Exploding IRS scandal.

[werepossum]

This is what I meant when I said 'whipping yourself up into a lather'. Now that one part of your persecution complex looks to have been unfounded you're trying to discredit that portion of it by inexplicably relating it to other issues instead of actually taking that information in and adjusting your understanding.

Like I said, inconvenient information must be dismissed at all costs. The fact that you go on about how you can rationally evaluate the world while freaking out like this is pretty telling.

Just curious, did those democrats make those statements on the requirement that the truth be found first or did they ask for people to be fired with no investigation?
Basically what was the full context of the quotes?

On a more personal level: When you start seeing the information from your right wing sites be disproven over and over again will you start to question the validity of said sites? When your conspiracies are disproven time and time again, will you start to question your sanity or will you just create a new reality to explain away everything?

Of course you think you are right and can't be fooled so my question is what if you aren't right? How will you address the above?

I'll answer the question as well so you can see that I am being serious. Of course I think I am right and I can't be fooled either but, if I'm wrong and proven wrong over and over again, I will have to do some serious soul searching and I will have to question my views and the data they are based on, I would also have to look for new sources for my information as it would appear my old sources betrayed me.

I await your response.

We'll just have to agree to disagree over whether an anonymous IRS manager claiming to be both responsible for this whole mess and a conservative Republican has disproved anything. It's very telling however that although you guys are now hanging your hopes on this anonymous conservative Republican IRS manager, it's you progressives who are insisting that nothing bad happened here. This is the government you guys want, so don't come whining when it is used against you.

 

[ivwshane]

Unfortunately there are many more like him on this forum.

Lol you are like a hemroid! Anytime an ass shows up you are right there with them!

 

[ivwshane]

We'll just have to agree to disagree over whether an anonymous IRS manager claiming to be both responsible for this whole mess and a conservative Republican has disproved anything. It's very telling however that although you guys are now hanging your hopes on this anonymous conservative Republican IRS manager, it's you progressives who are insisting that nothing bad happened here. This is the government you guys want, so don't come whining when it is used against you.

Yes we can agree to disagree although I'm dissappointed that you didnt answer my other question

 

[werepossum]

Yes we can agree to disagree although I'm dissappointed that you didnt answer my other question

Look it up on your own. I'm sure you'll find a reason to discount them both.

 

[ivwshane]

Look it up on your own. I'm sure you'll find a reason to discount them both.

???

That didnt even make sense.

 

[fskimospy]

We'll just have to agree to disagree over whether an anonymous IRS manager claiming to be both responsible for this whole mess and a conservative Republican has disproved anything. It's very telling however that although you guys are now hanging your hopes on this anonymous conservative Republican IRS manager, it's you progressives who are insisting that nothing bad happened here. This is the government you guys want, so don't come whining when it is used against you.

I'm not hanging any hopes on this, it's just yet another piece of inconvenient evidence that you're desperately trying to ignore.

If it turns out that Obama has done something deserving of sanction I welcome it. There's just no evidence that such a thing has taken place. Your need to invent all these boogeymen is very telling.

 

[cubby1223]

eskimospy, ivwshane, I have not been following the argument in this thread, but it's time to put the reminder out there again - you two are no different than those you criticize.

You both accept as truth things that fit your natural instincts while twisting things that don't fit your natural instincts into scenarios that do.

It happens to damn near everyone. Get over yourselves.

 

[werepossum]

Yes we can agree to disagree although I'm dissappointed that you didnt answer my other question

Your question:

Just curious, did those democrats make those statements on the requirement that the truth be found first or did they ask for people to be fired with no investigation?
Basically what was the full context of the quotes?

My response.

Look it up on your own. I'm sure you'll find a reason to discount them both.

???

That didnt even make sense.

My response explained:
Look up their quotes on your own. Having done that, I am sure you'll come to the conclusion that both statements are taken out of context, or are out of date, or are otherwise flawed and therefore should be discounted, because everyone knows nothing bad occurred and anyone it was conservative Republicans doing it. I base this on your oft-demonstrated belief that in every case, on every issue, the Democrats are perfectly correct and ethically pure as snow whereas the Republicans are incorrect and ethically worse than Hitler with a Big Gulp, a handgun and a big block Expedition. Although I will admit that this spin (the conservative Republicans are oppressing the conservative Republicans) is at least a novel twist on that tired old plot.

 

[ivwshane]

eskimospy, ivwshane, I have not been following the argument in this thread, but it's time to put the reminder out there again - you two are no different than those you criticize.

You both accept as truth things that fit your natural instincts while twisting things that don't fit your natural instincts into scenarios that do.

It happens to damn near everyone. Get over yourselves.

Ok. When it does happen feel free to point it out

I don't wish to be an ass and hold a position that is disproved with facts, I prefer to be correct.

 

[fskimospy]

eskimospy, ivwshane, I have not been following the argument in this thread, but it's time to put the reminder out there again - you two are no different than those you criticize.

You both accept as truth things that fit your natural instincts while twisting things that don't fit your natural instincts into scenarios that do.

It happens to damn near everyone. Get over yourselves.

When I continue to insist on something without evidence and then dismiss contrary evidence in the way that werepossum has I fully encourage you to let me know.

I think when you did this before I reminded you of what a vacuous statement of false equivalence you were making. Guess it's time to put that reminder out again too, eh? haha.

 

[ivwshane]

Your question:


My response.



My response explained:
Look up their quotes on your own. Having done that, I am sure you'll come to the conclusion that both statements are taken out of context, or are out of date, or are otherwise flawed and therefore should be discounted, because everyone knows nothing bad occurred and anyone it was conservative Republicans doing it. I base this on your oft-demonstrated belief that in every case, on every issue, the Democrats are perfectly correct and ethically pure as snow whereas the Republicans are incorrect and ethically worse than Hitler with a Big Gulp, a handgun and a big block Expedition. Although I will admit that this spin (the conservative Republicans are oppressing the conservative Republicans) is at least a novel twist on that tired old plot.

No, that was my first question, hence the single paragraph. My other question which I can't believe you missed was;

Originally Posted by ivwshane

On a more personal level: When you start seeing the information from your right wing sites be disproven over and over again will you start to question the validity of said sites? When your conspiracies are disproven time and time again, will you start to question your sanity or will you just create a new reality to explain away everything?

Of course you think you are right and can't be fooled so my question is what if you aren't right? How will you address the above?

I'll answer the question as well so you can see that I am being serious. Of course I think I am right and I can't be fooled either but, if I'm wrong and proven wrong over and over again, I will have to do some serious soul searching and I will have to question my views and the data they are based on, I would also have to look for new sources for my information as it would appear my old sources betrayed me.

I await your response.

 

[werepossum]

I'm not hanging any hopes on this, it's just yet another piece of inconvenient evidence that you're desperately trying to ignore.

If it turns out that Obama has done something deserving of sanction I welcome it. There's just no evidence that such a thing has taken place. Your need to invent all these boogeymen is very telling.

In much the same way Dan Rather welcomes the chance to prove his forged documents were forged or Bashar Assad welcomes dialog with the rebels. You're not fooling anyone, dude; if evidence comes to light that Obama did something deserving of sanction you'll spin like a crocodile with a JATO doing a death roll on a fattened Kobe heifer. Nobody here demonstrates the moral gymnastics you display.

Although you apparently missed the part where I said I doubt Obama has done anything deserving of sanction. Easy to see how my lack of worship could have thrown you off. My bad.

 

[fskimospy]

In much the same way Dan Rather welcomes the chance to prove his forged documents were forged or Bashar Assad welcomes dialog with the rebels. You're not fooling anyone, dude; if evidence comes to light that Obama did something deserving of sanction you'll spin like a crocodile with a JATO doing a death roll on a fattened Kobe heifer. Nobody here demonstrates the moral gymnastics you display.

Except of course there are now numerous threads on the front page that have me talking about how shitty Obama's civil liberties policies are. You even participated in one where you thought me telling people how they were getting basic facts wrong was defending Obama on the issue despite repeated posts condemning it in the same thread.

I can't be held responsible for your failure to read the threads you participate in, but I will admit to being impressed by your ability to alter your reality to the extent that you can throw very recent events down the memory hole so quickly when they threaten your world view.

Although you apparently missed the part where I said I doubt Obama has done anything deserving of sanction. Easy to see how my lack of worship could have thrown you off. My bad.

You're right, I forgot it was the Worldwide Progressive Conspiracy. That's way better.

 

[ivwshane]

[N]In much the same way Dan Rather welcomes the chance to prove his forged documents were forged or Bashar Assad welcomes dialog with the rebels. You're not fooling anyone, dude; if evidence comes to light that Obama did something deserving of sanction you'll spin like a crocodile with a JATO doing a death roll on a fattened Kobe heifer. Nobody here demonstrates the moral gymnastics you display.[/B]

Although you apparently missed the part where I said I doubt Obama has done anything deserving of sanction. Easy to see how my lack of worship could have thrown you off. My bad.

Gotta protect that bubble!

I also read how you don't think Obama is involved but before making that comment you preceeded to explain how he would be involved (he put out a bat symbol or something) and immediately after saying that you made the comment that we will have to see if he was involved.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=35120941&highlight=#post35120941

So sorry if its hard to follow your mental gymnastics routine.

 

[werepossum]

Except of course there are now numerous threads on the front page that have me talking about how shitty Obama's civil liberties policies are. You even participated in one where you thought me telling people how they were getting basic facts wrong was defending Obama on the issue despite repeated posts condemning it in the same thread.

I can't be held responsible for your failure to read the threads you participate in, but I will admit to being impressed by your ability to alter your reality to the extent that you can throw very recent events down the memory hole so quickly when they threaten your world view.

You're right, I forgot it was the Worldwide Progressive Conspiracy. That's way better.

You've got me there. There's not a single issue on which you feel the Republicans or the right are correct, but you are willing to occasionally criticize the left with the understanding that the right is much worse. I stand corrected.

Gotta protect that bubble!

I also read how you don't think Obama is involved but before making that comment you preceeded to explain how he would be involved (he put out a bat symbol or something) and immediately after saying that you made the comment that we will have to see if he was involved.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=35120941&highlight=#post35120941

So sorry if its hard to follow your mental gymnastics routine.

I'll explain it slowly for you and anyone else whose attendant is away.
1. President Obama put out a list of conservative donors, falsely referring to them as "on the wrong side of the law." This is not illegal, although it was a lie.
2. The IRS begins to systematically target conservative groups seeking not-for-profit status.
3. President Obama profits from this behavior. This also is not illegal, as long as he is not actively involved in it.
4. For President Obama to direct the IRS to systematically target conservative groups seeking not-for-profit status WOULD be illegal.
5. President Obama knows this, being far smarter than his followers.
6. President Obama therefore probably does not direct the IRS to systematically target conservative groups seeking not-for-profit status. He contents himself with suggesting that these groups are a problem and "on the wrong side of the law." (Review #1 here.)
7. It remains to be seen IF President Obama was involved.
8. My assumption is that President Obama was not involved, because although he benefits from the practice, he stands to lose quite a bit if he is caught directing it.
9. We must wait to see if my assumption is correct.

I doubt you can follow mental gymnastics beyond identifying the 'D' on the ballot, but at least give me credit for explaining it slowly without using all your fingers.

 

[Fern]

I haven't seen any evidence that the IRS did anything wrong.. these groups were and are more likely to push politics against the rules of the tax exempt status.

You are the enemy.

The IG and his report disagree with you.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

You've got me there. There's not a single issue on which you feel the Republicans or the right are correct, but you are willing to occasionally criticize the left with the understanding that the right is much worse. I stand corrected.


I'll explain it slowly for you and anyone else whose attendant is away.
1. President Obama put out a list of conservative donors, falsely referring to them as "on the wrong side of the law." This is not illegal, although it was a lie.
2. The IRS begins to systematically target conservative groups seeking not-for-profit status.
3. President Obama profits from this behavior. This also is not illegal, as long as he is not actively involved in it.
4. For President Obama to direct the IRS to systematically target conservative groups seeking not-for-profit status WOULD be illegal.
5. President Obama knows this, being far smarter than his followers.
6. President Obama therefore probably does not direct the IRS to systematically target conservative groups seeking not-for-profit status. He contents himself with suggesting that these groups are a problem and "on the wrong side of the law." (Review #1 here.)
7. It remains to be seen IF President Obama was involved.
8. My assumption is that President Obama was not involved, because although he benefits from the practice, he stands to lose quite a bit if he is caught directing it.
9. We must wait to see if my assumption is correct.

I doubt you can follow mental gymnastics beyond identifying the 'D' on the ballot, but at least give me credit for explaining it slowly without using all your fingers.

Lol, at least you admit it's mental gymnastics.


I'm still waiting for a response from you for my other post.

 

[Fern]

Guys, werepossum is totally rational and reasonable, can't you see?

If you think he's mischaracterizing your position that's because you're engaging in a conspiracy to trick people about your beliefs.

If the guy at the IRS behind this was a self-identified conservative Republican he's actually a secret liberal conspiring to trick people about his beliefs.

It's all suddenly so clear, if things aren't as werepossum thinks, it's all because of the secret liberal conspiracy.

If, entirely on the basis of this manager's word, we are to dismiss the matter as not politically motivated, in spite of currently available info that strongly indicates otherwise, verification of his political affiliation is appropriate.

In any case, in an investigation the testimony of a single individual is generally an insufficient basis for a making an investigatory determination. However, it should be given its due consideration and weighed accordingly.

Those who've read the IG's report will note that Washington DC IRS personnel were involved. E.g., the Director, EO was briefed on the process (among others).

I look forward to reading the manager's testimony. In particular, I'd like to know what motivated him to pursue this process, a process the IG ruled was inappropriate.

Fern

 

[bshole]

Lying to a congressional committee about political affiliation in an attempt to avoid being held responsible for using the IRS as a political tool seems like a wise risk to me.

Lying under oath is a wise risk? That is certifiable. I don't think you would make a very good defense attorney.

 

[ivwshane]

If, entirely on the basis of this manager's word, we are to dismiss the matter as not politically motivated, in spite of currently available info that strongly indicates otherwise, verification of his political affiliation is appropriate.

In any case, in an investigation the testimony of a single individual is generally an insufficient basis for a making an investigatory determination. However, it should be given its due consideration and weighed accordingly.

Those who've read the IG's report will note that Washington DC IRS personnel were involved. E.g., the Director, EO was briefed on the process (among others).

I look forward to reading the manager's testimony. In particular, I'd like know what motivated to pursue this process, a process the IG ruled was inappropriate.

Fern

This appears to be what happened:

Screening agent gets a tea party tax exempt request and thinks it might need special attention because it might be unique in how it's tax exempt status is determined. He sends this info to his boss.

His boss looks at the info and agrees that clarification is needed and to make sure future responses are consistent he contacts the DC office for guidance.

The DC office asks for more examples in order to give better guidance and requests additional cases from the reporting manager.

The boss complies and uses a list of terms to find apps meeting the DC offices requests/needs.


The full testimonies will be released by Friday whether or not Issa releases the transcripts himself.

This looks like an even bigger non story than originally thought and it makes the Benghazi non story look like a big non deal.

 

[werepossum]

Lol, at least you admit it's mental gymnastics.


I'm still waiting for a response from you for my other post.

Be sure and let us know how that works out for you.

Lying under oath is a wise risk? That is certifiable. I don't think you would make a very good defense attorney.

Well - it worked pretty well for Bill Clinton.

 

[Fern]

This appears to be what happened:

1. Screening agent gets a tea party tax exempt request and thinks it might need special attention because it might be unique in how it's tax exempt status is determined. He sends this info to his boss.

2. His boss looks at the info and agrees that clarification is needed and to make sure future responses are consistent he contacts the DC office for guidance.

3. The DC office asks for more examples in order to give better guidance and requests additional cases from the reporting manager.

4. The boss complies and uses a list of terms to find apps meeting the DC offices requests/needs.

The full testimonies will be released by Friday whether or not Issa releases the transcripts himself.

This looks like an even bigger non story than originally thought and it makes the Benghazi non story look like a big non deal.

Not sure where you're getting #'s 1 and 2. I agree with your following steps.

Going by the comprehensive timeline in the IG's report (beginning pg 31) I see:

1. Something happened in Feb of 2010 but was redacted out.

2. March 2010 "The Determinations Unit Group Manager asked a specialist to search for other Tea Party or similar organizations’ applications in order to determine the scope of the issue". I.e., this doesn't appear to have originated with a specialist, but rather the DG Manager who ask the specialists to search for more TEA Party applications.

At present, my curiosity is centered on who thought up this new special program and why, who approved it (for it certainly used considerable agency resources) and on what basis. The existing review program was more than sufficient to determine those application that should be selected for further inquiry, so I see no obvious reason to depart from existing standards/practices. The IG's report doesn't address this in any meaningful way.

Fern

 

[shadow9d9]

So far there's no evidence that Obama is involved. However, the thread is to discuss the scandal. Given that this is probably the worst purely political scandal since Watergate, it's certainly worth discussing whether or not Obama is involved.


Quoted for laughs.

There's a saying that the most effective thing Satan ever did was to convince people he did not exist. Satan's a lot brighter than you guys; I don't think you'll ever be able tp pull off the same trick.


My first thought is that this is a "Conservative Republican" in the same vein as Andrew Sullivan, i.e. only in name because it makes a good perch to attack Conservative Republicans. Given that Tea Party groups have clean noses whereas left wing groups like ACORN have multiple criminal convictions plus many agreements to avoid prosecution, the concept of an IRS official singling out Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny whilst green lighting the baby ACORNs seems much more in line with a leftist lying about being a Conservative Republican than an actual Conservative Republican.

Keep fighting that phantom enemy!

 

[Fern]

-snip-.
It is very telling that the Democrats are now on record as saying they will release the full transcripts if Issa will not. Why is Issa dragging his feet in releasing the full transcripts? Why are the Democrats anxious to get the full transcripts released? Pretty easy to see whom the transcripts and the evidence favour.

If I was conducting an investigation I wouldn't release the transcripts until I had interviewed all the individual.

Much like the police separate people involved in an investigation and question them individually to prevent them from collaborating on a 'story', I would try to question them all and get their own individual versions before releasing the others' version. I would also examine each story and upon finding contradictions would try to revisit those with the necessary individuals before release of transcripts.

I see no investigative value in releasing them now, quite the opposite in fact.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Audits happen all the time, and I'm sure that there are those who claim it's political when convenient to do so, when it suits their purposes.

Audits are on-going year around.

I don't find any single audit suspicious. However in some (very rare) present cases we have simultaneous audits by numerous governmental agencies (e.g., IRS, EPA, OSHA, BATF and FBI). That is highly unusual, and that's an understatement.

Moreover, the audits were themselves conducted in a highly unusual manner. I'll confine my remarks to the IRS audit(s) because I've been in the profession for over 30 years and handled many IRS audits on behalf of taxpayer clients.

The IRS audit was an unannounced on-site audit. I have only seen one unannounced visit by the IRS and it involved a collection matter of a huge amount of back taxes by a taxpayer who was clearly doing everything legally, but perhaps not ethically, possible to avoid paying. This is primarily an intimidation tactic and one borne of frustration etc on the IRS's part. I.e., the guy wasn't cooperating in 'good faith'.

Other than intimidation there are very few good reasons outside of criminal tax evasion to show up unannounced. (E.g., if someone is lying about their assets in a collection or criminal tax dispute they might show up unannounced to verify assets, or lack thereof, such as expensive art, collectibles or automobiles that could be seized. If a criminal is warned (s)he can easily remove these to another location.)

Otherwise, if the IRS had to go onsite, which pertains to business audits, they will always announce it, arrange a schedule and provide a list of documentation (general ledgers, financials and various records etc) they want to examine. They want this info prepared and available prior to their arrival so time is not needlessly wasted.

In the case I mentioned of so many unusual audits there was no apparent purpose other than intimidation for the IRS to appear on site unannounced.

Are you terribly surprised to find out that people who exhibit tax dodging weasel tendencies wrt their political contributions might do so in general, thus raising the audit flag at the IRS?

Unthinkable, I'm sure.

Where do you get the information that any of these people "exhibit tax dodging weasel tendencies wrt their political contributions"? Did you just pull that out of your you-know-what?

BTW: There is no such thing as a "tax dodging" regarding political contributions. They are not tax deductible. Furthermore, because they are not the IRS wouldn't likely be aware of them unless those contributions were reported on a tax exempt org's Form 990, in which case if that were done I'd say it's evidence of political targeting.

Individuals' tax returns are selected for examination based upon something called a DIF score: http://www.unclefed.com/Audit-Proofing/miscon2.html

During the processing routine all tax returns are scored or rated for audit potential under IRS's top secret computer program called DIF, for Discriminant Function. The higher the DIF score, the greater the potential of bringing in additional taxes under the audit. DIF scores are developed from an analysis of a series (involving up to 50,000 randomly selected returns) of intensive audits, conducted every few years, called the Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program (TCMP)

Throughout the year, district IRS offices place orders with the IRS service centers for returns to audit. The service center then pulls those returns that are above a specific DIF cutoff score and sends them to the district office.

If it appears to the classifier that the tax return is in order or that you have included sufficient substantiating or appropriate documentation with the return, the return will most likely be sent back to the service center without being audited. The classifier relies of his or her experience, judgment, and instincts to analyze the returns to find the ones with the greatest likelihood of change.

So no, the process isn't as you describe. The one you describe would, IMO, be illegal.

Were I on the congressional committee I'd subpoena the DIF score of the individual and the cutoff score determined by the IRS at that time. But I doubt Congress is aware of such things.

Fern