IRS targeted LEFT WING GROUPS TOO!

[Masbee]

whoa. Where to begin? yes I do hate some policies from Obama. He I do think he has mislead on his campaign promises. No he is not the messiah, because there is no Messiah. yes I am disapointed. Yes, I still think Koch and Big Tobacco's whiney tea party babies are being whiney. They were trying to cheat the system, and they may have been picked on more than other groups, but all groups were picked on based on inappropriate short cuts.

Where do you get your "facts"? They aren't true.

Here, from a left leaning site, Politico:

Although “progressive” groups were flagged on a be-on-the-lookout list, George said they found no evidence that left-leaning groups were scrutinized in the same manner as tea party groups.

​

“We found no indication in any of these other materials that ‘progressives’ was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention,” George wrote.

George, who runs the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, said six tax-exempt applications filed between May 2010 and May 2012 that had the words “progress” or “progressive” in their names were included in the 298 cases the IRS identified as potential political cases and held up for extra scrutiny.​

​

“In total, 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words ‘progress’ or ‘progressive’ in their names were processed as potential political cases,” George wrote.

But 100 percent of applications with “tea party” buzzwords were held up during that same timeframe.​

​

​

​

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/irs-tea-party-targeting-investigation-93503.html#ixzz2XRFMPqdj​

 

[maxiep]

292 to 6 seems pretty even to me.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...92-conservative-groups-just-6-liberal-groups/

 

[PapaG]

... or not

Low info voters believe anything.

IRS auditor reaffirms that conservatives, not liberals, were targeted

The IRS inspector general said this week that while some liberal groups were given extra scrutiny by the tax agency, they were not subjected to the same invasive queries as tea party groups — a finding that seems to confirm a political bias was at play.
In a letter sent late Wednesday and released Thursday, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George said that just 30 percent of groups with the word “progressive” in their name were put through special scrutiny for tax-exempt applications, but 100 percent of groups with “tea party,” “patriot” or “9/12” in their name were subjected to invasive questioning.
SEE RELATED: Crisis at IRS tied to lack of funding, National Taxpayer Advocate says
“TIGTA concluded that inappropriate criteria were used to identify potential political cases for extra scrutiny — specifically, the criteria listed in our audit report. From our audit work, we did not find evidence that the criteria you identified, labeled “Progressives,” were used by the IRS to select potential political cases during the 2010 to 2012 time frame we audited,” Mr. George said.
That finding contradicts claims by congressional Democrats who said liberal groups were targeted too — and, they argue, that suggests the scrutiny by the Internal Revenue Service didn’t have a political bias.
Hours after the letter was released, acting IRS chief Daniel Werfel said that while an initial investigation has found no evidence of bias or political motivation, he didn’t disagree with the auditor’s conclusions.
The findings served to reinvigorate the controversy over the IRS, which has raged since revelations last month that the tax agency probed conservative groups in the run-up to the 2010 and 2012 elections, and was delaying approval of many of the groups, in some cases by three years.
Rep. Dave Camp, Michigan Republican and chairman of the House and Ways Committee, said the evidence shows conservatives were being systematically targeted — not just flagged.
“Americans deserve better than to fear whether the IRS will unfairly target them,” Mr. Camp said. “One thing is clear: Congress has a lot more work to do to bring this out-of-control agency in check and hold them accountable to the American people.”
Mr. Werfel vowed Thursday to do just that.
“I want the IRS to be in the business of just detecting — because we have to under the law and regulation — the extent of political activity, not knowing the type of politics,” he told the committee. “What I’m suggesting is more analysis. Significant more analysis is needed before we reach conclusions about what that means in terms of an IRS failure or an IRS issue.”
But many committee members were not assuaged by the pledge.
“Back in my district, it appears the Allen Area Patriots have also been a target of the IRS,” said Rep. Sam Johnson, Texas Republican. “The bottom line is that the IRS has been used as a political weapon, and that’s just outrageous.”
Democrats, who have argued that the problem at the IRS stems from campaign finance rules more than political bias, questioned Mr. George’s latest letter, after he said earlier this week that his audit wasn’t tasked with looking at how the IRS handled progressive groups.
“Congress deserved to know that ‘progressives’ were on the IRS screening list during the time of the audit and progressive organizations were in the review group,” said Rep. Sander M. Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the committee. “These omissions changed the nature of the investigation, and the IG’s testimony is not consistent with his written response.”
Democrats on the committee have sent a letter to Mr. Camp criticizing Mr. George’s audit report as “fundamentally flawed,” and requesting that Mr. George return to the committee to address the fact that the audit fails to mention that “progressives” was used as a screening term and that it does not mention liberal groups were among the 298 applications reviewed.
Story Continues →


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...s-conservatives-not-liberals-w/#ixzz2XTfMx0ga
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

[PapaG]

292 to 6 seems pretty even to me.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...92-conservative-groups-just-6-liberal-groups/

Obama voters/supporters seem to believe anything.

 

[oldguy]

of course. And of course no political group deserves the 501c4 status because it's a tax status for groups that are "operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare"... like gathering clothing for foster kids. Political groups that have this status are tax cheats that I hope are prosecuted.

well, onto investigating the next fake scandal so as to avoid doing the business of the people

STOMP

When are you going to provide that "conclusive proof" of the scandal being fake?

Go Blazers

 

[Eastoff]

292 to 6 seems pretty even to me.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...92-conservative-groups-just-6-liberal-groups/

Hmm I guess you're right.

 

[Masbee]

Surprise, surprise!!

The IRS itself, through the Taxpayer Advocate, is now claiming that the unit behind the shenanigans (Exempt Organization Review Unit), may have broken the law.

It would only be fair, if these potential lawbreakers were treated exactly as the IRS treats potential lawbreakers when they conduct their audits and investigations on taxpayers. But, that wont' happen.

http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/2014ObjectivesReport/Full-News-Release

The EO Function Did Not Post Its Procedures on the Internet, Potentially Violating the Law and Contributing to the Problem.
The IRS is required to post on its website all “instructions to staff that affect a member of the public,” unless an exemption applies. Even if an exemption applies, IRS functions should clear most guidance internally with affected program owners and “specialized reviewers” such as TAS. EO did not clear with TAS or post on the Internet, even in redacted form, relevant training materials, form letters used to request additional information, the screening checksheet used by EO employees in the determinations process, and other key documents. EO’s failure to clear its procedures with TAS and other stakeholders bypassed an important safeguard of taxpayer rights.​

Had these documents been vetted by TAS, TAS would have had an opportunity to raise concerns before implementation. Had these documents been posted on the Internet, members of the public would have had access to them, providing greater transparency and enabling them to raise concerns about improper practices. Key EO documents still are not posted to the Internet, and TAS has not been able to locate them on the IRS intranet. The Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division (TE/GE), of which EO is a part, has agreed to share its guidance with TAS. The Advocate recommends that the IRS adopt more expansive disclosure policies both in TE/GE and throughout the IRS.​

Absence of Adequate Checks and Balances​

The IRS’s Processing of Section 501(c)(4) Applications Violated Fundamental Taxpayer Rights.
......​

In her preface to the report, Olson details how the IRS’s processing of Section 501(c)(4) applications violated 8 of these 10 rights. “If these rights were enacted and publicized . . . applicants for exemption may have complained more promptly and the violations might have been addressed more quickly,” the report says.​

​