If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ProPublica)   ProPublica: The IRS unit that went fishing in conservative groups' business also sent us a whole mess of confidential documents from those groups. Lately it's been more difficult to reach the IRS for comment, though. Can't imagine why   (propublica.org) divider line 36
    More: Followup, ProPublica, IRS, tea party, tax-exempt, tone hole, fish  
•       •       •

842 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 May 2013 at 9:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



36 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-14 09:29:05 AM
It's almost as if the unit wanted to create a scandal.
 
2013-05-14 09:31:47 AM
Oh, we're still talking about this? Wonderful.
 
2013-05-14 09:32:10 AM

neversubmit: It's almost as if the unit

Bush-appointed head of the IRS wanted to create a scandal.
 
2013-05-14 09:33:53 AM
BTW, subby, the IRS is required by law to release all information submitted with a 501-c(4) application, if it is approved.
 
2013-05-14 09:34:05 AM
I expect we'll hear outrage and calls for shutting down Pro Publica from the usual places real soon now...
 
2013-05-14 09:35:08 AM
Oh now everyone hates transparency.
 
2013-05-14 09:37:36 AM
They.. they released... publicly available information? Because that's what a non-profit's tax documents are.
 
2013-05-14 09:39:46 AM
At some point in the near future, people are going to realize that a fair amount of these political non-profits exist for the sole purpose of providing paychecks to mouthpieces of one ideology or another.
 
2013-05-14 09:39:47 AM

lilbjorn: BTW, subby, the IRS is required by law to release all information submitted with a 501-c(4) application, if it is approved.


FuturePastNow: They.. they released... publicly available information? Because that's what a non-profit's tax documents are.


FTFA: Nine of those applications had not yet been approved-meaning they were not supposed to be made public.
 
2013-05-14 09:43:45 AM
No mention yet if the IRS had identified significant patterns in the filings from those groups to warrant the additional scrutiny so I am waiting for the Follow-up tag to hit soon. One has to suspect that groups who are self labeled anti-tax may be using "questionable" tactics in how they report to the tax agency.
 
2013-05-14 09:43:48 AM
The IRS gave extra, systematic scrutiny to tax-protest groups filing for tax-exempt status? Good heavens.
 
2013-05-14 09:45:12 AM

FuturePastNow: They.. they released... publicly available information? Because that's what a non-profit's tax documents are.


Some comprehension help for you from TFA: "Nine of those applications had not yet been approved-meaning they were not supposed to be made public."
 
2013-05-14 09:45:20 AM
Like I said in the other thread... this entire "scandal" could be resolved by a middle manager writing a one-page policy memo. Something to the effect of:

1. 501(c)(4) applications will no longer be scrutinized by specific application keyword.
2. Effective immediately, scrutiny will apply to 40% of said applications, selected at random.
3. A biannual report of those application investigations will be made available to Congress and the press.

Signed,
Your boss


That's it. That's all it would take to resolve this entire situation. Instead, we're going to spend the next ten days hearing about how "scandalous" this is for the administration.
 
2013-05-14 09:50:00 AM

clkeagle: Like I said in the other thread... this entire "scandal" could be resolved by a middle manager writing a one-page policy memo. Something to the effect of:

1. 501(c)(4) applications will no longer be scrutinized by specific application keyword.
2. Effective immediately, scrutiny will apply to 40% of said applications, selected at random.
3. A biannual report of those application investigations will be made available to Congress and the press.

Signed,
Your boss

That's it. That's all it would take to resolve this entire situation. Instead, we're going to spend the next ten days hearing about how "scandalous" this is for the administration.


Well, I have to say. at least this scandal has some actually basis in reality, as opposed to the Benghazi "scandal".
 
2013-05-14 09:50:36 AM

clkeagle: That's it. That's all it would take to resolve this entire situation. Instead, we're going to spend the next ten days hearing about how "scandalous" this is for the administration.


You're assuming "resolution" is the goal. It ain't.

Resolution is already moving - the old director is gone, the new one (assuming this happened without his direct knowledge) has/is probably shaking things up, Congress will eventually pass some new rules for the IRS (which, given how antitax the majority is, may be disastrous for the IRS - they may even go Orwellian enough to rename it), and life will go on even though political groups are abusing tax-exempt status.

The goal here is to show that conservatives - tough guys who carry guns to prevent a tyrannical government from stealing their freedoms - are powerless against a tyrannical government stealing their freedoms.
 
2013-05-14 09:52:05 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: clkeagle: Like I said in the other thread... this entire "scandal" could be resolved by a middle manager writing a one-page policy memo. Something to the effect of:

1. 501(c)(4) applications will no longer be scrutinized by specific application keyword.
2. Effective immediately, scrutiny will apply to 40% of said applications, selected at random.
3. A biannual report of those application investigations will be made available to Congress and the press.

Signed,
Your boss

That's it. That's all it would take to resolve this entire situation. Instead, we're going to spend the next ten days hearing about how "scandalous" this is for the administration.

Well, I have to say. at least this scandal has some actually basis in reality, as opposed to the Benghazi "scandal".


"some actually basis"? Damn, I need more coffee.
 
2013-05-14 09:52:17 AM
Meh, overzelous staffer.
 
2013-05-14 09:52:33 AM
Remember also:

Reid said R-money paid no taxes for 10 years - where did he get that info?

There was a leak about the Koch Brothers donating to some charity - (that was not public info) - where did that info come from?

One of R-money's donors after being singled out on 0bama's campaign website was, surprise, audited shortly after.  No improprieties were found.
 
2013-05-14 09:56:19 AM

Dr Dreidel: Congress will eventually pass some new rules for the IRS


That is absurdly optimistic of you to think.
 
2013-05-14 09:59:33 AM

clkeagle: Like I said in the other thread... this entire "scandal" could be resolved by a middle manager writing a one-page policy memo. Something to the effect of:

1. 501(c)(4) applications will no longer be scrutinized by specific application keyword.
2. Effective immediately, scrutiny will apply to 40% of said applications, selected at random.
3. A biannual report of those application investigations will be made available to Congress and the press.

Signed,
Your boss

That's it. That's all it would take to resolve this entire situation. Instead, we're going to spend the next ten days hearing about how "scandalous" this is for the administration.


meh.  they probably already have rules on the books about this.
 
2013-05-14 10:00:30 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Remember also:

Reid said R-money paid no taxes for 10 years - where did he get that info?


It's nice that you're finally acknowledging Romney's tax scam.
 
2013-05-14 10:07:43 AM

un4gvn666: Dr Dreidel: Congress will eventually pass some new rules for the IRS

That is absurdly optimistic of you to think.


Why? It's not like they've done so multiple times over the last 5-10 years already (here are some examples, all from FY2013, though they're mostly IRS' rules, which are made in response to/in conjunction with Congressional law).

// 'sides which, I can get all evadey and say that any law that affects taxes is a "new rule" for the IRS
 
2013-05-14 10:15:37 AM

Dr Dreidel: un4gvn666: Dr Dreidel: Congress will eventually pass some new rules for the IRS

That is absurdly optimistic of you to think.

Why? It's not like they've done so multiple times over the last 5-10 years already (here are some examples, all from FY2013, though they're mostly IRS' rules, which are made in response to/in conjunction with Congressional law).

// 'sides which, I can get all evadey and say that any law that affects taxes is a "new rule" for the IRS


Funny thing is, not a single one of the links you provided were about rules passed by Congress concerning the IRS. They are all regulations issued directly from the IRS pertaining to their own work.

Can the IRS institute new rules regarding the manner of collection of taxes? Sure. But Congress? Even if they did pass something, conservatives will ensure it does more harm than good.
 
2013-05-14 10:26:59 AM

LockeOak: The IRS gave extra, systematic scrutiny to tax-protest groups filing for tax-exempt status? Good heavens.


Yeah, I admit that I have no problem with this. I also have no problem with providing extra scrutiny to groups that are basically political campaign funds from either side. Where I have a problem is with releasing confidential documents for third parties before those documents can be released. It sounds as if that is what happened here. The IRS released documents for groups that had not yet been approved. I didn't (and still do not) have a problem with giving extra scrutiny to groups who are avowedly anti-tax. Frankly, that just makes sense. But sending those groups' confidential documents to outside parties? No, that is wrong, and heads should roll.

The oddest thing for me about this is that it takes place in the Cincinnati IRS office. Cincinnati is Red, like REALLY Red. I am surprised they are the ones to do this.
 
2013-05-14 10:36:07 AM

un4gvn666: But Congress? Even if they did pass something, conservatives will ensure it does more harm than good.


I don't disagree there.

// we did get closer to the old rates for the top two income tiers, so that's something
 
2013-05-14 11:10:31 AM
When I see Crossroads GPS as an approved social welfare group, it makes me think the entire process is shaite.  They spent millions on political ads, and did diddly for social welfare.

Maybe someone at the IRS woke up to the fact that all these groups were being approved for tax exempt status, when they shouldn't have been and tightened up restrictions on groups like them to ensure the process was correct.

Guess the Tea Party folks don't like it when they are the ones being profiled.
 
2013-05-14 11:55:17 AM

lilbjorn: neversubmit: It's almost as if the unit Bush-appointed head of the IRS wanted to create a scandal.


A supervisor/commander is responsible for the actions of everyone under them.  It doesn't matter if that underling was hired by the previous supervisor or commander.

But go ahead, keep telling yourself that this is some sort of justification.
 
2013-05-14 01:00:34 PM

DeaH: The oddest thing for me about this is that it takes place in the Cincinnati IRS office. Cincinnati is Red, like REALLY Red. I am surprised they are the ones to do this.


False flag! False flag!
 
2013-05-14 01:31:04 PM

Wyalt Derp: DeaH: The oddest thing for me about this is that it takes place in the Cincinnati IRS office. Cincinnati is Red, like REALLY Red. I am surprised they are the ones to do this.

False flag! False flag!


Yeah, that's it, or perhaps it's because that's the office that handles these tax exempt organizations in which case it would have to be the Cincinnati office.
 
2013-05-14 01:41:54 PM

Mr. Eugenides: Wyalt Derp: DeaH: The oddest thing for me about this is that it takes place in the Cincinnati IRS office. Cincinnati is Red, like REALLY Red. I am surprised they are the ones to do this.

False flag! False flag!

Yeah, that's it, or perhaps it's because that's the office that handles these tax exempt organizations in which case it would have to be the Cincinnati office.


It wasn't a regional thing but it was only one small National part of the IRS.  The "scandal" seems to be below the Director of that office who asked them to stop this practice.
 
2013-05-14 01:43:28 PM
The practice of sending confidential information to left wing news organizations?
 
2013-05-14 01:58:57 PM

Mr. Eugenides: lilbjorn: neversubmit: It's almost as if the unit Bush-appointed head of the IRS wanted to create a scandal.

A supervisor/commander is responsible for the actions of everyone under them.  It doesn't matter if that underling was hired by the previous supervisor or commander.

But go ahead, keep telling yourself that this is some sort of justification.


No I understand, Bill Clinton made the same mistake of not purging the old loyalist from his government, remember Linda Tripp? If you don't clean house you should expect traitors, which is why I think this is another trap.
 
2013-05-14 03:07:07 PM
Thanks for another spin class Obamatrons.
 
2013-05-14 07:13:02 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Remember also:

Reid said R-money paid no taxes for 10 years - where did he get that info?

There was a leak about the Koch Brothers donating to some charity - (that was not public info) - where did that info come from?

One of R-money's donors after being singled out on 0bama's campaign website was, surprise, audited shortly after.  No improprieties were found.


For starters: I don't believe Reid's claim that Romney paid nothing for 10 years.  That just seems so far out of whack as to be something that Reid said knowing that it would be reported as truth because he said it.  Romney paid a lower percentage that some middle-class people?  Yes, likely so, but he paid a huge total dollar amount that is more than I will pay in my entire working life, so I think he's paid enough.

For the rest: it's now pretty much been acknowledged that the IRS exists to harass and collect dirt on the Obama enemy list, and then turn around and leak that dirt to anyone high in the government that calls and asks them for a couple nuggets of information.  And to leak that dirt to Liberal groups so they can smear the Obama enemy list members.  Note that all this can easily be happening without Obama's knowledge: the IRS is just another government agency that is now staffed by Liberals who will use their government authority to advance liberal causes.
 
2013-05-14 07:16:52 PM

Famous Thamas: When I see Crossroads GPS as an approved social welfare group, it makes me think the entire process is shaite.  They spent millions on political ads, and did diddly for social welfare.


FTA:  "Social-welfare nonprofits are allowed to spend money to influence elections, so long as their primary purpose is improving social welfare."

Aside from that: Do the Liberal groups like MoveOn.org run social welfare stuff that I don't know about?  Can you point out a single soup line or homeless shelter funded by MoveOn.org?
 
2013-05-14 09:08:11 PM

lilbjorn: BTW, subby, the IRS is required by law to release all information submitted with a 501-c(4) application, if it is approved.


Ooops
FTA
Nine of those applications had not yet been approved-meaning they were not supposed to be made public.
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report