IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

[lawgator1]

Exemption or not, the irs could still harass a political party organization.

Do you favor keeping the exemption or getting rid of it. It's a simple question.

 

[YorkVol]

I maintain the best solution to this problem is to eliminate the exemption, in its entirety. An organization, be it political or social, left or right, east or west, up or down, should pay taxes and report donations just like every other organization or institution.

Why do private organizations, not money making enterprises mind you, but groups who gather for some cause, hobby etc, pay taxes?

 

[Grand Vol]

It would end abuse of this exemption, both by the political organizations that try to escape scrutiny by abusing it, and by the IRS. I cannot understand why anyone would be opposed to getting rid of the exemption.

Do you oppose getting rid of the exemption? If so, why.

I'm not opposed to getting rid of it, but it won't solve the underlying problem that the IRS can be used as a political weapon. So hypothetically the exemptions do go away. What's to stop the IRS from doing any number of items that would hamper efforts of political groups? How long does an IRS audit take? And what reasoning does the IRS use for said audit? And last but not least, do people subject to an audit ever escape without paying a dime?

So until significant reform can be made to eliminate the potential for the IRS to be used in this manner, there is little that would help by eliminating exemptions.

 

[utvolpj]

if you take in money you should be taxed. Simplify the code and eliminate all deductions

 

[volinbham]

I maintain the best solution to this problem is to eliminate the exemption, in its entirety. An organization, be it political or social, left or right, east or west, up or down, should pay taxes and report donations just like every other organization or institution.

Fine but that doesn't help us learn what happened here. I repeat, it is in everyone's interest to get the full truth on this matter.

 

[Obsessed]

Do you favor keeping the exemption or getting rid of it. It's a simple question.

Exemption is irrelevant.

But to answer your question , keep it.

 

[YorkVol]

if you take in money you should be taxed. Simplify the code and eliminate all deductions

Why? If you are simply covering your expenses and not profiting, why should you pay taxes?

 

[BeecherVol]

Fine but that doesn't help us learn what happened here. I repeat, it is in everyone's interest to get the full truth on this matter.

Aint that the point?

 

[utvolpj]

Why? If you are simply covering your expenses and not profiting, why should you pay taxes?

that can be manipulated. Lower the rate, eliminate exceptions/loopholes/deductions and make it easier and more transparent for everyone

(it was more of a joke on my part. Corp rate shouldn't exist)

 

[Vols520]

Do you favor keeping the exemption or getting rid of it. It's a simple question.

That question has no bearing on this thread. Stop hating your country and trying to change the subject.

 

[YorkVol]

that can be manipulated. Lower the rate, eliminate exceptions/loopholes/deductions and make it easier and more transparent for everyone

Are specifically talking about political groups? If so, OK, I guess. But I can't see Aunt Bee's quilting club registering with the IRS.

just saw your editnever mind

 

[utvolpj]

Fine but that doesn't help us learn what happened here. I repeat, it is in everyone's interest to get the full truth on this matter.

I am in full agreement to give LL amnesty in exchange for finding out the details. However I doubt she takes it because she has nothing to gain and there are some shady people who wish to keep her quiet

 

[YorkVol]

I am in full agreement to give LL amnesty in exchange for finding out the details. However I doubt she takes it because she has nothing to gain and there are some shady people who wish to keep her quiet

Yep

 

[DC_Vol]

I am in full agreement to give LL amnesty in exchange for finding out the details. However I doubt she takes it because she has nothing to gain and there are some shady people who wish to keep her quiet

Take her to a black site and have her water boarded.

 

[lawgator1]

I'm not opposed to getting rid of it, but it won't solve the underlying problem that the IRS can be used as a political weapon. So hypothetically the exemptions do go away. What's to stop the IRS from doing any number of items that would hamper efforts of political groups? How long does an IRS audit take? And what reasoning does the IRS use for said audit? And last but not least, do people subject to an audit ever escape without paying a dime?

So until significant reform can be made to eliminate the potential for the IRS to be used in this manner, there is little that would help by eliminating exemptions.

Eliminating the exemption stops two things:

1) It prevents anyone from using the application review process to slow down or otherwise unfairly scrutinize applicants.

2) It prevents political groups, right or left, from disguising their political operation as a "social program" in order to funnel anonymous political contributions to campaigns and doing so in tax exempt fashion.

The fact is that the purpose of the original exemption has long been rendered obsolete and it is used now as a ploy to hide campaign money.

I cannot see how anyone would think it should be maintained at this point.

 

[utvolpj]

Are specifically talking about political groups? If so, OK, I guess. But I can't see Aunt Bee's quilting club registering with the IRS.

how is Aunt Bee operating now? What is the purpose of the circle? If it's to produce and sell then why exempt them?

 

[lawgator1]

I am in full agreement to give LL amnesty in exchange for finding out the details. However I doubt she takes it because she has nothing to gain and there are some shady people who wish to keep her quiet

Once again, the gist of the conspiracy. The reason there is no evidence of the conspiracy is because of the conspiracy.

 

[bamawriter]

I maintain the best solution to this problem is to eliminate the exemption, in its entirety. An organization, be it political or social, left or right, east or west, up or down, should pay taxes and report donations just like every other organization or institution.

I actually agree in principle.

But that isn't really the issue. That's like saying "If you hadn't put up that ugly lawn jockey, I wouldn't have set fire to your house."

 

[McDad]

Do you favor keeping the exemption or getting rid of it. It's a simple question.

Hysterical.

Abuse of power under a Democrat administration occurred and you're convinced nothing happened above the level of grunt.

Then why change the rules? Nothing happened, remember?

Furthermore, if you had a shred of credibility, you would want to discover what happened and see all involved prosecuted first. Then, discuss how to prevent future abuse.

Lastly, it's a pitiful attempt to alter the conversation away from the current events.

 

[govols/cc]

Do you favor keeping the exemption or getting rid of it. It's a simple question.

I vote do away with irs. Everybody pays. No refunds, no tax credits, no exemptions etc

 

[utvolpj]

Once again, the gist of the conspiracy. The reason there is no evidence of the conspiracy is because of the conspiracy.

that's not the case here at all. She has nothing to gain and a lot to lose

the fact is she could not take the fif if this was as simple as you made it out to be in the beginning. She should have no knowledge of the situation if this was simply a couple of agents in Cincy playing games. What level did it need to rise to for LL to become involved?

 

[Grand Vol]

Once again, the gist of the conspiracy. The reason there is no evidence of the conspiracy is because of the conspiracy.

So if there is no evidence of a conspiracy, shouldn't Lerner be on record as to answering questions?

She's got nothing to hide, right?

 

[Grand Vol]

Eliminating the exemption stops two things:

1) It prevents anyone from using the application review process to slow down or otherwise unfairly scrutinize applicants.

2) It prevents political groups, right or left, from disguising their political operation as a "social program" in order to funnel anonymous political contributions to campaigns and doing so in tax exempt fashion.

The fact is that the purpose of the original exemption has long been rendered obsolete and it is used now as a ploy to hide campaign money.

I cannot see how anyone would think it should be maintained at this point.

You are looking at this from the end result. I'm looking for the top down.

Let's just say I'm a screaming liberal in charge of a branch of the IRS and there are no exemptions. I find the yearly returns from XYZ Patriot and Tea Party Movement sitting on my desk. I believe there are discrepancies in their filing so I sic my agents on them to make sure everything was accounted for. But in reality, I just want to tie them up in a long protracted IRS audit because of their silly right wing political philosophy and maybe hope to find some form of impropriety.

So what stops this scenario right now? Ethics rules? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

HA!

So again, until the IRS cannot be utilized as a political weapon (by either party mind you) the exemptions are a moot point.

 

[lawgator1]

So if there is no evidence of a conspiracy, shouldn't Lerner be on record as to answering questions?

She's got nothing to hide, right?

She is being threatened with criminal charges by Issa. He knows that doing so will cause her to take the Fifth. He calls her anyway.

And when she shows up and takes the Fifth, he gets to go: "A Ha! What are you hiding!"

When in reality all she is doing is protecting herself from Issa. If you were in her shoes you'd do the exact same thing.

Its a 21st century witch hunt. She's a witch because she cannot prove she isn't. And any proof she offers that she is not a witch Issa just says is proof she is a witch.

 

[bamawriter]

She is being threatened with criminal charges by Issa. He knows that doing so will cause her to take the Fifth. He calls her anyway.

And when she shows up and takes the Fifth, he gets to go: "A Ha! What are you hiding!"

When in reality all she is doing is protecting herself from Issa. If you were in her shoes you'd do the exact same thing.

Its a 21st century witch hunt. She's a witch because she cannot prove she isn't. And any proof she offers that she is not a witch Issa just says is proof she is a witch.

What could Issa possibly threaten her with if she hasn't done anything wrong? Either she is innocent or she isn't. It's a fairly simple concept. By pleading the Fifth, she is lending legitimacy to the assumption that something illegal happened.