Exploding IRS scandal.

[Jhhnn]

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.



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



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

Those current very rare cases involve whom, exactly?

The rest is just legalese to obfuscate the methods used to dodge taxes & exposure while using the money for political purposes. All of the Tea Party groups currently whining don't use their tax exempt contributions for political purposes? Really? What else do they do with it, pray tell?

Feed the hungry? Shelter the homeless?

 

[bshole]

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.

I would buy that IF Issa wasn't releasing portions...

. On Monday, for example, he released a portions of an interview with an IRS official who suggested that the targeting efforts were coordinated by IRS officials in Washington D.C

I think Issa may be lying in effect (it is in his proven nature). He releases snippets (possibly out of context) in an effort to smear the White House. It is obviously political and dirty. He is on a witch hunt. I say release the documents NOW and nip this in the bud NOW.

So sorry, I am not buying the SELECTIVELY secretive nature of this investigation.

 

[monovillage]

Those current very rare cases involve whom, exactly?

The rest is just legalese to obfuscate the methods used to dodge taxes & exposure while using the money for political purposes. All of the Tea Party groups currently whining don't use their tax exempt contributions for political purposes? Really? What else do they do with it, pray tell?

Feed the hungry? Shelter the homeless?

It's OK if it doesn't happen often?
It's OK if it happens to people you don't like?

but it's not OK if it happens to you.

 

[boomerang]

I'm thinking it's going to be tough having a D behind your name in the 2014 midterm elections.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's OK if it doesn't happen often?
It's OK if it happens to people you don't like?

but it's not OK if it happens to you.

Not the question. Vague allegations were made. I asked for verifiable specifics. None have been offered.

It may or may not be true, but w/o specifics, it's just FUD.

Well, unless you worship at the altar of Issa...

 

[werepossum]

I'm thinking it's going to be tough having a D behind your name in the 2014 midterm elections.

Nah. The press will rally behind the Democrats.

 

[fskimospy]

Nah. The press will rally behind the Democrats.

Hahaha, the only thing that will save us from the evil librul conspiracy at the IRS is yet another evil librul conspiracy in the press! Do you see any further evil librul conspiracies on the horizon that are going to come together into some sort of secret conspiratorial librul Voltron?

You would think that since apparently devious liberals control just about everything in America that they would have more policy success. I'm going to have to bring this poor use of the shadow levers of power at our next meeting in the volcano lair.

 

[Incorruptible]

Nah. The press will rally behind the Democrats.

The press are already doing it now. That piece of crap lawrence o'donnell already said it was justified.

 

[dank69]

Hahaha, the only thing that will save us from the evil librul conspiracy at the IRS is yet another evil librul conspiracy in the press! Do you see any further evil librul conspiracies on the horizon that are going to come together into some sort of secret conspiratorial librul Voltron?

You would think that since apparently devious liberals control just about everything in America that they would have more policy success. I'm going to have to bring this poor use of the shadow levers of power at our next meeting in the volcano lair.

I heard we got Whoopi Goldberg to MC the next social mixer. :awe:

 

[werepossum]

Hahaha, the only thing that will save us from the evil librul conspiracy at the IRS is yet another evil librul conspiracy in the press! Do you see any further evil librul conspiracies on the horizon that are going to come together into some sort of secret conspiratorial librul Voltron?

You would think that since apparently devious liberals control just about everything in America that they would have more policy success. I'm going to have to bring this poor use of the shadow levers of power at our next meeting in the volcano lair.

JournoList, bitch.

I don't know why the mainstream media would even bother to conspire since they all believe the same thing, but we have evidence that they do.

 

[fskimospy]

JournoList, bitch.

I don't know why the mainstream media would even bother to conspire since they all believe the same thing, but we have evidence that they do.

Someone's getting testy!

I was unaware that reporters expressing political opinions off the record and outside their professional capacity was evidence of a massive conspiracy to promote liberal causes professionally, but hey, what do I know? Also, that's somehow a conspiracy? lol.

This is a pretty common argument however, which never gets less terrible as it is repeated; that if someone has a personal political affiliation they must be either unprofessionally and dishonestly pushing that political affiliation at work or are unable to rationally and objectively interpret the world.

Please let me know what other webs of liberal conspiracies we should be looking out for. There are apparently so many that it's hard to keep track of them all. Maybe a spreadsheet?

 

[werepossum]

Someone's getting testy!

I was unaware that reporters expressing political opinions off the record and outside their professional capacity was evidence of a massive conspiracy to promote liberal causes professionally, but hey, what do I know? Also, that's somehow a conspiracy? lol.

This is a pretty common argument however, which never gets less terrible as it is repeated; that if someone has a personal political affiliation they must be either unprofessionally and dishonestly pushing that political affiliation at work or are unable to rationally and objectively interpret the world.

Please let me know what other webs of liberal conspiracies we should be looking out for. There are apparently so many that it's hard to keep track of them all. Maybe a spreadsheet?

From the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList

Tucker Carlson, who edited several of Strong's articles about JournoList, wrote in a July 22 article: "Again and again, we discovered members of Journolist working to coordinate talking points on behalf of Democratic politicians, principally Barack Obama. That is not journalism, and those who engage in it are not journalists. They should stop pretending to be. The news organizations they work for should stop pretending, too. [...] I've been in journalism my entire adult life, and have often defended it against fellow conservatives who claim the news business is fundamentally corrupt. It's harder to make that defense now. It will be easier when honest (and, yes, liberal) journalists denounce what happened on Journolist as wrong"

Proggies are fundamentally dishonest. Which of course is not surprising - if one rejects any fundamental truth or morality, then any notion of truth can be rejected whenever it does not advance the agenda. What IS surprising is your apparent inability to understand that everyone knows this. When you have a group of supposedly unbiased "reporters" caught demonstrating their extreme bias and coordinating defense of progressive politicians and attacks on conservative politicians on a secret website, pretending that they are somehow able to turn on a switch and suddenly be unbiased - ignoring even their own recent collusion even while following it to the letter - is simply amusing.

 

[dank69]

From the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList

Proggies are fundamentally dishonest. Which of course is not surprising - if one rejects any fundamental truth or morality, then any notion of truth can be rejected whenever it does not advance the agenda. What IS surprising is your apparent inability to understand that everyone knows this. When you have a group of supposedly unbiased "reporters" caught demonstrating their extreme bias and coordinating defense of progressive politicians and attacks on conservative politicians on a secret website, pretending that they are somehow able to turn on a switch and suddenly be unbiased - ignoring even their own recent collusion even while following it to the letter - is simply amusing.

What's dishonest is pretending that 400 journalists = all mainstream media.

 

[monovillage]

What's dishonest is pretending that 400 journalists = all mainstream media.

Try reading his post you dishonest piece of garbage.

............ When you have a group of supposedly unbiased "reporters" caught demonstrating their extreme bias and coordinating defense of progressive politicians ........

He did not say "all mainstream media." as you claim.

 

[fskimospy]

From the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList

Proggies are fundamentally dishonest. Which of course is not surprising - if one rejects any fundamental truth or morality, then any notion of truth can be rejected whenever it does not advance the agenda. What IS surprising is your apparent inability to understand that everyone knows this. When you have a group of supposedly unbiased "reporters" caught demonstrating their extreme bias and coordinating defense of progressive politicians and attacks on conservative politicians on a secret website, pretending that they are somehow able to turn on a switch and suddenly be unbiased - ignoring even their own recent collusion even while following it to the letter - is simply amusing.

You are fundamentally dishonest, or perhaps just suffering from paranoid delusions.

Not only are you quoting a right wing activist website as the truth of the matter, but you somehow think that right wing reality is what 'everyone' thinks. Additionally, the Daily Caller repeatedly refused to release the email threads in their entirety, they have also repeatedly written stories about this subject that are objectively false, but you continue to believe it anyway because it tells you what you already wanted to hear. There is no evidence of any such things having ever happened from that list, but because publicly acknowledged liberal people said liberal things in private to each other somehow it's all a conspiracy.

When someone so desperately needs to believe like you do, you'll cling to anything you can.

 

[monovillage]

Another nice commentary on the continuing Obama scandals.

"Record Shows Obama Can't Be Trusted ''

............Then came the Benghazi debacle. The president's base, according to polls and what little MSNBC viewing I could stomach, never wavered in its conviction that Benghazi was a nonscandal. But even if you don't think it was a scandal (as I do), many partisans admit the administration's response, politically and in real time, was a mess, casting the White House as deeply political and not exactly truthful.

Cue the Justice Department, which deployed the Espionage Act against a Fox News reporter and subpoenaed the records of more than 20 Associated Press phone lines. Obama tried to play the Janus game again, saying that he was "troubled" by the reports of his own administration's actions. The media have let him get away with this bystander act when it comes to things like the prison at Guantanamo Bay, but not necessarily when it comes to threats to themselves.

And then the floodgates opened. The IRS compromised the integrity of the domestic agency that is supposed to be the most immune to politics. Worse, the White House's best defense was that it was simply asleep at the switch as the agency went rogue — in ways that just happened to align with the president's oft-expressed ideological and political preferences.

The IRS scandal is a cancer because if you can't trust Obama to keep that agency from being politicized, you can't trust him to keep anything immune from politics — including healthcare and, more relevant, the National Security Agency.
..................In late May, the president announced in a speech that the war on terror was essentially over. In early June, he's defending a data-mining operation even Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) — an author of the Patriot Act, which authorizes surveillance by the NSA — is denouncing as dangerous overreach he never intended.

The idealist wants credit for ending the war, while the alleged pragmatist wants to keep a surveillance apparatus that has no justification if the war on terror is truly over. Maybe he's right on the merits. The problem is that fewer and fewer people are willing to take his word for it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/11/we_cant_trust_obama_118761.html

 

[bshole]

Meh....

The trouble lies in determining what qualifies as political spending. According to FEC guidelines it is defined as spending on express advocacy ads, which call for direct election or defeat of a candidate. These expenditures must be reported as political activity. However, issue advocacy ads do not fall under this definition, and thus do not need to be reported, unless they mention a candidate and are within a given window of time before an election, primary, caucus, or convention -- a loophole which undermines the regulatory capabilities of the IRS and the FEC.

Today, 501(c)(4)s are too often political machines. The donor anonymity feature has earned them the name "dark money." Through these groups wealthy individuals can influence politics without ever stepping into the national spotlight which creates a potential for corruption that is unfathomable. This is precisely the problem the IRS was trying to crack down on with its targeting. But why single out conservative groups?

In the 2012 election cycle, dark money spent a total of $322 million, 84 percent of which came from conservative organizations in efforts to elect Republicans. The two highest rollers were Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, and Charles and David Koch's Americans For Prosperity (AFP). In 2012, Crossroads spent $165,062,250, and AFP spent $36,352,928. Gauging actual political expenditures or actual political activities is difficult, however, because we can only report on what has been disclosed. AFP's Tea Party nationwide seminars to build up support for conservative policies, are not necessarily counted.

 

[werepossum]

Meh....

So just to be clear, you aren't denying the IRS was targeting conservative groups, you're just saying it's a good thing, correct?

 

[bshole]

So just to be clear, you aren't denying the IRS was targeting conservative groups, you're just saying it's a good thing, correct?

No I was not saying that. I was merely pointing out that 84 percent of the dark money is coming from conservative organizations. Why are liberal organizations open and transparent while conservative organizations not? The disparity is startling to say the least and more than a little troubling.

 

[monovillage]

Meh....

?

Where were you quoting that from ?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No I was not saying that. I was merely pointing out that 84 percent of the dark money is coming from conservative organizations. Why are liberal organizations open and transparent while conservative organizations not? The disparity is startling to say the least and more than a little troubling.

Do you believe that our current "liberal" administration is open and transparent as well? Or is this inherently "liberal" attribute limited to just liberal organizations in general?

 

[Bowfinger]

I would buy that IF Issa wasn't releasing portions...


I think Issa may be lying in effect (it is in his proven nature). He releases snippets (possibly out of context) in an effort to smear the White House. It is obviously political and dirty. He is on a witch hunt. I say release the documents NOW and nip this in the bud NOW.

So sorry, I am not buying the SELECTIVELY secretive nature of this investigation.

I think this is another example of why Issa and his committee refused to let Pickering appear at Issa's public spectacle. Issa doesn't want truthful sources to have a public podium. They get the private interviews where Issa can try to control public disclosure. No matter what the issue may be, the very last thing Issa wants is truth. The same is true for Issa's many apologists.

 

[PokerGuy]

No I was not saying that. I was merely pointing out that 84 percent of the dark money is coming from conservative organizations. Why are liberal organizations open and transparent while conservative organizations not? The disparity is startling to say the least and more than a little troubling.

If you were going to get audited by the IRS and otherwise harassed by government agencies and vilified by the liberal media, wouldn't you rather donate anonymously to an organization?

 

[ivwshane]

If you were going to get audited by the IRS and otherwise harassed by government agencies and vilified by the liberal media, wouldn't you rather donate anonymously to an organization?

Lol.

Are conservatives being audited more now? I must have missed that new scandal. Vilified by the liberal media? Who exactly is this liberal media that is so powerful that the top "news" network which has almost triple the amount of viewers of all other news networks can't out spin the evil liberals?

 

[bshole]

Issa leading a fair investigation?

On September 13th, Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) won an award he’d probably love to be able to decline. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a non-profit legal watchdog group dedicated to holding public officials accountable for their actions, gave Issa a Dishonorable Mention in its 8th annual Most Corrupt Members of Congressreport.

CREW cites Issa for illegally revealing confidential information from a sealed wiretap in the Congressional Record — while leading a politically-motivated witch hunt intended to hurt Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder — and then shielding himself from reproach and censure by claiming that he, as a member of Congress, had constitutional protections for his unethical actions.