• 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!

Republicans Expand I.R.S. Inquiry, With Eye on White House

I still don't see the problem with anything the IRS did.
They were suspicious of and investigated political groups whose main platform is to stop all taxes.
If anyone is going to defraud the government on their tax activities it would be the TEA Party.
I believe that anyone belonging to any TEA Party organization should automatically be audited.

Would you be OK if you applied for a local business license and because the governemnt employee didn't like something about you or your propossed business shelves your application?

You never receive an answer even though you have spent thousands and thousands of dollars setting up the business and renting a location.

Would that be OK With you?
 
There is no evidence to support this assertion. It may be true, but the OIG report went out of its way to indicate that there doesn't appear to be an indication of political bias.

What we know is that the there were 298 groups targeted for political scrutiny. 201 were correctly targeted, 91 were targeted but should not have been and 144 weren't targeted but should have been.

Also, we know that 1/3 of the 298 groups were conservative groups. You can't say there was bias until you know the number of conservative groups which should have been targeted and the number of conservative groups which were incorrectly targeted..

When one side is heavily scrutinized and the other side is not, that's political bias regardless of what the OIG may have said. If all the white applicants to a country club were accepted for membership and all the black applicants were rejected, that would be taken as discrimination regardless of whether the local county judge deemed it so.:roll:

ComPost - Washington Post
ComPost
Next to normal — daily madness and the DSM-5. What's in a name? By Alexandra Petri May 17, 2013. Comments. Share: More ». Facebook · Twitter · Reddit ...
 
I am not attempting to exonerate the IRS, I am simply saying the Democrats got letters as well. As for the numbers, maybe the Right abused the 501 c(4) tax code the most. Somebody either Congress or the IRS needs to take the ambiguity out of the code so it's fair for everyone.

How could the right abuse the code if the applications were never approved?
 
How could the right abuse the code if the applications were never approved?
Huh? By requesting the 501 c(4) tax code and information on the application.
 
Huh? By requesting the 501 c(4) tax code and information on the application.

How is that abusing the code.

If there was something wrong with application the IRS has the right to deny it, but that wasn't done.
 
How could the right abuse the code if the applications were never approved?

Huh? By requesting the 501 c(4) tax code and information on the application.

How is that abusing the code.

If there was something wrong with application the IRS has the right to deny it, but that wasn't done.
I don't have an answer for you, the word 'abuse' was a poor choice. What I meant was they they probably tried to use the tax when it wasn't justified under the law.
 
I don't have an answer for you, the word 'abuse' was a poor choice. What I meant was they they probably tried to use the tax when it wasn't justified under the law.

While that may be true that is what the application process is for. Anybody can try anything but it is up to the IRS to approve or deny the application in a timely manner so the organization can move on to what they need to do next.

Holding the application with no answer for years is the problem here.
 
While that may be true that is what the application process is for. Anybody can try anything but it is up to the IRS to approve or deny the application in a timely manner so the organization can move on to what they need to do next.

Holding the application with no answer for years is the problem here.
I have no interest in protecting or answering for the IRS, if anyone targeted an organization because of their political views they should be punished.:2wave:
 
I have no interest in protecting or answering for the IRS, if anyone targeted an organization because of their political views they should be punished.:2wave:

I think they call that an abuse of power, bigger government is not better, the bigger it is the more abuse comes from it. Abuse is nurtured and infesting into a culture of power.
 
And you've "always said" this based on what evidence?:waiting:
Tea Party members and supporters are by definition actual or at least wishful tax evaders. What better place to look for those trying to evade taxes than an organization called "Taxed Enough Already"?
 
Tea Party members and supporters are by definition actual or at least wishful tax evaders. What better place to look for those trying to evade taxes than an organization called "Taxed Enough Already"?

Bias speaks.:shock:
 
Tea Party members and supporters are by definition actual or at least wishful tax evaders. What better place to look for those trying to evade taxes than an organization called "Taxed Enough Already"?

If taxes are lowered you aren't evading taxes. I think you were thinking of John Kerry.
 
Tea Party members and supporters are by definition actual or at least wishful tax evaders. What better place to look for those trying to evade taxes than an organization called "Taxed Enough Already"?

So you're cool with profiling? How progressive of you...;)
 
When one side is heavily scrutinized and the other side is not, that's political bias regardless of what the OIG may have said. If all the white applicants to a country club were accepted for membership and all the black applicants were rejected, that would be taken as discrimination regardless of whether the local county judge deemed it so.:roll:

ComPost - Washington Post
ComPost
Next to normal — daily madness and the DSM-5. What's in a name? By Alexandra Petri May 17, 2013. Comments. Share: More ». Facebook · Twitter · Reddit ...

But thats just it, we don't know that, at least yet. I know how ridiculously unfair it sounds when the criteria for the BOLO is so obviously biased. That's unacceptable. But as far as we know, it was just optics. What counts are results. Were conservative groups actually targeted at a higher rate? And if they were, why?

So far, the only group that we know was that denied 501(c)(4) status was a progressive group who didn't campaign or engage in the political process. Instead their mission was to educate women so that they could run for office.

The IRS rightly rejected them. Thats not a predominantly social welfare mission.
 
No, as stated mere presumption. But IF there was a comparative number of 'progressive/liberal' biased organizations where scrutiny was asserted wouldn't the IG have logically reported that there was no 'lean' to the scrutiny?
There was certainly bias in that particular criteria. And conservatives have a right to be upset by it.

But having one biased criteria does not mean that conservatives were subjected to a biased amount of investigation. It raises flags that it might be the case, but it's not actually proof. It's the smoke, not the fire.

We know that at least one liberal group was denied, but no conservative groups... at least not yet. But even this is proof of nothing.
 
I've seen that also (IG report I think) but who/what are the other two-thirds? Isn't their 'description' relatedly important to the discussion? I can only presume that there are no progressive/liberal organizations due to it not being used as a defense of the IRS activities which if it were the case would be quite legitimate.

Correct. The point is not that conservatives were exclusively targeted, but that they were disproportionately targeted. Liberals, meanwhile, got an almost universal free pass. Alexandra Petri of the Washington Post published a hilarious send-up of this on 17 May.:mrgreen:

ComPost - Washington Post
ComPost
Next to normal — daily madness and the DSM-5. What's in a name? By Alexandra Petri May 17, 2013. Comments. Share: More ». Facebook · Twitter · Reddit ...

That's BS, if the Republicans think they're being targeted, its only because they what the identity of their political donors to be unknown to the public. Corporation X doesn't the public to know they are contributing for or against candidate Y. Also today it is very possible these so-called super PAC are accepting donations from off shore entities.

Scrutiny of Political Nonprofits Sets Off Claim of Harassment

Washington Post said:
Senate Democrats are readying a fresh legislative push to demand that such groups disclose their donors and attach disclaimers to their political advertising identifying the advertisement’s primary funders. Tax experts are also raising concerns that corporate donors to “super PACs” may be deducting their contributions as business expenses.

“The shadowy attack ads we see every day should be brought into the light,” said Senator Michael Bennet, Democrat of Colorado. “The largest contributors should stand by the ads they’ve paid for, the voters should know who’s behind these ads, and these super PACs should not be allowed to abuse our tax code by masquerading as nonprofit charities.”
 
So you're cool with profiling? How progressive of you...;)
I'm "cool" with looking for tax evaders and cheats in the likely places that they will be found.
The Department of Homeland Security should look for terrorists among groups that denounce America.
The IRS should look for tax cheats among groups that denounce the need to pay any taxes.
If that is profiling then so be it. Law enforcement would call it effective investigation. It is not inconsistent with progressive ideology to catch greed driven criminals, regardless of their politics.
If you want to catch tax cheats it makes sense to look at the organizations that give them the impedance to cheat.
 
Last edited:
...We know that at least one liberal group was denied, but no conservative groups... at least not yet. But even this is proof of nothing.

We do? Who was it? Link please.
 
That's BS, if the Republicans think they're being targeted, its only because they what the identity of their political donors to be unknown to the public. Corporation X doesn't the public to know they are contributing for or against candidate Y. Also today it is very possible these so-called super PAC are accepting donations from off shore entities.

Scrutiny of Political Nonprofits Sets Off Claim of Harassment

Ok, are left leaning organizations wanting to keep their donors unknown similarly? If yes then why the scrutiny of apparently just right wing c4's? If no then why didn't the Democrats, who maintained the majority in Congress and WH, change the 'rules' legislatively after Citizens united? And before you walk out the filibuster argument there has been enough talk of campaign finance reform by BOTH side it is a weak return.
 
Except by their own admission, the spike didn't occur until 2012, which was 18 months after they started their "special" process. In 2009 and 2010, there were 1700 applications. In 2012, it was 3600.

I take "these kind of applications" as political groups claiming to be social welfare groups. 1700 is total applications. How many of those constituted groups that are claiming this special non-profit status but are really just politcal action comittees?
 
I take "these kind of applications" as political groups claiming to be social welfare groups. 1700 is total applications. How many of those constituted groups that are claiming this special non-profit status but are really just politcal action comittees?

This would be good to know. Further the breakdown of left/right leaning groups would be even more revealing. One of the impetuses of this audit was a letter from Schumer that referenced a NYT article that questioned the legitimacy of both leans...
 
Back
Top Bottom