- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
here is the opening from your cite:
there was no illegal action taken
there was no partisanship exhibited
the employees were trying to determine whether the applicants for 501c(4) status were entitled to receive it
you act as if that is a bad thing, to do one's job as they understand it
my understanding is the staff issued letters asking questions. questions the politically active organizations did not like having to respond to, given that degree of political activity would disqualify applicants for 501c(4) statusOk, why did they stall those applications rather than conduct an investigation?
they weren'tWhy were ONLY groups with "tea party" and "patriot" the ones targetted?
probable cause? don't think that is the expression you were intending to use ... hope not, any wayHow were the names of the non-profts probable cause?
if the facts of their proposed operations are contrary to the eligibility criteria, then they would be properly found ineligible. you think the new organization 'democrats for change' should be given non-profit status only because it has not commenced its operations? would it not be more appropriate to investigate whether it was expected to operate consistent with the criteria established to become a 501c(4) organization?How do you deny a group non-profit status when they aren't even in operation?
if the application contains information showing they do not qualify, do you believe they should be found eligible anyway? if the investigation elicits information showing they are not eligible under established criteria, should they be issued the special status anyway?Where's the evidence that they don't qualify?
i don't know that any organization was denied only because of their religious background. so, if you have found otherwise, please share that information with usHow does their religion disqualify them from a non-profit status?
my understanding is the staff issued letters asking questions. questions the politically active organizations did not like having to respond to, given that degree of political activity would disqualify applicants for 501c(4) status
they weren't
which demonstrates how little you actually know about the matter. appears faux news was not passing out information which would undercut its reich wing talking points. my advice would be to subscribe to multiple sources for information to try to obtain a real understanding about what is going on
probable cause? don't think that is the expression you were intending to use ... hope not, any way
but the IRS staff responsible for recommending approval or disapproval of 501c(4) status of the applicants were looking for indicators of political activity. by the law, there could be no political partisanship shown by those seeking to qualify for 501c(4) status. under the regulations, there was a tolerance for such activity so long as it was not significant. and that is the crux of this whole matter, the degree of partisan political activity conducted. and if one is assigned to investigate whether an applicant is engaged in partisan politics, would not having the applicant organization named tea party something or other, or patriot whatyoumightcallit give some indication of potential partisan political activity by the applicant organization?
if the facts of their proposed operations are contrary to the eligibility criteria, then they would be properly found ineligible. you think the new organization 'democrats for change' should be given non-profit status only because it has not commenced its operations? would it not be more appropriate to investigate whether it was expected to operate consistent with the criteria established to become a 501c(4) organization?
if the application contains information showing they do not qualify, do you believe they should be found eligible anyway? if the investigation elicits information showing they are not eligible under established criteria, should they be issued the special status anyway?
i don't know that any organization was denied only because of their religious background. so, if you have found otherwise, please share that information with us
Hahaha....Bull ****! :lamo Nice display though of just how deep in the pocket some media outlets are to Obama....Too bad they sacrifice their credibility in the process.
questions that were designed to determine whether the applicant organization was eligible for 501c(4) status under the established criteria. to determine whether the applicant entity was an issue advocacy organization or one primarily engaged in political activitiesThe IRS asked questions about religion, as well as other personal and irrelevant questions; questions that aren't standard.
Weirdest IRS Questions for the Tea Party: Views, Donors, and Etymology - ABC News
from the previous cite:The link I posted clearly states that the IRS admitted to targeting groups with, "tea party", in their name. So...yes, they were.
let me remind you that one-quarter is half of a half. and now let's examine what you previously posted:They constituted about one-quarter of the 300 groups who were flagged for additional analysis by employees of the IRS tax-exempt unit’s main office in Cincinnati.
[emphasis added by bubba to make a stronger - more obvious - point]Why were ONLY groups with "tea party" and "patriot" the ones targetted?
here you go, this is when the 501c(4) firms were able to engage in partisan politics but only where such activity was not its "primary" activity:No such law exists. However, there's damn sure a law that prohibits government employees from engaging in partisanship
The History of the 501(c)(4) Exemption - Law Blog - WSJ[An] organization may carry on lawful political activities and remain exempt under section 501(c)(4) as long as it is primarily engaged in activities that promote social welfare.
i don't know. why don't you share the fact information where you allege that actually happened. once i see what you are referring to, i should then be able to explain it for youHow does membership to Facebook disqualify a group from non-profit eligibility?
then, by all means, please tell us the simple mechanism which should be used to determine which 501c(4) applicants are engaged in political activity as their primary activityEither way, the application should either be granted/denied by way of a standard criteria,
there are no political reasons why the IRS staff must assess the legitimacy of the applicants in relation to the established criteria to evaluate whether a firm meeting the 501c(4) criteria. they do it because that is their job; to monitor and assess compliance with the law, regulations, and standard operating procedures... not questions invented especially to target a specific group, for political reasons.
wrong once againThe fact that the applications were held in limbo for 12 plus months is evidence that these groups were denied their right to due process.
where it was obvious they were not compliant with the provisions for 501c(4) certification, they would have been immediately denied. but share with us what benchmark should be used to determine whether "it is primarily engaged in activities that promote social welfare"If that were the case, then why weren't the applications denied, outright?
share with us the specific questions you found to be civil rights violationsWhy were these groups asked questions about their religion? Questions like that are discriminatory in nature and therefore another civil rights violation.
now, you have been prone to post many foolish things. none more misguided than that statementTo top it all off, Lerner invoked the 5th Amendment, which proves she broke the law.
Pretty standard fair here.
Attacking Issa personally and denying out right what the IRS has already admitted.
Oh, and nothing is to be inferred by the White House's pathetic strategy to counter a " baseless politically motivated witchunt ".
Yea, we're to ignore the fact that the Obama administration is handling this " witch hunt " in the WORST possible way.
With lies, 5th amendment pleas and destruction of evidence.
Lol !
questions that were designed to determine whether the applicant organization was eligible for 501c(4) status under the established criteria. to determine whether the applicant entity was an issue advocacy organization or one primarily engaged in political activities
from the previous cite:
let me remind you that one-quarter is half of a half. and now let's examine what you previously posted:
[emphasis added by bubba to make a stronger - more obvious - point]
hopefully, you now realize that the tea party applicants could not be both one-quarter of those flagged and also be the ONLY applicants selected to be subject to more scrutiny
here you go, this is when the 501c(4) firms were able to engage in partisan politics but only where such activity was not its "primary" activity:
The History of the 501(c)(4) Exemption - Law Blog - WSJ
i don't know. why don't you share the fact information where you allege that actually happened. once i see what you are referring to, i should then be able to explain it for you
then, by all means, please tell us the simple mechanism which should be used to determine which 501c(4) applicants are engaged in political activity as their primary activity
i look forward to seeing this standard criteria being benchmarked for the IRS to use
there are no political reasons why the IRS staff must assess the legitimacy of the applicants in relation to the established criteria to evaluate whether a firm meeting the 501c(4) criteria. they do it because that is their job; to monitor and assess compliance with the law, regulations, and standard operating procedures
wrong once again
each of those firms had the opportunity to hold itself out as a 501c(4) entity. but if they self certified as such, and were then found to be other than an eligible organization, the entity would have to account for all that it was not previously held accountable to do while pretending to be a 501c(4) company
where it was obvious they were not compliant with the provisions for 501c(4) certification, they would have been immediately denied. but share with us what benchmark should be used to determine whether "it is primarily engaged in activities that promote social welfare"
if the standard were still that the firm must be entirely engaged in social welfare promotion, then ANY hint of partisan political activity would prevent the IRS from awarding a 501c(4) confirmation. but when it moved to a standard that the applicant's PRIMARY activity must be social welfare promotion, the IRS employee must now be able to make a determination whether the applicant's political activities rose to the degree of being its PRIMARY activity. in order to make such a determination, the employee must know and understand the totality of activities by the applicant. not a simple or quick task. now multiply it times the 300 applicants to be evaluated. which hopefully explains the legitimate basis of delay
share with us the specific questions you found to be civil rights violations
now, you have been prone to post many foolish things. none more misguided than that statement
she like you, and i, has a right to assert her fifth amendment rights
your foolish position then becomes that for one to assert their Constitutional rights causes them to be in violation of the law. read it again. your stated position is profound. profoundly ignorant
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?