There Was No Surge in IRS Tax-Exempt Applications in 2010

[MDM4AU 338]

A number of people have sought to explain the IRS targeting of Tea Party, patriot, and 9/12 group applications -- as well as those from other conservative groups -- for "specialist team" treatment (mainly delays and excessive and inappropriate questions) in 2010 by pointing to the Citizens United decision that year allowing for unlimited, undisclosed fundraising by such groups. That's the explanation IRS official Lois Lerner gave a week ago when she first revealed that the agency had improperly handled a slew of applications -- the political shorthand was a mistaken attempt to deal with a surge in applications.

"[W]e saw a big increase in these kind of applications, many of which indicated that they were going to be involved in advocacy work," Lerner said.

But Todd Young, a Republican congressman from Indiana, pointed out at Friday's House Ways and Means Committee hearing with former acting IRS commissioner Steve Miller and Treasury Inspector General J. Russell George that this was not the case, according to the very data the IRS provided to the Treasury IG's office.

Continue reading here:

http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/there-was-no-surge-in-irs-tax-exempt-applications-in-2010/275985/

[autigeremt 7,260]

Of course not, but they are being honest and we are all just a bunch of worry warts.

[shabby 2,098]

From the very article you linked: By 2011 they increased tremendously and doubled by 2012. I'd say that was a surge.

[autigeremt 7,260]

From the very article you linked: By 2011 they increased tremendously and doubled by 2012. I'd say that was a surge.

But not when Miller stated it as fact (2010).

[MDM4AU 338]

From the very article I posted, it shows that In 2010, C3 was down 8% and C4 was down appx 1%.

Accoring to a Yahoo News timeline, the extra scrutiny began around March and April of 2010.

[shabby 2,098]

Perhaps they knew the surge was coming? I honestly think there was some targeting but I also think a large portion of the 'trouble' arose from not having set policy in plce on how to address these new enitities.

[TitanTiger 21,571]

Perhaps they knew the surge was coming?

Dude, you're reaching. Big time.

[shabby 2,098]

Perhaps they knew the surge was coming?

Dude, you're reaching. Big time.

I don't think its reaching to assume in 2010 that Citizens United would lead to a flood of 501c4 groups which it evidently did. I'm not saying that Lerner wasn't being dishonest. I really don't know. At the very least, it appears she was incompetent. What I'm saying is there was no system in place to adequately address how to evaluate which of these groups were legitimately operating as non-profits as dictated by Citizen United. It was a powder keg waiting to explode.

[telling tiger 156]

Whining about integrity from people who think having integrity includes lying about Obama's eligibility to even be POTUS falls on deaf ears when it comes to me. Here was your first explosion. http://www.allgov.com/news/where-is-the-money-going/irs-never-approved-social-welfare-application-of-karl-roves-dark-money-group-121218?news=846511 With those conservative, "values", I'll remain uninterested.

[TitanTiger 21,571]

Perhaps they knew the surge was coming?

Dude, you're reaching. Big time.

I don't think its reaching to assume in 2010 that Citizens United would lead to a flood of 501c4 groups which it evidently did. I'm not saying that Lerner wasn't being dishonest. I really don't know. At the very least, it appears she was incompetent. What I'm saying is there was no system in place to adequately address how to evaluate which of these groups were legitimately operating as non-profits as dictated by Citizen United. It was a powder keg waiting to explode.

Sorry, not buying that. You don't start overscrutinizing a year before some anticipated surge in applications.

You wouldn't buy this dump truck of fertilizer if it had been liberal groups during the Bush years treated like this. Don't be a fool and part with your money now over it.

[shabby 2,098]

Perhaps they knew the surge was coming?

Dude, you're reaching. Big time.

I don't think its reaching to assume in 2010 that Citizens United would lead to a flood of 501c4 groups which it evidently did. I'm not saying that Lerner wasn't being dishonest. I really don't know. At the very least, it appears she was incompetent. What I'm saying is there was no system in place to adequately address how to evaluate which of these groups were legitimately operating as non-profits as dictated by Citizen United. It was a powder keg waiting to explode.

Sorry, not buying that. You don't start overscrutinizing a year before some anticipated surge in applications.

You wouldn't buy this dump truck of fertilizer if it had been liberal groups during the Bush years treated like this. Don't be a fool and part with your money now over it.

You realize liberal groups were treated like this during the Bush years right? 2005?

http://politix.topix.com/homepage/6072-irs-targeted-liberals-under-bush

[TitanTiger 21,571]

So, Greenpeace and the NAACP. Where are the other 298 liberal groups given undue attention under Bush? Just so we can be proportional.

[AURaptor 1,137]

I especially like the excuse that they were trying to stream line the process by asking targeted applicants many MORE questions, not less.

That makes perfect sense... no where but in D.C.

[homersapien 12,345]

I especially like the excuse that they were trying to stream line the process by asking targeted applicants many MORE questions, not less.

That makes perfect sense... no where but in D.C.

Wait a second. As unlikely as it would seem, I think you may have stumbled on something significant here.

You mentioned "applicants". So the IRS wasn't actually seeking out groups to audit or anything, they were simply reviewing applications.

Hmmm, I wonder how many groups were applying for 501c(4) status? And of those, I wonder how many would be deemed as "conservative" as opposed to "liberal"?

Now there's some data you can track down. It just might make your case.

Get back to us. (You can ask Titan to help you.)

[AURaptor 1,137]

Man homer, have you suffered ( yet another ) aneurysm ?

Groups already targeted were those with 'Tea Party' , 'Patriot' and the like are what's being discussed here. The IRS not only has already acknowledged this very fact, but has apologized. That's what started off this entire scandal.

[DKW 86 7,950]

From the very article I posted, it shows that In 2010, C3 was down 8% and C4 was down appx 1%.

Accoring to a Yahoo News timeline, the extra scrutiny began around March and April of 2010.

Dude just stop. Its just piling on now. Look, any thinking person can see that so far every narrative the Dems have used to provide cover for these things has blown up in their faces. there is no reason other than just freakin bad people doing freakin bad things. The closer you look at the time lines in every case the facts just get worse and the details just seem more unseemly.

Look at the WH email dump.

It doesnt look that bad for them until you realize there is a gap of 67 hours from the time of the Attack until the first email released by the WH. Why cant they just tell the whole truth? the whole story? Why do they persist in the lie when everyone knows they are lying? For those of us old enough to remember Watergate, folks this is just like the Nixon Administration. They denied, denied, denied. The public actually thought it was just the haters of the President and then one day after hearing the lies and the crap and the holes in their stories for so long...suddenly the public just would not believe anything they Administration would say anymore. We are a;ready there with Carney, and the no one can ever explain how Sarah Hall Ingram is still working for the Administration in any capacity.

[TitanTiger 21,571]

I especially like the excuse that they were trying to stream line the process by asking targeted applicants many MORE questions, not less.

That makes perfect sense... no where but in D.C.

Wait a second. As unlikely as it would seem, I think you may have stumbled on something significant here.

You mentioned "applicants". So the IRS wasn't actually seeking out groups to audit or anything, they were simply reviewing applications.

Hmmm, I wonder how many groups were applying for 501c(4) status? And of those, I wonder how many would be deemed as "conservative" as opposed to "liberal"?

Now there's some data you can track down. It just might make your case.

Get back to us. (You can ask Titan to help you.)

We've been talking about applicants the whole time.

[homersapien 12,345]

Man homer, have you suffered ( yet another ) aneurysm ?

Groups already targeted were those with 'Tea Party' , 'Patriot' and the like are what's being discussed here. The IRS not only has already acknowledged this very fact, but has apologized. That's what started off this entire scandal.

You may be right.

But my understanding was they were reviewing applications, not picking out organizations from the "population" to investigate/review. But I could be wrong or only partly correct.

Regardless, such a subtle distinction could explain a lot regarding intent or motivation.

If you have a description of exactly what happened, please share it.

[homersapien 12,345]

From the very article I posted, it shows that In 2010, C3 was down 8% and C4 was down appx 1%.

Accoring to a Yahoo News timeline, the extra scrutiny began around March and April of 2010.

Dude just stop. Its just piling on now. Look, any thinking person can see that so far every narrative the Dems have used to provide cover for these things has blown up in their faces. there is no reason other than just freakin bad people doing freakin bad things. The closer you look at the time lines in every case the facts just get worse and the details just seem more unseemly.

Look at the WH email dump.

It doesnt look that bad for them until you realize there is a gap of 67 hours from the time of the Attack until the first email released by the WH. Why cant they just tell the whole truth? the whole story? Why do they persist in the lie when everyone knows they are lying? For those of us old enough to remember Watergate, folks this is just like the Nixon Administration. They denied, denied, denied. The public actually thought it was just the haters of the President and then one day after hearing the lies and the crap and the holes in their stories for so long...suddenly the public just would not believe anything they Administration would say anymore. We are a;ready there with Carney, and the no one can ever explain how Sarah Hall Ingram is still working for the Administration in any capacity.

Well I am old enough to remember Watergate. This is nothing like Watergate. Not even close.

Even if it turns out that Obama is guilty of everything you imagine him to be in all three scandals, it wouldn't approach the crimes of Watergate. To compare the two is to trivialize the issues of Watergate.

Heck, even the AP investigation, which does have long term implications approaching the issues of Watergate, was done under the legal cover of a subpoena.

[homersapien 12,345]

I especially like the excuse that they were trying to stream line the process by asking targeted applicants many MORE questions, not less.

That makes perfect sense... no where but in D.C.

Wait a second. As unlikely as it would seem, I think you may have stumbled on something significant here.

You mentioned "applicants". So the IRS wasn't actually seeking out groups to audit or anything, they were simply reviewing applications.

Hmmm, I wonder how many groups were applying for 501c(4) status? And of those, I wonder how many would be deemed as "conservative" as opposed to "liberal"?

Now there's some data you can track down. It just might make your case.

Get back to us. (You can ask Titan to help you.)

We've been talking about applicants the whole time.

So how is reviewing applications "targeting"? Isn't an application supposed to be reviewed by definition?

[TitanTiger 21,571]

I especially like the excuse that they were trying to stream line the process by asking targeted applicants many MORE questions, not less.

That makes perfect sense... no where but in D.C.

Wait a second. As unlikely as it would seem, I think you may have stumbled on something significant here.

You mentioned "applicants". So the IRS wasn't actually seeking out groups to audit or anything, they were simply reviewing applications.

Hmmm, I wonder how many groups were applying for 501c(4) status? And of those, I wonder how many would be deemed as "conservative" as opposed to "liberal"?

Now there's some data you can track down. It just might make your case.

Get back to us. (You can ask Titan to help you.)

We've been talking about applicants the whole time.

So how is reviewing applications "targeting"? Isn't an application supposed to be reviewed by definition?

These weren't he regular old reviews every application gets. They are more in depth reviews that are typically done. And it appears to be disproportionately affecting conservative groups.

[homersapien 12,345]

I especially like the excuse that they were trying to stream line the process by asking targeted applicants many MORE questions, not less.

That makes perfect sense... no where but in D.C.

Wait a second. As unlikely as it would seem, I think you may have stumbled on something significant here.

You mentioned "applicants". So the IRS wasn't actually seeking out groups to audit or anything, they were simply reviewing applications.

Hmmm, I wonder how many groups were applying for 501c(4) status? And of those, I wonder how many would be deemed as "conservative" as opposed to "liberal"?

Now there's some data you can track down. It just might make your case.

Get back to us. (You can ask Titan to help you.)

We've been talking about applicants the whole time.

So how is reviewing applications "targeting"? Isn't an application supposed to be reviewed by definition?

These weren't he regular old reviews every application gets. They are more in depth reviews that are typically done. And it appears to be disproportionately affecting conservative groups.

So you are saying the "targeting" resides in the depth of the reviews?

And you never got back on that disproportionate thing - how may other 501c(4) applications were there other than the "conservative ones" at issue?

[TitanTiger 21,571]

So you are saying the "targeting" resides in the depth of the reviews?

You wouldn't? If one group gets grilled for much more detailed information which takes many more man-hours, while the other gets the regular cursory internal review that doesn't involve any further contact (or very little) from the IRS, and you noticed that it seems to disproportionately affect conservative groups...does that not come off as targeting?

Put it this way. Say the government is investigating the lending practices of a bank. And what they notice is sudden and significant uptick in the amount of requests for more financial information, subjecting applicants to more questioning and so on...but those who are being asked for this information are disproportionately black and there doesn't appear to be any sudden surge in the number of black applicants relative to white ones (at least not nearly in proportion to the uptick in the deeper investigations sent their way), would you say there's reason to be suspicious that black applicants are being targeted for more scrutiny? I think you would.

So yes, the suspicion of targeting is linked to the depth of the reviews.

And you never got back on that disproportionate thing - how may other 501c(4) applications were there other than the "conservative ones" at issue?

If it wasn't disproportionate, then what is the President upset about and why are people at the IRS losing their jobs over it? If it were as simple as showing some numbers that pointed out that the deeper inquiries were in proportion to the relative number of applications from various groups and their political leanings, don't you think they'd be shouting that from the rooftops by now?

[homersapien 12,345]

So you are saying the "targeting" resides in the depth of the reviews?

You wouldn't? If one group gets grilled for much more detailed information which takes many more man-hours, while the other gets the regular cursory internal review that doesn't involve any further contact (or very little) from the IRS, and you noticed that it seems to disproportionately affect conservative groups...does that not come off as targeting?

Put it this way. Say the government is investigating the lending practices of a bank. And what they notice is sudden and significant uptick in the amount of requests for more financial information, subjecting applicants to more questioning and so on...but those who are being asked for this information are disproportionately black and there doesn't appear to be any sudden surge in the number of black applicants relative to white ones (at least not nearly in proportion to the uptick in the deeper investigations sent their way), would you say there's reason to be suspicious that black applicants are being targeted for more scrutiny? I think you would.

So yes, the suspicion of targeting is linked to the depth of the reviews.

OK, I am just trying to clarify. A lot of people are implying that conservative groups were sought out, the way that audits might be levied.

I still don't have the big picture of how many of these applications were represented by "liberal" groups and how many by "conservative" groups.

Nor do I know the extent of the "reviews" and whether or not they were unreasonable, especially considering the way the law is written.

I am not even sure exactly how the terms "Tea party", 9/11 were used as identifiers. I know that claim has been made, and I am not saying it wasn't, but by whom? Was it policy?

[homersapien 12,345]

If it wasn't disproportionate, then what is the President upset about and why are people at the IRS losing their jobs over it? If it were as simple as showing some numbers that pointed out that the deeper inquiries were in proportion to the relative number of applications from various groups and their political leanings, don't you think they'd be shouting that from the rooftops by now?

Because of the political sensitivity of this sort of activity by the IRS. Everyone who has ever had to pay taxes -- or deal with the IRS - can relate to it. But more significantly, it validates the general Republican claim that government is evil and big government is even more evil. (At least when the POTUS is a Democrat.)

I am not a Democrat, much less part of the administration, so I can afford to ask questions. Democrats in office, and especially the President, can't even be seen questioning the response. It would be political suicide.

Again, I am not trying to justify what happened. The idea of the IRS making politicized decisions is abhorrent to everyone. Or it should be. I just don't think this leads back to the President. It is certainly way too soon to come to that conclusion, but many on this forum don't have a doubt.

Like I said earlier, this reminds me a lot of the Cam Newton controversy. There were some bad things done, but that doesn't necessarily mean Auburn was guilty of any of them.

I hope the facts become known. The sooner the better.