When this story broke, I expected someone from BMG to write a post by now, condemning the actions of how the IRS profiled Tea Party groups for additional scrutiny, akin to what the New Jersey police did when profiling certain drivers on their highways, back in the day. Perhaps it was just a busy few days for everyone, here is hoping this will be my first post promoted by one of the Big 3.
Apparently, IRS officials in Cincinnati, responsible for reviewing applications for tax-exempt status, subjected certain groups with further investigations, that included words like “tea party”, “patriots” or stated issues included government spending, debt, or taxes. IRS Director Lois Lerner has stated that only low-level employees were involved……..
Anyway, how would BMG’s feel if the IRS, under a Republican POTUS, targeted groups with the names that included “progressive”, or “brotherhood”, or “reproductive rights” or even “blue”? I believe there would be an outrage, as there should be.
“The Tea Party groups were seeking tax-exempt status under a provision of the tax code for social welfare groups — so called 501(c)(4) organizations. Unlike other charities, these groups are allowed to engage in political advocacy as long as it’s not their primary purpose. ” For instance, NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation is recognized by the IRS under this section.
The additional information requested of Tea Party groups often included requests for donor lists, which the IRS later admitted was inappropriate and “troubling.” Tea Party groups who protested were told they didn’t have to submit the information, and those donor lists that were submitted have been destroyed,(que pic of Dr Evil above) IRS officials told the inspector general.
The Washington Post wrote an editorial, which said
“A BEDROCK principle of U.S. democracy is that the coercive powers of government are never used for partisan purpose. The law is blind to political viewpoint, and so are its enforcers, most especially the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service. Any violation of this principle threatens the trust and the voluntary cooperation of citizens upon which this democracy depends.
“So it was appalling to learn Friday that the IRS had improperly targeted conservative groups for scrutiny. It was almost as disturbing that President Obama and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew have not personally apologized to the American people and promised a full investigation.” I concur with the Washington Post Editorial Board and hope you do as well.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/11/irs-tea-party-investigation-timeline/2153007/
Right in your disgust.
Wrong in your demand for condemnation.
I looked for your condemnation of IRS investigations of anyone involved with Occupy or pacifism earlier. There weren’t any.
I share your disgust, but scoff at your feigned shock. I don’t believe that “Tea Party” groups are violating tax laws for the most part, although they certainly are fleecing many conservatives.
Lower level IRS guys messed up, and their bosses straightened them out. Hardly a scandal. From Theda Skopcol:
The Washington Post Editorial board lives in a land far away from reality. BMGers won’t be joining them anytime soon.
… else he would have written a post about how we almost descended into partisan rancor and thank $DEITY for the responsible adults in charge who put a stop to this and isn’t our political system wonderful for putting adults in charge… yada yada yada…
How can one argue that political advocacy is NOT their primary purpose? Yes, I would at least question NARAL in this regard as well.
The IRS only targeted “conservative” groups, at least in a disproportional manner. So instead of “teaching” their philosophy, thus supporting likely Republicans and Romney, they were stuck battling the IRS. It’s totally political what the IRS did.
I am not aware of any liberal political group trying to register themselves as a tax-exempt organization. It is quite possible that there are many more conservative groups trying to do this than liberal ones.
It is also not unusual for the IRS to target a particular subgroup that has been previously identified as stretching or breaking the rules. The problem in this case is that the subgroup comes from a particular political philosophy. Obviously, they should have thought twice before doing this, even if someone genuinely believed that tea party groups deserved extra scrutiny.
You have to admin that groups that are adamantly against taxation are probably more likely to find questionable ways around paying taxes.
Most liberal groups have either 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) designations, both of which are tax exempt. In addition to NARAL listed above, there is Planned Parenthood, Organizing for America, and a zillion others. Just google your favorite group plus “donation” and you can usually find their designation.
The IRS has a long and sordid history of targeting groups and individuals for political harrassment, from civil rights activists, to anti-Vietman War protesters, Central American solidarity leaders and beyond. It saddens me that this crew in Cincinnati may be added onto that list of bullies just because they were being clumsy in their word searches.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Officials at the Internal Revenue Service knew in June 2011 that their agents were targeting conservative groups for additional scrutiny on tax documents, an inspector general report expected to be released next week is expected to say.
Further, an early timeline of events compiled by the inspector general and obtained by CNN indicates the agency’s practice of singling out conservative groups began as early as March 2010, and in July of that year, unidentified managers within the agency “requested its specialists to be on the lookout for tea party applications.” In August, specialists were warned to be on the lookout for “various local organizations in the tea party movement” applying for tax exempt status. The specific criteria would change several times over the next two years, according to a portion of the report.”
Joel- still want to bring your broom out, and sweep this under the rug?
And then conservative voters nominate them to run for Senate.
I remember when Charlie Baker kept talking about how taxes hurt businesses, but then it turned his example was this guy.
Glad to know Democrats don’t dodge the tax man, or elect high tax cheats to high office. Now that I think of it, was Tom Dascle a Dem? He owed $100k. How about Claire McCastle, she owed $300K. Charlie Rangle, did he have a tax problem? Best we not talk about them, right? Just a big misunderstanding, b/c the have a “D” next to their name.
Along with Tea Party groups, It appears the IRS targeted pro-Israel groups. I wish you and the others who gave you a positive comment, would take off the partisan glasses for a moment, and support an investigation, and hold people accountable. What is good for Richard Nixon back in the 70’s, surely is applicable today.
is a different site. You should check it out.
You know the IRS apologized, that b/c the did or did not do anything wrong? Should Christopher and Sabutai go to RMG with me, since the too, are troubled by this?
Right wing nut jobs have been talking about impeaching the president since March of 2009. If you are using that word, then you are implying that President has engage in Crimes and Misdemeanors. You have NO F’N PROOF of anything at this point that connects the president other than your pathetic wet dream of lynching the uppity ************.
Your pathetic efforts are just as effective as this idiot’s below.
Keep recycling those Faux News Talking Points.
I ran a search for the word impeach on this page and it only occurs in your comment above and now of course this comment.
Nixon’s resigned in order to avoid impeachment, but the point of the Watergate Investigation was to determine if the congress should proceed to “Impeach” him, hence the “Good for Richard Nixon” statement.
That IS equivalent to “Impeach”.
And since DFW is simply regurgitating Faux News Talking Points, Faux News have been saying “Impeach” since last week in connection with this IRS nonsense and in general since March 2009.
Regardless, I find this fake outrage boring as all hell, and I really do not care if some damn Tea Party idiots had to produce extra paperwork, Oh Boo F’n Hoo.
Not allowed here. Confine your remarks to RMG.
Don’t suggest to Dan from Waltham that he leave us and join Red Mass Group! Anything but that!
Let’s say that in fact various Tea Party groups were in fact trying to get undeserved tax-exempt status, and that there aren’t really any corresponding liberal groups doing the same thing. What should the IRS do?
Unless it was a political witch hunt, and let’s be honest, it very well could have been, which should make you cringe at what happened. Why do I feel it this was ACORN and Bush was in office, I would hear a different tune?
Federal law grants 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status – the type of non-profit status at issue here – only to those groups who’s primary interest is “social welfare” even as they are allowed to participate in politics to a somewhat greater extent than 501(c)(3) organizations. The promotion of social welfare – which must be the primary purpose of 501(c)(4) organizations – definitely does *not* include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.
Do to the law, then, it is necessary for the IRS to carefully review some applications for new organizations seerking 501(c)(4) tax exemptions. With lots of new such organizations being formed (thanks, in part, to Citizen’s United and, inpart, to the growth of the Tea Party), it is reasonable for the IRS to do some triage and provide some extra scutiny to groups that are fairly directly tied to actual politicians. Such as, say, the Tea Party.
In 2012, the IRS reportedly ended the use of a key-word triage system (focused on “tea party” or “patriot”) and replaced it with extra scrutiny for “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform/movement.” This is much better BUT it remains true that that groups like the local Tea Party organizations (and a smaller number of similar organizations on the left) may indeed undeserving of tax-exempt status. You know, because of the law.
Misses the point entirely. The IRS was targeting various non-profits on the basis of KEY WORDS
Isn’t that a little like BMG Music performing extra scrutiny on it’s “12 albums for 1 cent” offer for people named Rip U. Off?
Seems logical to me that if a Tea Party group is registering as a non-profit, they should be scrutinized, because they are a politically-related group.
Oops, the IRS targeted non-profits on the basis of key words, not evidence of political advocacy. Try smoking less pot, Kevin.
No doubt the conservation easement tax expert Gabriel Gomez has a lot of insight to offer about how to fudge one’s tax returns and get away with it. Should he even be running for office, do you think, or opening a tax shelter consultancy?
The federal bureaucracy is big on time reports. These reports show who spends time on this or that project, how much time and the number of staff assigned to it and projects have reporting requirements (who’s in charge). Usually the product of this reporting goes to some congressional office to justify the staff for the agency. Surely the IRS has a system that quantifies the work their employees do.
So, rather than ballyhoo misdeeds, real or imagined, why not find out the time codes for the project, find the staffing requirements and chain of command, and question those responsible officials? It isn’t Hollywood, but it should lead to the exposure of whoever is responsible.
“When all is said and done, more is said than done” –Anon
even, though the 501c’s should be given some scrutiny, but let’s be clear about who did what: the IRS didn’t target wingnut groups, it’s Cincinnati branch did. That’s a major difference.
As Ezra Klein writes,
And I am shocked, shocked to see that no one here on BMG considered Dan’s interested when they failed to post on this.
IRS consolidated EP/EO to Cincinnati a while ago, so stating that the “IRS didn’t target wingnut groups, its Cincinnati branch did” misses the point. All applications for tax-exempt groups go to Cincinnati.
I don’t deal with non-profits, but do deal with qualified retirement plans. In that instance, a plan may file for a determination letter on its qualified status. So an application goes in, it is reviewed, and then ultimately (when the IRS gets around to it) a letter is sent out. There is specific material requested as part of the application process. They don’t ask for a forensic audit of the Plan (believe me, the IRS is overwhelmed and doesn’t have the manpower to run an audit on every regular application that comes in to Cincinnati).
What is troubling here is that these regular applications sent in were targeted for much more detail than is typical in these application requests. This isn’t a random occurence, and EP/EO doesn’t have the spare time to go on full out witch hunts. They just don’t (as an example, we’ve submitted letters on basic ESOP plans for a regular determination letter that took over three years to be processed).
I’m sure there are reports (at least I hope so).
Maybe the IRS agents will get new jobs in the Massachusetts State Government ?
Governor Patrick hires person at center of Joe the Plumber privacy invasion as head of Unemployment Office
No matter what party – patronage hiring and using the IRS to abuse citizens is really wrong.
disagree with you, Roark.
You are a member, with that if there is a story that you think is of interest YOU write about it. Instead you incite (AGAIN) with this bullshit.
My first reaction when i started reading the first sentence is; well screw you too. Sorry that I didn’t complete reading your entire post but you lost me at that point.
This is just what you are.
opportunities to feel brighter than us, and when we disagree with him or fall short of the standards he has for other people, righter than us.
First, I make no apologies regarding my opening sentence, I speak from the heart, not my gut. The reason why I wished someone else wrote this post is for a couple reasons.
1. We all should take allegations of abuse from enforcement agencies like the FBI or IRS very seriously.
2. I didn’t want to be the author b/c my posts and comments cause a rage amongst some BMG’ers, where they write “DFTT” all over the place, or paste a recipe that takes up a whole screen. When one can write recipes all over the place, the moniters have given their tacit approval, no? I felt this issue is too important to be hijacked, and wished someone else picked up the torch when the news broke.
No problem there. The way to do it is be objective and don”t make assumptions without evidence. Call people on what they do say.
Funny, it reads like you are speaking from a different part of your body.
Pointing out that you continually write like a concerned troll means that I don’t take the FBI seriously? Dude, you are pretty nutty.
Bruins won!
Are you getting Tickets. On sale @ 11, trying to fight the urge, but they are sucking me in.
I saw them play Pittsburgh in April, that’s enuff for me.
Obama should apologize for allowing Commissioner Douglas Shulman, a Bush appointee, to run the IRS until he resigned in November of last year (meaning that Shulman was “in charge” of the IRS when the idiocy occurred). Heck of a job, Shulie!
What kind of a person leaves a Bush appointee to run anything of importance? Only someone who doesn’t think much of working Americans.
Obama should apologize for Bush holdovers, both people and policies, and turn finally to traditional Democrats and traditional Democratic values. Clearly, his sprint to the right has not won the hearts of the right-wing crazies they way he thought it would.
That’s fine, but best to be sure there is nobody above or below him, gave the green light on the harassment of Tea Party groups, right? Shulman could have been as clueless as Brownie was during Katrina, and been bypassed by someone even above him.
May we see the emails, please?
It ends wherever you’d like it to end.
In my book, given that entities with political agendas are not eligible for tax-exempt status, it seems utterly reasonable to flag things with “Tea Party” or “patriot” in their names for a closer look. Or to flag Left-ish groups for whatever equivalents there are in the Left-ish world. Perhaps words like “reality”, “math”, or “facts” are code words for the Left?
“If, in fact, IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that had been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that’s outrageous and there’s no place for it. And they have to be held fully accountable, because the IRS as an independent agency requires absolute integrity, and people have to have confidence that they’re applying it in a non-partisan way — applying the laws in a non-partisan way. ”
“but I can tell you that if you’ve got the IRS operating in anything less than a neutral and non-partisan way, then that is outrageous, it is contrary to our traditions. And people have to be held accountable, and it’s got to be fixed”
Thank you President Obama!
The bread and butter of the groups in question is asserting that taxes are wrong, that nobody should pay any taxes at all, and similar bunkum. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to pursue the question of whether they are acting on the propaganda they spend so much time promoting.
Since progressive groups don’t make a comparable claim, I don’t find it surprising that progressive groups weren’t of much interest.
I don’t think the investigation of the groups in question is any more improper than the many and repeated efforts of the right wing to drive the nation into bankruptcy and depression while advancing their anti-tax and anti-government agenda.
who advocates a certain lifestyle or social cause, b/c they, far too often, end up being the biggest hypocrites walking the earth. I have mentioned a few in the past, think about it.
You may believe in targeting or profiling by the IRS. I am of the belief the IRS needs to treat everyone who applies for this type of tax status, similar to a bank reviewing a credit application, under a “fair lending” type of guidelines. Treat them all the same, impartial, regardless of their politics, that too much to ask?
Let me see if I’ve got this straight.
If John Q. Patriot stands on a street corner with a megaphone and preaches “Taxes are illegal. I don’t pay taxes, I don’t file returns, and you shouldn’t either”, then you seem to be saying that the IRS is “targeting” or “profiling” him by investigating his own claims. Yet somehow, a mob that Mr. Patriot creates that stands on the street corner and shouts the exact same thing is apparently supposed to be exempt from attention.
By this “logic”, security personnel are similarly “targeting” or “profiling” people who proclaim themselves to be bombers. Apparently you feel that groups who similarly advocate terrorism should be similarly protected from prosecution.
The targeted groups advocate tax evasion. Many of them also advocate the violent overthrow of the government, and many of them also talk of a “second amendment solution” to government officials who they disagree with. Representative Giffords demonstrates the result.
I’m pretty sure that if Mary Whalen walked into a bank and announced to the crowded waiting room that the best way to rob that bank was to lie on their credit application, Ms. Whalen’s credit application would properly receive special attention and would be denied.
I disagree with the administration of President Obama about this — based on what I’ve seen, I think the IRS did the right thing and I wish they would do more of it.
andbrush and just spatter everyone with one stroke. Most Tea Party people don’t fit your profile of being against any and all taxes. They surely don’t support tax increases, but most just believe the govt gets enuff, perhaps needs to go on a diet. Famous Tea Party candidates Marco Rubio, Sen. Cruz of Texas, and those on the House, they don’t tell people to not file taxes, or even a more outlandish claim, overthrow the government.
Teaching the Constitution groups = overthrow of the government? Tom, what you wrote sounds like left-wing Joe McCarthy tactics, and I know you don’t mean to sound that way, but that is how it came across. I mean, Rep Giffords was shot by a derranged pscho, not a Tea Party member. I know the left wish it were the case, but it wasn’t, neither was the Colorado shooter or the Boston Bombers, Tea Party elites.
Let’s see, I think I remember a map used by Sarah Palin … oh yeah …
The opponent of Ms. Giffords was running campaign events advertised with language like “Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly” …
The right wing has attempted to hold the government and a majority of Americans hostage by forcing an unprecedented government default unless their extremist demands are met.
Finally, the phrase “Tea party elites” is, to my ears, an oxymoron.
“Teaching the constitution”? You’re hilarious. Here are some examples of what I mean by advocating violent overthrow of the government:
I’m referring to incidents like 2010 Republican congressional candidate Stephen Broden, who said — on-air —
Somehow I’m not surprised that you characterize the ugly mobs that call themselves the “Tea Party” people who “teach[] the Constitution”. I stand by my previous comments.
Is that the GOP is totally uninterested in governing, Obama should finally wake the f up and recognize that. They will not meet him halfway on anything, so stop saying chained CPI, stop saying you will close Guantanamo and actually close it using your executive authority, recess appoint every delayed nominee, and start showing you’re in charge. He is letting small molehills like this and Benghazi turn into shit shows, and it’s not just the fault of the Fox News crowd.
T House Democrats, even Capuano, are trying to get as much distance as possible from ACA and the President on other issues. I liked Cap, but his statements on Libya and now on this are taken from Fox News talking points, that and the griping about the DSCC endorsing Markey makes me question his seriousness as a lawmaker. It’s time to fight back.
That said, I think the IRS office screwed up and the President has successfully pointed that out. I am far more worried about the AP scandal, that is an issue where he deserves extensive criticism.
I enthusiastically agree about the change you’d like to see in the style Mr. Obama’s presidency. I also agree that it’s time to “fight back”.
I disagree with your final paragraph. I think the IRS actions fall well within the envelope of properly fighting back (as I’ve elaborated above). I think it’s far too early to know the facts of regarding the AP complaints. Given the non-stop flow of pure rubbish coming from the GOP about Benghazi, and given the circumstances of the AP investigation, I think it’s too early to even use the term “scandal”.
And it would be legitimate to criticize BMG for not having a sufficient amount of outrage over a Democratic president so willfully and extensively violating the civil liberties of reporters. Frankly Eric Holder needs to resign already, I suspect the only reason he hasn’t since short of the ghost of Ed Meese the GOP Senate majority* wouldn’t approve of his replacement.
*until the Democrats act like they are the majority I refuse to call them that
“Anyway, how would BMG’s feel if the IRS, under a Republican POTUS, targeted groups with the names that included “progressive”, or “brotherhood”, or “reproductive rights” or even “blue”? I believe there would be an outrage, as there should be.”
Where was the outrage in 2004?
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/when_the_irs_targeted_liberals/
When the Bush Administration fired a whole passel of District Attorneys for insufficient loyalty??
If this IRS brouhaha has got him this excercised he must have been apoplectic in 2007…
I read your link, and while I am offended the IRS targeted that one church, I don’t see the pattern/profiling that we have with the Tea Party folks.
For instance, if the IRS back in 2002-2004, targeted black churches for special audits, then that would be comparable, but that didn’t happen. True, the NAACP was investigated, but I didn’t read about all black non-profits being profiled. Nor is there evidence that under Bush, the IRS audited any NFP that had the names “global warming” or “climate change”. That would be profiling and I would yell at the top of my lungs how unjust that is. But that didn’t happen, and the examples you gave are singular audits, no pattern of targeting liberal groups.
IMO, all this tax-exempt business is bullshit(pardon my French). But that is a different topic/subject for another post.
The Koch brothers and many other right-wingers might have used “dark money” to influence the 2010 elections. It is indeed possible that the IRS did exactly the right thing.
There might be a good reason for outrage, but, instead of the IRS, our outrage should probably be directed to the Koch brothers and other right-wingers.. It is possible that the right-wing has falsely used non-profit money to hide the identity of donors and to violate federal elections law.