Politics of the IRS
 

We have had an unprecedented increase in groups springing up, in the last 4 or 5 years, with their stated purpose to educate the public. They apply for tax exemption under 501(c)4 (“social welfare”) of the tax code.

Now the teapublicans are claiming the IRS is targeting them, along with other conservative groups. This is apparently true, but not apparently new. Basically because Congress (:smack:) has not clearly defined the guidelines for 501(c)4 exemptions, like they have for 501(c)3 (real charity)exemptions.

Salon

And not just conservative groups, even now.

This is one of those "bad optics" scandals, where the offence is in how it looks, rather than what was done. That can be plenty serious, especially in a political environment, and I wouldn't be surprised to see people fired, but I would be surprised to see any prosecution.

Recently, a Dwellar complained that there was no criticism of the D's,
but that there would be a lot if this had happened while the R's were in office.

I have to admit I have not been following the issue closely, but I agree
with Happy Monkey's post, it is an issue that looks bad and resonates with the public.
Politics inside the I.R.S. certainly would be a huge No-No.

So far, what I've seen on the news points to one IRS office (Cincinatti),
and there was a comment that the workload of evaluating applications
was assigned to just one IRS employee, along with a comment
that workloads had increased greatly since Obama's election
and the "Citizens United" decision by the US Supreme Court.
Even if true, that sounds to me like excuses or rationalizations.

I think there is at least the one agreement between the D's and the R's,
that the IRS should be as pure as the driven snow, Caesar's wife, and other such standards.

Having said all that, today (5/26/13) there is this article in the NY Times
entitled: "Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Politics"

Obviously, the NY Times is a left-leaning paper,
but this does seem to lay out some "issues" that
could lead to a reasonable(?) discussion of this "scandal".

The woman at the head of this proclaimed "I broke no laws" and the next take invoked the 5th. She is also about to head the IRS's ACA implementation division. :eyebrow:
She had at least one meeting with Obama days prior to when the conservative leaning groups were overwhelmingly scrutinized more than those not critical of the current administration.
Additionally, there were issues were applications sat for months without any action upon them whatsoever. Not that they were declined nor approved, just that they did nothing while others who were not critical were approved with little or no issues. Lastly, take into account the time frame within an electoral context. There is an atty who is now handling a few of these groups cases against the IRS and from some of what I heard, it looks pretty bad. We'll never know for sure though as thats not how the law works anymore.

This has gotten little attention from most of the media, unlike the AP or Fox journalists private email issues. Still, its very "on-the-edge" stuff which looks pretty bad at best and is blatantly illegal at worst - depending upon where your ideological leanings place you. Of course, without her testifying we'll probably never know.

No, it's legal or it's not. Full stop. There's no ideological leanings involved. Is it legal... or not? If not, prosecute. If it is legal and you don't like it, make it illegal.


Oh wait, we'd need a working congress to do that... nevermind.

Thoughts off the top of my head, but ...

The purpose of 501-C4 is to give tax-exemption to organizations
that are providing a "service to their community", and are not to be political.
If so, what difference should it make "within an electoral context" ?

So if an organization is political, why are they applying for tax exemption in the first place.
If they are not political, where's the harm in a time delay in approval.
So would not special inquiries and waiting to see the actual activities of the organization help in that scrutiny ?

Coming to a conclusion about the internal workload procedures
of an agency should be fact-based, not political.

So why are the R's are all up in arms over this.
Is it because their favored organizations are being delayed
on account of "the time frame within an electoral context" ?

^ My opinion ^
Until we have all the facts we don't know whether its illegal or not. Since she is invoking her 5th, we may never know.

Lamp. I don't know where to go with that. You seemingly missed the entire point., It must be my communication that is at fault. Sorry.

Umm, foreigner here, not following this too closely, but ...

... seems to me that when overtly political groups start complaining that the IRS screws them around when they try to register themselves as non-political charities, that just means the IRS are doing their jobs, doesn't it? The fact that the complaints are coming from the TEA party and Republicans itself proves the complaints unfounded.

It might be an issue if this is being used against one side of politics and not the other, but for that we'd need to see evidence of left-wing political groups putting in dodgy charity registrations and getting approvals. Has this been seen?

by Classic:
Not necessarily true.
Written records will show what final decisions were made. For example...
Were there actual denials of legitimate "service" organizations made
by the IRS, because their name sounded like a "tea party" group ?
If so, then the legal case can be made.

by Z:
Exactly.

Exactly. The IRS was doing its job scrutinizing organizations that were trying to get out of paying taxes. And while I've heard claims that liberal organizations were not being scrutinized, I haven't seen a shed of evidence to support it.

The IRS chief invoking the 5th has the appearance of looking bad, but in a clearly hostile environment, it's a smart move. They are trying to nail her for political reasons. The records can be subpoenaed. There's always a paper trail. If she broke the law, it will be easy to prove.

No, not true.
This whole thing came about because of an explosion of right wing political groups popping up claiming 501(C)4 status. But under our system, even the most scurrilous deserve equal treatment under the law. Either let them pretend they are doing “social welfare”, or bitch-slap them and send them away.

Recently heard a congressman on a talk show, discussing the problems one of his constituents had with this.

The woman owned a small business for the last 12 years or so. Strictly legit, had no problems with the IRS, until she filed a 501(c) or (d) application, for a conservative group.

She was stalled for 28 months, despite hiring a lawyer to expedite things. Then the application was denied, based entirely on how the IRS "felt" about it.

In the meantime, she has been personally audited twice, and her business has also been audited (neither her nor her business had ever been audited before), and the FBI have interviewed her twice, for no stated reason.

This is not new for the democrats. You may recall "Joe the Plumber" was audited by the IRS shortly after making challenging questions to Obama, during the campaign.

Nixon had an "enemies list" and tried to do some of this also, but because he did not have a good relationship with the media, wasn't too successful.

Obama has had an unbelievable cheerleader media, so these tactics have worked much better for him and the democrats.

Now that several AP reporters know that their phone lines were tapped by the feds, Obama's sweetheart relationship with the media has undoubtedly been soured somewhat.

Nothing shuts up whistle blower sources that all reporters rely upon, more than knowing that they can't stay anonymous.

Yes, yes it has.


ALL by me.

No, you can't just blanket distribute exemptions. You're making the assumption that ALL of them are honest, god-fearing, tea party, patriots. Even if ALL the applications appear to be created equally, that's bullshit.

Whenever there's a tax loophole, there's sharks circling, just waiting for a surge in activity they can slide in with. Applications for tax avoidance, and opportunities for money laundering, will always have to scrutinized.

Thanks for your various replies.

I think the most interesting aspect of this is the "quantum" nature of contemporary America. Your civic body has two rival narratives of pretty much everything, in superposition with each other, and because each side is capable of psychologically ignoring the "information" of the other side, the wave function does not collapse and the superposition continues.

Will you continue on like this indefinitely? Or will something happen to collapse the wave function and cause one unified narrative to be adopted? What kind of events could have that much impact? Or will these narratives negotiate some compromise position?

War !

The only unifier known in the US

My guess is that the two narratives will become too far apart at some point and a third, more centrist, narrative will gain traction quickly. This should force the original two narratives back closer to the center.

This is not guaranteed and I have no idea when or what form this third narrative will take, but I would be willing to put money on it happening if we continue the way we are going.

That's assuming that the two narratives are equally distant from the center. They are not.

I had not previously though of it as a "collapse of wave function",
but in my younger years I had thought that the discovery of life on another planet
would immediately bring the entire world into a unified front
to create a "defense" against our common enemy. :eek:

So, I imagined that we could create this "world peace" if our government
secretly made some non-earth alloys of metals and a created a news story
that "aliens had crash landed in some distant place"... al la Roswell, NM

But more to Z's point, given that the US has 2 political parties and strongly resists
attempts to create a political world of 3 or more, the way of change
involves replacement of parties (a la today's Republicans vs Tea Party-ers).

This may be embedded in our nature due to our legal system.
We have attorneys that "represent their client" and prosecutors that
represent the State, each doing their best (or worst) to prove their point.
Any sort of acknowledgment that the opposition may be correct is unspoken.
This is based on the assumption that "right" and "justice" will come out
of each side doing their best a battle-to-the-death.