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.

(Columbia Journalism Review)   The IRS situation is a scandal. Several even, just not the one you would think   (cjr.org) divider line 45
    More: Obvious, IRS, offshore bank, tax-exempt, tax exemption, American Crossroads, scandals, Bill Burton  
•       •       •

1845 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 May 2013 at 8:29 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-05-16 08:34:13 AM
So, between the influx of new requests as the result of the Citizen United ruling, a 17% across the board cut in the IRS operating budget we have Tea Partiers upset that their applications for exemption are taking longer than expected.

The irony in this is less than subtle.  Yet no one seems to want to stand up and point it out; they're either scared of the specter of Nixon or laughing too hard.
 
2013-05-16 08:34:52 AM
Between these 501(c)(4)s and all the churches during election season, it's become pretty clear that the rules just don't apply to organizations.

So, I guess corporations are people. Just with fewer restrictions.
 
2013-05-16 08:38:05 AM

Skarekrough: So, between the influx of new requests as the result of the Citizen United ruling, a 17% across the board cut in the IRS operating budget we have Tea Partiers upset that their applications for exemption are taking longer than expected.

The irony in this is less than subtle.  Yet no one seems to want to stand up and point it out; they're either scared of the specter of Nixon or laughing too hard.


Of course. "Claim government doesnt work, then get elected and prove it" has been the GOP platform since the 80s.
 
2013-05-16 08:39:26 AM
I know how to solve this: do away with the 501c4 charade.
 
2013-05-16 08:41:29 AM
Didn't read it, but let's get in early on this thread:

"The IRS targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny."

Maybe a scandal. The IRS treated a few key words and phrases (among them "Tea Party," "9/12," and "Patriots") as trigger words in applications for tax exempt status under IRC 501(c)(4). Political activity is permitted for those groups, but only so long as it is not the primary function.

The IG's report tells us that those three trigger words composed about a third of the applications subject to special review under the scheme. 202 of 298 applications were flagged for "Other" reasons.

The rest of the criteria? Not yet known.

"The IRS is subjecting conservative groups to extensive and illegal questioning."

This is a scandal, but it's severity is debatable. The IRS is limited in what it can ask, and some groups report it went beyond those limits. We don't yet know how widespread this activity was, or if it was limited to, say, conservative political groups.

"The IRS is targeting Pro-Israel groups!"

Not a scandal. This targeting effort is the result of a Bush-era policy, which told the IRS to investigate any nonprofit overtly related to the Middle East, to ensure that no money is secretly going to terrorists. These pro-Israeli organizations, like Z Street, are getting caught in the same trap as pro-Palestinian organizations. This identifies the pitfalls of using keywords as triggers.
 
2013-05-16 08:41:30 AM

Skarekrough: So, between the influx of new requests as the result of the Citizen United ruling, a 17% across the board cut in the IRS operating budget we have Tea Partiers upset that their applications for exemption are taking longer than expected.

The irony in this is less than subtle.  Yet no one seems to want to stand up and point it out; they're either scared of the specter of Nixon or laughing too hard.


There's also the idea that an organization with the name "tea party" wouldn't be a political organization.
 
2013-05-16 08:41:46 AM
Through all the coverage, I kept asking myself, why the fark are these people getting a tax exemption?  Why would ANY political organization get a tax exemption?  But the media seems to gloss over that entirely and just go after the scandal.  The scandal, I'd think, is that you have what are clearly political organizations getting tax payer handouts.  That should be the story, and I don't care if your organization is conservative, liberal, or whatever, if it's primary goal is political gain, it should  not be tax exempt.

/I'm looking at you, churches who preach politics from the pulpit.
 
2013-05-16 08:42:30 AM
I can relate to that point of losing funding--schools are like that too. We are constantly told "Money won't help! You can just throw money at the problem!" While then expected to teach out of the cheapest curriculum instruction, hold back on all extracurriculars, cut shop, the arts, and almost any technological innovation that would otherwise be made available to us, all while teaching 40 kids in a classroom built for 25.

So for once, I sympathize with one of the most hated institutions, the tax man.
 
2013-05-16 08:44:15 AM

ib_thinkin: Didn't read it, but let's get in early on this thread:

"The IRS targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny."

Maybe a scandal. The IRS treated a few key words and phrases (among them "Tea Party," "9/12," and "Patriots") as trigger words in applications for tax exempt status under IRC 501(c)(4). Political activity is permitted for those groups, but only so long as it is not the primary function.

The IG's report tells us that those three trigger words composed about a third of the applications subject to special review under the scheme. 202 of 298 applications were flagged for "Other" reasons.

The rest of the criteria? Not yet known.

"The IRS is subjecting conservative groups to extensive and illegal questioning."

This is a scandal, but it's severity is debatable. The IRS is limited in what it can ask, and some groups report it went beyond those limits. We don't yet know how widespread this activity was, or if it was limited to, say, conservative political groups.

"The IRS is targeting Pro-Israel groups!"

Not a scandal. This targeting effort is the result of a Bush-era policy, which told the IRS to investigate any nonprofit overtly related to the Middle East, to ensure that no money is secretly going to terrorists. These pro-Israeli organizations, like Z Street, are getting caught in the same trap as pro-Palestinian organizations. This identifies the pitfalls of using keywords as triggers.


Clearly the IRS didn't understand that Israel isn't part of the middle east, just those nasty arabs.
 
2013-05-16 08:44:21 AM
I'll get worked up over "journalists" getting targeted whenever they actually start doing journalism. Until then, I have little sympathy for people playing the martyr after a long day of rewriting press releases.
 
2013-05-16 08:48:43 AM
they didn't approve a tea party group for 27 months while approving Malik Obama's shady charity in a month.

they asked for all social media posts by members of the charity, all meeting minutes, books they read, donor lists, personal websites.

this was political harassment and intimidation plain and simple.
 
2013-05-16 08:50:27 AM

SlothB77: they didn't approve a tea party group for 27 months while approving Malik Obama's shady charity in a month.

they asked for all social media posts by members of the charity, all meeting minutes, books they read, donor lists, personal websites.

this was political harassment and intimidation plain and simple.


USA TODAY reports that its search through records saw a number of "Progressive" groups approved without getting flagged. They report the fastest for any of those was 9 months.

So what I'm saying is that you're full of shiat.
 
2013-05-16 08:52:15 AM
Obama is not going to be impeached because Republicans have a "Laser Focus" on jobs. Where are they going to find the time?
 
2013-05-16 08:52:43 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: ib_thinkin: Didn't read it, but let's get in early on this thread:

"The IRS targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny."

Maybe a scandal. The IRS treated a few key words and phrases (among them "Tea Party," "9/12," and "Patriots") as trigger words in applications for tax exempt status under IRC 501(c)(4). Political activity is permitted for those groups, but only so long as it is not the primary function.

The IG's report tells us that those three trigger words composed about a third of the applications subject to special review under the scheme. 202 of 298 applications were flagged for "Other" reasons.

The rest of the criteria? Not yet known.

"The IRS is subjecting conservative groups to extensive and illegal questioning."

This is a scandal, but it's severity is debatable. The IRS is limited in what it can ask, and some groups report it went beyond those limits. We don't yet know how widespread this activity was, or if it was limited to, say, conservative political groups.

"The IRS is targeting Pro-Israel groups!"

Not a scandal. This targeting effort is the result of a Bush-era policy, which told the IRS to investigate any nonprofit overtly related to the Middle East, to ensure that no money is secretly going to terrorists. These pro-Israeli organizations, like Z Street, are getting caught in the same trap as pro-Palestinian organizations. This identifies the pitfalls of using keywords as triggers.

Clearly the IRS didn't understand that Israel isn't part of the middle east, just those nasty arabs.


The idjits, amiright?
 
2013-05-16 08:55:43 AM

SlothB77: they didn't approve a tea party group for 27 months while approving Malik Obama's shady charity in a month.

they asked for all social media posts by members of the charity, all meeting minutes, books they read, donor lists, personal websites.

this was political harassment and intimidation plain and simple.



If you endorse a candidate, you don't get tax exemption. Organizations use social media posts to get their messages out.
Do you need me to go slower? I could go get a puppet if it'll help you.
 
2013-05-16 08:59:13 AM
Big corporations and billionaires want to use tax-free dollars as they see fit to sway elections.  So they stir up "I hate teh ghey and teh abortion and teh gubbmint" rubes, and they get legislation passed to make it legal, vaguely, to set up tax havens for political money (your group has to be "mostly" about social welfare, whatever the fark that means).  Then you set up a bunch of these shelters, and you troll the IRS by putting your political leaning right on the name.  Then you scream that the IRS is "discriminating."

Meanwhile the rubes are outraged that there are people who pay no income tax.
 
2013-05-16 09:07:23 AM

Kibbler: Big corporations and billionaires want to use tax-free dollars as they see fit to sway elections.  So they stir up "I hate teh ghey and teh abortion and teh gubbmint" rubes, and they get legislation passed to make it legal, vaguely, to set up tax havens for political money (your group has to be "mostly" about social welfare, whatever the fark that means).  Then you set up a bunch of these shelters, and you troll the IRS by putting your political leaning right on the name.  Then you scream that the IRS is "discriminating."

Meanwhile the rubes are outraged that there are people who pay no income tax.


Of course if the IRS had just sent a letter to each of these Tea Party type organizations asking them one question "Is your organization mainly about social welfare?", they would have all replied "No, we aren't communists!" and the IRS could have denied their status as a 501(c)(4), cheap, easy, and no scandal.
 
2013-05-16 09:08:31 AM

Dr. Whoof: Through all the coverage, I kept asking myself, why the fark are these people getting a tax exemption?  Why would ANY political organization get a tax exemption?  But the media seems to gloss over that entirely and just go after the scandal.


The average American journalist believes they're only doing "important work" when they're covering wars, scandals or espousing the Great Man Theory.  Then, and only then, are they justifying the 7 years it took to get their Mass Comm BA  with the 2.8 GPA.    The rigged game against the common people are insignificant in this "important work", if not an outright nuisance.
 
2013-05-16 09:13:40 AM
I love when "profiling" hits those that are pro-profiling.
 
2013-05-16 09:18:49 AM

Kibbler: Big corporations and billionaires want to use tax-free dollars as they see fit to sway elections. So they stir up "I hate teh ghey and teh abortion and teh gubbmint" rubes, and they get legislation passed to make it legal, vaguely, to set up tax havens for political money (your group has to be "mostly" about social welfare, whatever the fark that means).


I would interpret that in the most generous way possible - that you group has to do something, anything, that is at social welfare related.  Run a soup kitchen, a homeless shelter, sponsor a little league lacrosse team - whatever it is you have to spend at least 1 cent a year on it.  The law states that your group has to be 'primarily' social welfare related, so some amount is clearly required; in the absence of a specific percentage let's default to the smallest possible.

And I'm still pretty sure that under that reading of the law, most groups with 'Tea Party' or '9/12' in their names would not have qualified for the 2012 tax year.
 
2013-05-16 09:31:40 AM

ib_thinkin: SlothB77: they didn't approve a tea party group for 27 months while approving Malik Obama's shady charity in a month.

they asked for all social media posts by members of the charity, all meeting minutes, books they read, donor lists, personal websites.

this was political harassment and intimidation plain and simple.

USA TODAY reports that its search through records saw a number of "Progressive" groups approved without getting flagged. They report the fastest for any of those was 9 months.

So what I'm saying is that you're full of shiat.


According to the Barack H. Obama Foundation's (the one headed by Malik Obama) filings, the IRS approved the foundation's tax status within a month of filing.

So IBthinkin' may not be as full of shiat as you would like to believe. All of that aside, the IRS shouldn't be able to single out groups based on an opposing ideology.
 
2013-05-16 09:35:33 AM

SlothB77: Malik Obama's shady charity


wat
 
2013-05-16 09:37:27 AM
The scope of this scandal is that some folks seem upset that they didn't just get a greenlight for tax exemption because they put a political slant on their application, and political parties and action groups aren't tax exempt. Yes, if you put a party affiliation on a document--and we've been told time and again how influential this "grassroots" organization is, given that it has the endorsement and backing of a major media channel with its own particular slant on news--it's going to be flagged.

It is as much a generated scandal as Benghazi, and just as laden with generated outrage. The real issue is that folks want a pass on their taxes, while conducting their organizations contrary to the legal definition of of their work. That folks want to a rubber stamp. On damn near everything, and then talk about responsibility, while taking none, and dodging it themselves. It's only "responsibility" when it's other people, and that's the funny thing about responsibility: it has to be accepted. It has to be taken up yourself. Anything else? It's just blame. Blame is assigned. Blame is given by others, while responsibility is accepted by your own damn self, and the very folks who talk about responsibility have zero idea how it works--unless it's about accolades and praise, then they'll step up every damn time, even if it is for just showing up and waving a damn flag.

Yes, I am pretty damn much disgusted by this country at this point, and the state of our politics. It is a shameful thing, and the very folks shouting to the heavens and frothing at the mouth about how terrible things are, have not shame, and won't accept anything like responsibility for the state of things, and thus the circle continues.
 
2013-05-16 09:46:24 AM

Whodat: ib_thinkin: SlothB77: they didn't approve a tea party group for 27 months while approving Malik Obama's shady charity in a month.

they asked for all social media posts by members of the charity, all meeting minutes, books they read, donor lists, personal websites.

this was political harassment and intimidation plain and simple.

USA TODAY reports that its search through records saw a number of "Progressive" groups approved without getting flagged. They report the fastest for any of those was 9 months.

So what I'm saying is that you're full of shiat.

According to the Barack H. Obama Foundation's (the one headed by Malik Obama) filings, the IRS approved the foundation's tax status within a month of filing.

So IBthinkin' may not be as full of shiat as you would like to believe. All of that aside, the IRS shouldn't be able to single out groups based on an opposing ideology.


OK, I just looked at the 'shady' charity headed by Malik Obama.
It seems to focus solely on humanitarian aid and infrastructure in Kenya.  Kenya - as in, not having to do with politics in the USA.
They state that their projects include things like water, electricity and sanitation infrastructure, HIV/AID (particularly childhood transmission and prevention), house, literacy, support for orphans and widows, and disease prevention.  And I repeat - IN KENYA!

Now if you want, you can tell me why you think that doesn't count as a charity, and how it is involved in US politics - besides slapping Barry's name on the letterhead.
 
2013-05-16 09:53:29 AM

Karac: Whodat: ib_thinkin: SlothB77: they didn't approve a tea party group for 27 months while approving Malik Obama's shady charity in a month.

they asked for all social media posts by members of the charity, all meeting minutes, books they read, donor lists, personal websites.

this was political harassment and intimidation plain and simple.

USA TODAY reports that its search through records saw a number of "Progressive" groups approved without getting flagged. They report the fastest for any of those was 9 months.

So what I'm saying is that you're full of shiat.

According to the Barack H. Obama Foundation's (the one headed by Malik Obama) filings, the IRS approved the foundation's tax status within a month of filing.

So IBthinkin' may not be as full of shiat as you would like to believe. All of that aside, the IRS shouldn't be able to single out groups based on an opposing ideology.

OK, I just looked at the 'shady' charity headed by Malik Obama.
It seems to focus solely on humanitarian aid and infrastructure in Kenya.  Kenya - as in, not having to do with politics in the USA.
They state that their projects include things like water, electricity and sanitation infrastructure, HIV/AID (particularly childhood transmission and prevention), house, literacy, support for orphans and widows, and disease prevention.  And I repeat - IN KENYA!

Now if you want, you can tell me why you think that doesn't count as a charity, and how it is involved in US politics - besides slapping Barry's name on the letterhead.


Because it sounds better than, "I AM OUTRAGED AT ANYTHING THAT ISN'T LOOKING TO IMPEACH THE USURPER!"

Which is all this scandal mongering is. At this point, the Administration could find a cure for cancer, and folks would wonder why the government didn't let a private lab have the rights to the cure, and generate profits from its distribution, and scream about how it would cost millions of jobs for hospice workers and gut our health care system of revenue, and then muse if the government wasn't REALLY looking for a way to cause cancer, and found the cure by mistake, and it was only under the TIRELESS watchdog efforts of the House of Representatives and Fox for bringing the cure to light, while the Administration was secretly looking to cause cancer in its political rivals...
 
2013-05-16 09:59:55 AM
Karac, if you notice I didn't say that it wasn't a charity. I noted that according to them they were approved for tax exempt status within a month of filing. Their claim directly contradicts the "fastest for any was 9 months" and was obviously fast tracked due to the relationship of Malick to Barak. It is involved in US politics because the brother of the President filed for the exemption in the US and apparently was given preferential treatment. That shouldn't be that hard to understand. If you don't get it look up "nepotism".
 
2013-05-16 10:01:33 AM

Granny_Panties: Obama is not going to be impeached because Republicans have a "Laser Focus" on jobs. Where are they going to find the time?


If I've learned anything from "Real Genius," it's that you ALWAYS check your optics.

The GOP needs to check its optics.
 
2013-05-16 10:04:58 AM

Karac: OK, I just looked at the 'shady' charity headed by Malik Obama.
It seems to focus solely on humanitarian aid and infrastructure in Kenya. Kenya - as in, not having to do with politics in the USA.
They state that their projects include things like water, electricity and sanitation infrastructure, HIV/AID (particularly childhood transmission and prevention), house, literacy, support for orphans and widows, and disease prevention. And I repeat - IN KENYA!


Yes, but are they providing Kenyans with ... you know ... shade?  Then it's a 'shady' charity.  QED.  Book it, done.

/ba dum bum bssh?
 
MFK
2013-05-16 10:05:16 AM

Dr. Whoof: Through all the coverage, I kept asking myself, why the fark are these people getting a tax exemption?  Why would ANY political organization get a tax exemption?  But the media seems to gloss over that entirely and just go after the scandal.  The scandal, I'd think, is that you have what are clearly political organizations getting tax payer handouts.  That should be the story, and I don't care if your organization is conservative, liberal, or whatever, if it's primary goal is political gain, it should  not be tax exempt.

/I'm looking at you, churches who preach politics from the pulpit.


YES! I have been asking this same question myself. These groups are biatching about their applications for tax exempt status taking a long time when it is OBVIOUS that these guys are solely political groups. Take a look at http://www.theteaparty.net/ , one of the groups who are "still waiting",  the poor dears. Take a look at that site and tell me that their primary activity is not political. Why on earth should they get tax exempt status when this whole thing is an obvious vehicle to separate angry rubes from their money?
 
2013-05-16 10:19:25 AM

MFK: Dr. Whoof: Through all the coverage, I kept asking myself, why the fark are these people getting a tax exemption?  Why would ANY political organization get a tax exemption?  But the media seems to gloss over that entirely and just go after the scandal.  The scandal, I'd think, is that you have what are clearly political organizations getting tax payer handouts.  That should be the story, and I don't care if your organization is conservative, liberal, or whatever, if it's primary goal is political gain, it should  not be tax exempt.

/I'm looking at you, churches who preach politics from the pulpit.

YES! I have been asking this same question myself. These groups are biatching about their applications for tax exempt status taking a long time when it is OBVIOUS that these guys are solely political groups. Take a look at http://www.theteaparty.net/ , one of the groups who are "still waiting",  the poor dears. Take a look at that site and tell me that their primary activity is not political. Why on earth should they get tax exempt status when this whole thing is an obvious vehicle to separate angry rubes from their money?


Clean-up the keyword scandal.  Later on, pick some of these organization names from a hat and audit the fark out of them and throw some people in these orgs in jail for tax fraud if they are primarily doing political stuff.
 
2013-05-16 10:31:49 AM
"...the IRS is drowning."

Ah, the sweetest four words ever uttered! If only it were true
 
2013-05-16 10:40:47 AM
So the GOP doesn't like profiling when it is against old white dudes with money? Whoda thunk it?
 
2013-05-16 10:56:33 AM

Whodat: Karac, if you notice I didn't say that it wasn't a charity. I noted that according to them they were approved for tax exempt status within a month of filing. Their claim directly contradicts the "fastest for any was 9 months" and was obviously fast tracked due to the relationship of Malick to Barak. It is involved in US politics because the brother of the President filed for the exemption in the US and apparently was given preferential treatment. That shouldn't be that hard to understand. If you don't get it look up "nepotism".


The fastest for any that identified as "progressive."
 
2013-05-16 11:07:45 AM

Whodat: Karac, if you notice I didn't say that it wasn't a charity. I noted that according to them they were approved for tax exempt status within a month of filing. Their claim directly contradicts the "fastest for any was 9 months" and was obviously fast tracked due to the relationship of Malick to Barak. It is involved in US politics because the brother of the President filed for the exemption in the US and apparently was given preferential treatment. That shouldn't be that hard to understand. If you don't get it look up "nepotism".


He said that the fastest for "Progressive" groups was 9 months.  Or are you implying that an organization that helps the needy must be inherently politically liberal?
 
2013-05-16 11:15:27 AM

Fast Moon: Whodat: Karac, if you notice I didn't say that it wasn't a charity. I noted that according to them they were approved for tax exempt status within a month of filing. Their claim directly contradicts the "fastest for any was 9 months" and was obviously fast tracked due to the relationship of Malick to Barak. It is involved in US politics because the brother of the President filed for the exemption in the US and apparently was given preferential treatment. That shouldn't be that hard to understand. If you don't get it look up "nepotism".

He said that the fastest for "Progressive" groups was 9 months.  Or are you implying that an organization that helps the needy must be inherently politically liberal?


It is an interesting slip. Let's join Jim downstream and see what he says...
 
2013-05-16 11:45:29 AM

InmanRoshi: Dr. Whoof: Through all the coverage, I kept asking myself, why the fark are these people getting a tax exemption?  Why would ANY political organization get a tax exemption?  But the media seems to gloss over that entirely and just go after the scandal.

The average American journalist believes they're only doing "important work" when they're covering wars, scandals or espousing the Great Man Theory.  Then, and only then, are they justifying the 7 years it took to get their Mass Comm BA  with the 2.8 GPA.    The rigged game against the common people are insignificant in this "important work", if not an outright nuisance.


I'm a pretty cynical person most days, but...damn.  That's cynical.
 
2013-05-16 12:43:08 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: Skarekrough: So, between the influx of new requests as the result of the Citizen United ruling, a 17% across the board cut in the IRS operating budget we have Tea Partiers upset that their applications for exemption are taking longer than expected.

The irony in this is less than subtle.  Yet no one seems to want to stand up and point it out; they're either scared of the specter of Nixon or laughing too hard.

There's also the idea that an organization with the name "tea party" wouldn't be a political organization.


That's what I find utterly baffling about this whole thing. Apparently 100% of these groups that were clearly for political purposes were approved eventually.

Then why are we even bothering to "investigate" political groups if we refuse to recognize the obvious?

Either we need to say, "Political groups can be tax-exempt" or this behavior was perfectly fine and they should have added more buzzwords for all kinds of political leanings.
 
2013-05-16 01:48:48 PM
Ya' know, this might cause most people to dislike the IRS.
 
2013-05-16 02:47:58 PM
The keywords were added because they had to cut staff while the number of applications grew. It was just an easy way to see if the organization could be political or not political. The IRS had internal rules against this sort of shortcut. They did try to change, but it changed back because it was slowing things down. To add to the confusion, the rules for "political" are fuzzy and not black and white. Congress or the IRS need to clearly identify what is political and what is not political.

My view is that if they are political at all, then no tax exemption for you. I am looking at you, Carl Rove.
 
2013-05-16 03:23:55 PM

Fast Moon: Whodat: Karac, if you notice I didn't say that it wasn't a charity. I noted that according to them they were approved for tax exempt status within a month of filing. Their claim directly contradicts the "fastest for any was 9 months" and was obviously fast tracked due to the relationship of Malick to Barak. It is involved in US politics because the brother of the President filed for the exemption in the US and apparently was given preferential treatment. That shouldn't be that hard to understand. If you don't get it look up "nepotism".

He said that the fastest for "Progressive" groups was 9 months.  Or are you implying that an organization that helps the needy must be inherently politically liberal?


Point taken about the "progressive" issue. Still it is interesting to note that not only did Malick get tax exempt status very quickly but also that it was retro-active according to some sources.

It is very funny to me that apparently nobody in the WH knew anything about anything to do with Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS, the AP phone records etc.
 
2013-05-16 03:37:31 PM

Whodat: Fast Moon: Whodat: Karac, if you notice I didn't say that it wasn't a charity. I noted that according to them they were approved for tax exempt status within a month of filing. Their claim directly contradicts the "fastest for any was 9 months" and was obviously fast tracked due to the relationship of Malick to Barak. It is involved in US politics because the brother of the President filed for the exemption in the US and apparently was given preferential treatment. That shouldn't be that hard to understand. If you don't get it look up "nepotism".

He said that the fastest for "Progressive" groups was 9 months.  Or are you implying that an organization that helps the needy must be inherently politically liberal?

Point taken about the "progressive" issue. Still it is interesting to note that not only did Malick get tax exempt status very quickly but also that it was retro-active according to some sources.

It is very funny to me that apparently nobody in the WH knew anything about anything to do with Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS, the AP phone records etc.


Keep throwing "scandals" at the wall. I m sure one of these days something will stick.
 
2013-05-16 04:22:38 PM
I still don't get how this is a scandal.

The IRS looking extra closely at groups that have historically been very vocal about paying taxes, and they are vying for tax-exempt status? ...uhhh... yeah, why wouldn't the IRS look into that?

It's like the FBI looking very closely into fringe survival and militia groups that have advocated assassinating the President.

It's kinda like racial profiling, only for anti-government dumbasses.

Seriously, what's the issue?
 
2013-05-16 05:05:43 PM

Ishkur: I still don't get how this is a scandal.

The IRS looking extra closely at groups that have historically been very vocal about paying taxes, and they are vying for tax-exempt status? ...uhhh... yeah, why wouldn't the IRS look into that?

It's like the FBI looking very closely into fringe survival and militia groups that have advocated assassinating the President.

It's kinda like racial profiling, only for anti-government dumbasses.

Seriously, what's the issue?


Some conservative groups got investigated, therefore discrimination.

Never mind that a group self-identifying with a political movement is, on its face, political.
 
2013-05-16 05:54:10 PM
So, allow me to toss a few things out: (from the transcript of Lois Lerner's response) "But between 2010 and 2012 we started seeing a very big uptick in the number of 501(c)(4) applications we were receiving and many of these organizations applying more than doubled, about 1500 in 2010 and over 3400 in 2012." and "The problem in the (c)(4) area is that the kind of activity the organizations were doing is okay for (c)(4)s but it can't be their primary activity." So the IRS saw the number of applications for 501(c)(4)'s double, and a possible concern related to the group's activity and whether the main purpose is "social welfare" or political. The 1963 appeals court ruling that gives context to what is needed to qualify as a 501(c)(4): "the organization must be a community movement designed to accomplish community ends."-As I can find at the moment, three progressive organizations were also targeted/sent the same questions. The group " Emerge America" was denied, as it was told that it's activities were too political (Though four of Emerge America's other chapters had already been approved before the denial). None of the conservative groups that were targeted/sent questions had their applications denied. Yet, I'm to believe that Rove's Crossroads GPS isn't a political group, doesn't have politics as their main purpose? -As to the issue of asking for donors, allow me to cite this: "Many news organizations also reported that the IRS wanted the names of donors, indicating (or quoting organizations as saying) that this is improper. Actually, disclosing donors to the IRS is required of most tax exempt organizations on Form 990 Schedule B." Schedule B is not released to the public, but form 990 is. (Though the IRS did release some Schedule B's to a website. In this, I would argue that they were wrong and what happened is improper. To me that's a firing offense.) -Also, let it be noted: "Congress requires the IRS to review every application for tax-exempt status to weed out organizations that are partisan, political, or that generate private gain. Congress has imposed this requirement on the IRS, and its predecessor agencies, since 1913."-A few sources for reference:*http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14 /lets-back-up-how-is-the-irs-supposed-to-scrutinize-501c4s-anyway/-* http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/us/politics/irs-ignored-complaints-o n-political-spending-by-big-tax-exempt-groups-watchdog-groups-say.html ?pagewanted=all&_r=0-http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/irs-se nt-same-letter-to-democrats-that-fed-tea-party-row.html?alcmpid=politi cs-http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopici03.pdf-http://www.theat lanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/treasury-report-irs-owes-apologies-mor e-just-tea-party-groups/65233/-http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50160
 
2013-05-17 07:26:16 PM

FlashHarry: SlothB77: Malik Obama's shady charity

wat


Google, use it.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report