IRS Scandal

[Rukentuts]

Edit to respond to Ruken:

I think your wrong here. It's not the # that makes it a scandal. I hate making comparative scenarios, because usually it just ends up flipping on its head. Regardless I'll give it a shot now by providing several examples. (and I'll probably regret it later.)

Lets say the IRS target 1 democrat, just because he was a democrat? That would be wrong, would it not?
Lets break it out into other territory.
The IRS targeting 1 person, because of their religion?
The IRS targeting 1 person, because of their skin tone or ethnic origins?

All these scenario's are deeply wrong, because the IRS should be agnostic to any of these criteria.

This wasn't based on anything like that. The "25%" was based on the emergence of the Tea Party, and a response to claims that tax-exempt organizations were committing tax fraud. This is why political organizations themselves were targeted no matter what affiliation. People are just cherry-picking conservative keywords from a list and thinking its a "scandal"; even though they weren't even in the majority.

[Daelak]

There should be an investigation. What went wrong, where did we fail, who's responsible, why did they make these decisions, how can we improve. All of these start from investigation. If their really is any criminal or morally wrong actions conducted by officials during the attack, that may also come out as well.

Regardless if you think if their was something wrong was done or not, an investigation could still lead to preventing future events such as what happened at Benghazi.

What went wrong:

100 year old tax law that was amended in the 80's that switched "exclusively" to "generally", a pretty vague term to determine tax exemption status, leaving the Tax Exemption office the entire burden of figuring out how to exactly know if the organizations are not a front for large campaign donations.
2010 rolls around and a large influx of new applications come into the tax exemption department, a grand total of 150-200 IRS workers devoted to the sole purpose of granting/denying 70,000 applications per year. Their backlog was increasing feverishly, so they created a BOLO list to find groups that seemed most likely to have "overt political acts". This just added more to the backlog and more confusion between Cincinnati and DC. The IG report said it wasn't effective enough, stating they needed a larger team of specialists to deal with the groups with potential political ties.

Where did we fail:

When we understaffed the IRS, make them the scapegoat, and then ALL of our legislators turning their backs on the IRS once a tax law they wrote and amended was obviously hard to enforce, yet alone monitor.

Who's responsible:

Our representatives who have blatantly made this an object of political gain, disparaging the thank-less work of our civil servants who with their limited resources and limited knowledge attempted to get as many tax exemptions out as possible.

Why did they make the decisions:

To reduce the backlog of the newly applied for 501's and to make sure no money laundering was being tacitly approved by the IRS.

How we can improve:

Take the recommendations shown in the IG report, more communication between upper management and middle management regarding strategy, more uniform auditing methods.

[Endus]

People who don't have a problem with the IRS doing this will never be convinced otherwise.

Pretty much everyone has a problem with the IRS doing this.

The difference is that some of us think an apology and an ongoing investigation are all that's needed to address a relatively minor screwup that led to exactly no damage being done to any conservative groups that were unfairly targeted, whereas others want to blame Obama as if this were some kind of Machiavellian plot to destroy his political opponents. A claim for which there is absolutely no evidence, suggestion, or implication.

Nobody is saying "oh, the IRS should totally be focusing exclusively on Conservative Tea Party groups". They're saying "there was no damage done", and "this wasn't the big deal you think it was", and "groups with a clear political agenda should've been investigated when applying for a 501 (c) (4), but they shouldn't have been targeted over conservative buzzwords, but just buzzwords on both sides."

It's not that the IRS was in the right. It's that the rhetoric coming out of some in response to this is completely out of whack with the actual severity (or more accurately, lack thereof) of the actual event.

[Rukentuts]

Endus, with 25% being conservative, how can anyone even claim they were "unfairly targeted"?

[Vyxn]

The term "target" is misleading, considering 25% were such. This is why I don't subscribe to the term "target", because if they were truly targeted, they would have at least been in the majority.

targeting was mentioned 18 times in the IG report

[Rukentuts]

targeting was mentioned 18 times in the IG report

Yeah, that must be why the IRS must have been "off target" 75% of the time.

[Faloestin]

The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision is to prohibit employees (civil servants) in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice-president, and certain designated high-level officials of the executive branch, from engaging in partisan political activity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939

The Hatch Act means most government employees can't run for office, or actively support candidates, and was designed to shut down patronage systems. There's no indication of any Hatch Act violations here. Some coal power plant owners think global warming is a hoax, and would like to shut down the EPA. That's a political viewpoint (just like the tea party's "no more taxes") but EPA staff wouldn't be violating the Hatch Act if they fined the coal power plant owners for violating the Clean Air Act. Similarly, the IRS's job is to enforce the tax laws. Assuming folks who want to do away with the tax laws might also be more likely to violate the tax laws isn't a stretch, and also isn't a Hatch Act violation.

[Vyxn]

Pretty much everyone has a problem with the IRS doing this.

The difference is that some of us think an apology and an ongoing investigation are all that's needed to address a relatively minor screwup that led to exactly no damage being done to any conservative groups that were unfairly targeted, whereas others want to blame Obama as if this were some kind of Machiavellian plot to destroy his political opponents. A claim for which there is absolutely no evidence, suggestion, or implication.

Nobody is saying "oh, the IRS should totally be focusing exclusively on Conservative Tea Party groups". They're saying "there was no damage done", and "this wasn't the big deal you think it was", and "groups with a clear political agenda should've been investigated when applying for a 501 (c) (4), but they shouldn't have been targeted over conservative buzzwords, but just buzzwords on both sides."

It's not that the IRS was in the right. It's that the rhetoric coming out of some in response to this is completely out of whack with the actual severity (or more accurately, lack thereof) of the actual event.

do you actually think no harm was done? these groups couldn't operate with out there C3 or C4 status because they couldn't afford to pay the taxes on the contributions they would need to receive to operate and the people that contributed would also have to pay taxes on the money they contributed .

[Rukentuts]

do you actually think no harm was done? these groups couldn't operate with out there C3 or C4 status because they couldn't afford to pay the taxes on the contributions they would need to receive to operate and the people that contributed would also have to pay taxes on the money they contributed .

You mean like Karl Rove's organization?

Yeah, that's totally struggling.

[Faloestin]

so what facts can you provide this morning or are you just going to continue with the same parroting as you liberal Ideologue friend. provide some thing we can discuss. We are not in a court of law. politics is all about public perception and the majority even before her appearance perceives there is a cover up. by pleading the 5th she just made it worse and comfirmed there is one

How does pleading the 5th Amendment confirm a cover-up?

[zhero]

do you actually think no harm was done? these groups couldn't operate with out there C3 or C4 status because they couldn't afford to pay the taxes on the contributions they would need to receive to operate and the people that contributed would also have to pay taxes on the money they contributed .

they can pay the taxes just fine with the contributions they are getting, they aren't being taxed over 100%

why should they even get tax exemption in the first place?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Applying for tax exemption organization status. You damn well better be eligible for tax exemption. IRS comes in and makes absolutely sure it's not a tax shelter for a conservative political group, making 25% of their audits conservative named organizations.

Conservatives: "THEY'RE TARGETING US."
IRS: "Oh shit guys sorry, some of our guys programmed our system to target certain conservative groups. This isn't breaking any law, and all of the groups passed the audit anyway, but the appropriate people will be punished."
Conservatives: "WE WANT BLOOD, LYNCH OBAMA."
Everyone: "Uhhh so where's your evidence linking Obama to this?"


We're still waiting on that evidence.

We're also still waiting on Vyxn to provide some facts, despite claiming that he's provided them.

I'm really fucking glad our justice system demands burden of proof on the part of the accuser, and not the accused.

[Payday]

Great Vyxn you're back. Did you have time to look my post (#463)? It directly refutes one of your main points so I was hoping you could clarify.

[Faloestin]

do you actually think no harm was done? these groups couldn't operate with out there C3 or C4 status because they couldn't afford to pay the taxes on the contributions they would need to receive to operate and the people that contributed would also have to pay taxes on the money they contributed .

Just to clarify: (c)(3) and (c)(4) nonprofit status are very different. Neither has to pay federal income taxes, but donations to nonprofits with (c)(3) status can be tax-deductable, while donations to (c)(4)'s are not tax-deductable. (c)(3) nonprofits can lobby a little, and (c)(4)'s can lobby all they want to. Donations to (c)(4)'s don't have to be immediately publicly disclosed, which is why some enterprising sorts are using (c)(4)'s as bundling vehicles for lobbying. Without (c)(4) status, an organization wouldn't be able to avoid publicly disclosing their donors. The IRS issue is all about whether the IRS used impermissible criteria to single out some applicants for (c)(3) or (c)(4) status.

[Deadvolcanoes]

targeting was mentioned 18 times in the IG report

You mean the same IG report that failed to find any evidence of political motivation?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Yeah, we're "birthers" because we don't subscribe to your speculation, whereas the birthers were founded in speculation.

Keep up with false equivalencies.

Birther movement came out of a bunch of speculation from a bunch of butthurt and paranoid conservatives that got way out of control and turned out to be a wild goose chase, with that goose's egg on their face. I'm pretty sure even a birther would deny being a birther for how stupid it was. It's also strikingly similar to this IRS thing. A bunch of wild speculation with no facts to back it up.

[Payday]

Birther movement came out of a bunch of speculation from a bunch of butthurt and paranoid conservatives that got way out of control and turned out to be a wild goose chase, with that goose's egg on their face. I'm pretty sure even a birther would deny being a birther for how stupid it was. It's also strikingly similar to this IRS thing. A bunch of wild speculation with no facts to back it up.

The birthers that still champion the cause are offended by that sir.

http://birthers.org/

[Vyxn]

Where was this proven? I thought we already established that speculation isn't proof. Did you see what FoxNews had to say yesterday about your "proven" 5th amendment waiving? Read the whole article for context, it's short.



This seems contrary to what you posted. Since it's not your opinion but proven fact, with case study, surely you could provide it?

what you posted is an opinion. what i posted was case studies and facts
and why didn't you give a link to that opinion are you scared to release the source

here is the facts and the cases to go along with it

"It is well established that a witness, in a single proceeding, may not testify voluntarily about a subject and then invoke the privilege against self-incrimination when questioned about the details. See Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367, 373 (1951#. The privilege is waived for the matters to which the witness testifies, and the scope of the “waiver is determined by the scope of relevant cross-examination,” Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 154—155 #1958). “The witness himself, certainly if he is a party, determines the area of disclosure and therefore of inquiry,” id., at 155. Nice questions will arise, of course, about the extent of the initial testimony and whether the ensuing questions are comprehended within its scope, but for now it suffices to note the general rule."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...-Incrimination

I will repeat it. you are not allowed to make a statement in your defense and then refuse to be cross examined on what you made in your statement.

think about the implications of what you suggesting. your suggesting a defense attorney can put his client on the stand allow him to make statement on his defense then not allow the prosecuting attorney to cross examine the defendants arguments. what your suggesting there wouldn't be cross examination by prosecuting attorneys at all, because all the defendant or witness for the defendant needs to do is plied the 5th

[zhero]

what you posted is an opinion. what i posted was case studies and facts
and why didn't you give a link to that opinion are you scared to release the source

here is the facts and the cases to go along with it

"It is well established that a witness, in a single proceeding, may not testify voluntarily about a subject and then invoke the privilege against self-incrimination when questioned about the details. See Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367, 373 (1951#. The privilege is waived for the matters to which the witness testifies, and the scope of the “waiver is determined by the scope of relevant cross-examination,” Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 154—155 #1958). “The witness himself, certainly if he is a party, determines the area of disclosure and therefore of inquiry,” id., at 155. Nice questions will arise, of course, about the extent of the initial testimony and whether the ensuing questions are comprehended within its scope, but for now it suffices to note the general rule."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...-Incrimination

I will repeat it. you are not allowed to make a statement in your defense and then refuse to be cross examined on what you made in your statement.

think about the implications of what you suggesting. your suggesting a defense attorney can put his client on the stand allow him to make statement on his defense then not allow the prosecuting attorney to cross examine the defendants arguments. what your suggesting there wouldn't be cross examination by prosecuting attorneys at all, because all the defendant or witness for the defendant needs to do is plied the 5th

you do understand that what you say can be taken out of context to try and incriminate you and that is the job of the person questioning you, right?

[Endus]

Endus, with 25% being conservative, how can anyone even claim they were "unfairly targeted"?

Well, the IG report DID point out that organization names and such were parsed for certain "buzzwords", and some of those were designed to pull out conservative groups for extra scrutiny. It's not so much that THEY were unfairly targeted, though, it's that "liberal" groups were not similarly targeted, apparently. Some still got picked up for review, of course, but 1> there weren't nearly as many, and 2> there were fewer of these "buzzwords" in play for them.

It's a REALLY minor issue. Clinton lying under oath about a blow job was a bigger deal, and THAT was a silly waste of everyone's time.

do you actually think no harm was done? these groups couldn't operate with out there C3 or C4 status because they couldn't afford to pay the taxes on the contributions they would need to receive to operate and the people that contributed would also have to pay taxes on the money they contributed .

If you didn't have the operating budget to keep yourself going, and hadn't been approved for tax-exempt status, that's YOUR fault for being terrible at running your organization, not the IRS' fault for reviewing your case to be sure you qualify for that status.

Tax-exempt status isn't a freebie. You need to prove you qualify. And again; the IG report confirmed there was no political bias in this regard. Nobody was denied that status because they were conservative in ideals rather than liberal.

No harm was done. Unless you're talking about the harm done to an applicant's organization by that organization's own inept leadership. If you don't have your tax-exempt status approved, running your business as if you do is a mind-bogglingly awful idea. Since worse than it being merely delayed, it could be denied.