I still don't see the problem with anything the IRS did.
They were suspicious of and investigated political groups whose main platform is to stop all taxes.
If anyone is going to defraud the government on their tax activities it would be the TEA Party.
I believe that anyone belonging to any TEA Party organization should automatically be audited.
There is no evidence to support this assertion. It may be true, but the OIG report went out of its way to indicate that there doesn't appear to be an indication of political bias.
What we know is that the there were 298 groups targeted for political scrutiny. 201 were correctly targeted, 91 were targeted but should not have been and 144 weren't targeted but should have been.
Also, we know that 1/3 of the 298 groups were conservative groups. You can't say there was bias until you know the number of conservative groups which should have been targeted and the number of conservative groups which were incorrectly targeted..
Same with Obama then. Just saying doesn't make it so.
I am not attempting to exonerate the IRS, I am simply saying the Democrats got letters as well. As for the numbers, maybe the Right abused the 501 c(4) tax code the most. Somebody either Congress or the IRS needs to take the ambiguity out of the code so it's fair for everyone.
Huh? By requesting the 501 c(4) tax code and information on the application.
How could the right abuse the code if the applications were never approved?
Huh? By requesting the 501 c(4) tax code and information on the application.
I don't have an answer for you, the word 'abuse' was a poor choice. What I meant was they they probably tried to use the tax when it wasn't justified under the law.How is that abusing the code.
If there was something wrong with application the IRS has the right to deny it, but that wasn't done.
I don't have an answer for you, the word 'abuse' was a poor choice. What I meant was they they probably tried to use the tax when it wasn't justified under the law.
I have no interest in protecting or answering for the IRS, if anyone targeted an organization because of their political views they should be punished.:2wave:While that may be true that is what the application process is for. Anybody can try anything but it is up to the IRS to approve or deny the application in a timely manner so the organization can move on to what they need to do next.
Holding the application with no answer for years is the problem here.
I have no interest in protecting or answering for the IRS, if anyone targeted an organization because of their political views they should be punished.:2wave:
Tea Party members and supporters are by definition actual or at least wishful tax evaders. What better place to look for those trying to evade taxes than an organization called "Taxed Enough Already"?And you've "always said" this based on what evidence?:waiting:
Tea Party members and supporters are by definition actual or at least wishful tax evaders. What better place to look for those trying to evade taxes than an organization called "Taxed Enough Already"?
What likely group of people would you look for tax evaders in if not the TEA Party?Bias speaks.:shock:
Tea Party members and supporters are by definition actual or at least wishful tax evaders. What better place to look for those trying to evade taxes than an organization called "Taxed Enough Already"?
Tea Party members and supporters are by definition actual or at least wishful tax evaders. What better place to look for those trying to evade taxes than an organization called "Taxed Enough Already"?
When one side is heavily scrutinized and the other side is not, that's political bias regardless of what the OIG may have said. If all the white applicants to a country club were accepted for membership and all the black applicants were rejected, that would be taken as discrimination regardless of whether the local county judge deemed it so.:roll:
ComPost - Washington Post
ComPost
Next to normal — daily madness and the DSM-5. What's in a name? By Alexandra Petri May 17, 2013. Comments. Share: More ». Facebook · Twitter · Reddit ...
There was certainly bias in that particular criteria. And conservatives have a right to be upset by it.No, as stated mere presumption. But IF there was a comparative number of 'progressive/liberal' biased organizations where scrutiny was asserted wouldn't the IG have logically reported that there was no 'lean' to the scrutiny?
I've seen that also (IG report I think) but who/what are the other two-thirds? Isn't their 'description' relatedly important to the discussion? I can only presume that there are no progressive/liberal organizations due to it not being used as a defense of the IRS activities which if it were the case would be quite legitimate.
Correct. The point is not that conservatives were exclusively targeted, but that they were disproportionately targeted. Liberals, meanwhile, got an almost universal free pass. Alexandra Petri of the Washington Post published a hilarious send-up of this on 17 May.:mrgreen:
ComPost - Washington Post
ComPost
Next to normal — daily madness and the DSM-5. What's in a name? By Alexandra Petri May 17, 2013. Comments. Share: More ». Facebook · Twitter · Reddit ...
Washington Post said:Senate Democrats are readying a fresh legislative push to demand that such groups disclose their donors and attach disclaimers to their political advertising identifying the advertisement’s primary funders. Tax experts are also raising concerns that corporate donors to “super PACs” may be deducting their contributions as business expenses.
“The shadowy attack ads we see every day should be brought into the light,” said Senator Michael Bennet, Democrat of Colorado. “The largest contributors should stand by the ads they’ve paid for, the voters should know who’s behind these ads, and these super PACs should not be allowed to abuse our tax code by masquerading as nonprofit charities.”
I'm "cool" with looking for tax evaders and cheats in the likely places that they will be found.So you're cool with profiling? How progressive of you...
...We know that at least one liberal group was denied, but no conservative groups... at least not yet. But even this is proof of nothing.
That's BS, if the Republicans think they're being targeted, its only because they what the identity of their political donors to be unknown to the public. Corporation X doesn't the public to know they are contributing for or against candidate Y. Also today it is very possible these so-called super PAC are accepting donations from off shore entities.
Scrutiny of Political Nonprofits Sets Off Claim of Harassment
Except by their own admission, the spike didn't occur until 2012, which was 18 months after they started their "special" process. In 2009 and 2010, there were 1700 applications. In 2012, it was 3600.
I take "these kind of applications" as political groups claiming to be social welfare groups. 1700 is total applications. How many of those constituted groups that are claiming this special non-profit status but are really just politcal action comittees?
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?