IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

#480
#480
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHSp50EzJxU&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

It just keeps getting worse.
 
Last edited:
#482
#482
Besides the apparent partisan nature of the key words, there is also the problem of selecting only small, new organizations. The real revenue would come from the larger, established organizations, but IRS seems unwilling to go against them. Looks like it only flags applications, not on going operations.
 
#483
#483
The American Spectator : Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon time of March 31st.
The White House lists the IRS union leader’s visit this way:
Kelley, Colleen Potus 03/31/2010 12:30
​
In White House language, “POTUS” stands for “President of the United States.”
Click to expand...

The IG report wrote it up this way:
April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.
​
In short: the very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-Tea Party labor union — the union for IRS employees — met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS “Determinations Unit Program agreed” to open a “Sensitive Case report on the Tea party cases.” As stated by the IG report.
Click to expand...

now that's one heck of a coincidence
 
#484
#484
utvolpj said:
The American Spectator : Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?





now that's one heck of a coincidence
Click to expand...


conspiracy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#485
#485
telling post. A concerted effort by the admin to use govt agencies to silence their opponents and all you can do is show off a skill you learned 5 years later than anyone else on the internet. Just start posting lulz and wtf and you can make the ignorance circle complete
 
#487
#487
utvolpj said:
telling post. A concerted effort by the admin to use govt agencies to silence their opponents and all you can do is show off a skill you learned 5 years later than anyone else on the internet. Just start posting lulz and wtf and you can make the ignorance circle complete
Click to expand...


lulz
 
#488
#488
utvolpj said:
telling post. A concerted effort by the admin to use govt agencies to silence their opponents and all you can do is show off a skill you learned 5 years later than anyone else on the internet. Just start posting lulz and wtf and you can make the ignorance circle complete
Click to expand...

Hold the phone there pj. The IRS made a concerted effort to collect taxes. That is its job. Except for blinding partisan prejudice, why would anyone leap to the conclusion that properly collecting taxes was an Administration effort to "silence their opponents?" If the Tea Party openly and flagrantly violated the terms of its tax status, which it did, then why should anyone be surprised that it was flagged by the IRS for doing what it was doing? I would be surprised if it wasn't.
 
#489
#489
Vol Main said:
Hold the phone there pj. The IRS made a concerted effort to collect taxes. That is its job. Except for blinding partisan prejudice, why would anyone leap to the conclusion that properly collecting taxes was an Administration effort to "silence their opponents?" If the Tea Party openly and flagrantly violated the terms of its tax status, which it did, then why should anyone be surprised that it was flagged by the IRS for doing what it was doing? I would be surprised if it wasn't.
Click to expand...

this ridiculous line of thought has been beaten down over 10 pages. It's getting pretty old seeing you keep trying to revive it

the IRS was not interested in enforcing tax status unless you were a conservative group or your application was so ridiculous it had no choice. Based on the link above it was either a policy that came from the WH to the union or it was simply a coincidence this all started on April Fools day.
 
#490
#490
Vol Main said:
Hold the phone there pj. The IRS made a concerted effort to collect taxes. That is its job. Except for blinding partisan prejudice, why would anyone leap to the conclusion that properly collecting taxes was an Administration effort to "silence their opponents?" If the Tea Party openly and flagrantly violated the terms of its tax status, which it did, then why should anyone be surprised that it was flagged by the IRS for doing what it was doing? I would be surprised if it wasn't.
Click to expand...

What about all of the other information they requested VM? Lists of donors, what they prayed about and etc.....this wasn't about taxes bro.....
 
#492
#492
Vol Main said:
Hold the phone there pj. The IRS made a concerted effort to collect taxes. That is its job. Except for blinding partisan prejudice, why would anyone leap to the conclusion that properly collecting taxes was an Administration effort to "silence their opponents?" If the Tea Party openly and flagrantly violated the terms of its tax status, which it did, then why should anyone be surprised that it was flagged by the IRS for doing what it was doing? I would be surprised if it wasn't.
Click to expand...

They weren't found by the IRS to have done any such thing. What the IRS did was to single them and other such like minded organizations out and treated them differently than organizations that did the same thing but only on the liberal side.

What the IRS did was delay and request additional information that had no bearing on their investigation or with the application for such organizations. Even after receiving the requested information, the applications were then "shelved" and not processed for as long as over a year later.

"What is the content of your organizations members prayers."

Really?
 
#494
#494
Within 10 days of the campaign publishing that list, Michael Wolf, then a staffer for the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, appeared in Idaho Falls, Idaho, seeking legal records about VanderSloot. Eight weeks after the list was published, VanderSloot and his wife Belinda were told by the IRS their personal finances were being audited. One week after that, President Obama’s Department of Labor commenced an audit on VanderSloot’s company VanderSloot Farms. Then, a couple months later, in September, the IRS commenced an audit on another of VanderSloot’s companies, RBH Idaho.

Overall, the audits cost VanderSloot $80,000 in various accountant fees but the IRS and DOL each found no wrongdoing resulting in no fees, no penalties and no changes in taxes paid.

“I’ve been through one audit, maybe, surely not in the last two decades, I’m thinking thirty years ago,” VanderSloot said in a phone interview with Breitbart News. “Now, to be hit with two IRS audits within a span of two months of each other? And coming right on the heels of the president’s list? Those things just look awful suspicious.”
Click to expand...

Huge coincidence I'm sure.

:popcorn:
 
#495
#495
Carl Pickens said:
What about all of the other information they requested VM? Lists of donors, what they prayed about and etc.....this wasn't about taxes bro.....
Click to expand...

When the donors contributed to the political nonprofit corporations, they did so anonymously, and they deducted their contributions from their tax base. That is the reason political corporations wrongly apply for social welfare organization status. So the contributors owed taxes. How could the IRS collect the taxes which were owed without knowing who owed them? They had to ask for the donors in order to collect. Asking about prayers appears to be an offensive intrusion. However, if those prayers were political statements which violated the terms of nonprofit status, should the IRS ignore them? The organizations were not churches. It is certainly not unheard of for religion to be abused for political propaganda. If they were praying for the victory or defeat of legislation or candidates in elections, then they were not operating as a tax deductible social welfare organization and did not deserve tax exempt status. If the prayers were genuine prayers, then why wouldn't they want everyone to see them?
 
#496
#496
Vol Main said:
When the donors contributed to the political nonprofit corporations, they did so anonymously, and they deducted their contributions from their tax base. That is the reason political corporations wrongly apply for social welfare organization status. So the contributors owed taxes. How could the IRS collect the taxes which were owed without knowing who owed them? They had to ask for the donors in order to collect. Asking about prayers appears to be an offensive intrusion. However, if those prayers were political statements which violated the terms of nonprofit status, should the IRS ignore them? The organizations were not churches. It is certainly not unheard of for religion to be abused for political propaganda. If they were praying for the victory or defeat of legislation or candidates in elections, then they were not operating as a tax deductible social welfare organization and did not deserve tax exempt status. If the prayers were genuine prayers, then why wouldn't they want everyone to see them?
Click to expand...

that is an absolute mess of a post. It's like you have no clue what is actually going on or what happened
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#497
#497
lawgator1 said:
Which is exactly why we ought to get rid of the exemption altogether.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with that....but you have to admit the IRS overstepped their boundaries here. It needs to be investigated by a special investigator......because the public deserves to know where this mandate originated....this shouldn't be a partisan issue
 
#498
#498
Vol Main said:
When the donors contributed to the political nonprofit corporations, they did so anonymously, and they deducted their contributions from their tax base. That is the reason political corporations wrongly apply for social welfare organization status. So the contributors owed taxes. How could the IRS collect the taxes which were owed without knowing who owed them? They had to ask for the donors in order to collect. Asking about prayers appears to be an offensive intrusion. However, if those prayers were political statements which violated the terms of nonprofit status, should the IRS ignore them? The organizations were not churches. It is certainly not unheard of for religion to be abused for political propaganda. If they were praying for the victory or defeat of legislation or candidates in elections, then they were not operating as a tax deductible social welfare organization and did not deserve tax exempt status. If the prayers were genuine prayers, then why wouldn't they want everyone to see them?
Click to expand...

You have officially gone off your rocker! The precedent for these groups and their tax exempt status has been established, rightly or wrongly it doesn't matter at this point. The IRS cannot treat one class differently than they treat another, they have and they have admitted to it. This point is proven and indisputable.

The only question that remains is who gave the instruction?
 
#499
#499
Carl Pickens said:
I have no problem with that....but you have to admit the IRS overstepped their boundaries here. It needs to be investigated by a special investigator......because the public deserves to know where this mandate originated....this shouldn't be a partisan issue
Click to expand...


I agree that the IRS overstepped its bounds, yes. And I think a case can certainly be made for a special prosecutor. But to me that presupposes that the practice was politically motivated as that is what would make it a crime. And so I can see wanting at least some evidence to come forward first that there was a political motivation before going to that rather draconian step.

I think as soon as such evidence comes to light, if it does, then a special prosecutor has to be considered.

Over the weekend Rand Paul was on CNN and at one point claimed there was a memo that had directed this practice for political purposes. It was quite a startling claim. When pressed, he admitted that he was just supposing there might be one. But gosh, the way he originally talked about it, it sure sounded like he had seen it.

That is the part of this that is so disruptive, and I think politically bad judgment by the GOP. Its making claims like that, then having to immediately back off of them, that muddies the water so much.

A mistake, imo, to so recklessly throw around such accusations, with no proof.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#500
#500
utvolpj said:
that is an absolute mess of a post. It's like you have no clue what is actually going on or what happened
Click to expand...

You could post those words in reply to a thousand other posts. It joins no issue, offers no information and no argument. I could say the exact same thing back at you, and it would mean nothing.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top