- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,463
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
It shows the IRS was managed poorly, the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing.
I like how this scandal is about government workers doing their job correctly. Their job is to scrutinize complex and problematic applications. I don't see how it is the IRS' fault that Tea Party organizations were more often problematic than others. And then those TP orgs got their tax exempt status anyway, even though they didn't qualify. The right wing is making a scandal out of people doing their jobs correctly, and the only rules that were broken were done so in their favor. It's insane.
I like how this scandal is about government workers doing their job correctly. Their job is to scrutinize complex and problematic applications. I don't see how it is the IRS' fault that Tea Party organizations were more often problematic than others. And then those TP orgs got their tax exempt status anyway, even though they didn't qualify. The right wing is making a scandal out of people doing their jobs correctly, and the only rules that were broken were done so in their favor. It's insane.
In September 2011, Paz instructed two employees to review the groups and they told her as many as 10 “could potentially be approved at the time.” But the applications languished.
The transcripts — and the fact that they were chosen for release — is a clear sign that congressional staffers are turning their sights to Paz.
A GOP staffer told POLITICO the panel members might have her return to the committee for more questions because they think some of her testimony is inconsistent with what Elizabeth Hofacre, a former Cincinnati manager involved in the scandal, told them.
Paz told the Oversight panel that despite the nickname “tea party cases,” IRS employees were instructed to review all political cases, including liberal advocacy groups.
But Hofacre told the committee she “was tasked to do tea parties” only and would throw any progressive groups into the general inventory rather than putting them aside them for extra scrutiny.
The transcripts indicate Paz was aware that a Cincinnati IRS employee leaked confidential taxpayer information to ProPublica after the publication asked for a “huge” amount of information. An IRS official handed it over without realizing that about 10 forms in the stack were not yet ready for public viewing, she said.
Paz also sat in on interviews the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration conducted with IRS employees as part of its independent investigation into the scandal. She told Oversight that she and Lois Lerner — the IRS official at the center of the scandal — requested the sit-ins so the agency would “understand what information TIGTA had and what they had been told.”
That decision helped bring Paz to the attention of lawmakers. Issa has questioned whether her presence in the meetings might have compromised the inspector general’s investigation.
Paz noted that the inspector general was allowed a few private minutes with employees at the end of each interview.
From the report linked in the OP:What a coincidence that the 298 cases were all conservative groups. And all this comes to a head right AFTER the election, and of course none were refused. I'm still waiting to be shown the liberal groups that were held up for over a year or more, and were finally approved AFTER the election. Managed poorly is a galactic understatement. This **** stinks.
Paz said dozens of tea party applications sat untouched for more than a year while field agents waited for guidance from Washington on how to handle them. At the time, she said, Washington officials thought the agents in Cincinnati were processing the cases.a
That's how leftists remain leftists. Even when they are caught with their hands in the jam jar they cannot see where there is anything wrong taking place. It's always been that way.
What a coincidence that the 298 cases were all conservative groups. And all this comes to a head right AFTER the election, and of course none were refused. I'm still waiting to be shown the liberal groups that were held up for over a year or more, and were finally approved AFTER the election. Managed poorly is a galactic understatement. This **** stinks.
If that is how you see it. Me, I judge by hard facts.
what harder of facts do you need? I guess you wont believe anything unless Obama himself says so. right?
when a group or organization applied for tax-exempt status, they could not be political
In private meetings and phone calls, Mr. Obama’s aides have made clear that the new organization will rely heavily on a small number of deep-pocketed donors, not unlike the “super PACs” whose influence on political campaigns Mr. Obama once deplored.
At least half of the group’s budget will come from a select group of donors who will each contribute or raise $500,000 or more, according to donors and strategists involved in the effort.
Unlike a presidential campaign, Organizing for Action has been set up as a tax-exempt “social welfare group.” That means it is not bound by federal contribution limits, laws that bar White House officials from soliciting contributions, or the stringent reporting requirements for campaigns. In their place, the new group will self-regulate.
The money will pay for salaries, rent and advertising, and will also be used to maintain the expensive voter database and technological infrastructure that knits together Mr. Obama’s 2 million volunteers, 17 million e-mail subscribers and 22 million Twitter followers.
The goal is to harness those resources in support of Mr. Obama’s second-term policy priorities, including efforts to curb gun violence and climate change and overhaul immigration procedures. Those efforts began Friday, when thousands of Obama supporters were deployed through more than 80 Congressional districts around the country to rally outside lawmakers’ offices, hold vigils and bombard Congress with e-mails and phone calls urging members to support stricter background checks for gun buyers.
“There are wins we can have on guns and immigration,” Jon Carson, the group’s new executive director, told prospective donors on a conference call on Wednesday, according to people who participated. “We have to change the conventional wisdom on those issues.”
But those contributions will also translate into access, according to donors courted by the president’s aides. Next month, Organizing for Action will hold a “founders summit” at a hotel near the White House, where donors paying $50,000 each will mingle with Mr. Obama’s former campaign manager, Jim Messina, and Mr. Carson, who previously led the White House Office of Public Engagement.
Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House. Moreover, the new cash demands on Mr. Obama’s top donors and bundlers come as many of them are angling for appointments to administration jobs or ambassadorships.
Mr. Obama’s new organization has drawn rebukes in recent days from watchdog groups, which view it as another step away from the tighter campaign regulation Mr. Obama once championed. Over the past two years, he has reversed course on several campaign finance issues, by blessing a super PAC created by former aides and accepting large corporate contributions for his second inauguration.
Many traditional advocacy organizations, including the Sierra Club and the National Rifle Association, are set up as social welfare groups, or 501(c)(4)’s in tax parlance. But unlike those groups, Organizing for Action appears to be an extension of the administration, stocked with alumni of Mr. Obama’s White House and campaign teams and devoted solely to the president’s second-term agenda.
I thought when a group or organization applied for tax-exempt status, they could not be political?
Treasury regulations interpreting this statutory language apply a more relaxed standard, namely, that the organization "is operated primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterments and social improvements."[3] As a result, the IRS traditionally has permitted organizations described in IRC 501(c)(4) to engage in lobbying and political campaign activities if those activities are not the organization's primary activity.
2013 IRS scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you read the article by taking off your pre-conceived judgemental sinister glasses, you will see that most likely, there is:
a) nothing political about this
b) that this Cincy office did not get any directions from the WH.
Much ado about nothing
and you want me to believe that after the lie that it was just a few rogue agents from cincy?
when you lie and lie over and over you lose credibility
Paz told congressional investigators that an IRS agent in Cincinnati flagged the first tea party case in February 2010. The agent forwarded the application to a manager because it appeared to be politically sensitive, Paz said. The manager informed Paz, who said she had the application assigned to a legal expert in Washington.
Again from the OP:
The IRS zeroed in on the obvious criminals
Again from the OP:
Gary Muthert, an IRS agent there, said his local supervisor told him in March 2010 to check the applications for tax-exempt status to see how many were from groups with "tea party" in their names. The supervisor's name was blacked out in the transcript.
"He told me that Washington, D.C., wanted some cases," Muthert said of his supervisor.
Muthert said he came up with fewer than 10 applications. But after checking some of the group's websites, he noticed similar groups with "patriots" or "9-12 project" in their names, so he started looking for applications that mentioned those terms too.
Over a two-month period, Muthert said he found about 40 applications that mentioned tea party, patriots or 9-12 project - the latter being groups that aspire to re-instill a post-9/11 spirit of unity in the country.
Muthert said his supervisor told him that someone in Washington wanted to see seven of the applications, so Muthert prepared the files.
It shows the IRS was managed poorly, the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing.
What does the following say to you?
It shows the IRS was deliberately targeting political opponents of the current administration. Pretty much the kind of thing the 1st amendment is supposed to protect us from.
There has been nothing that connects this to the Obama administration. NOTHING!"The new acting IRS commissioner Daniel Werfel acknowledged that the agency betrayed the public trust when, for about 18 months beginning in 2010, it targeted conservative groups applying for status as "social welfare" organizations".
It was done, they admit it, and it was done during an election campaign as well. The FBI are investigating as to how deep it goes. That's the only mystery remaining but the culpability of the IRS is now officially established.
I disagree, there is nothing that shows the conservatives were breaking the law. The problem was the IRS just didn't know how to handle them.If in fact the targeting was done against the so-called opponents of the admin., the baggers, then the reason for that is that they were the law breakers. And no matter how much the rabid right wiggles and dances, the eventual outcome will go to substantiate that , and the last few drops will go down your pants.
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?