The blame game

[veritas]

Well

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Ques...-Organizations

IRS is claiming there was no political bias in what they did.

Do I believe that the president directed this activity...no

Do I believe the IRS commissioner directed this activity specifically...no

Do I believe managers directed this....sort of

I believe the entire idea of singling out conservative nonprofits for examination didn't take a preplanned idea. It is a mindset that permeates the service. This is nothing more than a natural instinct of those on one side of the political spectrum who control all agencies of the federal governement.

[appelman]

A fair analysis.

I found the following to provide a fair analysis of the situation:

http://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/the_other_irs_scandal.php?page=all

[DexEA]

I'd be interested in seeing a complete list.

The report reflects that 300 cases were centralized. Approximately 70 of those cases included the name Tea Party, according to Fox Business 72 had the words "Tea Party", 13 had "Patriots" and 11 had "9/12". The remaining cases included organizations of all political views. The current number of centralized cases is approximately 470.

Also Fox Business reports that in the majority of cases, "the applications submitted included indications of significant political campaign intervention,” which is against the tax laws, the IG report says.

[MAJ]

One simple solution...

I am passed blaming the Democrats or Republicans.
It's the POLITICAL ENGINE that is broken. Lobbyists ,etc.
If we did it - we'd be in jail for Bribery, extortion, collusion and what ever else they can think of.

Wake up - IT'S OUR FAULT!

We let them in -
We let them do as they please -

We, (the public) are too busy watching people dance, sing and loose weight to care about what's going on in our own back yard - Nevermind the country!

I tell my clients to pick one topic that impacts their life - Be it taxes, medical, criminal, something.
Send a note to Your friendly politicians and let them know how you feel. Do it often so they finally get the idea that we are paying attention.
Suggest changes - Complain about how it impacts your family.

I start my letters with....
Please, if you are going to send me a generic form letter response save the traffic on the Internet. This only proves to me that you do NOT care about what I have to say and my vote in the next election will tell you how I feel.


Also, ask your Senator if the Government does the 1 day furlough (is that still on the table?) Are they too going to take a cut in pay?
You know 20%??

Yea -- Bet you don't get a response on that one.

Be well people.... Be Active....

[erchess]

Interesting Thread

Someone said that this mess really started when Dems in Congress complained to the IRS that right wing groups were getting away with illegal activity. At least I hope that's a fair characterization of one post. It seems like so many groups walk right up to the line and even cross it that policing is ineffective at best. To me the overall problem is that Nonprofits other than PACs are not supposed to engage in politics. That has not always been the case. I believe the year was 58 or 59 and Representative Lyndon Baines Johnson was opposed in his bid for reelection by a small charity that basically only operated in the confines of his District. He narrowly won and he pushed through the current rule. Maybe that law should be revisited. Even if we kept nonprofits from making political contributions perhaps we should let them openly endorse issues and candidates and engage in lobbying even if we allowed only PACs to donate money.

[Black Bart]

Breaking News

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Ques...-Organizations

IRS is claiming there was no political bias in what they did.

Oh, OK.
I guess that settles it - nothing inappropriate here.
Let's move along

Excerpt from a recent George Will column:

Jay Carney, whose unenviable job is not to explain but to explain away what his employers say, calls the IRS's behavior "inappropriate." No, using the salad fork for the entree is inappropriate. Using the Internal Revenue Service for political purposes is a criminal offense.

...The man was leaving already...since he was leaving anyway, no one has actually been punished for these actions. I consider this resignation as a "non-event" as pertains to the illegal actions.

I think Thom's right and I also think it'll all blow over in a couple of months.

[veritas]

Piers Morgan

Excerpt from a recent George Will column:

Jay Carney, whose unenviable job is not to explain but to explain away what his employers say, calls the IRS's behavior "inappropriate." No, using the salad fork for the entree is inappropriate. Using the Internal Revenue Service for political purposes is a criminal offense.



I think Thom's right and I also think it'll all blow over in a couple of months.

"I think what the IRS did is bordering on tyrannical behavior"

[Snaggletooth]

Whoa!! - Hitting the Brakes

In the midst of everyone's horror I would like to move closer to the facts, if it can be done. I'm not advocating the IRS to be guiltless, and not only that but it makes me sick to see the President really put on a show of "getting tough" by firing people who could not have possibly been involved at the time and promoting the REAL supervisor to another job within the IRS administering Obamacare.

But I heard a conservative talk show host in Nashville speak of the letter his group received from the IRS after submitting their application for tax-exempt status. His tonal inflection expressed horror at some of the words, of course. However, a couple years ago I submitted a 1023 for a cemetery association and the response we received for this simple request was almost verbatim what the talk show host was quoting. Surely no political persuasion could be accused of having heartburn with a cemetery association.

Secondly, all this "denial" occurs against a backdrop of questionable status to begin with. Almost by definition if not by fame, Tea Party Orgs are politically involved in supporting candidates which fit their constituency. Donations to such groups are not SUPPOSED to be deductible, and someone smarter than myself would have to tell me how these groups should have tax-exempt status to begin with. And similar groups supporting liberal candidates should not enjoy the tax-exempt status either.

I realize this is an outrageous issue for the public to hear, but I wonder just how much effect would have been achieved if the IRS processors had been innocuous.

[Jiggers]

I realize this is an outrageous issue for the public to hear, but I wonder just how much effect would have been achieved if the IRS processors had been innocuous.

Or had treated all applicants, of both persuasions, equally!

[Bees Knees]

all this "denial" occurs against a backdrop of questionable status to begin with. Almost by definition if not by fame, Tea Party Orgs are politically involved in supporting candidates which fit their constituency.

Notice what IRS said in their response:

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Questions-and-Answers-on-501(c)-Organizations

10. Would organizations with Tea Party in the name have been centralized if only appropriate selection criteria had been used?

Yes, in most cases the organization would have been centralized based on the information included in the application. The IRS should have focused on this information instead of using a shortcut.

In other words, IRS is saying all of these organizations that were singled out for scrutiny would have been singled out anyway if appropriate procedures were used. It wasn’t that they targeted people who should not have been targeted. It is that they took short cuts in targeting people who should have been targeted.

[Bees Knees]

Donations to such groups are not SUPPOSED to be deductible, and someone smarter than myself would have to tell me how these groups should have tax-exempt status to begin with.

Ron, TTB is coming out with a news article shortly that will explain this issue.

The organizations singled out applied for 501(c)(4) status, not 501(c)(3) status.

A 501(c)(3) organization is a tax-exempt charity. Donations to a 501(c)(3) organization are generally tax-deductible. 501(c)(3) organizations cannot be involved with political campaigns in any way.

A 501(c)(4) organization is a tax-exempt social welfare organization or an employee associations. Donations to 501(c)(4) organizations are NOT tax deductible as charitable contributions. So they get tax-exempt status, but they can’t raise money with tax-deductible contributions.

501(c)(4) organizations are allowed to get involved with political campaigns, as long as that is not the primary purpose of the organizations. How much involvement is allowed is what is under scrutiny.

Once again, this is a case where Congress wrote vague rules into the code that are open for interpretation. A “Tea Party” organization would seem to fit that of an organization involved with politics. Yet, that alone is not enough to deny 501(c)(4) status. It would be enough to zap a 501(c)(3) organization, however.

Vagueness in the code is where confusion comes in, and the general public is clueless as to how this works.

[DexEA]

Do you know for a fact they did not?

Or had treated all applicants, of both persuasions, equally!

From many sources I have read/heard that the report includes 298, and on one of the Sunday morning shows someone stated that this was out of 70,000 +/- applications. Approximately 72 had the words "Tea Party", 13 had "Patriots" and 11 had "9/12". The remaining cases included organizations of all political views. Why is there no discussion of the other 202?

Looking at it from the view of the IRS employee, and I know I am in a minority, so with that said, I don't believe that it was a bad thing that these, (LOL), social welfare, (LOL), groups were looked at more closely.

Just to clarify - I mean all 298 groups - not just the 96 with conservative buzz words.

[ChEAr$]

You might be on to something. Maybe if I talk to my local stakeholder/liasion and ask about elevating some of my personal gripes they might go away too?

What the heck is a stakeholder anyways?

Hmmm, maybe the hero in the movie Dracula?

[joanmcq]

From many sources I have read/heard that the report includes 298, and on one of the Sunday morning shows someone stated that this was out of 70,000 +/- applications. Approximately 72 had the words "Tea Party", 13 had "Patriots" and 11 had "9/12". The remaining cases included organizations of all political views. Why is there no discussion of the other 202?

Looking at it from the view of the IRS employee, and I know I am in a minority, so with that said, I don't believe that it was a bad thing that these, (LOL), social welfare, (LOL), groups were looked at more closely.

Just to clarify - I mean all 298 groups - not just the 96 with conservative buzz words.

Yes, this. The other organizations are never mentioned. Rather than 'target' which is the word the media has glommed upon, it's more like some of the search words used. On another board, someone posted a snippet from a woman who was audited over her Sch C, and was thinking she was 'targeted' too because of her politics. But when you look at what was being asked of her, especially through the eyes of an experience audit rep who is also familiar with what clients hear vs. what was actually asked, it was a routine Sch C with emphasis on unreported income. It was spun to look like the IRS was being unreasonable, but it's just how these audits are conducted every day.

[Black Bart]

From many sources I have read/heard that the report includes 298, and on one of the Sunday morning shows someone stated that this was out of 70,000 +/- applications. Approximately 72 had the words "Tea Party", 13 had "Patriots" and 11 had "9/12". The remaining cases included organizations of all political views. Why is there no discussion of the other 202?

Looking at it from the view of the IRS employee, and I know I am in a minority, so with that said, I don't believe that it was a bad thing that these, (LOL), social welfare, (LOL), groups were looked at more closely.

Just to clarify - I mean all 298 groups - not just the 96 with conservative buzz words.

Still...it seems a bit odd. Out of 70,000 apps, 298 are picked -- fully 1/3 of those selected contain similar, frequently-used conservative terms. We don't know what kinds of groups the others are, but do they also contain words/phrases in common? And if so, are they progressive "buzzwords?" I'd be surprised if they do and are.

I'm as curious as you are about the other 2/3 (the "undiscussed" 202). But if they are completely diverse, unconnected organizations, then it would be an amazing mathematical occurence if the remaining 1/3, virtually identical, were picked at random.

Bees pointed out that these organizations can be political as long as that's not their primary purpose. While both sides are likely in it mainly for the politics (and surely regard their agenda as best for the "social welfare"), the question of whether or not these groups should even exist is another argument altogether.

It seems strange that (unless used in an Orwellian sense, say like "The People's Republic of China") the goverment regards the word "patriot" with suspicion.