IRS Scandal explodes. "no evidence that would support a criminal prosecution."

[xBiffx]

IRS Prematurely ‘Retired’ Data Storage Devices

Oops.

 

[xBiffx]

She asked "should we refer?" the person said "no". So now asking a question is doing it until someone else actively stops you?

Guess you missed the point of the policy. No individual can initiate an audit simply by recommending/asking about one. Lerner knows that.

"As a general matter, the IRS has checks and balances in place to ensure the fairness and integrity of the audit process," the IRS statement said. "Audits cannot be initiated solely by personal requests or suggestions by any one individual inside the IRS."

Keep in mind, this is where an attempt was made. We have records for this in the emails provided. How many other failed attempts are we going to find. More importantly, how many other failed attempts, or even yet successful ones are we not going to find because of the loss of records at the IRS?

 

[CitizenKain]

Ya, actually it does. I have been doing break/fix computer repair for 17 years and I have yet to have a client even come close to having seven drives crashed over a three-year period, much less catastrophic failures where no data is recoverable.

How many of those clients are running hundreds of 10 year old computers?

 

[Bowfinger]

IRS Prematurely ‘Retired’ Data Storage Devices

Oops.

That may not mean what the innuendo suggests. It is common to renew maintenance for a year at a time, even if some items under maintenance are due to be retired during that period. That's what we do, for example. If the contract is set up correctly and the contract owner is diligent, once that retirement happens the devices in question are dropped from the contract. We do such true-ups monthly for major hardware. We then get either a refund, a credit, or a lower monthly/quarterly payment depending on the vendor and contract terms.

IF that's the story behind this latest "scandal", the interesting question is how diligent is IRS IT in doing those true-ups and getting retired hardware and software off of maintenance? I don't have that information. Given that The Daily Caller was one of sites spreading the Sonasoft propaganda IIRC, I'm doubtful they've done any thorough investigation to clarify this latest blurb. We'll see.

 

[Jhhnn]

Thank you for linking that article. It was a interesting read and certainly explains to me more about what is going on. I did suspect that govt IT is stuck in 1999. I am also not surprised that because of budget cuts govt IT is so far behind.

Winnar!

It's all about priorities. What's more important-

Invading Iraq or something constructive?

Occupying Afghanistan for 12 years or anything else?

Budgeting to fit the work load or Cut! Cut! CUT!?

The IRS is the mortal enemy of the lyin', cheatin', stealin' bastards who fund the right wing noise machine- they'll do anything to destroy it, including congressional repubs nailing their feet to the floor & howling about how they can't run, using that to justify more budget cuts. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. Catch 22.

 

[Bowfinger]

http://news.yahoo.com/emails-irs-official-sought-audit-204035386.html

Adds even more validity to the case that Lerner may have used the IRS to target political opponents.

While Grassley may indeed be a political opponent, in this case he was also a taxpayer who might have been evading taxes by under reporting income. That's what the IRS is supposed to look for, just as it was legitimately looking for 501(c)(4) organizations that were excessively engaged in certain political activities. That's really the underlying issue in this whole IRS scandal: many on the right don't want the IRS to do its job and police these non-profit organizations because so many of these orgs are skirting the law to the benefit of the Republican Party.

Also note that even your link acknowledges that it's not clear whether Lerner was referring to Grassley personally, or the organization. As I understand the law, that organization would be responsible for reporting each guest spouse as income if the value was over $600 each. That's also a legitimate inquiry for the IRS, and isn't inherently partisan. To determine partisanship, we would need to determine whether Lerner or the IRS handled similar left-wing instances differently.

 

[xBiffx]

While Grassley may indeed be a political opponent, in this case he was also a taxpayer who might have been evading taxes by under reporting income. That's what the IRS is supposed to look for, just as it was legitimately looking for 501(c)(4) organizations that were excessively engaged in certain political activities. That's really the underlying issue in this whole IRS scandal: many on the right don't want the IRS to do its job and police these non-profit organizations because so many of these orgs are skirting the law to the benefit of the Republican Party.

No evidence of that especially because she was asking about a scenario that hand't even taken place yet.

Also note that even your link acknowledges that it's not clearer whether Lerner was referring to Grassley personally, or the organization. As I understand the law, that organization would be responsible for reporting each guest spouse as income if the value was over $600 each. That's also a legitimate inquiry for the IRS, and isn't inherently partisan. To determine partisanship, we would need to determine whether Lerner or the IRS handled similar left-wing instances differently.

Doesn't matter. Lerner's request for an audit can't be the reason for an audit. She knew that but did it anyways.

Edit: I think the following quote makes it clear who she was referring to. Why? Because nothing moved forward. They still likely could have checked into the organization but that wouldn't be anything new. I'm guessing they did but it really doesn't matter either way. Also, it shows that someone else there knew what she meant.

The other IRS official, Matthew Giuliano, waved her off, saying an audit would be premature because Grassley hadn't even accepted the invitation.

"It would be Grassley who would need to report the income," Giuliano said.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's what the IRS is supposed to look for, just as it was legitimately looking for 501(c)(4) organizations that were excessively engaged in certain political activities. That's really the underlying issue in this whole IRS scandal: many on the right don't want the IRS to do its job and police these non-profit organizations because so many of these orgs are skirting the law to the benefit of the Republican Party.

Of course. All the free speech you can pay for should be completely anonymous, right? And tax-free, of course.

 

[Bowfinger]

No evidence of that especially because she was asking about a scenario that hand't even taken place yet.

So? Exactly how is the IRS supposed to know if the violation occurs if they don't investigate? Again, that's their job.

Doesn't matter. Lerner's request for an audit can't be the reason for an audit. She knew that but did it anyways.

Edit: I think the following quote makes it clear who she was referring to. Why? Because nothing moved forward. They still likely could have checked into the organization but that wouldn't be anything new. I'm guessing they did but it really doesn't matter either way. Also, it shows that someone else there knew what she meant.

You need to stop saying Lerner requested an audit. That's just partisan innuendo, the latest talking point trying to spin a molehill into a mountain. She asked a colleague if they should refer the information to "exam", presumably the group that determines whether something deserves an inquiry or audit based on an extensive set of processes and criteria. Most inquiries are not audits. They are simple requests for information, additional documentation, etc. Further, your "request for an audit can't be the reason for an audit" is pure circular nonsense. A request for an audit cannot be the only reason for an audit, but it can certainly start a process to determine if an audit or inquiry is justified.

 

[xBiffx]

So? Exactly how is the IRS supposed to know if the violation occurs if they don't investigate? Again, that's their job.

They do just that, they investigate. When there is sufficient evidences for an audit, then they initiate one. None of this is done at the individual level either. And none of this is the case here.

You need to stop saying Lerner requested an audit. That's just partisan innuendo, the latest talking point trying to spin a molehill into a mountain. She asked a colleague if they should refer the information to "exam", presumably the group that determines whether something deserves an inquiry or audit based on an extensive set of processes and criteria. Most inquiries are not audits. They are simple requests for information, additional documentation, etc. Further, your "request for an audit can't be the reason for an audit" is pure circular nonsense. A request for an audit cannot be the only reason for an audit, but it can certainly start a process to determine if an audit or inquiry is justified.

I didn't, the IRS official did. Unless you are trying to say he's part of the partisan innuendo?

The other IRS official, Matthew Giuliano, waved her off, saying an audit would be premature because Grassley hadn't even accepted the invitation.

Also, let's look at it this way. If there was an audit of Grassley in this case and the email in question was released Grassley would have grounds to stop it/sue because it could be shown the the entire reason for initiating the audit was because of one individuals request. Again, the IRS has said that no individual can request or suggest an audit.

Had there been an investigation and then a bunch of evidence collected first and then an audit request, that would be legitimate. That would not have been an individual suggesting an audit.

 

[Bowfinger]

They do just that, they investigate. When there is sufficient evidences for an audit, then they initiate one. None of this is done at the individual level either. And none of this is the case here.

And who does that investigation, do you suppose? It's not Lerner, that's not her department at all. Do you think maybe it's the "exam" group that might examine the information and investigate? The problem is you started by accepting the claim that Lerner tried to audit Grassley, then tried to fit everything else into that model.

I didn't, the IRS official did. Unless you are trying to say he's part of the partisan innuendo?

Did he? In all sincerity, you need to learn how to read such stories critically. In particular, pay close attention to what is and is not within quotation marks. If it's not within quotes, it is the author's interpretation, his spin, rather than the actual words of the subjects. (And we'll ignore for now that some of these sites have been caught fabricating quotes as well.) His actual quote doesn't mention an audit. He said, "It would be Grassley who would need to report the income." The word "audit" comes only from the author, at least based on he snippets of mail released.

Also, let's look at it this way. If there was an audit of Grassley in this case and the email in question was released Grassley would have grounds to stop it/sue because it could be shown the the entire reason for initiating the audit was because of one individuals request. Again, the IRS has said that no individual can request or suggest an audit.

Had there been an investigation and then a bunch of evidence collected first and then an audit request, that would be legitimate. That would not have been an individual suggesting an audit.

Again, nonsense. You're repeating yourself, ignoring what I already explained. The IRS response was that an audit couldn't be based solely on an individual's suggestion. It doesn't say such a suggestion can't begin a process to determine if an audit -- or inquiry -- is justified. If you drop your initial conviction that Lerner decided to audit Grassley, the rest of the pieces make a lot more sense.

 

[xBiffx]

And who does that investigation, do you suppose? It's not Lerner, that's not her department at all. Do you think maybe it's the "exam" group that might examine the information and investigate? The problem is you started by accepting the claim that Lerner tried to audit Grassley, then tried to fit everything else into that model.

No I didn't. I started with the model that an individual can't request or suggest an audit as per what the IRS says. The "exam" group, as you put it, would be forced to ignore her. But yet she's on record asking about one.

Did he? In all sincerity, you need to learn how to read such stories critically. In particular, pay close attention to what is and is not within quotation marks. If it's not within quotes, it is the author's interpretation, his spin, rather than the actual words of the subjects. (And we'll ignore for now that some of these sites have been caught fabricating quotes as well.) His actual quote doesn't mention an audit. He said, "It would be Grassley who would need to report the income." The word "audit" comes only from the author, at least based on he snippets of mail released.

So now the AP is siding with the partisan Republican's here because they editorialized that's what he meant? He didn't say that but the AP made it sound that way? You've got to be kidding. You're grasping at anything now.

Again, nonsense. You're repeating yourself, ignoring what I already explained. The IRS response was that an audit couldn't be based solely on an individual's suggestion. It doesn't say such a suggestion can't begin a process to determine if an audit -- or inquiry -- is justified. If you drop your initial conviction that Lerner decided to audit Grassley, the rest of the pieces make a lot more sense.

If the audit or its investigation started from/because of/or after an individual's suggestion/request then that means it was based on an individual's suggest/request. It would be hard to argue that the audit began because of a non-individual investigation.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is what happens when the focus shifts from "What did happen?" to "We're gonna pin something on those motherfuckers no matter what!"

Or maybe it's just right back around to where Issa started it, huh?

It's like a monster truck show with all the noise & mud flying around, leaps of faith through the air onto piles of dead cars. Well, dead horses in this case.

That Issa, he's quite the entertainer.

 

[hal2kilo]

PFD PDF attachments, 500mb for e-mails littered with those isn't anything.

You beat me to it. Yea, unoptimized raster scan pdf's.

 

[Bowfinger]

No I didn't. I started with the model that an individual can't request or suggest an audit as per what the IRS says. The "exam" group, as you put it, would be forced to ignore her. But yet she's on record asking about one.

The Exam group wouldn't be forced to ignore anything, no matter how badly you wish it to be true. Your reasoning is sheer nonsense. You continue to ignore the word "solely" in the IRS' response.

Good grief, private citizens can submit tips about tax evaders to the IRS for consideration. How in the world can you pretend that an IRS manager wouldn't have the same ability? It denies all reason.

So now the AP is siding with the partisan Republican's here because they editorialized that's what he meant? He didn't say that but the AP made it sound that way? You've got to be kidding. You're grasping at anything now.

And you're getting more and more willfully obtuse. How does a reporter get stories? He talks to people and (ideally) checks source materials. Who did he talk to here? Republican Congressman, specifically Dave Camp, the same guy who's been raising hell about Lerner's drive crash. How objective do you suppose Camp was when he was fuming about Lerner's latest outrage?

I've found a link to the complete (but redacted) email chain: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/irs_grassley.pdf . You'll note that neither Lerner nor Giuliano ever uses the word audit. It came either from the reporter or someone he talked to, but is not in the emails. But I will not debate that nit any longer. You'll believe whatever you want anyway, and it is a side issue. It is a distraction from the core allegation that Lerner was inappropriately targeting Grassley for partisan reasons. I see no evidence of such partisan intent.

Instead, if you read the whole conversation, you'll note that Lerner isn't pushing for anything. She sees a potential tax violation and asks a peer if he thinks it should be reported. He says no, that it doesn't meet certain criteria. She accepts that and drops it, noting, "Don't know why I thought it was xx", where xx is redacted but appears to be only one or two characters. It would be really interesting to know what those characters are. It's so short that it would have to be a code or an abbreviation.

It also appears they were focused on the organization's actions, not Grassley personally. This is suggested in Giuliano's response where he explains that this is permitted, and that even if specific conditions were met, it would still fall to Grassley to report the income rather than this unnamed organization. It sounds as if Lerner is questioning whether this organization's gift/payment/?? was permitted.

If the audit or its investigation started from/because of/or after an individual's suggestion/request then that means it was based on an individual's suggest/request. It would be hard to argue that the audit began because of a non-individual investigation.

Same old, same old. It's a completely baseless excuse. You are misrepresenting what the IRS stated.

 

[boomerang]

The sleeper case that could bust open the IRS scandals

It's been said that there is more than one way to skin a cat. The IRS may just be skinning itself.

 

[TerryMathews]

The sleeper case that could bust open the IRS scandals

It's been said that there is more than one way to skin a cat. The IRS may just be skinning itself.

It will be interesting to see Eskimo pie tell us how those two cases don't really prove anything.

 

[boomerang]

It will be interesting to see Eskimo pie tell us how those two cases don't really prove anything.

To each his own but personally, I have no interest whatsoever in what he has to say.

 

[xBiffx]

It will be interesting to see Eskimo pie tell us how those two cases don't really prove anything.

Honestly Bowfinger has been the one coming to the defense of the IRS every chance he gets. They've even admitted wrongdoing yet he still wants to claim there are shreds of innocence left among any of their actions regarding the matter at hand.

But like boomerang said, to each their own and I've also lost interest.

 

[Bowfinger]

It will be interesting to see Eskimo pie tell us how those two cases don't really prove anything.

We'll see what happens. Given that the story's sources are still flogging the Sonasoft fizzle, their credibility and qualifications are suspect. I also note that Z Street applied as a 501(c)(3), while the other IRS controversy is about 501(c)(4)s, so there may be material differences in the IRS players and processes involved. In other words, there may be far less overlap between the two cases than the usual breathless hyperbole from the nutter media claims.

That said, I don't see how the IRS could possibly justify stating that certain applications are processed differently because they don't match the administration policy on Israel. That seems like a pretty clear First Amendment violation to me. That's only an allegation, however, something Z Street claims an IRS agent told them verbally. It may be tough for them to prove it in court. Also, based on the judge's statement about the relief Z Street seeks, it seems like the IRS can shut the whole thing down simply by conceding, agreeing to no longer treat such pro-Israel applications differently.

Anyway, an interesting story in its own right.

 

[TerryMathews]

We'll see what happens. Given that the story's sources are still flogging the Sonasoft fizzle, their credibility and qualifications are suspect. I also note that Z Street applied as a 501(c)(3), while the other IRS controversy is about 501(c)(4)s, so there may be material differences in the IRS players and processes involved. In other words, there may be far less overlap between the two cases than the usual breathless hyperbole from the nutter media claims.

That said, I don't see how the IRS could possibly justify stating that certain applications are processed differently because they don't match the administration policy on Israel. That seems like a pretty clear First Amendment violation to me. That's only an allegation, however, something Z Street claims an IRS agent told them verbally. It may be tough for them to prove it in court. Also, based on the judge's statement about the relief Z Street seeks, it seems like the IRS can shut the whole thing down simply by conceding, agreeing to no longer treat such pro-Israel applications differently.

Anyway, an interesting story in its own right.

Well, I'm sure he would've supplied a story from someone other than the "nutter media" if in fact any other network elected to carry the story.

Weird. I wonder why they didn't?

 

[boomerang]

Honestly Bowfinger has been the one coming to the defense of the IRS every chance he gets. They've even admitted wrongdoing yet he still wants to claim there are shreds of innocence left among any of their actions regarding the matter at hand.

But like boomerang said, to each their own and I've also lost interest.

This issue will be corrected in the November mid-terms. When the public goes basically silent on an issue as big as this it's because they've made their minds up on the issue and have decided on a course of action. In this case it's removing from power those that condone the actions of the IRS through either outright defense, or through their silence.

When you've got Democrats on the investigative committee asking Koskinen not even softball questions but apologizing for questions he's being asked by Republicans because Koskinen is a big donor to Democrats, the public understands what is going on and they will take action. They took action in 2010 and 2014 will be no different.

 

[Bowfinger]

Honestly Bowfinger has been the one coming to the defense of the IRS every chance he gets. They've even admitted wrongdoing yet he still wants to claim there are shreds of innocence left among any of their actions regarding the matter at hand.

But like boomerang said, to each their own and I've also lost interest.

I'm just trying to get people to stick to facts instead of faith. It's sadly not at all surprising this concept is so confounding to some. It is a religious issue for them, they BELIEVE!: the IRS is wrong and facts are irrelevant.

I've said from Day 1 that IF the IRS truly targeted these political (c)(4)s with partisan intent, it is absolutely unacceptable and those involved should be appropriately punished. The problem is corrupt partisan players like Darrell Issa, the wing-nut media, and their legions of gullible rubes are compromising the investigation by continually burying facts under a torrent of supposition and innuendo. This taints the other, legitimate investigations making it much less likely we'll ever get to the truth. They should all just STFU and let the legitimate investigations proceed.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, I'm sure he would've supplied a story from someone other than the "nutter media" if in fact any other network elected to carry the story.

Weird. I wonder why they didn't?

What I'm confused by is why you would take the statements of the plaintiff in a lawsuit as fact when they have presented no evidence to back them up. By the same logic, every defendant in a criminal trial is innocent because their lawyer said so. If that turned out to be true that would certainly be a problem, but again, why you would simply believe something because it fits the narrative you want is troubling.

Nice attempt to keep up the myth of media bias, btw. I don't know if you saw earlier, but PokerGuy tried the same thing and got crushed immediately by reality.

 

[Bowfinger]

Well, I'm sure he would've supplied a story from someone other than the "nutter media" if in fact any other network elected to carry the story.

Weird. I wonder why they didn't?

I found it in the Washington Post. Wing-nut victim card played and trumped yet again. Surprise.

It occurs to me that you guys play the victim card just like many leftists play the race card. It doesn't matter how valid the criticism may be, if it is against the right in some way it is immediately trumpeted as further proof of how persecuted you are. Grow a pair.