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.

(Examiner)   You can retire, but you can't hide. Newly-released emails of IRS' Lois Lerner reportedly show that she committed a felony by sending private information about those conservative groups to the FEC. That's a no-no, of course   (examiner.com) divider line 390
    More: Followup, Lois Lerner, Fe C, Federal Election Commission, IRS, watchdog journalism, Judicial Watch, confidential information, felony  
•       •       •

2468 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Nov 2013 at 10:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-02 11:52:06 AM  
So if the a member of the FEC super PAC violates federal law by filing taxes as a section 501 c 4 and then you are part of the IRS how do you tell the FEC that these individuals are committing fraud there by being pulled from the FEC??

How is this a violation of the law?
 
2013-11-02 11:52:53 AM  

Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch.  Yeah, kinda.

not really - actually, what a thinking person does is find facts to refute the information. What you do is pretend the information doesn't exist because it is from a biased source.
It doesn't make the information go away nor does it make it any more or less true.

Fair enough.  Let's assume the facts as presented are accurate.  The article claims the following:

This is a felony as Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code dictates that an IRS official - which Lerner was at the time - may not disclose either income tax return information or taxpayer income tax return information - not even to another governmental agency.

Section 6103 directs thusly:

(i) Disclosure to Federal officers or employees for administration of Federal laws not relating to tax administration (1) Disclosure of returns and return information for use in criminal investigations (A) In general
Except as provided in paragraph (6), any return or return information with respect to any specified taxable period or periods shall, pursuant to and upon the grant of an ex parte order by a Federal district court judge or magistrate judge under subparagraph (B), be open (but only to the extent necessary as provided in such order) to inspection by, or disclosure to, officers and employees of any Federal agency who are personally and directly engaged in-
(i) preparation for any judicial or administrative proceeding pertaining to the enforcement of a specifically designated Federal criminal statute (not involving tax administration) to which the United States or such age ...


QUIT RUINING THE OUTRAGE NARRATIVE!

Not like the TEAhaddists will ever read it, and even if they did they would claim the law means what they say it means. You know, just like the Constitution and history.
 
2013-11-02 11:53:55 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: What is this I don't even


Let me clear it up for you:  Apparently, high ranking officials were committing felonies and lying about it.  But hey, no big deal because Bush and racism and stuff, right?

Do try and keep up, kiddo.
 
2013-11-02 11:54:09 AM  

WayToBlue: skullkrusher: Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch.  Yeah, kinda.

not really - actually, what a thinking person does is find facts to refute the information. What you do is pretend the information doesn't exist because it is from a biased source.
It doesn't make the information go away nor does it make it any more or less true.

Your basic premise is sound, but doesn't scale in practice. In the real world once a source has proven itself unreliable multiple times it is perfectly reasonable to no longer give them the benefit of the doubt and stop wasting your own time proving it over and over.

TL:DR; I don't bother fact checking the homeless guy that jacks off behind the Chick Filet and yells about McDonald's being owned by vampires. At least not anymore.


Now what I would do is try to find the citations for the claims they were making and if they were not included, assume it to be false and if so, look to see if they were properly interpreted
 
2013-11-02 11:56:03 AM  

Fart_Machine: Well here is the liberal Washington Free Beacon talking about it on October 8th.


You keep using that word...

So the outrage isn't that they sent anything they shouldn't have sent or that anyone's privacy was violated, just that they used private email addresses?

*yawn*
 
2013-11-02 11:59:09 AM  

Ontos: cameroncrazy1984: What is this I don't even

Let me clear it up for you:  Apparently, high ranking officials were committing felonies and lying about it.  But hey, no big deal because Bush and racism and stuff, right?

Do try and keep up, kiddo.


Umm... You're the first person to bring up Bush.

Also, no high ranking officials committed felonies.

Other than that, your post is spot on.
 
2013-11-02 12:00:34 PM  

skullkrusher: Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher

Well, I failed hard on that, so you're just going to have to imagine Sanchez going face first into some lineman's ass.

I live in NY. The Post ran that pic every day for about 6 months. Quite familiar :)


That's OK.  I'm a Steelers fan.  We usually don't have much to whine about but apparently somebody needs to inform our Sexual Harassment Panda Quarterback where the line of scrimmage even is.  At least Sanchez was mildly away of its existence.
 
2013-11-02 12:01:07 PM  

skullkrusher: verbal_jizm: skullkrusher: hey, at least you actually looked at the facts to make this determination.

I'm curious. When Alex Jones goes on a bender about FEMA camps and black helicopters, do you ask yourself, "Hmmm. Maybe he's got a point this time."

if he actually presents source documents for his claims, I'll take a look at the source documents for the insight into his insanity at the very least. I won't see a link to the source docs posted on the alexjones domain and refuse to look at objective information because of where it lives


There is an enormous flow of information flowing from the right wing echo chamber. I don't have the ability to speed read and process all of that (let alone 180 pages) to glean any grist from the vast amount of bullshiat. I have a difficult enough time keeping up with my discipline alone. That's why we have professional journalists (the few that remain), prosecutors, and unbiased experts to sift through the mess for us. Yes, it makes it easier to be mislead because it depends on the integrity of others but the only other option is to be overwhelmed with bullshiat.
 
2013-11-02 12:01:49 PM  

dookdookdook: You keep using that word...


Yes, I was being sarcastic.
 
2013-11-02 12:03:08 PM  
Well, we found Scott Paulson's fark handle.
 
2013-11-02 12:03:50 PM  
US Code 11.3.9.12  (12-28-2007)
Public Inspection of Certain Information Returns
The information included on certain annual information returns of organizations and trusts that are exempt or seeking exempt status, or information required to be filed therewith, is required to be made available for public inspection under the authority of IRC § 6104(b).
 
2013-11-02 12:04:15 PM  

Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch.  Yeah, kinda.

not really - actually, what a thinking person does is find facts to refute the information. What you do is pretend the information doesn't exist because it is from a biased source.
It doesn't make the information go away nor does it make it any more or less true.

Fair enough.  Let's assume the facts as presented are accurate.  The article claims the following:

This is a felony as Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code dictates that an IRS official - which Lerner was at the time - may not disclose either income tax return information or taxpayer income tax return information - not even to another governmental agency.

Section 6103 directs thusly:

(i) Disclosure to Federal officers or employees for administration of Federal laws not relating to tax administration (1) Disclosure of returns and return information for use in criminal investigations (A) In general
Except as provided in paragraph (6), any return or return information with respect to any specified taxable period or periods shall, pursuant to and upon the grant of an ex parte order by a Federal district court judge or magistrate judge under subparagraph (B), be open (but only to the extent necessary as provided in such order) to inspection by, or disclosure to, officers and employees of any Federal agency who are personally and directly engaged in-
(i) preparation for any judicial or administrative proceeding pertaining to the enforcement of a specifically designated Federal criminal statute (not involving tax administration) to which the United States or such agency is or may be a party,
(ii) any investigation which may result in such a proceeding, or
(iii) any Federal grand jury proceeding pertaining to enforcement of such a criminal statute to which the United States or such agency is or may be a party,
solely for the use of such officers and employees in such preparation, investigation, or grand jury proceeding.


The tea party is a purely political organization that specifically endorses and opposes people for office (Translation:  It's a GOP group that passes BS along about Democratic candidates and elected officials for the purpose of impacting elections).  The FEC obviously (and most likely correctly) believed they were in violation of law and made a written request for certain information, according to the article.  Section 6103 specifically provides for the disclosure of such information to other federal agencies in the course of investigations.  The article, very boldly and inaccurately, states that the IRS is prohibited from disclosing such information when the Internal Revenue Code that they specifically cite for such a prohibition boldly provides for such disclosure.

The short version:  The teabaggers are, once again, full of shiat and the source of this fantasy (TFA) is painfully wrong.


So what you are saying is, just like they always do, the Tea Party warriors pointed to one sentence in the law that supported their narrative and ignored the rest that showed that their argument was BS. How surprising. This is typical Tea Party propaganda.
 
2013-11-02 12:05:18 PM  
There's one in the fartlight, he don't fart right to me, get him up against the potato.

Ah-gainst! The! Potato!
 
2013-11-02 12:07:28 PM  

skullkrusher: hey, at least you actually looked at the facts to make this determination.


After this sort of thing happens often enough with Tea Party claims, people start jumping to the conclusion without taking the trouble. Rigorously speaking, that's sloppy; contrariwise, when both error and investigative effort involve finite costs, it's also an efficient rule of thumb.
 
2013-11-02 12:07:34 PM  

MFAWG: skullkrusher: Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch.  Yeah, kinda.

not really - actually, what a thinking person does is find facts to refute the information. What you do is pretend the information doesn't exist because it is from a biased source.
It doesn't make the information go away nor does it make it any more or less true.

The problem is that the conservative media empire keeps using itself to independently corroborate stories that turn out to be bogus. And this has been going of for years.


You can also find this news on "The Hill" website. Is that considered conservative media?... The majority of Farkers on here with their blind following and defending of the democrats is really embarrassing. Lerner was appointed by Bush in 2006, this does not make this disregard for law anything less than what it is, a felony.

The crap about, Snowden, the source, or the headline to discredit the information really just misses the point and makes you look like petulant whiners that are incapable of thinking objectively.
 
2013-11-02 12:15:27 PM  

Mrbogey: bama pushed the DoJ to investigate it, he sacked Lerner, pushed for jail time


For what?

This isn't illegal. Why waste money on prosecuting someone for not breaking the law? Is it because Larry Klayman's fevered brain says it is illegal and he references an inapplicable law so he must know or something?

Retards postulate this must be illegal, conflate all kinds of things from tax records to applications, then they go on about a misinterpretation of some USC and flail at the windmill like there's no tomorrow. Why do you continue to follow, Sancho?
 
2013-11-02 12:15:49 PM  

mjm323s: The majority of Farkers on here with their blind following and defending of the democrats


Or just a knee-jerk (and quite valid, I might add) distrust of anything that smells of Tea Party desperation.
 
2013-11-02 12:17:11 PM  

mjm323s: You can also find this news on "The Hill" website.


Can you link that? I'm having trouble finding it.
 
2013-11-02 12:18:37 PM  

dr_blasto: Is it because Larry Klayman's fevered brain says it is illegal and he references an inapplicable law so he must know or something?


Klayman isn't with JW any longer.
 
2013-11-02 12:20:58 PM  
I'll wait for an indictment to be made before I'll even try to independently determine the legality or illegality of the acts alleged, and I'm an attorney.  Good luck to all you non-lawyer, internet investigators in your attempt to determine what laws were violated by which acts by which parties.  You're going to need it.
 
2013-11-02 12:21:11 PM  

DoctorCal: mjm323s: You can also find this news on "The Hill" website.

Can you link that? I'm having trouble finding it.


http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/188940-watchdog-o btains-irs-fec-email-exchange
 
2013-11-02 12:21:25 PM  
After Obama is impeached, will Ted Cruz be president? Or will Sarah Palin be President, and Ted Cruz just be vice president?

Also, does gay marriage have to be legal in both Texas and Wisconsin before Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz can consumate their love?
 
2013-11-02 12:21:26 PM  

DoctorCal: dr_blasto: Is it because Larry Klayman's fevered brain says it is illegal and he references an inapplicable law so he must know or something?

Klayman isn't with JW any longer.


Is he in a mental institution?
 
2013-11-02 12:23:05 PM  

RyogaM: I'll wait for an indictment to be made before I'll even try to independently determine the legality or illegality of the acts alleged, and I'm an attorney.  Good luck to all you non-lawyer, internet investigators in your attempt to determine what laws were violated by which acts by which parties.  You're going to need it.


But we have 180 pages of emails and faxes. That's all we should need, right?
 
2013-11-02 12:23:53 PM  

DoctorCal: mjm323s: You can also find this news on "The Hill" website.

Can you link that? I'm having trouble finding it.


I don't know if "The Hill" is a conservative site or not but holy mother of dog, the comments on some of those stories are more insane than youtube.
 
2013-11-02 12:24:46 PM  
Republican leadership in charge of oversight committees are being challenged by Tea Party primaries. I am sure they will get right on that "problem".
 
2013-11-02 12:26:50 PM  

mjm323s: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/188940-watchdo g-obtains-irs-fec-email-exc hange


So a blog post describing how conservative group X is making claim Y is now the same as reporting Y. Got it.
 
2013-11-02 12:28:45 PM  

RyogaM: I'll wait for an indictment to be made before I'll even try to independently determine the legality or illegality of the acts alleged, and I'm an attorney.  Good luck to all you non-lawyer, internet investigators in your attempt to determine what laws were violated by which acts by which parties.  You're going to need it.


As a lawyer I have no doubt you understand the law better than I. But as a taxpayer I would really hope that it is pretty cut and dry that you don't share personal tax information. Seems simple enough.
 
2013-11-02 12:29:42 PM  

mjm323s: The majority of Farkers on here with their blind following and defending of the democrats is really embarrassing.


The right is so anti-everything-Obama-does, right down to condiment choice, that simply disagreeing with them makes you look like an Obama cultist.
It won't matter whether you support Obama on any particular thing or not. The right will have spun it so entirely wrongly and out of proportion to paint Obama in as bad a light as possible, so you have no choice but to refute the derp in any argument you make. This very farking article does it in the first farking sentence. "Obama administration employee" heavily implies as if this were Obama's appointee, instead of the reality that Lerner is a Bush appointee of an independent government agency.

And this has been going on for years. Story after story. Lie after farking lie. If people automatically assume them to be untrustworthy, it's their own fault. If people discount their testimony out of hand, it's their own fault. If Obama gets a free pass on something because of this attitude, it is still their own farking fault.
 
2013-11-02 12:31:31 PM  

Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch.  Yeah, kinda.

not really - actually, what a thinking person does is find facts to refute the information. What you do is pretend the information doesn't exist because it is from a biased source.
It doesn't make the information go away nor does it make it any more or less true.

Fair enough.  Let's assume the facts as presented are accurate.  The article claims the following:

This is a felony as Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code dictates that an IRS official - which Lerner was at the time - may not disclose either income tax return information or taxpayer income tax return information - not even to another governmental agency.

Section 6103 directs thusly:

(i) Disclosure to Federal officers or employees for administration of Federal laws not relating to tax administration (1) Disclosure of returns and return information for use in criminal investigations (A) In general
Except as provided in paragraph (6), any return or return information with respect to any specified taxable period or periods shall, pursuant to and upon the grant of an ex parte order by a Federal district court judge or magistrate judge under subparagraph (B), be open (but only to the extent necessary as provided in such order) to inspection by, or disclosure to, officers and employees of any Federal agency who are personally and directly engaged in-
(i) preparation for any judicial or administrative proceeding pertaining to the enforcement of a specifically designated Federal criminal statute (not involving tax administration) to which the United States or such age ...


Even shorter version:  You failed to read the part where the disclosure requires an order signed by a Federal judge or magistrate.  The FEC can't just ask for it.
 
2013-11-02 12:31:58 PM  
We've already been down this road with you tea party bozos on the fake IRS scandal.  You can't get incredulous because you keep crying "wolf" and nobody takes you at your word.  That's what happens when you throw shiat at the wall constantly.
 
2013-11-02 12:32:45 PM  

verbal_jizm: RyogaM: I'll wait for an indictment to be made before I'll even try to independently determine the legality or illegality of the acts alleged, and I'm an attorney.  Good luck to all you non-lawyer, internet investigators in your attempt to determine what laws were violated by which acts by which parties.  You're going to need it.

But we have 180 pages of emails and faxes. That's all we should need, right?


And you need for a law to be broken, which it wasn't in this case because the IRS code that they reference specifically states that it is not a violation if it is requested from a government agency as part of an investigation.
 
2013-11-02 12:33:13 PM  

mjm323s: DoctorCal: mjm323s: You can also find this news on "The Hill" website.

Can you link that? I'm having trouble finding it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/188940-watchdog- o btains-irs-fec-email-exchange


Thanks. I swear, when I asked, a search for "Lerner" on the site didn't turn up the link, but it does now.

Anyway, yeah, in answer to your question - this is clearly under the "blog" section, and it only references the claims made by Judicial Watch, so, yes. That would pretty much be within the scope of "conservative media".
 
2013-11-02 12:33:29 PM  
Oh I get it.

According to an imaginary newspaper, it depends on which federal government agency you lie to or at least your statements to two agencies are very different.

Strange that the IRS gets more apparently factual information that the Federal Election Commission. And imaginary newspaper believes the IRS information must be truer. Maybe because the IRS penalties are stiffer than the FEC of just having to sit at the back table during the commissioners' roast or no valet parking for a month.

It's like when you tell your imaginary girl friend one thing and your mom something else. You can tell your girlfriend more, because she's a push over. Kinda like the FEC?

Who's to say Ms Lerner wasn't compelled by a secret FISA court, pushed by the NSA to take the fall by pretending to commit a felony.

We've all been there. Why the Examiner thinks it's special is a mystery. It's also a mystery why the Examiner only materializes around election time, kinda like relatives when you win the lottery.
 
2013-11-02 12:33:31 PM  

mjm323s: RyogaM: I'll wait for an indictment to be made before I'll even try to independently determine the legality or illegality of the acts alleged, and I'm an attorney.  Good luck to all you non-lawyer, internet investigators in your attempt to determine what laws were violated by which acts by which parties.  You're going to need it.

As a lawyer I have no doubt you understand the law better than I. But as a taxpayer I would really hope that it is pretty cut and dry that you don't share personal tax information. Seems simple enough.


Sharing relevant information between Federal agencies (such as the FEC and the IRS) isn't the problem.  The whole "concern" is that they used the wrong e-mail channels to do it because security "might" have been compromised.  It's a far cry from the whole conspiracy wharrgarbl alleged here.
 
2013-11-02 12:33:44 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: mjm323s: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/188940-watchdo g-obtains-irs-fec-email-exc hange

So a blog post describing how conservative group X is making claim Y is now the same as reporting Y. Got it.


It's part of a congressional investigation, but pleas don't let the facts get in your way.
 
2013-11-02 12:33:48 PM  

skullkrusher: ghare: skullkrusher: Monkeyhouse Zendo: spcMike: This guy in the comments needs help

Ihatelibs: Just like her ARROGANT CRIMINAL MASSA OBOGUS. He TOO is a Felon and BEYOND. FRAUD ILLEGAL KENYA TRAITOR

Oh wow, that guy's brain is seriously misfiring. I wonder if he has physical ticks too.

it's not the best commenter handle but unfortunately skullkrusher was already taken there.

Ahhh, Republicans. Without their burning hatred of libs, they would just blow away, like dust on the wind.

/Libs means "people smarter than you"

not smart enough to see an obvious joke it would seem...


Not my fault you can't communicate humour in writing. Or rational thoughts. Or tell the truth. Or be factually accurate.
 
2013-11-02 12:35:41 PM  
I see the conservatard trolls are back, now that the GOP government shutdown is over.

Keep saying things.
 
2013-11-02 12:42:19 PM  

The hullaballoo over this seems to be based (from an examination of the released documents, .pdf warning) the release of various forms which violate laws on the release of tax information. First, we need to look at the definition of what constitutes a document or information that would be a felony under 26 USC § 610

b) Definitions
For purposes of this section-
(1) Return
The term "return" means any tax or information return, declaration of estimated tax, or claim for refund required by, or provided for or permitted under, the provisions of this title which is filed with the Secretary by, on behalf of, or with respect to any person, and any amendment or supplement thereto, including supporting schedules, attachments, or lists which are supplemental to, or part of, the return so filed.
(2) Return information
The term "return information" means-
(A) a taxpayer's identity, the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, deficiencies, overassessments, or tax payments, whether the taxpayer's return was, is being, or will be examined or subject to other investigation or processing, or any other data, received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return or with respect to the determination of the existence, or possible existence, of liability (or the amount thereof) of any person under this title for any tax, penalty, interest, fine, forfeiture, or other imposition, or offense,
(B) any part of any written determination or any background file document relating to such written determination (as such terms are defined in section 6110 (b)) which is not open to public inspection under section 6110, [and two other parts that are totally irrelevant, so I snipped them]
JW specifically called out forms 990 and 1024. Form 990 is titled "Return of Organization Exempt from Tax" and would appear to be a smoking gun. But Form 990's are required to be publicly available. For example, here (.pdf warning) is Crossroads GPS' 2010 Form 990. It's a document with an exception under (B) - since the document is legally open to public inspection, the government is allowed to release it. Form 1024s are also available to the public on request, but that's irrelevant since they are not directly tax data anyway - they're an Application for Recognition of Exemption under 501(a). They are not a return, no tax is calculated, levied, or paid, and the definition of return information requires that the information be "received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return [or violation of the law]". Which it's not. So neither of the two named on the JW announcement are covered by this felony language.

Looking through the release of documents, there's a pile of additional forms, but those are in the same boat - they're forms that state you paid a fee to submit an exemption application, powers of attorney, private business information, and so on, but none of it is a return or return information. There may be some privacy issues violated, which I've no idea either way on, but 26 USC § 610 pretty clearly doesn't apply.
 
2013-11-02 12:43:19 PM  

Ontos: cameroncrazy1984: What is this I don't even

Let me clear it up for you:  Apparently, high ranking officials were committing felonies and lying about it.  But hey, no big deal because Bush and racism and stuff, right?

Do try and keep up, kiddo.


Really? The article said that? No big deal because Bush and racism and stuff? Good thing I didn't read it.
 
2013-11-02 12:43:31 PM  

RyogaM: I'll wait for an indictment to be made before I'll even try to independently determine the legality or illegality of the acts alleged, and I'm an attorney.  Good luck to all you non-lawyer, internet investigators in your attempt to determine what laws were violated by which acts by which parties.  You're going to need it.


Local man upset over what he thinks the law says?
 
2013-11-02 12:44:39 PM  

sprawl15: and two other parts that are totally irrelevant, so I snipped them


Oh, part of what I snipped was an 'and' between (C) and (D). So something has to meet all four requirements to qualify as return information, which is why being open to public inspection under (B) has bearing on information listed in (A).
 
2013-11-02 12:45:08 PM  

sprawl15: The hullaballoo over this seems to be based (from an examination of the released documents, .pdf warning) the release of various forms which violate laws on the release of tax information. First, we need to look at the definition of what constitutes a document or information that would be a felony under 26 USC § 610b) Definitions
For purposes of this section-
(1) Return
The term "return" means any tax or information return, declaration of estimated tax, or claim for refund required by, or provided for or permitted under, the provisions of this title which is filed with the Secretary by, on behalf of, or with respect to any person, and any amendment or supplement thereto, including supporting schedules, attachments, or lists which are supplemental to, or part of, the return so filed.
(2) Return information
The term "return information" means-
(A) a taxpayer's identity, the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, deficiencies, overassessments, or tax payments, whether the taxpayer's return was, is being, or will be examined or subject to other investigation or processing, or any other data, received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return or with respect to the determination of the existence, or possible existence, of liability (or the amount thereof) of any person under this title for any tax, penalty, interest, fine, forfeiture, or other imposition, or offense,
(B) any part of any written determination or any background file document relating to such written determination (as such terms are defined in section 6110 (b)) which is not open to public inspection under section 6110, [and two other parts that are totally irrelevant, so I snipped them]JW specifically called out forms 990 and 1024. Form 990 is titled "Return of Organization Exempt from Tax" and would appear to be a smoking gun. But Fo ...


Thanks. Fark is so useful once you block the derpsters.
 
2013-11-02 12:47:17 PM  

sprawl15: Looking through the release of documents, there's a pile of additional forms, but those are in the same boat - they're forms that state you paid a fee to submit an exemption application, powers of attorney, private business information, and so on, but none of it is a return or return information. There may be some privacy issues violated, which I've no idea either way on, but 26 USC § 610 pretty clearly doesn't apply.


But I was told I was a dumb dumb for disbelieving the claim that a felony was committed! What do I do now!?
 
2013-11-02 12:47:36 PM  

jaytkay: US Code 11.3.9.12  (12-28-2007)
Public Inspection of Certain Information Returns
The information included on certain annual information returns of organizations and trusts that are exempt or seeking exempt status, or information required to be filed therewith, is required to be made available for public inspection under the authority of IRC § 6104(b).


Parts of a nonprofit organization's annual tax return are open for public inspection.  Their application for exempt status is NOT subject to public disclosure while the application is pending.

http://www.irs.gov/irm/part11/irm_11-003-009.html
 
2013-11-02 12:48:01 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: sprawl15: Looking through the release of documents, there's a pile of additional forms, but those are in the same boat - they're forms that state you paid a fee to submit an exemption application, powers of attorney, private business information, and so on, but none of it is a return or return information. There may be some privacy issues violated, which I've no idea either way on, but 26 USC § 610 pretty clearly doesn't apply.

But I was told I was a dumb dumb for disbelieving the claim that a felony was committed! What do I do now!?


we'll always have benghazi
 
2013-11-02 12:48:12 PM  

mjm323s: Monkeyhouse Zendo: mjm323s: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/188940-watchdo g-obtains-irs-fec-email-exc hange

So a blog post describing how conservative group X is making claim Y is now the same as reporting Y. Got it.

It's part of a congressional investigation, but pleas don't let the facts get in your way.


You really need to read more closely. The Hill is reporting that Judicial watch is claiming to have obtained emails which may or may not constitute wrongdoing via a FOIA request.

Clearly the smoking gun of a scandal that could bring down the Obama administration, topple civilization as we know it, and unwind all of space and time.
 
2013-11-02 12:49:18 PM  

sprawl15: The hullaballoo over this seems to be based (from an examination of the released documents, .pdf warning) the release of various forms which violate laws on the release of tax information. First, we need to look at the definition of what constitutes a document or information that would be a felony under 26 USC § 610b) Definitions
For purposes of this section-
(1) Return
The term "return" means any tax or information return, declaration of estimated tax, or claim for refund required by, or provided for or permitted under, the provisions of this title which is filed with the Secretary by, on behalf of, or with respect to any person, and any amendment or supplement thereto, including supporting schedules, attachments, or lists which are supplemental to, or part of, the return so filed.
(2) Return information
The term "return information" means-
(A) a taxpayer's identity, the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, deficiencies, overassessments, or tax payments, whether the taxpayer's return was, is being, or will be examined or subject to other investigation or processing, or any other data, received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return or with respect to the determination of the existence, or possible existence, of liability (or the amount thereof) of any person under this title for any tax, penalty, interest, fine, forfeiture, or other imposition, or offense,
(B) any part of any written determination or any background file document relating to such written determination (as such terms are defined in section 6110 (b)) which is not open to public inspection under section 6110, [and two other parts that are totally irrelevant, so I snipped them]JW specifically called out forms 990 and 1024. Form 990 is titled "Return of Organization Exempt from Tax" and would appear to be a smoking gun. But Fo ...


Nicely done.  Thread over in 140.
 
2013-11-02 12:49:43 PM  

Cataholic: Their application for exempt status is NOT subject to public disclosure while the application is pending.


Their application for exempt status is not a tax return or information pertaining to a tax return. That's the fundamental definitional hurdle.
 
2013-11-02 12:50:49 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: The majority of Farkers on here with their blind following and defending of the democrats is really embarrassing.

The right is so anti-everything-Obama-does, right down to condiment choice, that simply disagreeing with them makes you look like an Obama cultist.
It won't matter whether you support Obama on any particular thing or not. The right will have spun it so entirely wrongly and out of proportion to paint Obama in as bad a light as possible, so you have no choice but to refute the derp in any argument you make. This very farking article does it in the first farking sentence. "Obama administration employee" heavily implies as if this were Obama's appointee, instead of the reality that Lerner is a Bush appointee of an independent government agency.

And this has been going on for years. Story after story. Lie after farking lie. If people automatically assume them to be untrustworthy, it's their own fault. If people discount their testimony out of hand, it's their own fault. If Obama gets a free pass on something because of this attitude, it is still their own farking fault.


I would consider myself leaning right, but in no way think they are infallible. Politics are very frustrating on both sides. But people choose to get their news from their side. There is liberal media and there is conservative media.

Clearly the comments on Fark are on the liberal side and as someone that thinks it is important to research both sides, I guess I thought I'd add a little perspective to the thread.
 
Displayed 50 of 390 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report