IRS Targeted Conservative Groups

[blazerboy30]

This is pretty damn bad, and shouldn't be ignored.

The idea that political groups are targeted and put under more scrutiny by the IRS is absolutely atrocious and tyrannical.

Pretty scary how partisan this country is becoming.

The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday for subjecting Tea Party groups to additional scrutiny during the 2012 election, but denied any political motive.

Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS unit that oversees tax-exempt groups, said organizations that included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications for tax-exempt status were singled out for additional review

Link

 

[PapaG]

IRS Admits To Targeting Conservative Groups Over Tax Status Read more: http://swampl

Here come the scandals. Could this be a constitutional crisis? Who directed the IRS to target specific groups based on political affiliation?

The Internal Revenue Service acknowledged Friday that it had inappropriately targeted conservative political groups for additional scrutiny during the 2012 election cycle, an admission that set off a firestorm on Capitol Hill and could damage the Obama Administration.

Lois Lerner, the official in charge of the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups, revealed the move Friday at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association in Washington. Lerner said organizations whose names contained the phrase “tea party” or “patriots” were selected for additional reviews of their 501 (c) (4) tax-exempt status as social welfare groups.

“That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate,” Lerner said, according to the Associated Press. ”That’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review.”

In a conference call with reporters Friday afternoon, the agency said the errors were limited to a group of IRA workers in its Cincinnati office, who singled out 300 applications for tax-exempt status for review. One-quarter of those were conservative groups. None of the groups had their status revoked, but some withdrew their applications in the face of requests to divulge their donors. “Mistakes were made initially, but they were in no way due to any political or partisan rationale,” the IRS said in a statement. “We fixed the situation last year and have made significant progress in moving the centralized cases through our system.”

Workers were looking for signs that the groups were primarily focused on political activity, which would have violated their tax status. Campaign finance groups have long complained that political groups have improperly received tax-exempt designations despite using their money to influence elections.

The admission by the IRS was made ahead of a forthcoming report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. It comes a year after Tea Party groups first complained they had been subjected to undue scrutiny because of their political leanings. An IRS spokesperson would not comment on whether any disciplinary actions were taken against the responsible employees.

The revelations incensed congressional Republicans and appeared to validate Tea Party complaints. “The fact that Americans were targeted by the IRS because of their political beliefs is unconscionable,” Representatives Darrell Issa and Jim Jordan said in a statement. Issa, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, vowed to begin a probe that would “hold responsible officials accountable for this political retaliation.”

“The IRS has demonstrated the most disturbing, illegal and outrageous abuse of government power,” said Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots. “This deliberate targeting and harassment of tea party groups reaches a new low in illegal government activity and overreach.”

The revelation didn’t sit much better with groups on the left. “Even the appearance of playing partisan politics with the tax code is about as constitutionally troubling as it gets,” said Michael Macleod-Ball, chief of staff of the ACLU’s Washington legislative office.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called on the White House to investigate. “Today’s acknowledgement by the Obama administration that the IRS did in fact target conservative groups in the heat of last year’s national election is not enough,” he said in a statement. “I call on the White House to conduct a transparent, government-wide review aimed at assuring the American people that these thuggish practices are not under way at the IRS or elsewhere in the administration against anyone, regardless of their political views.”

White House spokesman Jay Carney conceded Friday afternoon that “there does appear to have been inappropriate action that we would want to see investigated.”



Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/1...rvative-groups-over-tax-status/#ixzz2SvKDywqM

 

[Denny Crane]

It's Hillary's fault!

 

[PapaG]

Apparently Jay Carney's "the IRS guy is a Bush appointee" excuse isn't going to fly.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/irs-...rvative-groups/story?id=19151646#.UY1qn7XIVuc

Tea Party Rejects IRS Apology, Republicans Vow Investigation

Conservative groups have rejected an Internal Revenue Service apology for unjustifiably scrutinizing tax-exempt conservative groups during the 2012 election cycle. The IRS apology has seemingly validated conservatives' fears of politically motivated regulation.

House Republican leaders, meanwhile, have vowed to investigate.

Lois Lerner, the director the IRS unit that oversees tax-exempt organizations, said that organizations had been given additional scrutiny if their applications included the words "Tea Party" or "patriot." The practice originated with "low-level" employees in Cincinnati, according to an Associated Press report.

In a press conference on Friday, Lerner called the actions of these employees "absolutely inappropriate."

"They didn't do it because of any political bias," Lerner said, adding that singling out groups with specific names was an ill-thought-out organizational "shortcut."

"It was an error in judgment and it wasn't appropriate but that's what they did," she said.

"We've now corrected these issues, and we don't expect that any of these will be repeated going forward."

Despite the apology, conservative groups are now seizing on the news, which they say proves their long-standing complaints of mistreatment by the IRS.

"President Obama must also apologize for his administration ignoring repeated complaints by these broad grassroots organizations of harassment by the IRS in 2012, and make concrete and transparent steps today to ensure this never happens again," said Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator for Tea Party Patriots.

Tea Party Express founder Sal Russo told ABC News that his group, formed as a PAC, never heard from the IRS but did hear from smaller Tea-Party groups that complained of government scrutiny.

 

[oldguy]

This is some outrageous bullshit.

Do the lefties here think that this is ok?

Go Blazers

 

[PapaG]

WOW!!!

Sourced references at the link. No wonder the Obama Low Infos on this board are ignoring this one. This is bigger than Watergate...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/obamas-abuse-of-the-irs-this-isnt-the-first-time.php

 

[PapaG]

I really thought this was much ado about nothing, but I do think we all learned an important lesson. I learned never again to pick another team over the Sun Devils in my NCAA brackets. . . . President [Michael] Crowe and the Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS.

- Barack Obama, 2009

Even jokes hold the truth at times.

Article from time of the joke. Obama is Nixon.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260113149028331.html

 

[DaLincolnJones]

It's Hillary's fault!

naw man, he will blame congress and the dipshits will accept that as truth..

 

[MARIS61]

Most teabaggers are resistant to the idea of taxation. Many are open tax protestors and publicly suggest that people should refuse to pay them. It's not a secret.

Makes sense to take a close look.

 

[PapaG]

Most teabaggers are resistant to the idea of taxation. Many are open tax protestors and publicly suggest that people should refuse to pay them. It's not a secret.

Makes sense to take a close look.

Even after they file for tax exempt status in a legal manner? Seems like the "Teabaggers" were following the rules, and the IRS audited them for it based on the command of somebody. The IRS even pulled donor lists.

What a dipshit post.

 

[julius]

Ah...watergate, the conservative go to catch phrase...

 

[oldguy]

Ah...watergate, the conservative go to catch phrase...

Seriously, no comment on the content of this thread. You really must love the koolaid.

Do you think it's ok for government to harass/intimidate citizens that disagree with policies of the current administration? Would it be ok then, when the next conservative is in the white house, for the IRS to audit every democrat?

The President is telling college kids not to worry about tyranny; while the IRS is harassing citizens, government is putting thousands of drones in sky over our country, DHS is recording all texts and emails, DHS is buying up over a BILLION bullets (with well over half not suitable for military use), the government is supporting, and arming, the Muslim Brotherhood (who happen to think we all need to die) and government wants to take away more of our second amendment rights.

Never mind. Just keep chipping it the Republicans and completely ignore what is happening to this country.

Go Blazers

 

[magnifier661]

Lefties are making excuses. They see no wrong with this. But if the roles were reversed; you'd have some very pissed lefties!

The donkeys are wrong on this one

 

[Denny Crane]

Certainly not high crimes and misdemeanors.

Looks like they "targeted" more than conservative groups.

They probably should give extra scrutiny to any group requesting tax exempt status. But a court should really be the one that decides that a black church is violating he law by passing out pamphlets suggesting who to vote for.

 

[julius]

Seriously, no comment on the content of this thread. You really must love the koolaid.

Do you think it's ok for government to harass/intimidate citizens that disagree with policies of the current administration? Would it be ok then, when the next conservative is in the white house, for the IRS to audit every democrat?

The President is telling college kids not to worry about tyranny; while the IRS is harassing citizens, government is putting thousands of drones in sky over our country, DHS is recording all texts and emails, DHS is buying up over a BILLION bullets (with well over half not suitable for military use), the government is supporting, and arming, the Muslim Brotherhood (who happen to think we all need to die) and government wants to take away more of our second amendment rights.

Never mind. Just keep chipping it the Republicans and completely ignore what is happening to this country.

Go Blazers

again, if everytime the conservatives screamed "worse than watergate" was true, we'd actually have to change the catch phrase.

 

[jlprk]

the errors were limited to a group of IRA workers in its Cincinnati office

This is bigger than Watergate...

Ho yeah. Sounds big big big

 

[oldguy]

again, if everytime the conservatives screamed "worse than watergate" was true, we'd actually have to change the catch phrase.

Again, you avoid answering the question.

Go Blazers

 

[blazerboy30]

again, if everytime the conservatives screamed "worse than watergate" was true, we'd actually have to change the catch phrase.

You can't comment on the topic so you resort to deflecting blame elsewhere. It's obviously Bush's fault.

 

[julius]

You can't comment on the topic so you resort to deflecting blame elsewhere. It's obviously Bush's fault.

Didn't say it was his fault, but nice how you incorporated the 2nd catch phrase.

 

[Denny Crane]

again, if everytime the conservatives screamed "worse than watergate" was true, we'd actually have to change the catch phrase.

The reality s that Obama is now being talked about in sentences that include the names Nixon and Watergate.

IRS Mess | TIME.com

The Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups is outrageous. Those who did this should be fired immediately. That's obvious. It continues a slovenly week for Barack Obama. The President has been very proud of the absence of scandal in his Administration, and rightly so.

swampland.time.com

 

[MARIS61]

The reality s that Obama is now being talked about in sentences that include the names Nixon and Watergate.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/11/irs-mess/

So were Woodward and Bernstein.

 

[Denny Crane]

So were Woodward and Bernstein.

In a good way. This is Time Magazine, and one of their best known writers. He's no republican.

 

[PapaG]

Nothing to see here. Move along now...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324715704578478851998004528.html

The Internal Revenue Service's scrutiny of conservative groups went beyond those with "tea party" or "patriot" in their names—as the agency admitted Friday—to also include ones worried about government spending, debt or taxes, and even ones that lobbied to "make America a better place to live," according to new details of a government probe.

The investigation also revealed that a high-ranking IRS official knew as early as mid-2011 that conservative groups were being inappropriately targeted—nearly a year before then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman told a congressional committee the agency wasn't targeting conservative groups.

 

[PapaG]

Thank God the IRS is the authority for Obamacare.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I can't comment on the legality or not, but I might be on the wrong side of this one. If all it is is applying some extra scrutiny to make sure you didn't pull one over on the government, I don't necessarily have a problem with it. If you didn't do anything wrong, what's the worry? All claims are subject to audit, right? (I've personally been to two where I was asked to document tithing, but I don't know that that was "profiling")

Then again, I also don't see a problem with having to show documentation saying that you are eligible to drive, be in the country legally, vote, buy a gun, etc. So like I said, I could be on the wrong side of history and "progress" here.

Now, if they charged different fees to these groups, or didn't audit churches at all, or applied different rules based on political leanings, that is a problem. But I don't necessarily see it here. Maybe one of you who are against it can help me understand your view better.

 

[blazerboy30]

Then again, I also don't see a problem with having to show documentation saying that you are eligible to drive, be in the country legally, vote, buy a gun, etc. So like I said, I could be on the wrong side of history and "progress" here.

These aren't reasonable analogies as they aren't targeting anybody (Theoretically, and ideally). They are just enforcing existing laws in a non-bias way, hopefully with some level of randomness or in the case of the IRS, triggered by some abnormal, outlier data.

Here's a couple analogies:

-- Everybody that voted for raising the speed limit on freeways is documented, and then their license plate numbers are put on a list. Those license plate numbers are then targeted and looked for more closely than any other cars on the highway, trying to catch them speeding. If a cop sees that license plate parked in a parking lot, he waits around to follow that particular car onto the freeway just to see if he can catch them for speeding.

-- Will everybody that is in favor of Obamacare be placed under more scrutiny and higher levels of investigation to make sure that they are complying with the insurance mandates?

-- Should those that voted against legalizing same-sex marriage be put on a list and followed around to see if they commit any hate crimes against homosexuals?


Just because an individual votes a certain way doesn't mean they are more likely to break the laws.

 

[blazerboy30]

Nothing to see here. Move along now...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324715704578478851998004528.html

This is bad. But it will be ignored and blow over in no time.

Notice how the one Obama supporter that has replied in this thread hasn't even commented on the topic, but instead wants to divert the attention to catch phrases.

 

[Denny Crane]

These aren't reasonable analogies as they aren't targeting anybody (Theoretically, and ideally). They are just enforcing existing laws in a non-bias way, hopefully with some level of randomness or in the case of the IRS, triggered by some abnormal, outlier data.

Here's a couple analogies:

-- Everybody that voted for raising the speed limit on freeways is documented, and then their license plate numbers are put on a list. Those license plate numbers are then targeted and looked for more closely than any other cars on the highway, trying to catch them speeding. If a cop sees that license plate parked in a parking lot, he waits around to follow that particular car onto the freeway just to see if he can catch them for speeding.

-- Will everybody that is in favor of Obamacare be placed under more scrutiny and higher levels of investigation to make sure that they are complying with the insurance mandates?

-- Should those that voted against legalizing same-sex marriage be put on a list and followed around to see if they commit any hate crimes against homosexuals?


Just because an individual votes a certain way doesn't mean they are more likely to break the laws.

Those aren't good analogies either

Perhaps a better one is you apply for an engineering job so they put extra scrutiny on you if you claim you went to MIT. That is, they'll ask MIT for your transcripts. If you apply for a receptionist job, they don't bother checking your education.

 

[blazerboy30]

Those aren't good analogies either

Perhaps a better one is you apply for an engineering job so they put extra scrutiny on you if you claim you went to MIT. That is, they'll ask MIT for your transcripts. If you apply for a receptionist job, they don't bother checking your education.

I'm hoping you just forgot to add the green font to your post. Sorry if the sarcasm flew right by me.

You must have missed the part where the profiling is based on voting and political leanings. Your analogy has nothing to do with either, and is simply called background checking. They are checking for proof that you will be able to perform the job they are hiring you to do.

In the words of PapaG... What an idiotic post.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm hoping you just forgot to add the green font to your post. Sorry if the sarcasm flew right by me.

You must have missed the part where the profiling is based on voting and political leanings. Your analogy has nothing to do with either, and is simply called background checking. They are checking for proof that you will be able to perform the job they are hiring you to do.

In the words of PapaG... What an idiotic post.

Let's look at it from a different angle.

Where are the damages?

If these groups were to sue the IRS for wrongful profiling (LOL), what would they ask for in penalties, and why?