The IRS Went After Liberals Too

1. 0

   Sooner28posted 11 years ago

   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/2 … 92679.html
   
   The "liberal" media are the ones who initially hyped the story!  I remember reading the New York Times and feeling disturbed one group was being singled out for scrutiny (even if the groups did deserve it).  I didn't like the apparent unfairness of it all.
   
   Alas, there was no unfairness.  This is now another story, hyped by the "liberal" media, that turned out to be...nothing.  The IRS simply vigorously audited groups, conservative and liberal, it thought were engaging in political activity.
   
   If you don't like the IRS, then this may give you fodder.  But if you are okay with the IRS, and just thought it was abusing it's power, then your fears are now assuaged.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Just another empty scandal.

      replyreport
2. 61

   Zelkiiroposted 11 years ago

   FOX NEWS DIDN'T REPORT IT THEREFORE IT'S NOT TRUE
   
   FOX NEWS WOULDN'T LIE TO ME

   replyreport
   1. 75

      junkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I knew when the disstraction began, the IRS was not just investigating the Tea Party and conservatives. The IRS is too transparent to openly operate in support of Liberals or conservatives. I am surprised this fact wasn't spoken or printed when this reality tv news drama claimed to be news . We the people needs jobs and all we get is internet and tv drama for the last 4 1/2 years. The people must be intertained if not employed. The people can join in the intertainment fun in cyber space feeling empowered, not employed as promised.

      replyreport
      1. 56

         Dr Stiffyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Deleted
         1. 75

            junkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            IRS employees also testified they also (investigated) not targeted liberal groups that applied for tax exempt status. Why that fact was not expressed from jump street, I don't know.

            replyreport
   2. 55

      Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      CNBC would lie to you though.

      replyreport
3. 77

   Uninvited Writerposted 11 years ago

   But, they don't want to hear that...

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'll hope people who were decrying this, like I did, change their opinion with the evidence.

      replyreport
4. 78

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   Targeting different political groups doesn't make it "fair".  The IRS is not meant to target political groups, or religious groups, or racial groups--they are meant to target tax cheats.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Uh, when they are applying for tax exempt status it does.

      replyreport
   2. 77

      Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      They were not targeting political groups. They were targeting groups that claimed tax free status.

      replyreport
5. 75

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

   "Went after" implies a malicious, proactive, outward bound campaign.
   I have and have had a huge problem with the rhetoric that has taken over this IRS non-story.
   The IRS was overwhelmed with applications for 501(c)4 nonprofit status in the wake of Citizens United and, let's be real here, the 2010 red tide of the Tea Party into Congress (not to mention governorships -- although that's just a side observation).
   The IRS' task was to determine which applicants should be granted nonprofit status.
   
   Given the definition of 501(c)4, I am less surprised at the additional scrutiny than at the fact that ANY groups with the unambiguosuly, unabashedly political words TEA PARTY in their name were approved.
   
   If any good comes out of this, I hope that it's that the IRS goes back to the original, intended language of 501(c)4 and does not grant tax-exempt status to political groups. Period.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, and it probably was a poor choice of words on my part.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         
         You're just using the language everyone else is using. Even the evil liberal media!
         
         It's mind-boggling why the IRS did not mention left leaning BOLO when on the hot seat during the investigation.
         And mind-boggling why anyone on either side of the aisle is upset that the IRS was actually doing their job.
         It should not be a slam-dunk to get tax-exempt status just because you ask for it.
         176 organizations with the same address? Really??
         
         I think it's fair to say it's long past time to put a fork in the IRS "scandal."
         
         Note:  I hope the IRS is monitoring Hub Pages and taking note that I am actually DEFENDING them here!

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            The Democrats should've been better informed during the hearings.

            replyreport
   2. 81

      peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Mighty Mom:  Thank you for getting to the essence of the issue.  As a matter of fact, if Darrel Issa and the GOP are not careful, this whole mess could end up pointing at them.  All of the Super PACs that both sides have operate as 501(c)4 non-profit, tax exempt organizations. Per IRS code, the primary purpose of a 501(c)4 is supposed to be social welfare organizations, not political action committees.
      
      The implications of this means that if a non-profit, tax exempt organization is formed and they engage in political activities, but it is not their primary function, they can give unlimited amounts of money to create ads as long as the ad does not say to vote for or against a specific candidate. Further, they are not required by law to disclose the source of the funds.
      
      I don't care how it's sliced, the primary purpose of super PACs is political, not a social welfare organization.  In my opinion, that's why the IRS is investigating both sides to see if there is any violation of the 501(c)4 tax code. And if both sides keep pushing on this, it will backfire on them.  The public will come to realize, the politicians who formed the super PACs are the enemy, not the IRS.  The IRS is just trying to do its job.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         "The implications of this means that if a non-profit, tax exempt organization is formed and they engage in political activities, but it is not their primary function, they can give unlimited amounts of money to create ads as long as the ad does not say to vote for or against a specific candidate. Further, they are not required by law to disclose the source of the funds."
         
         Isn't this pernicious?  You do a great job of highlighting problems.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Sooner28: Yes, you can thank the Supreme Court's ruling on Citizens United for all of this! As soon as they made the ruling that corporations have "personhood" all of this came into play. As Pogo once said: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

            replyreport
6. 60

   Kenneds2posted 11 years ago

   It's an empty "scandal" created and perpetuated by Republicans who want nothing more than to see Obama hurt.  Same thing with Benghazi.  They'll chase this down even after everyone has told them there's nothing to it.
   
   People this juvenile and petty shouldn't be allowed anywhere near positions of authority.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It doesn't seem empty to me.  They should have a way to find tax cheats other than dubious profiling.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Looking for tax cheats is one way to put it.
         An awkward first step toward stopping the blatant abuses of the tax laws that are resulting in massive amounts of secret money being laundered into our national elections by groups claiming to be ‘social welfare’ organizations.
         
         The most dubious part of this is how did the interpretation of 501(c)4 get watered down from "exclusively social welfare" to "primarily social welfare" over time.
         Time to go back to the original language (as Congress enacted and that has never been legally changed).

         replyreport
         1. 68

            Cody Hodge5posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Its also  a good way to distract from the economy getting better and voter laws being struck down by the Supreme Court.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Yup. Distractions "R" Congress.
               Keep beating the dead horse on the IRS. Resurrect Benghazi with new testimony (perhaps). And what was the third in the trifecta of Obama scandals? Did it fizzle out and die???

               replyreport
               1. 55

                  Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Whether they were conservative or not, the problem is that our government, the IRS, targeted people and organizations.  That is a scandal.  Liberals want to dismiss the problem by saying that liberals were targeted too.  That doesn't negate the problem, a government that targets its own citizens.  Nobody should accept that kind of treatment by his/her government.  Little was done to rectify this problem, very little.  That makes this a scandal. 
                  
                  Whether or not you want to say that it was largely targeted at conservatives, we can all say that Americans were targeted by our government based on their beliefs.  In what is supposed to be a free country, that is a scandal.

                  replyreport
            2. 81

               peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Deleted
   2. 0

      Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      They cry wolf so often it's hard to know when to actually listen to the cry.

      replyreport
7. 78

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   What they were meant to be doing was looking for tax cheats.  Ergo they were doing it wrong.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      And what would have been the right way of doing it?  The super PACs on both sides of the isle are sheltering billions of tax exempt dollars with the 501(c)4 ruling!

      replyreport
      1. 78

         psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         The right way would be to use relevant search terms -- they were looking for tax exempt groups that were engaged in partisan lobbying (which is not permitted).  They could search for things like "vote for" "donate to senator" etc. That would be relevant to what they were looking for.
         
         This particular scandal has absolutely nothing to do with PACs. But then I assume everyone knows that because they would not form a strong opinion without getting the facts first.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            psycheskinner: This is my post for Mighty Mom a few days ago:  "Thank you for getting to the essence of the issue.  As a matter of fact, if Darrel Issa and the GOP are not careful, this whole mess could end up pointing at them.  All of the Super PACs that both sides have operate as 501(c)4 non-profit, tax exempt organizations. Per IRS code, the primary purpose of a 501(c)4 is supposed to be social welfare organizations, not political action committees.
            
            The implications of this means that if a non-profit, tax exempt organization is formed and they engage in political activities, but it is not their primary function, they can give unlimited amounts of money to create ads as long as the ad does not say to vote for or against a specific candidate. Further, they are not required by law to disclose the source of the funds.
            
            I don't care how it's sliced, the primary purpose of super PACs is political, not a social welfare organization.  In my opinion, that's why the IRS is investigating both sides to see if there is any violation of the 501(c)4 tax code. And if both sides keep pushing on this, it will backfire on them.  The public will come to realize, the politicians who formed the super PACs are the enemy, not the IRS.  The IRS is just trying to do its job."
            
            psycheskinner:
            
            These are the facts and we are talking about billions of tax sheltered dollars that neither side wants you to know about. What better way to look for groups involved in "partisan lobbying" than super PACs.  Judging from you comments, I bet you don't even know what a super PAC is or how it operates...speaking of getting the facts first!

            replyreport
8. 77

   Uninvited Writerposted 11 years ago

   http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/26/i … al-groups/
   
   Issa directed Treasury inspector general to ignore IRS treatment of liberal groups

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Why am I not surprised?

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Does this mean Lois Lerner gets her job back and Issa eats crow?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Only if the universe is just.  We all know it isn't though .

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Might be a good time to expose the "narrow" (read: hyper-partisan) definitions being used in other special investigations (read: witch hunts).
               Just a thought.

               replyreport
               1. 68

                  Cody Hodge5posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I remember posting on these boards a couple of months ago that it wouldn't be more than 90 days before the GOP would have jumped the shark on these issues....
                  
                  Good Ol' Darrell McCarty will hopefully get the boot

                  replyreport
9. 75

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

   What a surprise. Lois Lerner is back in the fray!
   Hmmmm. Is it possible that Ms. Lerner said she had done nothing wrong and invoked the Fifth because she otherwise could not stop herself from screaming, "This investigation is a joke. Because of how the investigation is set up, I CAN'T tell you here and now, but at some point you should take a look at ALL the groups that received IRS scrutiny. The total number pales in comparison to the tea partiers. You ninnies."
   
   Here's the latest:
   WASHINGTON — A Republican-led House committee is ready to try pressuring a central figure in the Internal Revenue Service investigation to shed light on the episode, five weeks after she sat before that same panel and refused to answer lawmakers' questions.
   
   The planned vote Friday by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee was aimed at Lois Lerner. She is a long-time IRS official whom agency executives put on administrative leave after she revealed that the IRS had singled out tea party groups seeking tax-exempt status for tough scrutiny.
   
   Lerner was subpoenaed to testify to the Oversight Committee on May 22. When she appeared she said she had done nothing wrong, cited her constitutional right to not answer questions and left after a dramatic nine-minute standoff.
   
   Lerner was a high-ranking IRS official in Washington who oversaw the agency's Cincinnati workers who screened applications for tax-exempt status. The IRS has apologized for imposing tough scrutiny on conservative groups who applied for that designation. It has since emerged that progressive groups also appeared on agency screening lists and that some suffered similar treatment.
   
   Three congressional committees are investigating the IRS treatment of conservative groups, as is the Justice Department and the new leaders of the IRS itself. House Democrats are trying to expand the investigation to include how progressive groups were treated.
   
   On Friday, the Oversight Committee was expected to approve a resolution along party lines stating that Lerner forfeited her right to remain silent by making opening remarks at last month's hearing.
   
   Lerner's attorney, William W. Taylor, contested that theory in an email this week.
   
   "Protesting your innocence and invoking right not to answer questions, which is what she did, is not a waiver. Legions of authority on our side," he wrote.
   
   Taylor said in an email on Thursday that neither he nor Lerner would attend Friday's committee session.
   
   House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., expressed hope that the vote would motivate Lerner to return to the committee. The vote could lead to a deal under which Lerner testifies with limited immunity, or to contempt charges if she continues to insist on her Fifth Amendment rights, said a GOP committee aide who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal Republican thinking.
   
   The resolution states that "a witness may not testify voluntarily about a subject and then invoke the privilege against self-incrimination when questioned about the details."
   
   Several Republicans on the committee raised objections last month after Lerner invoked the Fifth Amendment.
   
   Democrats said Issa rejected their request to allow legal experts with differing views on whether Lerner had waived her right not to respond to questions by giving testimony proclaiming her innocence.
   
   On Thursday, the controversy moved in another direction as a clash escalated between the Treasury Department inspector general who investigated the IRS and congressional Democrats who called his probe of the agency misleading.
   
   In a letter to lawmakers released Thursday, J. Russell George said his investigation found "progressives" was not among the inappropriate terms IRS screeners used to decide if groups merited close scrutiny for political work. Too much political activity can disqualify an applicant for a tax-exempt designation.
   
   
   But George also wrote that "additional research" by his investigators found that of 298 applicants for tax-exempt status that the IRS flagged for possible political involvement between 2010 and 2012, six had "progress" or "progressive" in their names. Fourteen other cases with "progress" or "progressive" in the group's name were not sidetracked for additional examination, he wrote.
   
   While 30 percent of such groups got special attention because of possible political work, every applicant for tax-exempt status with "tea party," "patriots" or "9/12" in their names was set aside for screening, George said.
   
   The term "progressives" did appear on some lists released earlier this week by House Democrats that also included "tea party" and that IRS workers used to watch for groups that might merit tough exams. But George's letter noted that "progressives" appeared on a different part of those lists and said that such groups were sent to different screeners from the ones who processed tea party applications.
   
   Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, said George should have revealed the appearance of progressive groups on the lists and the second set of screeners before now.
   
   "The failure of the IG's audit to acknowledge these facts is a fundamental flaw in the foundation of the investigation and the public's perception of this issue," said Levin, using the abbreviation for inspector general.
   
   The Associated Press

   replyreport
10. 67

    innersmiffposted 11 years ago

    The IRS is a gang of thieves. We should be up in arms that they are after anybody.

    replyreport
11. 79

    Mitch Alanposted 11 years ago

    But, those "liberal" groups did not have their applications held up for extended periods of time. They were not treated in the same manner, even if they were "flagged".

    replyreport