• 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!

Acting IRS commissioner resigns in wake of agency scandal

the moral and intellectual equivalent of racism

I was defending the tea party types by claiming that they're not the kind of folks who would scam the IRS, citing the fact that they're poor and naive (i. e. too honest), and I'm being called "racist" for that :rolleyes: ?
 
Frankly, I hope lots of heads roll here. Unlike too many of our current politically motivated "scandals", this is a REAL scandal that should infuriate every single American, regardless of their political views.

I am infuriated. And you know I'm not a fan of the teabaggers.
 
IRS Persecution Is A War On Women
By: Dana Loesch (Diary) | May 15th, 2013 at 08:05 PM | 7


Forget “binders full of women” — the IRS’s persecution of hundreds of tea party groups is the real war on women. I co-founded the movement in my hometown of St. Louis and have travelled the country with various tea party groups and I’ve seen it first hand: the tea party movement was predominately led by women. It isn’t a slight to our men; in speech after speech I mentioned how the nation’s men have been neutralized in this fight by the left’s ridiculous identity politics and bunk sexism claims. I’ve opined more than once “My husband can’t hit a girl, but I can.” It’s the truth — and it’s why women raised up from around the country to lead the charge.

That’s why this IRS scandal is all the more stunning. If the left can claim that Romney’s “binders full of women” remark is indicative of a festering female hatred on the right, if they can claim that the demand for grown women to pay for their own preventative pregnancy sexual recreation pills is a sign that conservatives hate women, then the IRS going all Spanish Inquisition on groups of a female-led movement is the war of all wars on women.

These groups were profiled. They were asked for more information than other groups, information about Facebook posts and even thoughts. While OWS was allowed to collect tax deductible donations through sponsor 501(c)(3)s, tax-exempt requests from groups like Smart Girl Politics languished.

The very people who called the requirement for photo identification are defending this. The people who defended the DOJ when it targeted states like Arizona for immigration reform and said such laws were “profiling” are silent about actual profiling of these groups.

So far, the Big Lady Champions™ like NOW and Sack-n-Save parking lot packer Sandra Fluke are silent.

Yeah. Here’s your war on women.

IRS Persecution Is A War On Women | RedState
 
I was defending the tea party types by claiming that they're not the kind of folks who would scam the IRS, citing the fact that they're poor and naive (i. e. too honest), and I'm being called "racist" for that :rolleyes: ?

Well count me as valuing your twisted noblesse oblige, LOL. Because, most certainly, those who are "poor" or "naive" or "too honest" or just plain stupid would not be among those rabble-rousers who are eager to see tax reform and to reduce the bloated federal government.

Except that, as little as I know about various "Tea Party" groups, what I do know is that these loosely affiliated individuals--including me, depending--actually are those who are eager to see reform in the government and also accountability.

Which makes them definitely not poor or naive or uneducated or clueless. They aren't "low-information" voters. :lol:

Which gives the lie to your narrative and also to your bid for martyrdom here.
 
This may all be exactly what the people who don't like Democrats want it to be, so I am not defending them, but I am pondering some alternative motivation.

Here's a couple ideas, and again, just ideas, not arguing that this is what happened...

1. IRS employees were targeting organizations for political reasons, but not the obvious reasons, but very direct reasons - Groups that explicitly despise the IRS.

2. It may have been a keyword filter based on experience of groups that were political in nature and not eligible to be 501(c)4 social welfare organizations. It is possible that other political sounding name filters had long been exhausted, but Tea Party Patriot was a fairly new thing. Just a thought, but are any of us familiar with any social welfare organizations with Tea Party in the name?

3. Interestingly, 15 years ago and 23 years ago, the IRS was involved in the exact same kind of scandal, first again women's issue groups, later against gay rights groups, and now right wing groups. The said reality is that Congress had the power to stop this at any time but has refused to provide explicit direction, even after multiple scandals, leaving IRS agents to their own devices as they try to filter political groups from actual welfare groups. From Jeffrey Yablon, who wrote an article about this very issue 15 years ago called “Journal of Taxation of Exempt Organizations” - “Not surprisingly, some of the combatants believe strongly and complain bitterly that the IRS has become a partisan for the other side. The only solution is to remove the IRS from the battlefield. The current vague and subjective rules must be replaced with a set of bright line’ tests that require little factual analysis and legal interpretation. The war will go on, of course, but there will be less chance of respect for tax laws becoming a casualty.”

I know this doesn't push the partisan battle forward, so I expect this to be ignored by some, but I think it is something to think about.
 
Would appreciate links. Not a whit interested in any partisan agenda, just facts.
 
Smoke and mirrors

Steve Miller was leaving in June anyways
 
The facts of life is not bait--ignorant individuals don't know how to beat the system, and are therefore not worth targeting, period..

Anyone with an ounce of noodle who truly wanted to avoid the IRS would never raise suspicion by applying for tax-exempt status, which is certainly difficult to get legally.

It's common knowledge that tea party groups harbor mostly poor, uneducated folks, i. e. not the kind of individuals that could or would scam the IRS out of millions; since they applied for tax-exempt status, it tells you they're honest/innocent.

So I'm not criticizing them; I'm defending them by stating that they're simply too naive to be a credible threat to the IRS, and therefore should not be targeted.

I suppose its asking way too much for you to prove a stereotyping, psuedo-bigoted statement like that?
 
"ACTING"' head of IRS who by the way was scheduled to leave in June.
 

Yes, I saw that and the figure I referenced included the numbers that substantiate the increase in c4's. But even on the page you indicated in the preceding sentence of the one you references applications of both c3's AND c4's. While I stipulate there WAS a doubling of c4's the '10-'12 increase in c4's (~1,622) pales when compared to the increase in c3's (~7,057) but considering that there were ~63,148 applications in '10 were are talking about a 'mere' ~14% increase and not the 'doubling' that has been advanced. Considering the IG's investigation included c3&4's it seems 'cherrypicking' to pontificate on c3's only.
 
Maybe you guys can now believe us Libertarians. We've been talking about the need to scale back the IRS (if not totally abolishing it) along with abolishing The Federal Reserve.

Sound good now?
 
But I quoted a portion of the IG's report that refutes this. Is you position that CNN reporting is a more legitimate source than the TREASURY DEPARTMENTS INSPECTOR GENERAL?
No, I'm telling you that you didn't read the report closely enough:

In addition, several organizations applying for
I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status made allegations that the IRS 1) targeted specific groups applying for tax-exempt status, 2) delayed the processing of targeted groups’ applications for tax-exempt status, and 3) requested unnecessary information from targeted organizations. Lastly, several members of Congress requested that the IRS investigate whether existing social welfare organizations are improperly engaged in a substantial, or even predominant, amount of campaign activity.
Page 3

While the team of specialists reviewed applications from a variety of organizations, we determined during our reviews of statistical samples of I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) tax-exempt applications that all cases with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were forwarded to the team of specialists.
Page 8


This is about 501(c)4, that's why I did not include the other information.
 
LOL yeah another "real" <ahem> leadership move. Have Jack Lew "ask for and accept" the resignation of a guy who's ALREADY leaving in two weeks!

If this wasn't actually happening......NO one, ok , NO one but low information voters, would BELIEVE it.
 
So...no left leaning organizations can use the word "patriot"? That's the part I've yet to understand.

Sure, they can. Just like a Right leaning group could use the term "Progressive" in their name.

But there's a bit of common sense here, that obviously you're purposefully acting obtuse to ignore. In the past few years, the VAST majority of groups that have gotten any attention what so ever with "Patriot" in their name have been right leaning groups. The "Patroit Movement" which has got significant attention in recent years is a far right leaning movement. Nothing is saying a left leaning organization can't use the word Patriot, but it would be amazingly realistic and rather common sense for someone to make an assumption that groups with "Patriot" in the name in the current climate has an extermely significant chance of being right leaning in it's political views.

But you're smart enough to know that, which is why I'm almost positive you're simply acting obtuse for the sake of trying to do your best Glenn Beck Routine "ASKING QUESTIONS!!!!"
 
No, I'm telling you that you didn't read the report closely enough:
This is about 501(c)4, that's why I did not include the other information.

You are 'cherrypicking' again. Even by the portion you posted 'or 9/12 in their names' refutes your assertion:

The 9/12 Project's "Constitutional Champions" program is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit tax exempt organization.

The 9/12 Project
 
I was defending the tea party types by claiming that they're not the kind of folks who would scam the IRS, citing the fact that they're poor and naive (i. e. too honest), and I'm being called "racist" for that :rolleyes: ?

No you weren't, you were relishing in your unquestionably bigotry and prejudice as you doled out backhanded insults and attack laden "defenses" of them and then turn around like you're doing some good thing sounding like a slave owner convincing himself of what a kind deed he's doing for those black folk.
 
The facts of life is not bait--ignorant individuals don't know how to beat the system, and are therefore not worth targeting, period..

Anyone with an ounce of noodle who truly wanted to avoid the IRS would never raise suspicion by applying for tax-exempt status, which is certainly difficult to get legally.

It's common knowledge that tea party groups harbor mostly poor, uneducated folks, i. e. not the kind of individuals that could or would scam the IRS out of millions; since they applied for tax-exempt status, it tells you they're honest/innocent.

So I'm not criticizing them; I'm defending them by stating that they're simply too naive to be a credible threat to the IRS, and therefore should not be targeted.

It must have taken willful ignorance and mangle logic to get to this response. You haven't provided a single fact, nor do I think you could support it. Please supply credible sources for this nonsense.
 
The real reason why this was odd is that tea party groups are generally too dumb to know how to avoid paying taxes, so targeting them is plain stupid.

After all, the very fact that they tried to apply for tax-exempt status in an attempt to avoid the IRS tells you those organizations are naive.

The best tax avoiders do it illegally.
:ws Really smart people avoid taxes illegally. Anyone who believes otherwise is naive and dumb. :yt
 
But you're smart enough to know that,
What I'm smart enough to know is people keep talking about these keywords, like they are simply attacks on conservationism. The fact is if my pretend organization had been named "The Progressive Patriot", it would have been flagged for review as well.
You are 'cherrypicking' again.
No, I'm not. You are the one who is ignoring the important section of the report. I'll repeat:

In addition, several organizations applying for I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status made allegations that the IRS 1) targeted specific groups applying for tax-exempt status, 2) delayed the processing of targeted groups’ applications for tax-exempt status, and 3) requested unnecessary information from targeted organizations. Lastly, several members of Congress requested that the IRS investigate whether existing social welfare organizations are improperly engaged in a substantial, or even predominant, amount of campaign activity.
This is about 501(c)4. And 501(c)4 claims doubled.

There's no cherry picking, it's right there in the report you cited.
 
...No, I'm not. You are the one who is ignoring the important section of the report. I'll repeat:

But you selectively omitted the previous sentence:

During the 2012 election cycle, some members of Congress raised concerns to the IRS about selective enforcement and the duty to treat similarly situated organizations consistently.


This is about 501(c)4.

Then why did the IG's report state:

In August 2010, the Determinations Unit distributed the first formal BOLO listing. The criteria in the BOLO listing were Tea Party organizations applying for I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) or I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) status.

Further:

As a result, the IRS delayed the issuance of letters to organizations approving their tax-exempt status. For I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) organizations, this means that potential donors and grantors could be reluctant to provide donations or grants

It would appear that the IRS was looking at BOTH c3 AND c4's.

And 501(c)4 claims doubled.

I have previously stipulated this but comparatively it is insignificant...

...While I stipulate there WAS a doubling of c4's the '10-'12 increase in c4's (~1,622) pales when compared to the increase in c3's (~7,057) but considering that there were ~63,148 applications in '10 were are talking about a 'mere' ~14% increase and not the 'doubling' that has been advanced. Considering the IG's investigation included c3&4's it seems 'cherrypicking' to pontificate on c3's only.
 
Last edited:
It is not. Given the time frame of the investigation, the influx of new applications we both know who overwhelmingly used this name. Perhaps you can provide examples of progressive/liberal organizations that have "patriot' in their names. This would certainly solidify your supposition.
But his assertion is incorrect. Note that the table on page 2 indicates that 501c4's do not have to 'apply to the IRS'.
I'm not telling you that you're wrong, but I do not see what you are talking about. Could you quote the section you're referring to?
Is he any relation to Bruce Lee?
I'm wrong about needing to apply for 501(c)(4) status. Groups appear to be able to self declare. So this begs the question, why would anyone bother applying?

Here's a few sources that describe some of the intricacies of 501(c)(4) legislation.
http://afjactioncampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Starting-a-501c4-Organization.pdf
http://www.texascbar.org/content/legal_library/corp_structure/downloads/Differences501cOrgs.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicm95.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopici03.pdf

501(c)(4) status originated in 1913 upon request from the Chamber of Commerce. It's a catchall for groups which aren't taxable entities, but don't merit tax deductible donations. Furthermore, the law allows these groups to engage in political activity by either an attached PAC or by using donations specifically earmarked for independent expenditures (campaign adds). In both of these cases, the law mandates that donors for these funds be made public.

Prior to Citizens United, it made perfect sense for a 501(c)(4) to be able to self declare. Donations to 501(c)(4)'s are not permitted as charitable deductions meaning you can't use them as a tax shelter and funds raised are not permitted to benefit any of the leadership. Furthermore, the “not primarily political” distinction was fine because all political activity was subject to the same laws as it was for any other organization.

Citizen's United broke 501(c)(4)'s because it allowed them to use general treasury funds (with anonymous donors) instead of specially earmarked funds which require donors to be publicly disclosed. Now there was a huge benefit for a political organization to declare as a 501(c)(4) because it allowed donors to influence politics autonomously; something that had been illegal for the last hundred years.

Self Declaring allows organizations to begin acting like 501(c)(4)'s without waiting for approval, but does not free them from the approval process. When processing their taxes, IRS will then review the organizations to insure that they filed correctly. They still go through the application process, it's just after the fact and it was expected that the IRS would give greater scrutiny to groups that self declare. But the real reason to get approval first, particularly if your goal is to allow donors to autonomously influence elections, is that if your status is revoked your group will have to disclose all of it's donors and pay appropriate penalties.

This means that if you're a 501(c)(4) group that has not been pre-approved, your donors risk being exposed if you engage in political activity. Therefore you'd want to obtain approval first, so that your donors are not exposed.
 
As Fox News points out, the IRS Commissioner fell on a sword that wasn't even there. He was due to retire in a couple of weeks. :rofl

And as Fox news ignored, the IRS Commissioner from Mar 24, 2008 - Nov 9, 2012 was Douglas H. Shulman, a Republican appointed by Bush.
 
Back
Top Bottom