I hope this puts all the IRS scandal crap to rest. These groups should have been targeted because they were not eligible for tax exempt status and were still applying.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was "inappropriate" targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.
IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.
I hope this puts all the IRS scandal crap to rest. These groups should have been targeted because they were not eligible for tax exempt status and were still applying.
I bet some of those so investigated were approved.
I hope this puts all the IRS scandal crap to rest. These groups should have been targeted because they were not eligible for tax exempt status and were still applying.
It's a bet you would probably win. Sometimes it's hard to prove even though we all know the money was not going to social welfare. Still they deserved the extra scrutiny.
And agency officials have acknowledged that specialists inappropriately used keywords like “Tea Party” and “Patriots” in searching through applications.
I love watching mega-dems bend over for this. If it happened under republican direction and against democrats, mega-dems would be losing their minds in the other direction. There would be Hitler pics of Bush.
I love how Republicans ignore the fact the IRS WAS doing what they should have been doing (just not doing it to nearly enough groups) and then talk about Bush. This, of course, after we've heard for the last year that Bush isn't in office anymore. It seems Republicans have no problem bringing up George W. Bush when it suits their purposes.
It's simple. The IRS should be cracking down on this practice. Most of America agrees money plays far too large of a role in American politics. We shouldn't be playing "my team vs. their team", we should be playing "citizens vs. corporations/billionaires". I'm far more offended that liberal groups were given a free pass than I am that Tea Party groups were flagged for review. This should have nothing to do with party politics.
Yes, there's far too much money in politics, but the article makes the point money is not the only consideration when the IRS determines whether an organization is granted nonprofit status. It's what the organization does that's important; they may spend their money on what might be considered "social welfare" but they may have volunteers pushing a candidate which would disqualify them for nonprofit.I love how Republicans ignore the fact the IRS WAS doing what they should have been doing (just not doing it to nearly enough groups) and then talk about Bush. This, of course, after we've heard for the last year that Bush isn't in office anymore. It seems Republicans have no problem bringing up George W. Bush when it suits their purposes.
It's simple. The IRS should be cracking down on this practice. Most of America agrees money plays far too large of a role in American politics. We shouldn't be playing "my team vs. their team", we should be playing "citizens vs. corporations/billionaires". I'm far more offended that liberal groups were given a free pass than I am that Tea Party groups were flagged for review. This should have nothing to do with party politics.
An organization's expenditures are not the only factor used by the IRS when determining its nonprofit status. The IRS has an obligation to determine if the organization primarily deals with "social welfare" before it awards it with a 501 (c)(4) tax code. In order to accomplish this task additional questions must be asked. For example , if an organization spends little, but uses volunteers to promote a candidate it will be rejected.
When CVFC, a conservative veterans’ group in California, applied for tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service, its biggest expenditure that year was several thousand dollars in radio ads backing a Republican candidate for Congress.
The Wetumpka Tea Party, from Alabama, sponsored training for a get-out-the-vote initiative dedicated to the “defeat of President Barack Obama” while the I.R.S. was weighing its application.
And the head of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, whose application languished with the I.R.S. for more than two years, sent out e-mails to members about Mitt Romney campaign events and organized members to distribute Mr. Romney’s presidential campaign literature.
Representatives of these organizations have cried foul in recent weeks about their treatment by the I.R.S., saying they were among dozens of conservative groups unfairly targeted by the agency, harassed with inappropriate questionnaires and put off for months or years as the agency delayed decisions on their applications.
But a close examination of these groups and others reveals an array of election activities that tax experts and former I.R.S. officials said would provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review.
“Money is not the only thing that matters,” said Donald B. Tobin, a former lawyer with the Justice Department’s tax division who is a law professor at Ohio State University. “While some of the I.R.S. questions may have been overbroad, you can look at some of these groups and understand why these questions were being aske.
snip
Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Politics
Not a problem Prof
Organizing for Action (OFA) is a nonprofit social welfare organization and community organizing project in the United States, heavily affiliated with the Democratic Party.[1] It is the successor of U.S. president Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign and of Organizing for America, which itself succeeded Obama's 2008 campaign.[2]
Founded after President Obama's re-election, the group seeks to mobilize supporters in favor of Obama's legislative priorities. OFA is registered as a 501(c)(4)organization.[3] The OFA website states its intention to "operate as a 'social welfare' organization within the meaning of section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code". According to the OFA's FAQ, "donations to OFA are not tax-deductible."[4] A 501(c)(4) may advocate for legislation but is prohibited from specifically supporting political candidates.[5]
After launching in mid-January, the group was buffeted by sharp criticism for forming as a social welfare organization under section 501(c)4 of the tax code, which allows it to conceal its donors and accept unlimited sums. A plan to solicit $500,000 from wealthy donors and fund-raisers to be part of an advisory council that would meet quarterly with Obama fueled the controversy.
... Still they deserved the extra scrutiny.
That is about as far away from what I said as possible.So, you're pro-IRS scandals?
I agree. I said nothing which comes even close to suggesting a politically driven rogue IRS is a good idea.I'm not so sure that a politically driven rogue IRS is a good idea.
That is not even close to what I said. You're doing EXACTLY what I said people were doing, turning this into a political issue because you want your team to win. Your post is indicative of the "mindless sheep" you alluded to.Then again, we know how extreme-partisans are... ends justifies the means. It shouldn't be a surprise that some people will make themselves look like mindless sheep in order to support their team. I wonder... do these people know what they look like to the rest of us? Are they aware? I don't think so. I think they just do their thing without ever realizing how it appears to others.
Your post is similar to: "I don't care if cops target black people, I'm just as upset about that as the fact that they didn't target whites also! Cops need to target people because there are many lawbreakers. If we start with the blacks, that's ok with me!"
That's what it looks like. Just in case you hadn't realized.
That may be, but that was not the point I was making. The point I was making is that the IRS should be cracking down on this practice, because it seems as if it's being exploited to throw even more money into politics. My post was a similar, yet different, tangent of the concept of the IRS situation.Yes, there's far too much money in politics, but the article makes the point money is not the only consideration when the IRS determines whether an organization is granted nonprofit status.
Yes, there's far too much money in politics, but the article makes the point money is not the only consideration when the IRS determines whether an organization is granted nonprofit status. It's what the organization does that's important; they may spend their money on what might be considered "social welfare" but they may have volunteers pushing a candidate which would disqualify them for nonprofit.
In January 2012, the screening was modified again, this time to watch for references to the Constitution or Bill of Rights, and for "political action type organizations involved in limiting-expanding government."
Read more: Lawyer confirms she asked planted question that broke open IRS scandal | Fox News
I hope this puts all the IRS scandal crap to rest. These groups should have
been targeted because they were not eligible for tax exempt status and were still applying.
That is not even close to what I said. You're doing EXACTLY what I said people were doing, turning this into a political issue because you want your team to win.
I'm not trying to be contrary, but why would I not believe that an American citizen doesn't want their President to be breaking the law? I'm only asking because I think it's quite a telling statement you made, even if it's not in the way you intended.This is the only point I think that I can agree with here....See, I don't want this to end up at Obama's desk believe it or not....I'd much rather cast the spotlight on an out of control IRS, and abolish that agency through reforming the tax code.
Μολὼν λαβέ;1061858911 said:That's not what all of this is about, now is it?
I don't see a problem here, if you are seeking non profit status then you should expect to be scrutinized by the government. Senator Wyden of Oregon put it this way:
I'm not sure that's true, from the New York Times article at the OP:The problem isn't that these groups were being scrutinized, the problem is the way they were being scrutinized and it was ONLY being applied to the right wing groups. Had this been done with ALL groups you wouldn't have a scandal.
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?