IRS confesses to inappropriately targeting conservative groups.

[Zorkorist]

I'll just add that some people care. You and I.

-John

 

[OutHouse]

So the President has fired, or should I say asked the head of the IRS to resign, and apparently he wasn't even in office when all the scrutinizing of these political groups applications were happening at the time, Douglas Shoulman was, he was a Bush appointee.. but since he is no longer here, someone has to take the fall. We have John Boehner saying someone has to go to jail for this, wich is laughable, because there was no crime committed, as the IRS was after all, doing there job, and come to find out there is a report that says they actually denied more liberal political groups applications for 501C4 's than the conservative groups..wow..

So much political spin, and so much smoke screen, to take time away from the real things that matter.

Spin? Guesd you missed the part where the dudes term was to end this month anyway. His "resignation" is 100% spin.

 

[Angry Irishman]

I don't think the average person cares one hoot about this, or Benghazi, and or the AP so called scandal. All this, the IRS, Benghazi, AP is just the noise the machine makes as it churns, smokes and sputters. It's all Washington crap, nothing more.
And who the fuck cares??? Really?
We all know our politics are owned and operated by the NRA, the banks, Wall Street, money and power. So this scandal ridden noise machine really means nothing when you sort thru it all. Especially means nothing to 90% of the public. The press runs with it because it MIGHT lead to another Nixon-like scandal. Something, out of boredom, the press would love and be more than eager to spend 24/7 reporting on. That is, until they too become bored.
But for the average American, we already know congress from one end to the other has no desire to serve or represent the people's will. Those days have long went bye bye.
So these petty scandals where fact is an illusion and no one really knows what is the big issue is, these news media circle jerks are totally alien to the average American citizen.
They don't care. We don't care. It just emphasizes what we already know. That the people's business that matters is, and will continuing to go unaddressed by our leaders and the media.
No one cares. And rightly so. Not in all this crap.

It's clear the man is keeping us all down......

 

[HomerJS]

Spin? Guesd you missed the part where the dudes term was to end this month anyway. His "resignation" is 100% spin.

At this point in the investigation what did you want him to do? Boner is calling for jail w/o evidence any laws were broken. If he didn't fire anyone you'd be bitching about that too.

 

[PokerGuy]

2. 4 different IRS nonprofit offices are involved (Cincinnati, Washington DC and two in CA)

3. The correspondance etc coming from each of the above 4 to the targeted nonprofits were viturally identical. This indicates a conspiracy.

IDK if this is true, heard it from a lawyer representing some of the nonprofits.

However, if true, I have a problem believing "low level employees" were able to coordinate this across the USA.

Fern

If this is indeed shown to be the case, this thing is going to expand and get much uglier in a hurry. It would blow the lid off the whole "a couple of low level employees" story.

 

[Bowfinger]

Some wealthy people (who have lawyers etc.) and trusts and other non-profits that exist primarily to fund causes will not contribute unless and until an exemption letter from IRS can be produced to prove who and what they are.

Lacking that proof (i.e., exemption letter) they ain't getting much money.

They wouild also be severly hampered as regards mailings etc to raise funds. They cannot put "charitable org" in their brochure etc without possibly getting into trouble etc.

Fern

In other words, though not legally prevented from raising money, it greatly limited their ability to raise money, which is a material damage. Makes sense. Thanks Fern.

 

[PokerGuy]

The guy that Obama fired wasn't even the head of the IRS when this happened.. jesus, the guy who was was Douglas Shoulman, who was a Bush Appointee..for crying out loud.

In other words, Obama fired the head of the IRS as more of a scape goat if anything.

So basically, this is an attempt to head off a bigger scandal. Quickly boot a guy who was set to retire in a few weeks anyway and then replace him with some political donor or contributor instead. Win-win!

I'm not impressed, there needs to be a full investigation and everyone who was in any way involved needs to be fired and (if possible) prosecuted criminally.

What is even more f*cked up is that the IRS was doing their job.. and that was to scrutinize those who were filing for applications for purposes not intended. Everything is just a mess.

No. You apparently just don't get it. The IRS was not doing their job. Their job is not to harass or scrutinize groups based on political affiliation or ideology. If they were doing their job they would have applied the same standards to all groups. By their own admission, that did not happen. All the spin and BS can't change that undeniable fact, they've already admitted to it. Now it's really just a matter of seeing how far up the chain this went, and seeing how the people involved will be held accountable (if at all).

 

[PokerGuy]

Yep, things are going to get more interesting now, it's definitely not something limited to one office and a couple of 'rogue' employees.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...incinnati-employees.html?ICO=most_read_module

I take the daily fail information with an even bigger grain of salt than most other sites, but based on that article (which includes multiple letters supporting the claims), offices in DC, California and other places were also involved with targeting conservative groups.

 

[TheVrolok]

So basically, this is an attempt to head off a bigger scandal. Quickly boot a guy who was set to retire in a few weeks anyway and then replace him with some political donor or contributor instead. Win-win!

I'm not impressed, there needs to be a full investigation and everyone who was in any way involved needs to be fired and (if possible) prosecuted criminally.



No. You apparently just don't get it. The IRS was not doing their job. Their job is not to harass or scrutinize groups based on political affiliation or ideology. If they were doing their job they would have applied the same standards to all groups. By their own admission, that did not happen. All the spin and BS can't change that undeniable fact, they've already admitted to it. Now it's really just a matter of seeing how far up the chain this went, and seeing how the people involved will be held accountable (if at all).

It seems that many who argue that racial profiling is ok are up in arms over this, which is essentially political profiling.

 

[Bowfinger]

So basically, this is an attempt to head off a bigger scandal. Quickly boot a guy who was set to retire in a few weeks anyway and then replace him with some political donor or contributor instead. Win-win!

It's not quite that cynical. According to this recent CNN story:

The official, acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, was aware employees were targeting conservative groups in May 2012, according to the agency.

But Miller, then the agency's deputy commissioner, didn't tell Congress about it when he testified before an oversight committee in July -- despite being questioned on the issue. He was named acting commissioner in November.

So Miller wasn't forthcoming to Congress when he already knew about the targeted reviews.

I'm not impressed, there needs to be a full investigation and everyone who was in any way involved needs to be fired and (if possible) prosecuted criminally...

It's pretty clear to me that this is being taken quite seriously, and the investigation will be thorough. If criminal statutes were violated, I expect to see prosecutions.

The story so far, however, is that these employees weren't profiling for partisan reasons, but simply for expediency. They were deluged with applications and were seeking some sort of quick way to separate those that were legitimate non-profits from those that might be political groups masquerading as charities. That seems a reasonable goal as long as it is done fairly, without discriminating based on ideology. It seems they blew it, using poor judgment in selecting their review criteria.

 

[PokerGuy]

It seems that many who argue that racial profiling is ok are up in arms over this, which is essentially political profiling.

No, that's baloney. The IRS is not charged with trying to determine if someone is going to potentially violate some regulation in the future. This office was charged with verifying that the applications met requirements to qualify for the exemptions. Nothing more, nothing less. Profiling makes absolutely no sense for that purpose.

 

[PokerGuy]

It's not quite that cynical. According to this recent CNN story:
So Miller wasn't forthcoming to Congress when he already knew about the targeted reviews.

That makes sense then, and Miller should indeed be shown the door, along with a few others.

The story so far, however, is that these employees weren't profiling for partisan reasons, but simply for expediency. They were deluged with applications and were seeking some sort of quick way to separate those that were legitimate non-profits from those that might be political groups masquerading as charities.

That makes absolutely no sense. They apply MORE scrutiny to conservative groups, ie, spend more time on their applications, ask more questions, review more documentation and so forth, for expediency? First, that doesn't make any sense, and even if it did, that would not explain why it was specifically conservative groups that were getting additional scrutiny (as determined by the IG's report). That does not compute.

Also, when you see some of the letters from the IRS offices and some of the questions they were asking and the documentation they were requesting, it's 100% clear they were not trying to legitimately determine the nature of the organization, they were trying to bury the applicant in paperwork with absurd requests. That's not done in the name of expediency, that's harassment.

Conservative groups have been complaining for years about being singled out. Much of that is likely not true, but clearly as we see now at least some of it is true. As the old saying goes, just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.

 

[FerrelGeek]

There are also allegations that the info gathered was 'shared' with other groups outside the IRS. If those allegations turn out to be true, that sounds pretty serious.

That makes sense then, and Miller should indeed be shown the door, along with a few others.



That makes absolutely no sense. They apply MORE scrutiny to conservative groups, ie, spend more time on their applications, ask more questions, review more documentation and so forth, for expediency? First, that doesn't make any sense, and even if it did, that would not explain why it was specifically conservative groups that were getting additional scrutiny (as determined by the IG's report). That does not compute.

Also, when you see some of the letters from the IRS offices and some of the questions they were asking and the documentation they were requesting, it's 100% clear they were not trying to legitimately determine the nature of the organization, they were trying to bury the applicant in paperwork with absurd requests. That's not done in the name of expediency, that's harassment.

Conservative groups have been complaining for years about being singled out. Much of that is likely not true, but clearly as we see now at least some of it is true. As the old saying goes, just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.

 

[PokerGuy]

There are also allegations that the info gathered was 'shared' with other groups outside the IRS. If those allegations turn out to be true, that sounds pretty serious.

Yes, I saw an article about some application and tax information that was shared / leaked to an outside socialist ...errr.... "progressive" group. That would definitely be a criminal act, and hopefully something that will be investigated thoroughly as well.

 

[Bowfinger]

That makes sense then, and Miller should indeed be shown the door, along with a few others.

That makes absolutely no sense. They apply MORE scrutiny to conservative groups, ie, spend more time on their applications, ask more questions, review more documentation and so forth, for expediency? First, that doesn't make any sense, and even if it did, that would not explain why it was specifically conservative groups that were getting additional scrutiny (as determined by the IG's report). That does not compute.

You misunderstand "expediency" in this context. It's not expediency in processing applications needing extra scrutiny. It's expediency in identifying those applications that need extra scrutiny vs. those that are more clearly eligible for non-profit treatment. Remember that under current regulations, groups whose primary mission is political do NOT qualify. These IRS employees were (reportedly) trying to find a quick way to identify applications that might be for ineligible political groups. Those applications would then receive more in-depth reviews to determine if they met the requirements as a legitimate non-profit.

Also, when you see some of the letters from the IRS offices and some of the questions they were asking and the documentation they were requesting, it's 100% clear they were not trying to legitimately determine the nature of the organization, they were trying to bury the applicant in paperwork with absurd requests. That's not done in the name of expediency, that's harassment. ...

Perhaps so, in some cases -- maybe even many cases. That's one of the things the investigation will surely review.

 

[piasabird]

It is time to find new management in the IRS. These kind of things have been going on a long time. Since Clinton and before then. So what the IRS really needs is an external Audit every year and a Clean Sweep. Fire all the Partisan power abusers and hire some new employees. Must be a lot of out of work financial people with experience. The IRS needs better External supervision.

I work at a community college and we have an external independent audit at least once a year. Plus Audits from State and Federal Agencies.

Fire all the management in the IRS. Run the IRS like a free market corporation. Then also hire investigators to work undercover. They need some moles.

 

[PokerGuy]

You misunderstand "expediency" in this context. It's not expediency in processing applications needing extra scrutiny. It's expediency in identifying those applications that need extra scrutiny vs. those that are more clearly eligible for non-profit treatment.

Ok, I misinterpreted what you meant by expediency. That still doesn't hold water though. It's one thing to say that "I'm taking shortcuts to identify which apps need more scrutiny" and those shortcuts were poorly chosen ones. One might accept that explanation, if it wasn't for the processes the groups subsequently were put through and the letters they received.

Reading the letters, the questions asked and the information requested, there can be no other reasonable explanation than that it was political harassment, unless someone can show that all other groups also received such harassment -- in which case it looks even worse for management involved with this process, it would mean they are so grossly incompetent that they should be fired anyway.

 

[HomerJS]

No, that's baloney. The IRS is not charged with trying to determine if someone is going to potentially violate some regulation in the future. This office was charged with verifying that the applications met requirements to qualify for the exemptions. Nothing more, nothing less. Profiling makes absolutely no sense for that purpose.

Actually quite the opposite is true. Its the same reason some say Muslims need to be racially profiled at airports. If the rationale is overwelming majority of terror attacks are Muslims we shouldn't check litle old white ladies.

There was a recent flood of applications most from Tea Party/conservative groups. The IRS is operating with less agents and if the pile of apps was growing flagging apps with string searches was a way to expidite the pile.

So the IRS profiled based on the type of applications coming in. They didn't have the resources to scrutinize all the apps in detail so they decided to focus on where the majority were originating.

 

[HomerJS]

BTW - I read some of the actual IGs report and it says...

WHY TIGTA DID THE AUDIT
TIGTA initiated this audit based on concerns expressed by members of Congress.

This was the same method Republicans used in 2004 to get the IRS to audit the NAACP.

 

[xBiffx]

BTW - I read some of the actual IGs report and it says...



This was the same method Republicans used in 2004 to get the IRS to audit the NAACP.

False equivalence. Audits happen after the fact. They are done on paperwork already accepted which doesn't stop business unless, after the audit process, something is found. It's not a preemptive measure to order an audit.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Actually quite the opposite is true. Its the same reason some say Muslims need to be racially profiled at airports. If the rationale is overwelming majority of terror attacks are Muslims we shouldn't check litle old white ladies.

There was a recent flood of applications most from Tea Party/conservative groups. The IRS is operating with less agents and if the pile of apps was growing flagging apps with string searches was a way to expidite the pile.

So the IRS profiled based on the type of applications coming in. They didn't have the resources to scrutinize all the apps in detail so they decided to focus on where the majority were originating.

And in doing so, they were political filtering because of the choice of words selected

 

[BoberFett]

Actually quite the opposite is true. Its the same reason some say Muslims need to be racially profiled at airports. If the rationale is overwelming majority of terror attacks are Muslims we shouldn't check litle old white ladies.

There was a recent flood of applications most from Tea Party/conservative groups. The IRS is operating with less agents and if the pile of apps was growing flagging apps with string searches was a way to expidite the pile.

So the IRS profiled based on the type of applications coming in. They didn't have the resources to scrutinize all the apps in detail so they decided to focus on where the majority were originating.

So the way the IRS was saving time was by asking these groups what books they read?

 

[OutHouse]

BTW - I read some of the actual IGs report and it says...



This was the same method Republicans used in 2004 to get the IRS to audit the NAACP.

not even in the same ballpark. stop being dishonest.

 

[Oldgamer]

No. You apparently just don't get it. The IRS was not doing their job. Their job is not to harass or scrutinize groups based on political affiliation or ideology. If they were doing their job they would have applied the same standards to all groups. By their own admission, that did not happen. All the spin and BS can't change that undeniable fact, they've already admitted to it. Now it's really just a matter of seeing how far up the chain this went, and seeing how the people involved will be held accountable (if at all).

They did, and you can pull up a gazillion news reports on how many of the democratic, liberal parties, as well as many other groups they denied or held up applications on.

 

[xBiffx]

So the way the IRS was saving time was by asking these groups what books they read?

Sure. They don't have to waste time at the bookstore now. Derp.