New Links Emerge in the IRS Scandal

[Gaugingcatenate]

We should be concerned when a sitting GOP Congressman colludes with a GOP operative to put a false report that falsely claimed only tea party groups were targeted. And that the real scandal that needs to be investigated.

Am trying diligently to find a reference to what the heck you are even talking about here... can you supply some names or a source on that... I do find plenty of articles on the collusion between the Federal Election Committee [FEC] and the IRS to target conservative groups, however... but that is just more evidenced piling up on my side...

So, please provide your source or sources, would be interested to find out who was doing what.

Better start running if you wanna catch up, remember.

 

[head of joaquin]

Why don't you watch the real history, undeniable, on CSPAN regarding what was done to these groups [ probably because, as a openly opinionated ideologue, you do not really want to know the truth ]... see what the IRS targeting of our fellow Americans was like.

IRS Scrutiny of Non-Profit Organizations - C-SPAN Video Library

BUZZZZ

You lose. In fact IRS targeting of progressive groups even resulted in denials.


Report: The IRS also targeted at least three liberal groups

 

[head of joaquin]

Am trying diligently to find a reference to what the heck you are even talking about here... can you supply some names or a source on that... I do find plenty of articles on the collusion between the Federal Election Committee [FEC] and the IRS to target conservative groups, however... but that is just more evidenced piling up on my side...

So, please provide your source or sources, would be interested to find out who was doing what.

Better start running if you wanna catch up, remember.

Yeah, let's pretend Issa wasn't caught contacting Russell, a GOP operative appointed by Bush, while Russell was supposedly undertaking a nonpartisan investigation, leading to a report that we now know was falsified.

The only real issue is what the level of Issa and Russell's collusion and was it illegal obstruction of justice.

This is the real scandal.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/...al-to-ignore-irs-treatment-of-liberal-groups/


The bombshell IRS audit released in May omitted information about liberal groups at the request of House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), according to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration’s office.

A spokesman for Treasury Inspector General J. Russell George told The Hill on Tuesday that Issa had requested investigators “narrowly focus on tea party organizations.”

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

BUZZZZ

You lose. In fact IRS targeting of progressive groups even resulted in denials.


Report: The IRS also targeted at least three liberal groups

OMG, three... well that seems a more normal rejection rate [ unless there were only three that applied ] as opposed to at least 90 conservative groups, per your article, which would mean one liberal group for every 30 conservative groups...not a promising ratio for this side. Besides which, I think there were even more, as religious groups were also targeted, CNN calculated it this way: 72 contained the name "tea party," 11 contained "9/12" and 13 contained the word "patriots... so the religious groups that were targeted are not even among those and that adds up to 96 I believe. And many have been delayed through two election cycles.

Report finds IRS targeted conservative groups, delayed applications - CNN.com


If the progressive groups were turned down or delayed for the same reasons as the conservatives, and the IRS denies this, then I do not think that right either. In fact, the IRS who has been tasked with enforcing Obamacare, has proven it does not have the neutrality nor the reputation of honesty sufficient to do such enforcement without prejudice.

At least that should be settled.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Yeah, let's pretend Issa wasn't caught contacting Russell, a GOP operative appointed by Bush, while Russell was supposedly undertaking a nonpartisan investigation, leading to a report that we now know was falsified.

The only real issue is what the level of Issa and Russell's collusion and was it illegal obstruction of justice.

This is the real scandal.

Issa directed Treasury inspector general to ignore IRS treatment of liberal groups | The Raw Story


The bombshell IRS audit released in May omitted information about liberal groups at the request of House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), according to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration’s office.

A spokesman for Treasury Inspector General J. Russell George told The Hill on Tuesday that Issa had requested investigators “narrowly focus on tea party organizations.”

You have not a clue as to what went on...but if they were colluding, investigate away. I, unlike democrats, do not want folks representing me that are corrupt. I expect you to say the same, bubba. So say it. FEC and IRS collusion, go after it as well, right?

While I could be wrong, my understanding is that it was the republicans who were getting heat from conservative groups indicating that the IRS was harassing them, and they are the ones that called, finally, for the audit. If that was the case and Issa was looking into that for his and other republicans whose constituencies had alerted them, then it stands to reason that they may have just been looking only into where he complaints were coming from. If the complaints were not coming from democrats, maybe they just limited it, like most would do...if it aint broke and nobody is complaining then don not fix it. If that is not what happened, look into it... I got no problem with that.

 

[Hard Truth]

If the FEC receives a credible complaint they are obligated to do an investigation. (I don't know, but I doubt that staffers need the permission of commissioners to do routine investigations.)

Determining which type of tax entity (not-for profit, nonprofit, political etc.) the suspected organization uses, and the names of the responsible individuals, is legitimate information for an inquiry and the type of information that the IRS can provide to anyone. Organizations with tax-exempt status don't have the same privacy rights as individuals. Anyone can inquire with the IRS to learn whether an organization is an official non-profit and other details. (see info from the IRS website below)


"In general, what public disclosure requirements apply to tax-exempt organizations?

In general, exempt organizations must make available for public inspection certain annual returns and applications for exemption, and must provide copies of such returns and applications to individuals who request them. Copies usually must be provided immediately in the case of in-person requests, and within 30 days in the case of written requests. The tax-exempt organization may charge a reasonable copying fee plus actual postage, if any. The IRS must also make this same information publicly available."

Public Disclosure and Availability of Exempt Organizations Returns and Applications: Public Disclosure Requirements in General

What organizations are tax-exempt organizations for purposes of the law requiring that certain tax documents be disclosed and copies of those documents be provided to persons requesting them?

The law affects organizations exempt from federal income tax under Internal Revenue Code section 501(a) and described in section 501(c) or 501(d). Examples of tax-exempt organization to which the law applies include charities, schools, labor organizations, business leagues, fraternities, social clubs, veterans organizations and voluntary employees' beneficiary associations. See Types of Organizations for more information about these organizations. It also applies to political organizations exempt from taxation under section 527(a).
Public Disclosure and Availability of Exempt Organizations Returns and Applications: Exempt Organizations Subject to Public Disclosure Requirements

 

[ForcedAppeal]

In fact, the IRS who has been tasked with enforcing Obamacare, has proven it does not have the neutrality nor the reputation of honesty sufficient to do such enforcement without prejudice.

At least that should be settled.

The IRS will be verifying if you have health insurance through documentation provided them by insurance providers. Not much room for 'partisan' chicanery. It's like the mortgage interest deduction - mortgage lenders send the info to the IRS, who then match that info with what was deducted on your tax return. You either have insurance or you don't. You can either prove it, or you can't. Businesses either provide insurance and the records sent to the IRS match up or they don't and face penalties. Coverage is easily proven and verifiable, thus the abuses which were rife in a very grey area of the tax code (not for profits) will not be a problem.

But somehow (and I know you did not specifically say this) I hear cries about how the IRS will be running our health care.

 

[Hard Truth]

.

IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo
.....

The rest of the story (same source)

"Olsen, a retired IRS revenue agent, defended the agency. "If you suddenly see a great increase in some kind of activity, and you don't understand why, then it might be reasonable to look more closely at what's happening with those applications," she said. "I'm not certain that there was an error on the part of the IRS at all. I know that's not a popular opinion."

Some liberal groups did get additional scrutiny, although they still got their tax-exempt status while the Tea Party moratorium was in effect. For the "independent progressive" group Action for a Progressive Future, which runs the Rootsaction.org web site, the tax-exempt process took 18 months and also involved intrusive questions...."

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates reducing the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit by reducing U.S. government spending and taxes.[1][2] The movement has been called partly conservative,[3] partly libertarian,[4] and partly populist.[5] It has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009.[6][7][8]

Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There, now you have.

So, did-ja actually read the link you posted? ... real grass roots movement [ see the nuance there, not party ] with no centralization of leadership, local groups having their own platforms, its really more of how things were intended, certainly better than the too much the same too much polar opposite parties as currently formulated...

Your's vilify, with what real reason...?? Media has tried to brand them with race [ so in reality, whose racism would that be? ], by wealth [ check my balance sheet, try to tell me I am wealthy, ha! ], brand them with being anti big government [ gulity ] and who express that we all already pay too much in taxes, would rather have a bit more of our own hard earned dollars to spend more for the charities and the things we see fit, instead of the government taking those choices out of our hands too often [ guilty ]...

So, why do you think liberals hate them, us, with such a vengeance? We are fellow Americans with our god given and Constitutionally acknowledged freedom of speech which infers freedom of thought... and most certainly, we think differently. We understand you are within your rights ... consequently, so are we... so how about your side dropping this hate like thing ya ll put on....that spitting venom every time my beliefs are brought up... is that just not considered discriminatory... like it would with any other group? Prejudice? Not allowing an environment of welcoming diversity?

Besides, most of us know our history ever so slightly more... and especially far more accurately. If you do not do your proper homework, you can expect that we did. We like our history.

 

[trfjr]

The rest of the story (same source)

"Olsen, a retired IRS revenue agent, defended the agency. "If you suddenly see a great increase in some kind of activity, and you don't understand why, then it might be reasonable to look more closely at what's happening with those applications," she said. "I'm not certain that there was an error on the part of the IRS at all. I know that's not a popular opinion."

Some liberal groups did get additional scrutiny, although they still got their tax-exempt status while the Tea Party moratorium was in effect. For the "independent progressive" group Action for a Progressive Future, which runs the Rootsaction.org web site, the tax-exempt process took 18 months and also involved intrusive questions...."

Refuting Democratic suggestions that progressive groups were also swept up in the IRS probe of the tax status of Tea Party organizations, the Treasury Department's inspector general has revealed that just six progressive groups were targeted compared to 292 conservative groups.

In a letter to congressional Democrats, the inspector general also said that 100 percent of Tea Party groups seeking special tax status were put under IRS review, while only 30 percent of the progressive groups felt the same pressure.

The Wednesday letter to the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee punched a huge hole in Democratic claims that progressive groups were targeted as much as the Tea Party groups from May 2010-May 2012, the height of the Tea Party movement.

The letter from the Treasury Department Inspector General for Tax Administration revealed that there just weren't many progressive groups who even sought special tax exempt status. A total of 20 sought it, and six were probed. All 292 Tea Party groups, meanwhile, were part of the IRS witchhunt.

"At this point, the evidence shows us that conservative groups were not only flagged, but targeted and abused by the IRS," said Sarah Swinehart spokeswoman for the Ways and Means Committee.

"As we gather the facts, we will follow them wherever they lead us. Chairman [Rep. David] Camp encourages all groups, regardless of political affiliation, that feel they may have been targeted to come forward and share their story."

Democrats had noticed that the word "progressives" was on the so-called Be On The Lookout, or BOLO, list. But the Treasury IG suggested that the list wasn't used.

Treasury: IRS targeted 292 Tea Party groups, just 6 progressive groups | WashingtonExaminer.com

try again
your not replying to some uninformed forum member i know what the hell im talking about

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

The IRS will be verifying if you have health insurance through documentation provided them by insurance providers. Not much room for 'partisan' chicanery. It's like the mortgage interest deduction - mortgage lenders send the info to the IRS, who then match that info with what was deducted on your tax return. You either have insurance or you don't. You can either prove it, or you can't. Businesses either provide insurance and the records sent to the IRS match up or they don't and face penalties. Coverage is easily proven and verifiable, thus the abuses which were rife in a very grey area of the tax code (not for profits) will not be a problem.

But somehow (and I know you did not specifically say this) I hear cries about how the IRS will be running our health care.

Well, to address your last item first...and no, I did not say that. But one cannot ignore the fact that is what it is pretty much ultimately leading to, correct? I mean if you are honestly looking at the logic of how it would play out? Why else would the big O expend so much effort to do it? Its on the path... the path now properly greased, now tilted that direction.

That is why we really need to stop it right here, right now.

Republicans have to make the high stakes gamble on how to best slow it down until we can get another election, change the Senate and most probably the Presidency. Especially as Barry just cannot get us out of this slump, that is the way he wants it. He is pulling us down, instead he should be allowing that breath of economic oxygen to feed the fire that wants so desperately to burn, to create opportunity again.

Yet we go more in debt, by the trillions now, to get to where? To where he started?

By this time Reagan had us going great guns, lifting all livelihoods, no matter the race. We need that, people deserve that, we are fellow Americans for gosh sakes....

So, back to the IRS thing. So, say a Republican gets in power and decides to make everyone trade in their electric cars as the scientists [ he or she has cleaned out the EPA and the Dept of Energy, replaced them all with good conservative scientists who say, quite sincerely, that they have scientifically determined that gasoline powered engines are the cleanest/most efficient for the environment, most sustainable for the long term...and so everyone must buy a car...or at minimum rent one per family...no matter what, you have to. That cool with you? No? They cannot make you do that right? Apparently they can as they can make you, and everyone else in the US, purchase a health insurance policy whether you wanted it or not...besides it being a law, isnt that called precedent? So now the new admin wants to use this new method to improve the environment and at the very same time bolster the economy, you know, win win situation. Guess you will have to go for it just as much as I am having to do that now, huh? And you won't complain, cause you see how the science proves it and all, cause we all should just believe the government scientists right, especially all the many various government funded portions of that science, right...I mean even if it goes against what you actually think is true, right?

And if you don't purchase that car...or lets say that health insurance policy, the IRS, possibly guns holstered, may start paying you visits, throw you in the slammer if you don't purchase or pay up your fines.

DO NOT BEND OVER TO PICK UP THE SOAP SHOULD YOU DROP IT is the only advice I know to offer, never been there myself.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

If the FEC receives a credible complaint they are obligated to do an investigation. (I don't know, but I doubt that staffers need the permission of commissioners to do routine investigations.)

Determining which type of tax entity (not-for profit, nonprofit, political etc.) the suspected organization uses, and the names of the responsible individuals, is legitimate information for an inquiry and the type of information that the IRS can provide to anyone. Organizations with tax-exempt status don't have the same privacy rights as individuals. Anyone can inquire with the IRS to learn whether an organization is an official non-profit and other details. (see info from the IRS website below)


"In general, what public disclosure requirements apply to tax-exempt organizations?

In general, exempt organizations must make available for public inspection certain annual returns and applications for exemption, and must provide copies of such returns and applications to individuals who request them. Copies usually must be provided immediately in the case of in-person requests, and within 30 days in the case of written requests. The tax-exempt organization may charge a reasonable copying fee plus actual postage, if any. The IRS must also make this same information publicly available."

Public Disclosure and Availability of Exempt Organizations Returns and Applications: Public Disclosure Requirements in General

What organizations are tax-exempt organizations for purposes of the law requiring that certain tax documents be disclosed and copies of those documents be provided to persons requesting them?

The law affects organizations exempt from federal income tax under Internal Revenue Code section 501(a) and described in section 501(c) or 501(d). Examples of tax-exempt organization to which the law applies include charities, schools, labor organizations, business leagues, fraternities, social clubs, veterans organizations and voluntary employees' beneficiary associations. See Types of Organizations for more information about these organizations. It also applies to political organizations exempt from taxation under section 527(a).
Public Disclosure and Availability of Exempt Organizations Returns and Applications: Exempt Organizations Subject to Public Disclosure Requirements

Thanks for the links and good information....let me ask, did you watch this to see what kind of questions they were actually asking these groups [ and it was a mix of groups ]??

IRS Scrutiny of Non-Profit Organizations - C-SPAN Video Library

I think all reasonable folks would say they were going way too far...and beyond that, there seemed to be an anti -something styled agenda for it to go this far... don't you think?

 

[ForcedAppeal]

Well, to address your last item first...and no, I did not say that. But one cannot ignore the fact that is what it is pretty much ultimately leading to, correct? I mean if you are honestly looking at the logic of how it would play out? Why else would the big O expend so much effort to do it? Its on the path... the path now properly greased, now tilted that direction.

That is why we really need to stop it right here, right now.

Republicans have to make the high stakes gamble on how to best slow it down until we can get another election, change the Senate and most probably the Presidency. Especially as Barry just cannot get us out of this slump, that is the way he wants it. He is pulling us down, instead he should be allowing that breath of economic oxygen to feed the fire that wants so desperately to burn, to create opportunity again.

Yet we go more in debt, by the trillions now, to get to where? To where he started?

By this time Reagan had us going great guns, lifting all livelihoods, no matter the race. We need that, people deserve that, we are fellow Americans for gosh sakes....

So, back to the IRS thing. So, say a Republican gets in power and decides to make everyone trade in their electric cars as the scientists [ he or she has cleaned out the EPA and the Dept of Energy, replaced them all with good conservative scientists who say, quite sincerely, that they have scientifically determined that gasoline powered engines are the cleanest/most efficient for the environment, most sustainable for the long term...and so everyone must buy a car...or at minimum rent one per family...no matter what, you have to. That cool with you? No? They cannot make you do that right? Apparently they can as they can make you, and everyone else in the US, purchase a health insurance policy whether you wanted it or not...besides it being a law, isnt that called precedent? So now the new admin wants to use this new method to improve the environment and at the very same time bolster the economy, you know, win win situation. Guess you will have to go for it just as much as I am having to do that now, huh? And you won't complain, cause you see how the science proves it and all, cause we all should just believe the government scientists right, especially all the many various government funded portions of that science, right...I mean even if it goes against what you actually think is true, right?

And if you don't purchase that car...or lets say that health insurance policy, the IRS, possibly guns holstered, may start paying you visits, throw you in the slammer if you don't purchase or pay up your fines.

DO NOT BEND OVER TO PICK UP THE SOAP SHOULD YOU DROP IT is the only advice I know to offer, never been there myself.

Nice rant.

I was not commenting on the constitutionality of the law or ANY fiscal implications thereof.

I made ONE observation regarding the IRS role in implementing said law and why I did not think that their specific role/function in this ONE instance of verifying health insurance would lead to partisan crap. That's all.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Why do you clowns continue to politically "gang bang."

There is no right and wrong with ya'll

The sooner you see reality and judge this nonsense for what it is the better.... Until then you will all be part of t he problem.

 

[Mr.Nick]

"He said she said"

Grow the **** up....

It's counterproductive......

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Why do you clowns continue to politically "gang bang."

There is no right and wrong with ya'll

The sooner you see reality and judge this nonsense for what it is the better.... Until then you will all be part of t he problem.

"He said she said"

Grow the **** up....

It's counterproductive......

Moderator's Warning:

Knock off the trolling.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Nice rant.

I was not commenting on the constitutionality of the law or ANY fiscal implications thereof.

I made ONE observation regarding the IRS role in implementing said law and why I did not think that their specific role/function in this ONE instance of verifying health insurance would lead to partisan crap. That's all.

Thanks.

If one is traveling in the right direction, its nice, and as a citizen almost an obligation, to pose questions to those either not pointed in the right direction or those who are stuck in the Sargasso of indecision/indifference... just to make ya wonder, eh? You do not answer, but yeah, I do not want to be forced by my government, which is my servant and not my master, to purchase anything that I do not really want . Once that precedent is established, no telling where it may go.

And to answer your query earlier regarding the IRS having limited opening to engage in partisan chicanery... there is always that possibility, and so plenty of room, for that just in the decisions that agency makes upon who they decide to enforce the rules/fines on... and who they do not? Right? We now have the history to look at. Partisan profiling is an established practice already having been performed by the IRS, correct?

 

[humbolt]

The IRS will be verifying if you have health insurance through documentation provided them by insurance providers. Not much room for 'partisan' chicanery. It's like the mortgage interest deduction - mortgage lenders send the info to the IRS, who then match that info with what was deducted on your tax return. You either have insurance or you don't. You can either prove it, or you can't. Businesses either provide insurance and the records sent to the IRS match up or they don't and face penalties. Coverage is easily proven and verifiable, thus the abuses which were rife in a very grey area of the tax code (not for profits) will not be a problem.

But somehow (and I know you did not specifically say this) I hear cries about how the IRS will be running our health care.

Au contraire. There's always room for a little 'partisan' chicanery. "Mr. Humbolt, we have not received verification of health insurance pursuant to...blah, blah, blah. The penalty for failure to obtain and maintain health insurance as defined by...blah, blah, blah...is astronomical. Please forward payment in the astronomical amount made payable to the United States Treasury within 30 days or face additional astronomical fines." Six months later, "Mr. Humbolt, we have received verification of health insurance for your account. Please disregard any previous communication in this regard. Your astronomical payment will be credited to your account in upcoming year. You may proceed with that heart transplant you claimed you required to live as soon as the death panel determines whether you have survived the past six months, or unfortunately, not."

 

[Hard Truth]

I think all reasonable folks would say they were going way too far...and beyond that, there seemed to be an anti -something styled agenda for it to go this far... don't you think?

My mind is still open as to whether these tea party groups were actually targeted for partisan political reasons or for legitmate reasons. One reason is that I have seen evidence of attempts by some of these groups to hide the fact that they are being funded by certain wealthy individuals, corporate interests and/or groups affiliated with the Republican party. The suspicions of the IRS may have been raised due to these group's attempts to conceal their funding sources.

The numbers in these articles also need to be examined with more context. For example, could it be that more Tea party groups were examined than progressive groups because there were far more new tea party groups at the time? Instead of raw numbers, it would be more meaningful to know the percentage of each type of group that received extra scutiny.

The article in the OPs link seems decepetive in light of the FEC's obligation to investigate credible complaints and the IRS policies regarding disclosure (see post #31).

 

[ForcedAppeal]

Au contraire. There's always room for a little 'partisan' chicanery. "Mr. Humbolt, we have not received verification of health insurance pursuant to...blah, blah, blah. The penalty for failure to obtain and maintain health insurance as defined by...blah, blah, blah...is astronomical. Please forward payment in the astronomical amount made payable to the United States Treasury within 30 days or face additional astronomical fines." Six months later, "Mr. Humbolt, we have received verification of health insurance for your account. Please disregard any previous communication in this regard. Your astronomical payment will be credited to your account in upcoming year. You may proceed with that heart transplant you claimed you required to live as soon as the death panel determines whether you have survived the past six months, or unfortunately, not."

That's tinfoil hat stuff. If you had any idea how the IRS works in the real world and the many options you have to redress any situation any number of ways, you'd realize just how ridiculous your scenario is. Utterly. And about these 'astronomical' penalties...I guess you haven't read the law either or you wouldn't be saying the penalties are 'astronomical'.

 

[ForcedAppeal]

Thanks.


... there is always that possibility, and so plenty of room, for that just in the decisions that agency makes upon who they decide to enforce the rules/fines on... and who they do not? Right? We now have the history to look at. Partisan profiling is an established practice already having been performed by the IRS, correct?

If you think the law is not being applied to you personally in a fair manner, their are MANY levels where the situation can be redressed throughout the framework and organizational arrangement of the IRS and the courts. The profiling was occurring because the interpretation of the haxy law leading to hazy regulations were abused by the IRS. As I stated earlier, you either HAVE insurance or you DO NOT. You can either prove it, or you cannot. If you think you are correct, don't pay the fines and take the IRS all the way to court and win - easy as that. (It will NEVER get there because if you're correct in that you have insurance, there are about 5 different level of staff and supervisors that will all have to be in cahoots to look at your proof and still kick it further up the chain and then get disciplined when you offer clear proof to a judge or magistrate)

There's always the possibility that the law,any law, in general, can be applied on a partisan basis, yes? Should we stop enforcement of laws because law enforcement agencies act innapropriately sometimes? Hmmm.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

If you think the law is not being applied to you personally in a fair manner, their are MANY levels where the situation can be redressed throughout the framework and organizational arrangement of the IRS and the courts. The profiling was occurring because the interpretation of the haxy law leading to hazy regulations were abused by the IRS. As I stated earlier, you either HAVE insurance or you DO NOT. You can either prove it, or you cannot. If you think you are correct, don't pay the fines and take the IRS all the way to court and win - easy as that. (It will NEVER get there because if you're correct in that you have insurance, there are about 5 different level of staff and supervisors that will all have to be in cahoots to look at your proof and still kick it further up the chain and then get disciplined when you offer clear proof to a judge or magistrate)

There's always the possibility that the law,any law, in general, can be applied on a partisan basis, yes? Should we stop enforcement of laws because law enforcement agencies act innapropriately sometimes? Hmmm.

Good points. The problem here is that we know that the IRS did target conservative groups, some for over three years, two election cycles where those groups could not be brought to bear in the campaigns... that subverts elections. They can sue, takes time and lots of money/effort, but we cannot re-hold the elections that they were preempted from actively participating in to their fullest capacity. That subverts democracy.

I would say that we need to get to the bottom of this, the individual agents should be sued/ fired if found guilty of partisanship on the job in this manner. Yes, there's always the possibility that the law, any law can be applied on a partisan basis. But if we do not come down hard on these folks, send a message strong and clear and all sides/parties are not fully on board with this...and my side gets into power, will you have a problem if they allow the same to happen to your side over two election cycles?

 

[humbolt]

That's tinfoil hat stuff. If you had any idea how the IRS works in the real world and the many options you have to redress any situation any number of ways, you'd realize just how ridiculous your scenario is. Utterly. And about these 'astronomical' penalties...I guess you haven't read the law either or you wouldn't be saying the penalties are 'astronomical'.

Really? Having been through numerous disputes with the IRS, my experience is somewhat different than what you represent here. They were extremely peachy with me, but only after I wrote them a check for sums they essentially agreed I probably didn't owe. It was substantial. You're talking about Dr. Jekyll. I've already met Mr. Hyde.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

I doubt he had anything to do with it in the first place.

It's the IRS's responsibility to scrutinize political groups applying for tax emempt status for their political activities. The tea party is a political group and so their very essense is a red flag for the IRS scrutinize them.

I doubt if he had anything to do with the origination of it. He may have known of it before he heard about it on TV though. And he sure isn't trying very hard to get the answers out as to what happened.

 

[SgtRock]

I believe this will eventually lead to the presidents 2012 campaign manager David Axelrod.