IRS Admits to targeting

[Merc14]

In regards to those Benghazi threads, some want to spend their time arguing and quibbling, others just want to pass on information for the benefit of those interested in said information.

Some see dialogue as a win or lose type of debate while others see it as only being able to influence others while learning something themselves.

There is no need to visit such threads unless new information is released.

See you there soon.

LMAO. I guess that is your way describing one running away with one's tail between one's leg.

[Clarakore]

Not really, it just means I prefer dialogue, not drunken debate. Have a great morning.

[Merc14]

As I recall it was the selective use of the tax laws that put Capone in jail -- he was singled out for scrutiny because they couldn't find any other way to get him.

Is this so different because the motive is political? It seems the same sort of selective use of investigative discretion.

Such discretion is essential; the police cannot investigate everything or everybody. Where the problem seems to rise here is that the two political parties are out to get each other, and more and more are using the investigative power of what should be independent agencies.

It may be, however, that in this case another factor came into play that is even more scary for the US -- that it is government employees working to protect their own interests over and above that of the nation, and that they favor Democrats because Democrats do more for them.

You are using the analogy of jailing a mobster to describe the bullying of the right by the left? I guess we know what your political leanings are. p*** poor analogy regardless.

Not really, it just means I prefer dialogue, not drunken debate. Have a great morning.

No, it means you can't admit when you are wrong. You don't have the courage to do so.

[Frank Merton]

You are using the analogy of jailing a mobster to describe the bullying of the right by the left? I guess we know what your political leanings are. p*** poor analogy regardless..

I think you need to read things more carefully. I was fishing for an example of proper use of investigatory discretion. There was no analogy.

I was hoping this might generate a more intelligent response bringing out what the difference might be, but instead all I see is a rather funny and puzzling remark about what my politics might be. Surely you don't approve of partisan considerations in deciding who to investigate and who not to?

[F3SS]

As I recall it was the selective use of the tax laws that put Capone in jail -- he was singled out for scrutiny because they couldn't find any other way to get him.

Is this so different because the motive is political? It seems the same sort of selective use of investigative discretion.

Such discretion is essential; the police cannot investigate everything or everybody. Where the problem seems to rise here is that the two political parties are out to get each other, and more and more are using the investigative power of what should be independent agencies.

It may be, however, that in this case another factor came into play that is even more scary for the US -- that it is government employees working to protect their own interests over and above that of the nation, and that they favor Democrats because Democrats do more for them.

When you have a tax code 90,000 pages long you can use that to make anyone into jailbate and that's by design.

[Frank Merton]

If what you say is true (and of course it is) then I wonder how the US gets away with calling itself a nation of law rather than a nation of arbitrary prosecution.

[Clarakore]

When you have a tax code 90,000 pages long you can use that to make anyone into jailbate and that's by design.

I don't think that is what jailbait means....

[Frank Merton]

Jail-bait is an underage prostitute, at least that's my understanding, which made what he said not just an interesting statement but also a pointedly and effectively worded one, at least as I read it.

[Clarakore]

lolol

Seriously now, we have come a long way from how the administration and government treats one if they did not like you.

Back in the commie pinko witchhunt days where you could get blacklisted, a socialist in America, or even someone fighting for rights, could be tossed into jail where they hoped you would get TB and die, no trial, nothing, bye!

This is why I approve of progress, that kinda stuff is history, be glad it is not the same still.

Still don't think the WH had anything to do with this.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[Harte]

I think you need to read things more carefully. I was fishing for an example of proper use of investigatory discretion. There was no analogy.

Leading several of us to wonder why you are doing so, in light of the fact that the IRS has admitted it was wasn't "discretionary," but discriminatory.

Harte

[Clarakore]

Funny how the Tea Party in its 240 year history went from using "Taxation Without Representation" as a slogan to "Oh Noes You Are Targeting Our 501©(4)s".

/sarc

Edited May 13, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[F3SS]

Yea yea you know what I meant. Exchange jailbate for criminal.

Also, the TEA party doesn't have a 240 year history. Two separate things, similar ideas and I believe the first one was more of an event than an organization.

[Merc14]

I think you need to read things more carefully. I was fishing for an example of proper use of investigatory discretion. There was no analogy.

I was hoping this might generate a more intelligent response bringing out what the difference might be, but instead all I see is a rather funny and puzzling remark about what my politics might be. Surely you don't approve of partisan considerations in deciding who to investigate and who not to?

I reread it and that is the analogy I see. If it wasn't what you meant then fine, I'll gladly take your word for it but using the tax code to convict a murderous mobster should not be compared to suppressing a different political view. Regardless, both cases support your other point, that America has lost the right to call itself a lawful nation. Our tax code is a hammer used by a department that almost unlimited power to destroy a person' or business. They cannot be sued and they cannot be stopped but the right can't get away with the same things the left can. If the right went after Media Matters, the MSM would lead with iot as teh story of the year.

[Frank Merton]

Let me say they used their discretion in a discriminatory way. Will that formula succeed? I'm not particularly interested in the left wing vs right wing aspect of this but in the partisanship being shown in a destructive way by both parties, and whether or not this is characteristic in the end of two-party systems. The left using its position of executive power and the right using scandal mongering -- for the moment, although in the past the roles have been reversed.

The tax aspect of all this is news to me and only reinforces my view; I can't imagine someone being treated like that unless there was genuine tax fraud (of which, of course, Vietnam has its share).

[Merc14]

Let me say they used their discretion in a discriminatory way. Will that formula succeed? I'm not particularly interested in the left wing vs right wing aspect of this but in the partisanship being shown in a destructive way by both parties, and whether or not this is characteristic in the end of two-party systems. The left using its position of executive power and the right using scandal mongering -- for the moment, although in the past the roles have been reversed.

The tax aspect of all this is news to me and only reinforces my view; I can't imagine someone being treated like that unless there was genuine tax fraud (of which, of course, Vietnam has its share).

You have absolutely no idea, apparently, what you are talking about. Did you read any of the articles? This isn't about fraud it is aboutpolitical organizations nature seeking their rightful tax exemptions. The leftist organizations got their's, no questions asked and the rightist were harrassed, asked for illegal information, denied exemptions etc. It was a concerted effort, admitted to by the IRS, to harrass right wing organizations. There is abbsolutely nothing beinng said that left wing organizations have ever been harrassed similarly. No quid pro quo, so get over that.

As for, scandal mongering, what the hell are tyou talking about? Are you saying the right wing organizations should just take this abuse and shut up? i have two word s for you and they ain't happy motoring.

Now there are revelations that pro-israel and other organizations were treated similarly so they should shut up and take the abuse?

[Frank Merton]

I wonder how many times I've been told I have no idea what I am talking about, and then been told things that are absurd.

It appears that some tax authorities denied some "Tea Party" groups a tax exemption, on selective, discriminatory way. As a result the outcome of the election may even have been altered, although that seems unlikely. To me there is a question of whether these groups really were entitled and if so why don't they go to court instead of the press? On the other hand such power in executive hands is certainly not democratic.

It looks like a pox on both houses. It looks like a system in disarray.

[Merc14]

I wonder how many times I've been told I have no idea what I am talking about, and then been told things that are absurd.

It appears that some tax authorities denied some "Tea Party" groups a tax exemption, on selective, discriminatory way. As a result the outcome of the election may even have been altered, although that seems unlikely. To me there is a question of whether these groups really were entitled and if so why don't they go to court instead of the press? On the other hand such power in executive hands is certainly not democratic.

It looks like a pox on both houses. It looks like a system in disarray.

Go read some more, it wasn't just the tea party and yes, they deserved the same exemptions that the many left wing groups secured easily. No one has argued that, not even the IRS.

As far as going to court, they did, in many instances and many of those cases are either still being adjudicated, been allowed or been dismissed. There are a lot of these cases in many different courts at this time but remeber the election was just 5 months ago and litigating against the IRS is a multi-year enterprise. Many of teh groups have disbanded after the election and all that is being litigated is if taxes are owed or not

As far as going to the press, you once again show you didn't read much if at all. This all started when a head IRS representative let slip on a conference call with the press that they had discovered this had been going on and they were sorry. One wonders why, at this time, they let this out. The press ignored, for years, the cry from various right wing organizations that this was occurring and simply dismissed it as right wing kookery.

[Merc14]

Romney donor, vilified by Obama campaign was audited twice during election.

http://dailycaller.c...ed-to-2-audits/

Edited May 13, 2013 by Merc14

[supervike]

Obama's response to these allegations, via CNN:

President Obama vowed Monday to hold the Internal Revenue Service accountable if reports of political targeting are proved true.

"If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that's outrageous. And there's no place for it," Obama told reporters.

"And they have to be held fully accountable. Because the IRS as an independent agency requires absolute integrity, and people have to have confidence that they're ... applying the laws in a nonpartisan way."

Obama said he learned of the allegations through news reports on Friday.

[Kowalski]

Romney donor, vilified by Obama campaign was audited twice during election.

http://dailycaller.c...ed-to-2-audits/

Oh wow, thanks for posting this!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - When tax agents started singling out non-profit groups for extra scrutiny in 2010, they looked at first only for key words such as 'Tea Party,' but later they focused on criticisms by groups of "how the country is being run," according to investigative findings reviewed by Reuters on Sunday.

Over two years, IRS field office agents repeatedly changed their criteria while sifting through thousands of applications from groups seeking tax-exempt status to select ones for possible closer examination, the findings showed.

At one point, the agents chose to screen applications from groups focused on making "America a better place to live."

Exactly who at the IRS made the decisions to start applying extra scrutiny was not clear from the findings, which were contained in portions of an investigative report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA).

Expected to be made public this week, the report was obtained in part by Reuters over the weekend as a full-blown scandal involving the IRS scrutiny widened, embarrassing the agency and distracting the Obama administration.

In one part of the report, TIGTA officials observed that the application screening effort showed "confusion about how to process the applications, delays in the processing of the applications, and a lack of management oversight and guidance."

After brewing for months, the IRS effort exploded into wider view on Friday when Lois Lerner, director of exempt organizations for the IRS, apologized for what she called the "inappropriate" targeting of conservative groups for closer scrutiny, something the agency had long denied.

At a legal conference in Washington, while taking questions from the audience, Lerner said the agency was sorry.

She said the screening practice was confined to an IRS office in Cincinnati; that it was "absolutely not" influenced by the Obama administration; and that none of the targeted groups was denied tax-free status.

It is clear from the TIGTA findings that Lerner was informed in June 2011 that the extra scrutiny was occurring. Key words in the names of groups - including 'Tea Party,' "Patriot' and '9/12' - were being used to choose applications, TIGTA found.

"Issues" criteria were also used, TIGTA found. Scrutiny was being given to references to "Government spending, Government debt, or taxes; Education of the public via advocacy/lobbying to 'make America a better place to live;' and Statements in the case file (that) criticize how the country is being run."

Under these early criteria, more than 100 tax-exempt applications had been identified, according to TIGTA.

Briefed on the practice, Lerner ordered changes.

CONSTANTLY SHIFTING CRITERIA

By July 2011, the IRS was no longer targeting just groups with certain key words in their names. Rather, the screening criteria had changed to "organizations involved with political, lobbying, or advocacy."

But then it changed again in January 2012 to cover "political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, social economic reform/movement," according to the findings contained in a Treasury Department watchdog report.

In March 2012, after Tea Party groups complained about delays in processing of their applications, then-IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman was called to testify by a congressional committee. He denied that the IRS was targeting tax-exempt groups based on their politics.

The IRS said on Saturday that senior IRS executives were not aware of the screening process. The documents reviewed by Reuters do not show that Shulman had any role.

In May 2012, the criteria for scrutiny were revised again to cover a variety of tax-exempt groups "with indicators of significant amounts of political campaign intervention (raising questions as to exempt purpose and/or excess private benefit)," according to a TIGTA timeline included in the findings.

Taken from http://finance.yahoo.com/news/irs-kept-shifting-targets-tax-071821874.html

Also: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/13/obama-steps-up-criticism-of-irs-targeting/

President Barack Obama upped his condemnation of the IRS’ investigation of conservative political groups on Monday, three days after his deputies described the targeting as “inappropriate.”

If the agency’s investigations were not politically neutral, Obama told reporters Monday morning, “that’s outrageous, it is contrary to our traditions, people have to be held accountable and it has got to be fixed… I’ve got no patience with it.”

Obama spoke at a press conference with the United Kingdom’s prime minister, David Cameron.

Obama also accepted the anger among conservatives as legitimate. “This is something I think people are properly concerned,” he said.

However, he declined to take immediate action. “The IRS Inspector General is conducting an investigation [and] I’m not going to comment on their specific findings,” he said.

Even some progressives faulted Obama’s response. “I don’t think he could be strong enough,” said progressive journalist David Corn.

The issue is extremely sensitive, in part because all Americans deal with the IRS, and the GOP is united in its willingness to slam the agency.

Moreover, the IRS has been given the important task of enforcing Obama’s still-unpopular redirection of the nation’s health care sector.

The groups reportedly targeted by the IRS include 75 Tea Party organizations, Glen Beck’s 9/11 Project, and Z Street, which opposes Obama’s Middle East policies. Some conservative media outlets have also complained about harassment by the IRS.

So far, no progressive groups have announced they were hit by IRS investigations.

A pending report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration says high-level IRS officials knew about the targeting in 2011.

For example, Lois Lerner, who runs the IRS’ oversight of tax-exempt groups, learned of the targeting in 2011, well after it began in 2010.

Officials say the targeting was started by low-level inspectors at the IRS’s office in Cincinnati, Ohio.

After Lerner learned of the targeting, the stated triggers for investigations were broadened from groups associated with the Tea Party to include terms that would allow continued targeting of conservative groups.

The broader terms include groups monitoring “government spending,” “government debt” and “education of the public via advocacy/lobbying to ‘make America a better place to live.”

[darkmoonlady]

Of course targeting groups who are vehemently against government taxation and spending wouldn't come under the eye of the IRS to begin with? Right? Thats what I don't get, a lot of these groups are militantly against taxation at the existing rates, hold up signs saying they don't want to pay etc, then want tax exempt status and then not expect the IRS to scrutinize them closely? The IRS scrutinizes average applications for tax exempt status with groups that don't hate them or threaten not to pay taxes so why would those groups expect they wouldn't be looked at closely, above and beyond the average applicant? I think the IRS would sort of stupid not to.

Edited May 13, 2013 by darkmoonlady

[RavenHawk]

Obama's response to these allegations, via CNN:

…

Obama said he learned of the allegations through news reports on Friday.

Isnt this lie getting old? Anytime hes forced to deal with something, he uses this lie or some variation of it, am I right? A President should be informed but he pretends that a certain story hasnt been floating around (in some cases for years) and that he vows to get to the bottom of it.

Right now, three come to mind. His birth certificate, Benghazi, and targeting anti big government groups. How many others are there to add to this list?

Let’s add the Sequester…

Edited May 13, 2013 by RavenHawk

[Merc14]

Of course targeting groups who are vehemently against government taxation and spending wouldn't come under the eye of the IRS to begin with? Right? Thats what I don't get, a lot of these groups are militantly against taxation at the existing rates, hold up signs saying they don't want to pay etc, then want tax exempt status and then not expect the IRS to scrutinize them closely? The IRS scrutinizes average applications for tax exempt status with groups that don't hate them or threaten not to pay taxes so why would those groups expect they wouldn't be looked at closely, above and beyond the average applicant? I think the IRS would sort of stupid not to.

First of all what groups are you talking about? Link please. Second, there might have been a few of them but so what? It isn't in the IRS' purview to decide if they like the group's messsage or not, it is to establish if they qualify for tax exemption and if you had a right wing sounding name you were treated radically different from any other group.

[Merc14]

Isn’t this lie getting old? Anytime he’s forced to deal with something, he uses this lie or some variation of it, am I right? A President should be informed but he pretends that a certain story hasn’t been floating around (in some cases for years) and that he vows to get to the bottom of it.

Right now, three come to mind. His birth certificate, Benghazi, and targeting anti big government groups. How many others are there to add to this list?

Let’s add the Sequester…

He is as uninformed and forgetful as Hillary Clinton during Whitewater and the Rose Law firm.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Merc14

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

So Obama throws someone under the bus and people go "ohh, it's a shame he didn't know. Must be very busy being President".