IRS Criminal Behavior

[Gravitymaster 0]

rushmc

This is the attitude (of the left) that we are dealing with

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/14/Chairman-Emeritus-Of-NAACP-IRS-Right-To-Target-Tea-Party-Racists

I hope this keeps up

Gonna make much more fun

Ahhhhh.....out comes the Race Card. Whoduh thunk?

[rushmc 23]

Gravitymaster

***This is the attitude (of the left) that we are dealing with

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/14/Chairman-Emeritus-Of-NAACP-IRS-Right-To-Target-Tea-Party-Racists

I hope this keeps up

Gonna make much more fun

Ahhhhh.....out comes the Race Card. Whoduh thunk?

I just watched the speech
WOW!!

This is nuts!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,452]

You can find headlines saying just about anything -- it's wrong for the IRS to have targeted Tea Party groups for political reasons. It's stupid to have targeted them if it wasn't for political reasons.

But everyone knows it's not unprecedented -- we have the example of Al Capone. There are a few others. It was done under the Nixon administration, and probably just about every other administration.

Article in Salon about a church targeted during the Bush administration

Interestingly enough, the head of the IRS until election 2012 was appointed by GWB. I'll bet he had more direct influence on the IRS than Obama did.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

wmw999

You can find headlines saying just about anything -- it's wrong for the IRS to have targeted Tea Party groups for political reasons. It's stupid to have targeted them if it wasn't for political reasons.

But everyone knows it's not unprecedented -- we have the example of Al Capone. There are a few others. It was done under the Nixon administration, and probably just about every other administration.

Article in Salon about a church targeted during the Bush administration

Interestingly enough, the head of the IRS until election 2012 was appointed by GWB. I'll bet he had more direct influence on the IRS than Obama did.

Wendy P.

Is this admin really this important to you??

You cant water this down Wendy
This is as bad as we have seen in decades

Bet what ever you want
You cant change what is happening now

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gravitymaster 0]

I've heard Shulman was put in as IRS Commissioner as a secret Republican plot to bring down Obama. Many Republicans are very pissed off about the way W was treated.

[wmw999 2,452]

Honey, I think that selling a war that killed thousands of Americans, and tens of thousands of Iraqis, is a whole lot worse than IRS investigation that might be politically motivated (and might not).

I don't like the abuse of power. But I also don't like spin. It goes both ways -- it's just as spun when you agree with it as it is when you disagree.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

wmw999

Honey, I think that selling a war that killed thousands of Americans, and tens of thousands of Iraqis, is a whole lot worse than IRS investigation that might be politically motivated (and might not).

I don't like the abuse of power. But I also don't like spin. It goes both ways -- it's just as spun when you agree with it as it is when you disagree.

Wendy P.

Now a redirect
While I would be your honey at any time, you are talking about nearly ALL in the gov that believed what was told to us
Stay on topic
No spin here
The IRS is out of control
Which means the gov is out of control
You may want to water that down
I dont
I would call for Bush's head under the same circumstances
It seems you are more selective than I depending on what party is in power

(I am not calling for Obamas head ..... yet)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gravitymaster 0]

rushmc

***Honey, I think that selling a war that killed thousands of Americans, and tens of thousands of Iraqis, is a whole lot worse than IRS investigation that might be politically motivated (and might not).

I don't like the abuse of power. But I also don't like spin. It goes both ways -- it's just as spun when you agree with it as it is when you disagree.

Wendy P.

Now a redirect
While I would be your honey at any time, you are talking about nearly ALL in the gov that believed what was told to us
Stay on topic
No spin here
The IRS is out of control
Which means the gov is out of control
You may want to water that down
I dont
I would call for Bush's head under the same circumstances
It seems you are more selective than I depending on what party is in power

(I am not calling for Obamas head ..... yet)

Clinton and Shulman have already gone down. Time for Holder to go.

[wmw999 2,452]

Quote

I would call for Bush's head under the same circumstances

When the IRS threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status of All Saints Church in Pasadena in 2004 because of its criticism of Iraq I don't remember your calling for his head. The investgation ended 3 years later. When it audited the NAACP in 2004 right after its chairman criticized President Bush for being the first sitting president since Herbert Hoover not to address the organization, I don't remember your calling for his head. And you don't hear any outrage from me over it, either. Because, again, it's probably not directed by the administration -- the perception is directed by spinmeisters.

Apparently, too, the targeting of Tea Party groups isn't just them -- they make up only 25% of the groups that were targeted by that particular set of investigations. The whole list hasn't been released yet, but it could be that it's more even, or that it's more damning.

The spin is attributing to malice that which your opponent does, and attributing to honest mistake that which your ally does.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Where does the buck stop?

[wmw999 2,452]

Which buck -- the who-does-the-IRS-audit buck, or the pick-your-facts-for-spin buck?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

wmw999

Quote

I would call for Bush's head under the same circumstances

When the IRS threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status of All Saints Church in Pasadena in 2004 because of its criticism of Iraq I don't remember your calling for his head. The investgation ended 3 years later. When it audited the NAACP in 2004 right after its chairman criticized President Bush for being the first sitting president since Herbert Hoover not to address the organization, I don't remember your calling for his head. And you don't hear any outrage from me over it, either. Because, again, it's probably not directed by the administration -- the perception is directed by spinmeisters.

Apparently, too, the targeting of Tea Party groups isn't just them -- they make up only 25% of the groups that were targeted by that particular set of investigations. The whole list hasn't been released yet, but it could be that it's more even, or that it's more damning.

The spin is attributing to malice that which your opponent does, and attributing to honest mistake that which your ally does.

Wendy P.

Did you hear the new one this AM

The EPA is has been doing the same crap to conservative groups

And the stories you relate here I dont remember
But, I am getting old

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gravitymaster 0]

The buck that means that ultimately the President is responsible. The buck that says that BDF or CDF is not a valid excuse.

[rushmc 23]

The story keeps getting bigger

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/14/Obama-campaign-co-chair-attacked-Romney-conservative-group-in-2012-with-leaked-IRS-scandal-documents

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/the-irs-wants-you-to-share-everything-91378.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

wmw999

Honey, I think that selling a war that killed thousands of Americans, and tens of thousands of Iraqis, is a whole lot worse than IRS investigation that might be politically motivated (and might not).

I don't like the abuse of power. But I also don't like spin. It goes both ways -- it's just as spun when you agree with it as it is when you disagree.

Wendy P.

Let's see. The 503C(4) rule excludes political activity. I wonder how the Tea Party believes it can qualify under that rule.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

kallend

Let's see. The 503C(4) rule excludes political activity. I wonder how the Tea Party believes it can qualify under that rule.

Let's have a list of groups that qualified in the last 5 years and see if their names lines up in any particular way.


Again - if the Tea Party is complaining, maybe the problem isn't them NOT getting special tax "me too" status, maybe the problem is too many other groups ARE.

(Frankly, my position is there shouldn't be any such status for any group for any reason, but that's just me. I know a lot of us agree on this, with or without the pointless party spin)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,998]

>Let's have a list of groups that qualified in the last 5 years and see if their
>names lines up in any particular way.

Probably the groups that were denied is a more important list.

==========================

IRS Sent Same Letter to Democrats That Fed Tea Party Row
By Julie Bykowicz & Jonathan D. Salant - May 14, 2013 6:42 PM PT
Bloomberg

The Internal Revenue Service, under pressure after admitting it targeted anti-tax Tea Party groups for scrutiny in recent years, also had its eye on at least three Democratic-leaning organizations seeking nonprofit status.

One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected.

Progress Texas, another of the organizations, faced the same lines of questioning as the Tea Party groups from the same IRS office that issued letters to the Republican-friendly applicants. A third group, Clean Elections Texas, which supports public funding of campaigns, also received IRS inquiries.

=========================

[Remster 30]

billvon

>Let's have a list of groups that qualified in the last 5 years and see if their
>names lines up in any particular way.

Probably the groups that were denied is a more important list.

==========================

IRS Sent Same Letter to Democrats That Fed Tea Party Row
By Julie Bykowicz & Jonathan D. Salant - May 14, 2013 6:42 PM PT
Bloomberg

The Internal Revenue Service, under pressure after admitting it targeted anti-tax Tea Party groups for scrutiny in recent years, also had its eye on at least three Democratic-leaning organizations seeking nonprofit status.

One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected.

Progress Texas, another of the organizations, faced the same lines of questioning as the Tea Party groups from the same IRS office that issued letters to the Republican-friendly applicants. A third group, Clean Elections Texas, which supports public funding of campaigns, also received IRS inquiries.

=========================

Shocking.

Remster

[Southern_Man 0]

kallend

***Honey, I think that selling a war that killed thousands of Americans, and tens of thousands of Iraqis, is a whole lot worse than IRS investigation that might be politically motivated (and might not).

I don't like the abuse of power. But I also don't like spin. It goes both ways -- it's just as spun when you agree with it as it is when you disagree.

Wendy P.

Let's see. The 503C(4) rule excludes political activity. I wonder how the Tea Party believes it can qualify under that rule.

I do not believe that is correct. This is from an article on the ABA website: 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, such as the League of Conservation Voters and AARP, are also tax exempt, but contributions to them are not tax deductible. The trade-off for this less beneficial tax treatment is that they may engage in unlimited lobbying and also may engage in some partisan political activities (subject to state or federal election law rules). Similarly, labor unions (501(c)(5) organizations) and trade associations (501(c)(6) organizations) also may lobby without limits and engage in some partisan political activities. Since most of the concerns about tax-exempt organizations and lobbying center around 501(c)(3) public charity organizations, they will be the focus of the rest of this article.


Unlimited lobbying and some partisan political activities does not sound like what you said.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[livendive 8]

I believe the political activity has to represent an "insubstantial portion" of the organization's activities in order for it to qualify for tax exempt status. For example, if a charity dedicated to promoting gay rights allowed their facilities to be used for a one night campaign meeting, but the rest of the time was engaged in non-partisan promotion of social welfare, they'd probably qualify. By contrast, if they formed during campaign season and spent a large fraction of their time encouraging people to vote (D), they should not be afforded exempt status under 503(c)(4).

Edit to add clicky.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[lawrocket 3]

wmw999

Honey, I think that selling a war that killed thousands of Americans, and tens of thousands of Iraqis, is a whole lot worse than IRS investigation that might be politically motivated (and might not).

Wendy P.

I think that both are equally bad for entirely different reasons. The war in Iraq was bad for the deaths that it caused and its cost.

The IRS situation is different. Everybody fears the IRS. There is nobody else out there who views IRS scrutiny as comparable to a fancy dinner with good alcohol.

The message is out - "don't exercise your free speech in a manner that the people in charge may find seditious. Otherwise, the IRS will pay you a visit." This isn't just a random "abuse of power" issue. This is an effort to punish and chill free speech.

Taken in concert with the AP News subpoenas, it's a two-front assault on the First Amendment. Think about it - somebody wants to put out there publicity that his "Organization to Educate on Political Fundraising" is going to have a seminar on the First Amendment and Citizens United.

Now that person hears through the grapevine that others doing the same thing are getting lots of demans from the IRS regarding their "public outreach." In other words, "if you want trouble, then go ahead and speak your mind."

Jon Stewart put it best: “In their defense, there is a good reason why people using the IRS to crack down on political enemies would not want Americans educated about the Constitution.”

He nailed it. The issue isn't just political/pragmatic. This is Constitutional.

I've mentioned many times my concerns with the Administration's assault on Constitutional rights. The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 14th. The IRS and AP scandals go hard at the 1st. And, to some extent, the 4th for the AP issue.

And to all you out there who supported the Patriot Act when it was passed, please not that you built this snowball. The current Admin is just much more "fuck you" in it's use.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Southern_Man 0]

livendive

I believe the political activity has to represent an "insubstantial portion" of the organization's activities in order for it to qualify for tax exempt status. For example, if a charity dedicated to promoting gay rights allowed their facilities to be used for a one night campaign meeting, but the rest of the time was engaged in non-partisan promotion of social welfare, they'd probably qualify. By contrast, if they formed during campaign season and spent a large fraction of their time encouraging people to vote (D), they should not be afforded exempt status under 503(c)(4).

Edit to add clicky.

Blues,

Dave

Upon reading your clicky it appears the "insubstantial portion" test refers to 501(c)(3) organizations. The 501(c)(4) cannot be "primarily" engaged in political activites.

The distinguishing mark appears to be the amount to which the activities engaged in are non-partisan or partisan in nature. In some cases it is indeed a murky distinction.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[wmw999 2,452]

If the IRS thing started and ended at the low levels, then I don't think it rises to constitutional standards -- it's attributable to simple stupidity, and we know there's plenty of that going around. If there is a concerted cover-up, then it's definitely worse.

The AP issue I find more troubling -- it's clearly higher up in the first place, and if Holder is already denying, that means he's worried.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[livendive 8]

I think the IRS thing is being blown out of proportion. This was not the Gestapo watching their every move. This was "oh, this looks like political activity...put it in the Need More Information Before Approval" pile. And the organization's were free to carry out their intended activities at all times, they would have just been at risk of finding out they were not tax exempt. Thus, their choices would be to act in a manner that is most likely to prove they deserve such a status, or not act in such a manner, but understand they face a higher risk of having to pay taxes. In all honesty, this is how they should act regardless of whether they got slow-tracked...
On the up & up? No problems
Trying to get away with something sneaky? Risk the consequences

Of course I'm apparently an exception, as I'm not personally afraid of the IRS. I try to file my taxes in accordance with the law, and I firmly believe that any mistakes I might make would be well within the confines of "Ooops, sorry...here's a check to cover the difference." Almost every instance I've heard of in which someone's life was "ruined" by the IRS really did it to themselves by trying to evade the law.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kallend 2,027]

IMO, NONE of them should be exempt from taxes.

Problem solved.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.