augolf1716 22,032 Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 I am not posting because it involves the Tea Party. The reason for the thread is I'm concerned when it comes to the IRS being the ones who will be enforcing Obamacare. If this was so called low level employees will the same low level employees be the one enforcing Obamacare? A little scary to me. WASHINGToncopyright 2013 The Associated Press. WASHINGTON (AP) — The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was "inappropriate" targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status. IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said. The agency — led at the time by a Bush administration appointee — blamed low-level employees, saying no high-level officials were aware. But that wasn't good enough for Republicans in Congress, who are conducting several investigations and asked for more. "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," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. White House spokesman Jay Carney declared it was indeed inappropriate for the IRS to target tea party groups. But he brushed aside questions about whether the White House itself would investigate. Instead, Carney said the administration expects a thorough investigation by the Treasury Department's inspector general for tax administration. The inspector general has been looking into the issue since last summer, and his report is expected to come out next week, the IG's office said Friday. Carney said he did not know when the White House first learned that tea party groups were being targeted. Lerner acknowledged it was wrong for the agency to target groups based on political affiliation. "That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review," Lerner said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association. "The IRS would like to apologize for that," she added. Lerner said the practice was initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati and was not motivated by political bias. Agency officials found out about the practice last year and moved to correct it, the IRS said in a statement. The statement did not specify when officials found out. About 75 groups were inappropriately targeted. None had their tax-exempt status revoked, Lerner said. The IRS is an independent agency within the Treasury Department that enforces the nation's tax laws. Revelations that the agency was targeting political groups because they were affiliated with a movement that is critical of President Barack Obama could become a new headache for the White House. "The admission by the Obama administration that the Internal Revenue Service targeted political opponents echoes some of the most shameful abuses of government power in 20th century American history," said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. Many conservative groups complained during the campaign that they were being harassed by the IRS. They accused the agency of frustrating their attempts to become tax exempt by sending them lengthy, intrusive questionnaires. The forms, which the groups have made available, sought information about group members' political activities, including details of their postings on social networking websites and about family members. IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman told Congress in March 2012 that the IRS was not targeting groups based on politics. "There's absolutely no targeting. This is the kind of back and forth that happens to people" who apply for tax-exempt status, Shulman told a House Ways and Means subcommittee. The IRS said senior leaders were not aware that specific groups were being targeted at the time of the hearing. "While we acknowledged centralization of these applications last year, the IRS did not acknowledge the use of names as part of the process earlier because the details were not initially known to senior leadership and (the inspector general) has been reviewing the situation," the IRS said in a statement. "Their work is now far enough along that it was appropriate to address the issue when it came up during (Friday's) tax conference." Shulman was appointed by President George W. Bush. His 6-year term ended in November. President Barack Obama has yet to nominate a successor. The agency is now being run by acting Commissioner Steven Miller. Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., chairman of the Ways and Means oversight subcommittee, requested a trove of documents from the IRS on Friday, including all communications containing the words "tea party" and "patriot." House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., said Friday he will hold a hearing on the matter has not yet set a date. "The IRS absolutely must be non-partisan in its enforcement of our tax laws," Camp said. "We will hold the IRS accountable for its actions." House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee have also promised investigations. Treasury spokesman Anthony Coley said the department will support the inspector general's investigation. "The Treasury Department expects all individuals and organizations to be treated fairly by the IRS. Anything less is inappropriate and unacceptable." There has been a surge of politically active groups claiming tax-exempt status in recent elections — conservative and liberal. Among the highest profile are Republican Karl Rove's group, Crossroads GPS, and the liberal Moveon.org. These groups claim tax-exempt status under section 501 © (4) of the federal tax code, which is for social welfare groups. Unlike other charitable groups, these organizations are allowed to participate in political activities but their primary activity must be social welfare. That determination is up to the IRS. Lerner said the number of groups filing for this tax-exempt status more than doubled from 2010 to 2012, to more than 3,400. To handle the influx, the IRS centralized its review of these applications in an office in Cincinnati. Lerner said this was done to develop expertise among staffers and consistency in their reviews. As part of the review, staffers look for signs that groups are participating in political activity. If so, IRS agents take a closer look to make sure that politics isn't the group's primary activity. As part of this process, agents in Cincinnati came up with a list of things to look for in an application. As part of the list, they included the words, "tea party" and "patriot," Lerner said. "It's the line people that did it without talking to managers," Lerner told The AP. "They're IRS workers, they're revenue agents." In all, about 300 groups were singled out for additional review, Lerner said. Of those, about a quarter were singled out because they had "tea party" or "patriot" somewhere in their applications. The IRS statement said that once applications were chosen for review, they all "received the same, even-handed treatment." Lerner said 150 of the cases have been closed and no group had its tax-exempt status revoked, though some withdrew their applications. "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." "I don't think there's any question we were unfairly targeted," said Tom Zawistowski, who until recently was president of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, an alliance of tea party groups in the state. Zawistowski's group was among many conservative organizations that battled the IRS over what they saw as discriminatory treatment. The group first applied for nonprofit status in June 2009, and it was finally granted on Dec. 7, 2012, he said — one month after Election Day. "It is suspicious that the activity of these 'low-level workers' was unknown to IRS leadership at the time it occurred," said Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator for Tea Party Patriots, which describes itself as the nation's largest tea party organization. "President Obama must also apologize for his administration ignoring repeated complaints by these broad grass-roots organizations of harassment by the IRS in 2012, and make concrete and transparent steps today to ensure this never happens again." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptau 169 Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 There has been a long history of misuse of the IRS in auditing political opponents. This is a 1989 NY Times article providing a history..... http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/03/magazine/misuse-of-the-irs-the-abuse-of-power.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
augolf1716 22,032 Posted May 11, 2013 Author Share Posted May 11, 2013 very true just the more to be concerned what the IRS will do when Obamacare is implemented Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 14,528 Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 There has been a long history of misuse of the IRS in auditing political opponents. This is a 1989 NY Times article providing a history..... http://www.nytimes.c...nted=all&src=pm The IRS Commissioner at the time was a Bush appointee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 7,260 Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 There has been a long history of misuse of the IRS in auditing political opponents. This is a 1989 NY Times article providing a history..... http://www.nytimes.c...nted=all&src=pm The IRS Commissioner at the time was a Bush appointee. And why does this matter? Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
augolf1716 22,032 Posted May 12, 2013 Author Share Posted May 12, 2013 There has been a long history of misuse of the IRS in auditing political opponents. This is a 1989 NY Times article providing a history..... http://www.nytimes.c...=all&src=pm The IRS Commissioner at the time was a Bush appointee. And why does this matter? Seriously? Bush fault Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 14,528 Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 There has been a long history of misuse of the IRS in auditing political opponents. This is a 1989 NY Times article providing a history..... http://www.nytimes.c...nted=all&src=pm The IRS Commissioner at the time was a Bush appointee. And why does this matter? Seriously? Because I was responding to a post about the IRS targeting political opponents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 7,260 Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 There has been a long history of misuse of the IRS in auditing political opponents. This is a 1989 NY Times article providing a history..... http://www.nytimes.c...nted=all&src=pm The IRS Commissioner at the time was a Bush appointee. And why does this matter? Seriously? Because I was responding to a post about the IRS targeting political opponents. Did the IRS target a political group? It doesn't matter who was appointed and by whom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 14,528 Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 There has been a long history of misuse of the IRS in auditing political opponents. This is a 1989 NY Times article providing a history..... http://www.nytimes.c...nted=all&src=pm The IRS Commissioner at the time was a Bush appointee. And why does this matter? Seriously? Because I was responding to a post about the IRS targeting political opponents. Did the IRS target a political group? It doesn't matter who was appointed and by whom. Motive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbird 60,968 Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 He might have been appointed by Bush, but who does he take orders from now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telling tiger 156 Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 I'm sure back in the day all here were lined up and speaking out loudly to protect the granted rights of religious freedoms. The sense of self righteous indignation is both convenient and ever so heartwarming. http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/07/local/me-allsaints7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbird 60,968 Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 Morning, buddy. I agree, thats wrong too. To me, it doesn't matter which side is being targeted. The fact that he IRS is targeting specific groups should outrage us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 14,528 Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 He might have been appointed by Bush, but who does he take orders from now? No one. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/05/10/no-dirty-politics-in-irs-investigations-of-tea-party/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,137 Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 He might have been appointed by Bush, but who does he take orders from now? No one. http://www.forbes.co...s-of-tea-party/ Right. And it's blind coincidence that the very groups which pose the biggest political counter to Obama's tax / spend / socialist policies were targeted, and no one else ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbird 60,968 Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 To deny pressure from admisitrations is naive. Just as Regan never told folks to sell arms, Obama does not need to tell anybody to have a bias against their opponents. FYI, Douglas Shulman is not registered as a Democrat or Republican, but he has made donations to the Democratic party in past years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 14,528 Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 He might have been appointed by Bush, but who does he take orders from now? No one. http://www.forbes.co...s-of-tea-party/ Right. And it's blind coincidence that the very groups which pose the biggest political counter to Obama's tax / spend / socialist policies were targeted, and no one else ? Do you have any evidence that these groups posed any real threat to Obama's chances? And Actual political groups are not supposed to have tax-free status. This is a case where the headline sounds awful, but I'm not sure the actual facts of the case will back that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 14,528 Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 To deny pressure from admisitrations is naive. Just as Regan never told folks to sell arms, Obama does not need to tell anybody to have a bias against their opponents. FYI, Douglas Shulman is not registered as a Democrat or Republican, but he has made donations to the Democratic party in past years. And he was not reappointed by Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbird 60,968 Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 he had already decided to step down. what's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 14,528 Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 he had already decided to step down. what's your point? What's yours? Keep in mind that the kerfuffle does not involve the targeting of groups for audits seeking evidence of a failure to pay taxes. Rather, the problem involved the IRS’s review of applications filed by the various entities seeking tax-exempt status under the law. At the time in question, many newly formed political organizations were seeking IRS certification that would allow them to avoid paying taxes on funds raised—the overwhelming majority of these organizations being Tea Party related groups. As the IRS believed that many of those filing for exemptions were stretching the limits of qualification, some low-level staffers at the agency’s Cincinnati, Ohio office decided to target for closer review those organizations with “Tea Party” sounding names, such as “patriot” and, of course, “Tea Party”. In the effort to dig deeper to determine if these groups qualified, the agency people involved asked many of the filing organizations to disclose names of those who had made contributions along with other data they deemed necessary to determine if the group qualified for tax free status. You want the IRS to make sure folks aren't gaming the system and committing fraud by claiming a tax exempt status. There was a great influx of organizations that rose up at that time around this movement. Some were probably legit, others not. What is sounds like they engaged in was a form of profiling-- given the facts some might say that was rational, others might say it was lazy, but I'm not sure it was nearly as nefarious as the pitch-fork crowd is carrying on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,137 Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 Do you have any evidence that these groups posed any real threat to Obama's chances? And Actual political groups are not supposed to have tax-free status. This is a case where the headline sounds awful, but I'm not sure the actual facts of the case will back that up. Obama's chances ? That's a red herring. The fact is, they vocally oppose most of what Obama stands for, oppose the Left wing, and until they showed up, there were no large public displays to counter the Left. The facts are, these groups were wrongly targeted, specifically, and the IRS has admitted as much. You really have no case here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 14,528 Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 Do you have any evidence that these groups posed any real threat to Obama's chances? And Actual political groups are not supposed to have tax-free status. This is a case where the headline sounds awful, but I'm not sure the actual facts of the case will back that up. Obama's chances ? That's a red herring. The fact is, they vocally oppose most of what Obama stands for, oppose the Left wing, and until they showed up, there were no large public displays to counter the Left. The facts are, these groups were wrongly targeted, specifically, and the IRS has admitted as much. You really have no case here. "Targeted" for what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptau 169 Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 He might have been appointed by Bush, but who does he take orders from now? No one. http://www.forbes.co...s-of-tea-party/ Right. And it's blind coincidence that the very groups which pose the biggest political counter to Obama's tax / spend / socialist policies were targeted, and no one else ? Do you have any evidence that these groups posed any real threat to Obama's chances? And Actual political groups are not supposed to have tax-free status. This is a case where the headline sounds awful, but I'm not sure the actual facts of the case will back that up. Tax exempt groups like move on.org? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 14,528 Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 He might have been appointed by Bush, but who does he take orders from now? No one. http://www.forbes.co...s-of-tea-party/ Right. And it's blind coincidence that the very groups which pose the biggest political counter to Obama's tax / spend / socialist policies were targeted, and no one else ? Do you have any evidence that these groups posed any real threat to Obama's chances? And Actual political groups are not supposed to have tax-free status. This is a case where the headline sounds awful, but I'm not sure the actual facts of the case will back that up. Tax exempt groups like move on.org? http://www.moveon.org/event/faq/index.html?faq_id=45&show_topic=397 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbird 60,968 Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 he had already decided to step down. what's your point? What's yours? Keep in mind that the kerfuffle does not involve the targeting of groups for audits seeking evidence of a failure to pay taxes. Rather, the problem involved the IRS’s review of applications filed by the various entities seeking tax-exempt status under the law. At the time in question, many newly formed political organizations were seeking IRS certification that would allow them to avoid paying taxes on funds raised—the overwhelming majority of these organizations being Tea Party related groups. As the IRS believed that many of those filing for exemptions were stretching the limits of qualification, some low-level staffers at the agency’s Cincinnati, Ohio office decided to target for closer review those organizations with “Tea Party” sounding names, such as “patriot” and, of course, “Tea Party”. In the effort to dig deeper to determine if these groups qualified, the agency people involved asked many of the filing organizations to disclose names of those who had made contributions along with other data they deemed necessary to determine if the group qualified for tax free status. You want the IRS to make sure folks aren't gaming the system and committing fraud by claiming a tax exempt status. There was a great influx of organizations that rose up at that time around this movement. Some were probably legit, others not. What is sounds like they engaged in was a form of profiling-- given the facts some might say that was rational, others might say it was lazy, but I'm not sure it was nearly as nefarious as the pitch-fork crowd is carrying on. so your saying it is okay to target specific groups? if so, where does it stop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,840 Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 Now that they have apologized they should tell who in the White House instructed them to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.