberals spent $10M, a third of our theoretical max. Conservatives on the other hand spent $115M, more than 3 times as much as we could rationally expect.

So we have clear and compelling evidence of dramatic increase in abuse of 501c status in 2010. We also have clear evidence that the increase in abuse is essentially only among conservative groups. So why can't we say that the IRS should be on the look out for conservative political groups masquerading as social welfare groups? And where's the evidence for abuse when we find that two thirds of the groups investigated were conservative, even though conservative groups made up 80% of the new applications and accounted for 85-90% of spending?

Again, I'm not saying that the IRS did nothing wrong. But the vast majority of these complaints sound like someone who's upset that every white bronco wasn't pulled over during the OJ Simpson chase, instead of just the one with the black guy.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Actually this is exactly what we should be talking about. Is it right to profile? Or rather, when is profiling justified?

Of course we should all be outraged if a guy pulls over a black guy just because he's black. But what if he pulls over a black guy just because he's black, driving a white bronco on I405 on June 17th 1994. Is that objectionable? Wouldn't it be far more objectionable to pull over every white truck just so we don't discriminate?

When can we use race, religion, sex, etc.. as a search criteria to investigate someone? I'd say that we need evidence that some wrongdoing has occurred and evidence that the wrongdoing was carried out by someone of a particular race, religion, sex etc...

So what was the situation here?

From 1990-2008 political spending by groups that didn't have to disclose their donors averaged 16.3%. Immediately after Citizens United it shot up to more than double its historic average (41.3%). This was significantly higher than the previous outlier (1994-30.1%). Here's the breakdown of spending by year.

Year
Liberal
Conservative
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
$6.5M
$0.6M
$17.9M
$10.7M
$34.1M
62%
12%
26%
8%
11%
$1.9M
$0.5M
$39.5M
$115.2M
$265.2M
18%
10%
57%
88%
85%

Based on historic norms, the IRS would have expected 501c groups to spend between 25 and 65 Million in 2010. Instead 501c spending was 130 million, more than double the highest possible value.

Clearly 501c organizations were no longer being used either exclusively or primarily for social welfare. This is clear evidence of abuse. Now looking at historical averages, it would be highly irregular if more than $30M was spent on a single side. Liberals spent $10M, a third of our theoretical max. Conservatives on the other hand spent $115M, more than 3 times as much as we could rationally expect.

So we have clear and compelling evidence of dramatic increase in abuse of 501c status in 2010. We also have clear evidence that the increase in abuse is essentially only among conservative groups. So why can't we say that the IRS should be on the look out for conservative political groups masquerading as social welfare groups? And where's the evidence for abuse when we find that two thirds of the groups investigated were conservative, even though conservative groups made up 80% of the new applications and accounted for 85-90% of spending?

Again, I'm not saying that the IRS did nothing wrong. But the vast majority of these complaints sound like someone who's upset that every white bronco wasn't pulled over during the OJ Simpson chase, instead of just the one with the black guy.

There is no evidence whatsoever of abuse.:cool:
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

it is partisan when you - and those like you - insist that it was only 'conservative' organizations whose applications were being held up
that belief is not true
but that is why your arguments are found to be partisan ones

Of course it's true, where have you been?
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Actually this is exactly what we should be talking about. Is it right to profile? Or rather, when is profiling justified?

Of course we should all be outraged if a guy pulls over a black guy just because he's black. But what if he pulls over a black guy just because he's black, driving a white bronco on I405 on June 17th 1994. Is that objectionable? Wouldn't it be far more objectionable to pull over every white truck just so we don't discriminate?

When can we use race, religion, sex, etc.. as a search criteria to investigate someone? I'd say that we need evidence that some wrongdoing has occurred and evidence that the wrongdoing was carried out by someone of a particular race, religion, sex etc...

So what was the situation here?

From 1990-2008 political spending by groups that didn't have to disclose their donors averaged 16.3%. Immediately after Citizens United it shot up to more than double its historic average (41.3%). This was significantly higher than the previous outlier (1994-30.1%). Here's the breakdown of spending by year.

Year
Liberal
Conservative
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
$6.5M
$0.6M
$17.9M
$10.7M
$34.1M
62%
12%
26%
8%
11%
$1.9M
$0.5M
$39.5M
$115.2M
$265.2M
18%
10%
57%
88%
85%

Based on historic norms, the IRS would have expected 501c groups to spend between 25 and 65 Million in 2010. Instead 501c spending was 130 million, more than double the highest possible value.

Clearly 501c organizations were no longer being used either exclusively or primarily for social welfare. This is clear evidence of abuse. Now looking at historical averages, it would be highly irregular if more than $30M was spent on a single side. Liberals spent $10M, a third of our theoretical max. Conservatives on the other hand spent $115M, more than 3 times as much as we could rationally expect.

So we have clear and compelling evidence of dramatic increase in abuse of 501c status in 2010. We also have clear evidence that the increase in abuse is essentially only among conservative groups. So why can't we say that the IRS should be on the look out for conservative political groups masquerading as social welfare groups? And where's the evidence for abuse when we find that two thirds of the groups investigated were conservative, even though conservative groups made up 80% of the new applications and accounted for 85-90% of spending?

Again, I'm not saying that the IRS did nothing wrong. But the vast majority of these complaints sound like someone who's upset that every white bronco wasn't pulled over during the OJ Simpson chase, instead of just the one with the black guy.

You inspect them all with the same legal standard. Thats what equal under the law is supposed to mean in the first place. If you dont have enough agents for that, you collect a sample and do audits and extra scrutiny in a random manner. You do not single out one side of the other using words or phrases that you know will encompass one side or the other.

Spending is not evidence of abuse, use of money outside of legal means is. Regarding bolded...did you link that earlier in the thread? If you did can you do so again? Because Im not seeing it.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

You inspect them all with the same legal standard. Thats what equal under the law is supposed to mean in the first place. If you dont have enough agents for that, you collect a sample and do audits and extra scrutiny in a random manner. You do not single out one side of the other using words or phrases that you know will encompass one side or the other.

Spending is not evidence of abuse, use of money outside of legal means is. Regarding bolded...did you link that earlier in the thread? If you did can you do so again? Because Im not seeing it.

This isn't outside spending in general, it's the portion of outside spending by 501c groups which by definition must be exclusively engaged in social welfare. After Citizens United we see a decrease in 527 spending and an increase in 501c spending. Citizens United happens and we see levels of 501c spending that are more than double the highest % of outside spending in modern history. Its easy to make the case that this spending is not exclusively for social welfare, ie abuse.

Remember, many of these groups lied on their applications. Sure it would be great if there were enough agents to properly investigate all applications. But budget cuts ensured that there weren't enough to go around.
 
Last edited:
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Of course it's true, where have you been?

much of the time has been here, asking for the criteria used to distinguish conservative from progressive organizations
and have yet to receive a response to that inquiry
which then tells me you and those like you have no clue about which of the applicant organizations were conservative or progressive
making your argument one which lacks facts and substance
bombast is a very weak substitute. sorry
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

This isn't outside spending in general, it's the portion of outside spending by 501c groups which by definition must be exclusively engaged in social welfare. After Citizens United we see a decrease in 527 spending and an increase in 501c spending. Citizens United happens and we see levels of 501c spending that are more than double the highest % of outside spending in modern history. Its easy to make the case that this spending is not exclusively for social welfare, ie abuse.

Remember, many of these groups lied on their applications. Sure it would be great if there were enough agents to properly investigate all applications. But budget cuts ensured that there weren't enough to go around.

Really. "Many", care to cite that? You are inferring quite a lot with very little data to work with. Especially things like what extra questions were asked, what data was shared with political opponents of those groups, what groups are still awaiting status, what are the criteria for social welfare....you seem to want to argue for nothing being amiss with limited data and only the data that the IRS wants to release. Seems like a formula for CYA, not the truth.

The best way to investigate is through random sample. Im not buying that the ONLY instance where our government uses profiling is to abuse conservatives. If it did, that shouldnt be policy.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Really. "Many", care to cite that? You are inferring quite a lot with very little data to work with. Especially things like what extra questions were asked, what data was shared with political opponents of those groups, what groups are still awaiting status, what are the criteria for social welfare....you seem to want to argue for nothing being amiss with limited data and only the data that the IRS wants to release. Seems like a formula for CYA, not the truth.

The best way to investigate is through random sample. Im not buying that the ONLY instance where our government uses profiling is to abuse conservatives. If it did, that shouldnt be policy.

I can give you raw data, calculations, and methodology for everything I quoted. What do you want? As long as you're willing to consider it with an open mind, I'm happy to provide.

I have two dogs in this fight. First is to keep dark money out of politics. I concede that outside spending is an inevitable, so I take the pre 2010 GOP position; disclose, disclose, disclose. Second is in support of basic math. I was curious to know the actual effects of this scandal. But when I dug through the data I didn't see it. No matter what I tried, I couldn't find any evidence that conservatives were investigated at a higher rate than they applied. If anything the opposite conclusion popped out.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

I can give you raw data, calculations, and methodology for everything I quoted. What do you want? As long as you're willing to consider it with an open mind, I'm happy to provide.

I have two dogs in this fight. First is to keep dark money out of politics. I concede that outside spending is an inevitable, so I take the pre 2010 GOP position; disclose, disclose, disclose. Second is in support of basic math. I was curious to know the actual effects of this scandal. But when I dug through the data I didn't see it. No matter what I tried, I couldn't find any evidence that conservatives were investigated at a higher rate than they applied. If anything the opposite conclusion popped out.

Well, we would need something we dont have. Namely, how many applications have been delayed without being processed. All we are getting is the information the IRS wants to release to cover their butt.

Now we are finding out things like the IRS leaked its donor lists to the opposition, cross agency interference from OSHA amongst others, invasive questioning into religious beliefs and group affiliations.

We are also finding out that specific representatives and senators on the democratic side asked specific organizations to be looked into by the IRS. I think thats the kind of cross referencing we arent seeing yet that is being hidden in the DC unit that hasnt testified yet or like Lerner will be pleading the fifth.

Im sorry Mithros, what is it Mark Twain said about statistics?
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Well, we would need something we dont have. Namely, how many applications have been delayed without being processed. All we are getting is the information the IRS wants to release to cover their butt.

Now we are finding out things like the IRS leaked its donor lists to the opposition, cross agency interference from OSHA amongst others, invasive questioning into religious beliefs and group affiliations.

We are also finding out that specific representatives and senators on the democratic side asked specific organizations to be looked into by the IRS. I think thats the kind of cross referencing we arent seeing yet that is being hidden in the DC unit that hasnt testified yet or like Lerner will be pleading the fifth.

Im sorry Mithros, what is it Mark Twain said about statistics?

Absolutely! You can make statistics sound like they're saying anything you want them to say. That's why it's important to be good at math. :)

I'd say that there's a pretty wide gulf between what we're finding out and what's being alleged. That's not to say that the IRS did nothing wrong, but there just isn't any evidence of any widespread conspiracy or political bias. The rest is just political posturing.

Oh, and we do have that. I don't have that number off hand, but it's somewhere around 100. They would all need to be conservative groups in order to show even a slight amount of bias, and we know that's not true. (Patriot Majority was not listed in the approved groups meaning it's a limbo group).
 
Last edited:
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Absolutely! You can make statistics sound like they're saying anything you want them to say. That's why it's important to be good at math. :)

I'd say that there's a pretty wide gulf between what we're finding out and what's being alleged. That's not to say that the IRS did nothing wrong, but there just isn't any evidence of any widespread conspiracy or political bias. The rest is just political posturing.

Oh, and we do have that. I don't have that number off hand, but it's somewhere around 100. They would all need to be conservative groups in order to show even a slight amount of bias, and we know that's not true. (Patriot Majority was not listed in the approved groups meaning it's a limbo group).

Id say that whats being alleged and whats being proven are coming closer and closer with more investigation. Whats your solution? Stop investigating?

Bolded: THEY CONFESSED TO DOING IT!
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Id say that whats being alleged and whats being proven are coming closer and closer with more investigation. Whats your solution? Stop investigating?

Bolded: THEY CONFESSED TO DOING IT!

Continue investigating!!! Absolutely. Get to the bottom of it. I'd want to know
1). Who wrote the BOLO and why
2). Why was the criteria changed back and by whom?
3). What should the IRS have actually done with these groups?
4). Why did Lerner fail to disclose that this report was going out when she testified to the Senate?
5). Why did the IRS detonate a scandal that was factually more benign?
6). Is the IRS underfunded?
6). What can we do to fix it?

But where is the investigation going? Who knew about the OIG report in the WhiteHouse when. What does that have to do with anything? Unless there's some evidence that this comes from the Whitehouse (of which there's none), why are we wasting time investigating it? Investigations should not be political cudgels. I mean, why not investigate if Boehner planted this whole thing as a false flag operation? Investigate where the facts take us, not these silly partisan goose chases.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Continue investigating!!! Absolutely. Get to the bottom of it. I'd want to know
1). Who wrote the BOLO and why
2). Why was the criteria changed back and by whom?
3). What should the IRS have actually done with these groups?
4). Why did Lerner fail to disclose that this report was going out when she testified to the Senate?
5). Why did the IRS detonate a scandal that was factually more benign?
6). Is the IRS underfunded?
6). What can we do to fix it?

But where is the investigation going? Who knew about the OIG report in the WhiteHouse when. What does that have to do with anything? Unless there's some evidence that this comes from the Whitehouse (of which there's none), why are we wasting time investigating it? Investigations should not be political cudgels. I mean, why not investigate if Boehner planted this whole thing as a false flag operation? Investigate where the facts take us, not these silly partisan goose chases.

LOL false flag operation? Thats ****ing deranged.

1) Lerner is taking the fifth---she knows.
2) Lerner is taking the fifth....
3) As I posted earlier, the kind of investigation they are conducting takes longer than one that determines just what they need.
4) In all likelihood, because shes guilty as hell.
5) Because its not benign, thats kind of the point.
6) Dont give a ****.
7) We cant do anything, congress can change the law. The IRS can make its investigations more politically neutral. The IRS can fire everyone involved with this operation and they probably should.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

LOL false flag operation? Thats ****ing deranged.

1) Lerner is taking the fifth---she knows.
2) Lerner is taking the fifth....
3) As I posted earlier, the kind of investigation they are conducting takes longer than one that determines just what they need.
4) In all likelihood, because shes guilty as hell.
5) Because its not benign, thats kind of the point.
6) Dont give a ****.
7) We cant do anything, congress can change the law. The IRS can make its investigations more politically neutral. The IRS can fire everyone involved with this operation and they probably should.

That' the point. It's deranged. And taking the 5th doesn't imply guilt. It implies that she's the target of a criminal investigation... as Boehner has repeatedly stated.

They don't need to change the law, they just need to enforce what's on the books now.. 501c4 organizations must be entirely dedicated to social welfare. Entirely is different than 51%
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

That' the point. It's deranged. And taking the 5th doesn't imply guilt. It implies that she's the target of a criminal investigation... as Boehner has repeatedly stated.

They don't need to change the law, they just need to enforce what's on the books now.. 501c4 organizations must be entirely dedicated to social welfare. Entirely is different than 51%

Except what was used was left political activities was accepted more often as social welfare. Meaning right political activities got scrutinized.

You need to get it through your head that what you want to be the law doesnt excuse politically motivated scrutiny, despite how that scrutiny originates. Just because it fits your political agenda doesnt make it right under the law.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Except what was used was left political activities was accepted more often as social welfare. Meaning right political activities got scrutinized.

You need to get it through your head that what you want to be the law doesnt excuse politically motivated scrutiny, despite how that scrutiny originates. Just because it fits your political agenda doesnt make it right under the law.

What evidence do you have that left political activities were accepted more often as social welfare?
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

What evidence do you have that left political activities were accepted more often as social welfare?

The definitions of social welfare being used and accepted by the unit in question.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

The definitions of social welfare being used and accepted by the unit in question.

You mean this?

To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements). For example, an organization that restricts the use of its facilities to employees of selected corporations and their guests is primarily benefiting a private group rather than the community and, therefore, does not qualify as a section 501(c)(4) organization. Similarly, an organization formed to represent member-tenants of an apartment complex does not qualify, because its activities benefit the member-tenants and not all tenants in the community, while an organization formed to promote the legal rights of all tenants in a particular community may qualify under section 501(c)(4) as a social welfare organization. An organization is not operated primarily for the promotion of social welfare if its primary activity is operating a social club for the benefit, pleasure or recreation of its members, or is carrying on a business with the general public in a manner similar to organizations operated for profit.

Social Welfare Organizations

It's a pretty sad state of things if you think that furthering the common good and general welfare of the community is an inherently liberal endeavour.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

You mean this?

To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements). For example, an organization that restricts the use of its facilities to employees of selected corporations and their guests is primarily benefiting a private group rather than the community and, therefore, does not qualify as a section 501(c)(4) organization. Similarly, an organization formed to represent member-tenants of an apartment complex does not qualify, because its activities benefit the member-tenants and not all tenants in the community, while an organization formed to promote the legal rights of all tenants in a particular community may qualify under section 501(c)(4) as a social welfare organization. An organization is not operated primarily for the promotion of social welfare if its primary activity is operating a social club for the benefit, pleasure or recreation of its members, or is carrying on a business with the general public in a manner similar to organizations operated for profit.

Social Welfare Organizations

It's a pretty sad state of things if you think that furthering the common good and general welfare of the community is an inherently liberal endeavour.

Its called interpretations of said wording. Its sad when you are that damn gullible.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

This is clear evidence of abuse.
How is that clear evidence of abuse? If the IRS is out looking for "evidence of abuse" and there is "clear evidence of abuse" - why is it that these groups have not been charged or lost their tax-exempt status?

So we have clear and compelling evidence of dramatic increase in abuse of 501c status in 2010. We also have clear evidence that the increase in abuse is essentially only among conservative groups.
Because more money was spent? That's "abuse"?

So why can't we say that the IRS should be on the look out for conservative political groups masquerading as social welfare groups? And where's the evidence for abuse when we find that two thirds of the groups investigated were conservative, even though conservative groups made up 80% of the new applications and accounted for 85-90% of spending?
Because it's discriminating by political ideology alone and for no other reason. If your evidence of abuse is that more money is being spent, then you investigate the groups that are spending the money. There are about 9 that are responsible for 95% of the spending. That's not what happened. They went after dozens of tiny groups with little or no spending simply because they had the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their names.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Remember, many of these groups lied on their applications. Sure it would be great if there were enough agents to properly investigate all applications. But budget cuts ensured that there weren't enough to go around.
All the more reason to go after the 8-9 that do all of the spending, not the 80 or 90 that do none of the spending
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

How is that clear evidence of abuse? If the IRS is out looking for "evidence of abuse" and there is "clear evidence of abuse" - why is it that these groups have not been charged or lost their tax-exempt status?
That's what the senate has been investigating for the last year, and why Lois Lerner is in hot water.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

That's what the senate has been investigating for the last year, and why Lois Lerner is in hot water.
Lois Lerner is in hot water because the IRS inappropriately targeted conservative groups, not because she allowed conservative groups to operate despite clear evidence of abuse.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Lois Lerner is in hot water because the IRS inappropriately targeted conservative groups, not because she allowed conservative groups to operate despite clear evidence of abuse.

Mr. Daniel Werfel
Acting Commissioner
Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20224

Dear Acting Commissioner Werfel:

We are writing to urge you to suspend immediately Lois Lerner from her office as Director of the Office of Exempt Organizations at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). We believe that Ms. Lerner failed to disclose crucial information concerning the IRS’s inappropriate targeting of some conservative 501(c)(4) organizations during the course of a Subcommittee investigation into how the IRS enforces the 501(c)(4) law, leading to an incomplete account of the full operations of her unit.

Since March of last year, the Subcommittee has been examining whether the IRS adequately and appropriately enforces tax code provisions and implementing regulations regarding the extent to which tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups may engage in political campaign activity. The Subcommittee asked the IRS why it was not enforcing the 501(c)(4) statute which states that social welfare organizations should be used “exclusively for the promotion of social welfare” and instead enforcing the more lenient IRS regulation which states that a social welfare organization may be used “primarily” for social welfare. It also asked the IRS about how they reviewed applications filed by certain Democratic and Republican leaning 501(c)(4)s. Our investigation has included a year’s worth of correspondence between the Subcommittee and the IRS, as well as document productions and repeated consultations with IRS staff.

On April 30, 2013, Ms. Lerner and seven IRS colleagues spent six-hours being interviewed, on a bipartisan basis, by Subcommittee staff. That interview covered, among other topics, how the IRS determines which groups to review, what actions are taken in connection with the IRS reviews, and how the laws and regulations are used to examine those groups. Ms. Lerner failed to disclose the internal controversy over the search terms used by the Cincinnati office to identify 501(c)(4) groups for further review, the actions taken by that office in reviewing the identified groups, the investigation and imminent findings by the Treasury Department Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA); and TIGTA’s conclusion that the IRS had used inappropriate criteria to target Tea Party and other conservative groups. Ms. Lerner also failed to disclose that she was fully aware of these issues as early as June 2011, and, according to TIGTA, had been personally involved in reviewing questionable actions taken by the Cincinnati office.

Given the serious failure by Ms. Lerner to disclose to this Subcommittee key information on topics that the Subcommittee was investigating, we have lost confidence in her ability to fulfill her duties as Director of Exempt Organizations at the IRS. Ms. Lerner’s continued tenure in the office she holds, where she is responsible for overseeing 1.6 million tax-exempt organizations, would erode public trust and confidence in the IRS and its professional integrity. We believe that the immediate removal of Ms. Lerner from office would be a vital step in helping to restore public trust in the agency.

Sincerely,


John McCain
Carl Levin​

Carl Levin - United States Senator for Michigan: Newsroom - Press Releases
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

We are writing to urge you to suspend immediately Lois Lerner from her office as Director of the Office of Exempt Organizations at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). We believe that Ms. Lerner failed to disclose crucial information concerning the IRS’s inappropriate targeting of some conservative 501(c)(4) organizations during the course of a Subcommittee investigation into how the IRS enforces the 501(c)(4) law, leading to an incomplete account of the full operations of her unit.
That seems to support what I said earlier. They are not asking that she be suspended for the manner in which the 501(c)(4) statute was being enforced. They asked that she be suspended because Lerner failed to disclose that the IRS was inappropriately targeting conservative groups when it came up in the course of asking about the processing of 501(c)(4) applications.
 
Back
Top Bottom