Same IRS letter sent the same letter to progressive groups

[TexasTiger 14,494]

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/irs-sent-same-letter-to-democrats-that-fed-tea-party-row.html?alcmpid=politics

[TitanTiger 21,500]

The Internal Revenue Service, under pressure after admitting it targeted anti-tax Tea Party groups for scrutiny in recent years, also had its eye on at least three Democratic-leaning organizations seeking nonprofit status...

...agency officials told lawmakers in a briefing yesterday that 471 groups received additional scrutiny.

...Two law firms that represent 33 Republican-leaning organizations that say they were targeted by the IRS.

They may have targeted a few, but it doesn't seem they did so in nearly the same proportions.

[TitanTiger 21,500]

Hmm.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/15/exclusive-prominent-catholic-prof-claims-irs-audited-her-after-speaking-out-against-obama-and-demanded-to-know-who-was-paying-her/

[RunInRed 18,632]

The only group to have its tax-exempt application denied was a liberal group...

One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected.

I'm not condoning what the IRS did but I also think it's worth remembering, you know, what their job is...

• Missing from much coverage is the relevant recent history—the role of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision and how it prompted a deluge of requests from new organizations seeking tax-exempt status under tax code Section 501©(4) as “social welfare” organizations—despite the fact that many of these are blatantly political operations.
  

• Congress requires the IRS to review every application for tax-exempt status to weed out organizations that are partisan, political, or that generate private gain. Congress has imposed this requirement on the IRS, and its predecessor agencies, since 1913.
  

http://www.cjr.org/u...al.php?page=all

[TitanTiger 21,500]

The only group to have its tax-exempt application denied was a liberal group...

One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected.

I'm not condoning what the IRS did but I also think it's worth remembering, you know, what their job is...

• Missing from much coverage is the relevant recent history—the role of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision and how it prompted a deluge of requests from new organizations seeking tax-exempt status under tax code Section 501©(4) as “social welfare” organizations—despite the fact that many of these are blatantly political operations.
  

• Congress requires the IRS to review every application for tax-exempt status to weed out organizations that are partisan, political, or that generate private gain. Congress has imposed this requirement on the IRS, and its predecessor agencies, since 1913.
  

http://www.cjr.org/u...al.php?page=all

True, but when you target that many more conservative groups than liberal ones (by what looks like a factor of at least 10 to 1 if not more), something is fishy. As the link I later posted showed, they were targeting people simply for expressing political opinions at all.

[AUcivE09 582]

So they only picked 3 liberal leaning groups and still found one hiding behind tax-exempt status compared to at least 33 Rep groups and found nothing. Sounds like another mark on the libs to me. Following the status quo?

[cptau 169]

If the IRS was fairly and legally doing their audits as usual, why are lots of democrats either running or DAK (denying all knowledge)?

[Auburn85 438]

The only group to have its tax-exempt application denied was a liberal group...

One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected.

I'm not condoning what the IRS did but I also think it's worth remembering, you know, what their job is...

• Missing from much coverage is the relevant recent history—the role of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision and how it prompted a deluge of requests from new organizations seeking tax-exempt status under tax code Section 501©(4) as “social welfare” organizations—despite the fact that many of these are blatantly political operations.
  

• Congress requires the IRS to review every application for tax-exempt status to weed out organizations that are partisan, political, or that generate private gain. Congress has imposed this requirement on the IRS, and its predecessor agencies, since 1913.
  

http://www.cjr.org/u...al.php?page=all

So should they apologize to the liberal group that was denied and grant them tax- exempt status?

[AURaptor 1,137]

So they only picked 3 liberal leaning groups and still found one hiding behind tax-exempt status compared to at least 33 Rep groups and found nothing. Sounds like another mark on the libs to me. Following the status quo?

To the Left, that's "fairness" .

[RunInRed 18,632]

Personally, I think all these 501c4 groups ought to be taxed/heavily regulated ... if they are going to be allowed at all. They are nothing more than shady soft money coffers pulling the strings behind the scenes and further fanning the flames of a corrupt political system. In short, they themselves, not the IRS (grabbing all the attention - again not condoning), are the bigger problem.

[Auburn85 438]

Personally, I think all these 501c4 groups ought to be taxed/heavily regulated ... if they are going to be allowed at all. They are nothing more than shady soft money coffers pulling the strings behind the scenes and further fanning the flames of a corrupt political system. In short, they themselves, not the IRS (grabbing all the attention - again not condoning), are the bigger problem.

Should the IRS have apologized to the Tea party groups?

[penguin149 391]

Apologies mean nothing when the damage is done.

[Auburn85 438]

What I'm trying to figure out is why does the IRS feel compelled to apologize to one group if this stuff apparently goes on all the time.

Did they apologize because they felt they did something specifically wrong ?

If the point is to say, well, Liberal groups have been denied status, should they be apologized to and given their status? Otherwise, what's the point of bringing up Liberal groups now?

[Newbomb 194]

The "regulations" caught 100% of all Tea Party type groups filing for tax exempt status...

[AURaptor 1,137]

Apologies mean nothing when the damage is done.

Its amounts to the classic non-apology apology, where the person says they're sorry IF ANYONE WAS OFFENDED , as it wasn't their intent.

All they're sorry for is getting caught. Nothing else.

[RunInRed 18,632]

I'm not so much caught up on the apologies but rather the bigger issue at hand. Do I want the IRS to be fiercely independent? Yes. Am I naive enough to think these types of random/selected audits don't go on all the time? No. Does that bother me? Somewhat. However, I'm of the opinion if you're playing by the rules, what difference does it make who comes looking in your backyard? But even more to the point, does this give us the opportunity to understand if the tax code regarding these 401c3s even make sense? You betcha ($1 to Sarah Palin).

[TexasTiger 14,494]

Personally, I think all these 501c4 groups ought to be taxed/heavily regulated ... if they are going to be allowed at all. They are nothing more than shady soft money coffers pulling the strings behind the scenes and further fanning the flames of a corrupt political system. In short, they themselves, not the IRS (grabbing all the attention - again not condoning), are the bigger problem.

Exactly. Claiming these big money operations are only "social welfare" groups and not "political" as they run millions in ads trying to influence elections is absurd. Since our law says a distinction can be drawn, the IRS is charged with trying to ascertain it. I'm not saying they handled that task well in this case-- just saying it seems inherently subjective to some degree and that due diligence would seem to require a great deal of scrutiny. Why not just end the charade and say if you run ads that any reasonable person would see is trying to influence an election, that is political activity and is not tax exempt.

[autigeremt 7,251]

Personally, I think all these 501c4 groups ought to be taxed/heavily regulated ... if they are going to be allowed at all. They are nothing more than shady soft money coffers pulling the strings behind the scenes and further fanning the flames of a corrupt political system. In short, they themselves, not the IRS (grabbing all the attention - again not condoning), are the bigger problem.

Exactly. Claiming these big money operations are only "social welfare" groups and not "political" as they run millions in ads trying to influence elections is absurd. Since our law says a distinction can be drawn, the IRS is charged with trying to ascertain it. I'm not saying they handled that task well in this case-- just saying it seems inherently subjective to some degree and that due diligence would seem to require a great deal of scrutiny. Why not just end the charade and say if you run ads that any reasonable person would see is trying to influence an election, that is political activity and is not tax exempt.

Remember....today's IRS leaders were yesterday's student....mostly in some Vietnam era professors class who may have felt worse for Bill Ayers than Sgt. Billco. Just an opinion....so keep your link shot to yourself Tex. jk

This thing stinks to high heaven. Anyone trying to take away from it needs to clear away the smoke and see the fire. It's the Chicago way and things are finally coming out.

[TexasTiger 14,494]

Personally, I think all these 501c4 groups ought to be taxed/heavily regulated ... if they are going to be allowed at all. They are nothing more than shady soft money coffers pulling the strings behind the scenes and further fanning the flames of a corrupt political system. In short, they themselves, not the IRS (grabbing all the attention - again not condoning), are the bigger problem.

Exactly. Claiming these big money operations are only "social welfare" groups and not "political" as they run millions in ads trying to influence elections is absurd. Since our law says a distinction can be drawn, the IRS is charged with trying to ascertain it. I'm not saying they handled that task well in this case-- just saying it seems inherently subjective to some degree and that due diligence would seem to require a great deal of scrutiny. Why not just end the charade and say if you run ads that any reasonable person would see is trying to influence an election, that is political activity and is not tax exempt.

Remember....today's IRS leaders were yesterday's student....mostly in some Vietnam era professors class who may have felt worse for Bill Ayers than Sgt. Billco. Just an opinion....so keep your link shot to yourself Tex. jk

This thing stinks to high heaven. Anyone trying to take away from it needs to clear away the smoke and see the fire. It's the Chicago way and things are finally coming out.

Not intending to diminish anything-- let the chips fall where they may. But do you really doubt that any ideological group that gets turned down will believe they were treated unfairly? Why would these groups-- left or right-- be tax exempt ?

[autigeremt 7,251]

Personally, I think all these 501c4 groups ought to be taxed/heavily regulated ... if they are going to be allowed at all. They are nothing more than shady soft money coffers pulling the strings behind the scenes and further fanning the flames of a corrupt political system. In short, they themselves, not the IRS (grabbing all the attention - again not condoning), are the bigger problem.

Exactly. Claiming these big money operations are only "social welfare" groups and not "political" as they run millions in ads trying to influence elections is absurd. Since our law says a distinction can be drawn, the IRS is charged with trying to ascertain it. I'm not saying they handled that task well in this case-- just saying it seems inherently subjective to some degree and that due diligence would seem to require a great deal of scrutiny. Why not just end the charade and say if you run ads that any reasonable person would see is trying to influence an election, that is political activity and is not tax exempt.

Remember....today's IRS leaders were yesterday's student....mostly in some Vietnam era professors class who may have felt worse for Bill Ayers than Sgt. Billco. Just an opinion....so keep your link shot to yourself Tex. jk

This thing stinks to high heaven. Anyone trying to take away from it needs to clear away the smoke and see the fire. It's the Chicago way and things are finally coming out.

Not intending to diminish anything-- let the chips fall where they may. But do you really doubt that any ideological group that gets turned down will believe they were treated unfairly? Why would these groups-- left or right-- be tax exempt ?

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. I concur but Congress needs to act on that.

[augolf1716 21,998]

I'm not so much caught up on the apologies but rather the bigger issue at hand. Do I want the IRS to be fiercely independent? Yes. Am I naive enough to think these types of random/selected audits don't go on all the time? No. Does that bother me? Somewhat. However, I'm of the opinion if you're playing by the rules, what difference does it make who comes looking in your backyard? But even more to the point, does this give us the opportunity to understand if the tax code regarding these 401c3s even make sense? You betcha ($1 to Sarah Palin).

Why do that?? Really

[alexava 6,976]

Apologies mean nothing when the damage is done.

what damage?

[RunInRed 18,632]

I'm not so much caught up on the apologies but rather the bigger issue at hand. Do I want the IRS to be fiercely independent? Yes. Am I naive enough to think these types of random/selected audits don't go on all the time? No. Does that bother me? Somewhat. However, I'm of the opinion if you're playing by the rules, what difference does it make who comes looking in your backyard? But even more to the point, does this give us the opportunity to understand if the tax code regarding these 401c3s even make sense? You betcha ($1 to Sarah Palin).

Why do that?? Really

Forgot this ...

[DKW 86 7,935]

So they only picked 3 liberal leaning groups and still found one hiding behind tax-exempt status compared to at least 33 Rep groups and found nothing. Sounds like another mark on the libs to me. Following the status quo?

To the Left, that's "fairness" .

Or...

You could say that 1/3 of the Liberal Groups Audited were found to be cheating while NONE of the Conservative Groups were found to be cheating.

That kiind of reminds me of Auburn being scrutinized for 13 months by the NCAA and finding NOTHING, while at Bama they turned in 32 secondary violations and no one commented on that at all.

[autigeremt 7,251]

Funny thing as an addendum. Mr. Miller, appointed by Bush, gave money to the DNC during the 2004 election. 2/3 of the IRS staff gave money to the Democrats over the last two election cycles. Then add into the mix this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323716304578483823268932776.html