IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

#301
#301
#302
#302
When the IRS targeted an Ohio woman’s Tea Party organization and asked her to send the agency the books the group read in 2010, she sent the IRS a copy of the Constitution.

Marion Bower said that the IRS targeted her organization in 2010, and it took “nearly two years for the Internal Revenue Service to approve her request for tax-exempt status.”

“I was trying to be very cordial, but they wanted copies of unbelievable things,” she told ABC News. “They wanted to know what materials we had discussed at any of our book studies.”

She said she sent the IRS a paperback copy of the Constitution when asked the agency asked for books and other reading materials.

Tea Party Group Sent IRS Copy of Constitution When Asked for Reading Materials | Spread Liberty News

LOL..Can we just abolish these thieves?
 
#303
#303
The root of the problem is that the law creating 501(c)(4) exemption has over time been misread and misapplied.

The actual statute states that the exemption applies to not for profit organizations that "operate exclusively for the promotion of social welfare..."

Over time, it has been read to mean "primarily" for social welfare, whereas it is supposed to be exclusively so. Both left wing and right wing organizations have taken advantage of that mutation of the statute and it should end. Otherwise, you have what you have here, which is a bunch of people in different offices deciding what the "primary" purpose of these organizations was, thereby insinuating themselves into trying to divine how much of what they did was political, and how much social.

So, in reality, none of the Tea Party groups should have received the status. It should have taken 3 seconds to deny their applications. Same with more left-leaning groups. This entire problem could easily have been avoided.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#304
#304
lawgator1 said:
The root of the problem is that the law creating 501(c)(4) exemption has over time been misread and misapplied.

The actual statute states that the exemption applies to not for profit organizations that "operate exclusively for the promotion of social welfare..."

Over time, it has been read to mean "primarily" for social welfare, whereas it is supposed to be exclusively so. Both left wing and right wing organizations have taken advantage of that mutation of the statute and it should end. Otherwise, you have what you have here, which is a bunch of people in different offices deciding what the "primary" purpose of these organizations was, thereby insinuating themselves into trying to divine how much of what they did was political, and how much social.

So, in reality, none of the Tea Party groups should have received the status. It should have taken 3 seconds to deny their applications. Same with more left-leaning groups. This entire problem could easily have been avoided.
Click to expand...

All of the above is true, no political organization should be afforded "non-profit" tax status. However the IRS has been misinterpreting the statute since the late 50's, early 60's so they cannot use that as a defense. I believe they will try but it will only make them look worse.

They also cannot rightfully justify the difference in application of the misinterpretation between political leanings. Face it the IRS is screwed and it won't be long before someone feels the ax on their neck and squeals.
 
#305
#305
lawgator1 said:
The root of the problem is that the law creating 501(c)(4) exemption has over time been misread and misapplied.

The actual statute states that the exemption applies to not for profit organizations that "operate exclusively for the promotion of social welfare..."

Over time, it has been read to mean "primarily" for liberal social welfare, whereas it is supposed to be exclusively so. Both left wing and right wing organizations have taken advantage of that mutation of the statute and it should end. Otherwise, you have what you have here, which is a bunch of people in different offices deciding what the "primary" purpose of these organizations was, thereby insinuating themselves into trying to divine how much of what they did was political, and how much social.

So, in reality, none of the Tea Party groups should have received the status. It should have taken 3 seconds to deny their applications. Same with more left-leaning groups. This entire problem could easily have been avoided.
Click to expand...

You left out a key word, but I fify.

Your point is meaningless to the issue at hand, unless you'd like to provide some links where the "left wing" organizations had to wait two years for approval.
 
#306
#306
I have not read the entire thread. If already posted I apologize.

Another problem I see with this issue is Obama asked the acting director to step down who was to step down in June. At the same time the person who was in charge of this targeting has actually been promoted to head the IRS division overseeing Obamacare.

Yep Obama is taking this real serious and will not tolerate this type action. What a joke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#307
#307
Just wait until the campaigning starts for the midterms. There were something like 6 Democratic senators and some D house members who wrote the IRS asking for them to basically do what they did.

I don't know how many of the Senators will be up next year but it should be fun to watch them get hammered.
 
#308
#308
Gramps said:
I have not read the entire thread. If already posted I apologize.

Another problem I see with this issue is Obama asked the acting director to step down who was to step down in June. At the same time the person who was in charge of this targeting has actually been promoted to head the IRS division overseeing Obamacare.

Yep Obama is taking this real serious and will not tolerate this type action. What a joke.
Click to expand...

Yep. Problem is, the stern statements by O mixed with the "firing" (even if superfluous to the man's planned resignation) are going to be enough to please the people that aren't really paying any attention.
 
#309
#309
IBlvNTmWrk said:
You left out a key word, but I fify.

Your point is meaningless to the issue at hand, unless you'd like to provide some links where the "left wing" organizations had to wait two years for approval.
Click to expand...


Actually, no TP groups were denied the exemption. Several left wing groups were, however.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#311
#311
utvolpj said:
not even close to the point
Click to expand...


Sure it is.

Rather than the IRS workers being able to pretty immediately reject an application for a transparently political group, right or left, they are left to interpret the extent to which the group is political.

It should be easy. If not 100 % social welfare, then deny the application.
 
#312
#312
lawgator1 said:
Sure it is.

Rather than the IRS workers being able to pretty immediately reject an application for a transparently political group, right or left, they are left to interpret the extent to which the group is political.

It should be easy. If not 100 % social welfare, then deny the application.
Click to expand...

no you were trying to justify the targeting of TP groups with an example of a lib group getting denied. Completely worthless anecdote
 
#313
#313
lawgator1 said:
Actually, no TP groups were denied the exemption. Several left wing groups were, however.
Click to expand...

You keep grasping for straws. You just need to admit that all this happened on YOUR guy's watch, and that YOUR party is in the wrong. Not doing so, makes you look like an idiot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#315
#315
Ya know when you do your taxes and you can select to submit an amount to a political party? Now I've never done that but I wonder if people who have ended getting on "a list"..
 
#316
#316
VOLinthaNATI said:
You keep spouting this but refuse to provide any source. Seriously, where is your information coming from?
Click to expand...

Ace+Ventura+assholo+mio.gif
 
#318
#318
utvolpj said:
no you were trying to justify the targeting of TP groups with an example of a lib group getting denied. Completely worthless anecdote
Click to expand...

VOLinthaNATI said:
You keep spouting this but refuse to provide any source. Seriously, where is your information coming from?
Click to expand...


Huh?

The main criticism from the GOP has been that right wing groups were "targeted." I mean, look at the title of this thread.

The primary bone of contention on that is whether the IRS employees who paid more attention to groups with the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their names has been the suspicion that this was done either as retaliation for their criticism of Obama, or as an intimidation tactic.

No Tea Party or right wing group ultimately had their application denied. The ONLY group who had its application denied was "Emerge America," a progressive group from Maine whose mission is to train Democratic women to run for office.

The ironies are rich. First, the original group got 501(c)4) status from the IRS under the Bush administration. But when the Maine-based chapter had its application denied under the Obama administration, it actually led to revocation of the status for the entire entity. And, their new statutory organization actually requires that they list their donors.

Meet the group the IRS actually denied: Democrats! - Salon.com

So let's include that fact in our estimation of what is really going wrong here. IF the purpose of these reviews was to screen out Tea Party groups, then why did they all get approved, and the only one denied is a group devoted to getting women members of the Democratic party to run for office? Does that sound like there is some conspiracy between Democrats in the WH and the IRS to run off TP applicants?

Or, is it more likely that what you have here is a problem of employees not being given direction and a "looseness" in interpretation of what is mean by the phrase "social welfare"?

I am all for finding out whether someone within the government organized this for a political reason and, if so, dealing with them accordingly. But I am also for basing such accusations on fact. And right now, there are facts, such as I post above, which are not at all consistent with the theory being espoused by those of you insisting this was an organized scheme to go after the TP.

It just doesn't make sense that, if that were true, they'd all get approved, and an organization that promotes Democractic women running for office would be the only one turned down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#319
#319
The problem with this "no group ultimately had their application denied" crap is that they were not approved either and were asked to do ridiculous and sometimes illegal things so their applications could be processed. They were jacked around and intimidated.

The IRS has directly admitted that they used specific key words to subject groups to additional scrutiny (e.g. delays). That is a fact.
 
#320
#320
volinbham said:
The problem with this "no group ultimately had their application denied" crap is that they were not approved either and were asked to do ridiculous and sometimes illegal things so their applications could be processed. They were jacked around and intimidated.

The IRS has directly admitted that they used specific key words to subject groups to additional scrutiny (e.g. delays). That is a fact.
Click to expand...


That IS a fact, and that was wrong.

But was it because of bias against conservatives? Or buffoonery in interpreting the process to be used to screen applications?

While using the keywords IS fact, it does not mean that political bias against them was what caused it. And, we have the fact that a group promoting Democrats to run WAS denied.

There are conflicting facts. So let's see what all the facts are before jumping to conclusions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#321
#321
if it was not solely against conservatives then please point out the other key words flagged that relate to libs? For example, was the word "progressive" ever flagged?

the fact that conservative words were the only ones listed as flagged makes your argument worthless. If this was applied evenly it would be released by now. The only facts conflicting are the ones you've made up and the ones that have actually been given out
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#322
#322
lawgator1 said:
Huh?

The main criticism from the GOP has been that right wing groups were "targeted." I mean, look at the title of this thread.

The primary bone of contention on that is whether the IRS employees who paid more attention to groups with the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their names has been the suspicion that this was done either as retaliation for their criticism of Obama, or as an intimidation tactic.

No Tea Party or right wing group ultimately had their application denied. The ONLY group who had its application denied was "Emerge America," a progressive group from Maine whose mission is to train Democratic women to run for office.

The ironies are rich. First, the original group got 501(c)4) status from the IRS under the Bush administration. But when the Maine-based chapter had its application denied under the Obama administration, it actually led to revocation of the status for the entire entity. And, their new statutory organization actually requires that they list their donors.

Meet the group the IRS actually denied: Democrats! - Salon.com

So let's include that fact in our estimation of what is really going wrong here. IF the purpose of these reviews was to screen out Tea Party groups, then why did they all get approved, and the only one denied is a group devoted to getting women members of the Democratic party to run for office? Does that sound like there is some conspiracy between Democrats in the WH and the IRS to run off TP applicants?

Or, is it more likely that what you have here is a problem of employees not being given direction and a "looseness" in interpretation of what is mean by the phrase "social welfare"?

I am all for finding out whether someone within the government organized this for a political reason and, if so, dealing with them accordingly. But I am also for basing such accusations on fact. And right now, there are facts, such as I post above, which are not at all consistent with the theory being espoused by those of you insisting this was an organized scheme to go after the TP.

It just doesn't make sense that, if that were true, they'd all get approved, and an organization that promotes Democractic women running for office would be the only one turned down.
Click to expand...

LOL. Is this real life?
 
#323
#323
lawgator1 said:
That IS a fact, and that was wrong.

But was it because of bias against conservatives? Or buffoonery in interpreting the process to be used to screen applications?

While using the keywords IS fact, it does not mean that political bias against them was what caused it. And, we have the fact that a group promoting Democrats to run WAS denied.

There are conflicting facts. So let's see what all the facts are before jumping to conclusions.
Click to expand...

You found exactly 1 liberal group that was chastised? 1.

1.

Seriously.

1.

Out of 500+ now that's being reported.

Again.

1.

That's your proof that it wasn't political?

1 group?

:eek:lol:
 
#324
#324
lawgator1 said:
That IS a fact, and that was wrong.

But was it because of bias against conservatives? Or buffoonery in interpreting the process to be used to screen applications?

While using the keywords IS fact, it does not mean that political bias against them was what caused it. And, we have the fact that a group promoting Democrats to run WAS denied.

There are conflicting facts. So let's see what all the facts are before jumping to conclusions.
Click to expand...

You have one example of a D group and many from Rs. Until you show that the key words were D-related too then we have a case (admitted to already) of targeting a group based on it's proclaimed political persuasion.

The key words themselves are political as they all come from one side of the political spectrum.

We'll see how it plays out. One possible motivation is that all the groups focused on were anti-taxation, anti-government expansion and grew out of Obama-care; an IRS related program. Perhaps these groups were seen as a threat to the IRS.
 
#325
#325
utvolpj said:
if it was not solely against conservatives then please point out the other key words flagged that relate to libs? For example, was the word "progressive" ever flagged?

the fact that conservative words were the only ones listed as flagged makes your argument worthless. If this was applied evenly it would be released by now. The only facts conflicting are the ones you've made up and the ones that have actually been given out
Click to expand...


Conservative groups were just a third of those examined.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top