Evidence may indicate that the IRS was even more corrupt than we thought!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Evidence may indicate that the IRS was even more corrupt than we thought!

    Where is today’s Woodward & Bernstein tandem striving to ensure the president is held accountable for an egregious abuse of power — like the Internal Revenue Service’s political targeting of Democrat opposition groups? Nowhere to be found, outside a few bastions of conservative political opposition.

    Last week, upstanding IRS veteran Carter Hull, who has exhibited a 48-year track record of excellence, testified to a House hearing of the Government Oversight & Reform Committee. Hull’s blockbuster revelation? A political appointee of President Obama, the IRS Chief Counsel William Wilkins, as well as the Fifth Amendment-pleading Lois Lerner, took the exceptional measure of seizing tea party cases from him and move them up the chain-of-command.

    Hull’s testimony gets a boost from a Daily Caller article, which even further implicates that the White House knew about the IRS’ targeting of political groups, more than it has let on:

    The Obama appointee implicated in congressional testimony in the IRS targeting scandal met with President Obama in the White House two days before offering his colleagues a new set of advice on how to scrutinize tea party and conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status.

    IRS chief counsel William Wilkins, who was named in House Oversight testimony by retiring IRS agent Carter Hull as one of his supervisors in the improper targeting of conservative groups, met with Obama in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on April 23, 2012. Wilkins’ boss, then-IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman, visited the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on April 24, 2012, according to White House visitor logs.

    The name Douglas Shulman is familiar to those following this scandal. As former IRS commissioner, Shulman met with President Obama an astounding 157 times. The former head of the tax exempt division Sarah Hall Ingram, who will be running the IRS’ “ObamaCare” division, met with the president 165 times. And the two’s meetings with the president apparently never overlapped.

    The Chief Counsel William Wilkins, who has a background in tax exempt group consulting prior to being nominated in 2009, was involved in overseeing the tea party and conservative group cases as early as August 2011. Interestingly, Wilkins’ law firm was able to get an IRS probe against Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s “church” dismissed.

    Jay Sekulow of Fox News points out that the Chief Counsel’s involvement means that the “rogue agent” narrative has been thoroughly debunked:

    Here’s a key portion of Mr. Hull’s testimony:

    “In August 2011 I attended a meeting at which the applications assigned to me were discussed. I recall that Don Spellman, David Marshall, and Amy Franklin from Chief Counsel’s office were at the meeting… I recall that Ms. Franklin or someone else from Chief Counsel’s office stated that more current information was needed for my applications and that a second development letter should be sent to the applicants. I also recall the discussion about the creation of a template development letter for Tea Party applications.”

    This is extraordinary, suggesting that it was the IRS chief counsel’s office, not rogue agents in Ohio, who engineered the key abuses in the targeting scandal, including the extraordinarily-intrusive questionnaires that asked conservative groups for donor lists, Internet login information, social media pages, and even the political and charitable activities of family members.

    Hull went on to testify that he had not seen anything like that in almost 50 years of work at the IRS.

    Just another notch in the belt for the ‘historic’ Obama administration. Pathetically, the news media have made clear the President can flaunt the customary practices of the Executive Branch by winking-and-nodding while members of the government target those on the Democrat Party’s “enemies list.”

    The president has appointed members of his Cabinet who have shown a brazen disregard for propriety and the truth. Susan Rice undoubtedly touted a White House lie that there was a “spontaneous protest” before the Benghazi terrorist attack, and she was rewarded with a promotion to National Security Adviser. Attorney General Eric Holder oversaw a Department of Justice that stood by while the BATFE ran assault rifles to Mexican drug cartels, who took those weapons and killed hundreds of Mexican civilians and American border patrol agent Brian Terry. The DOJ criminalized Fox News reporter James Rosen for reporting on an ostensibly non-sensitive national security case, and tracked Rosen and AP reporters.

    If the president were even caught red-handed carrying out a vendetta against certain American citizens for voicing a political opinion, wielding one of the most feared government agencies — the Internal Revenue Service — against them, would today’s so-called journalists even care?

    Silence will be the answer.

    But don’t expect President Obama to get caught. He has perfected the practice of appointing lawbreakers and scoundrels all around him, so that he can personally escape responsibility. Because the press is beyond obeisant — one might even say, complicit — all calls for government accountability will be intentionally ignored, deflected away or shouted down by his palace guards.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Evidence may indicate that the IRS was even more corrupt than we thought!

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     Nowhere to be found, outside a few bastions of conservative political opposition.



    surprise surprise!!

     

    [/QUOTE]


     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Evidence may indicate that the IRS was even more corrupt than we thought!

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]surprise surprise!!



    What conclusion do you draw from the fact that only "bastions of conservative political opposition" seem to be frothing over this?

    Do you see that any differing conclusions might reasonably be drawn?

    [/QUOTE]


    The stories are changing with the political wind being pushed by the facts from the investigation.

    If, it smells like sh1t and looks like sh1t do you really need to taste to find out it is??

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Evidence may indicate that the IRS was even more corrupt than we thought!

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vRyJ9rRDnsUJ:online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    In all the day-to-day of the IRS scandals I don't think it's been fully noticed that the overall reputation of the agency has suffered a collapse, the kind from which it can take a generation to recover fully. In the long term this will prove damaging to the national morale—what happens to a great nation when its people come to lack even rudimentary confidence in the decisions made by the revenue-gathering arm of its federal government? It will also diminish the hope for faith in government, which whatever your politics is not a good thing. We need government, as we all know. Americans have a right to assume that while theirs may be deeply imperfect, it is not deeply corrupt. What harms trust in governmental institutions now will have reverberations in future administrations.

    The scandals that have so damaged the agency took place in just the past few years, since the current administration began. And it is not Republicans on the Hill or conservatives in the press who have revealed the agency as badly managed, political in its actions, and really quite crazily run. That information, or at least the early outlines of it, came from the agency's own inspector general.

    But the point is that it was all so recent. It doesn't take long to crater a reputation. The conferences, seminars and boondoggles in which $49 million was spent, including the famous "Star Trek" parody video—all that happened between 2010 and 2012. The targeting of conservative groups, the IRS leadership's public lies about it, the leaking of private tax information to liberal groups or journalists, the abuse of donor information—all that took place since the administration began, in 2009. Just this week, an inspector general report revealed excessive travel spending by a handful of IRS executives in 2011 and 2012.

    All of it has produced the biggest IRS scandal since Watergate. Which makes it the second of only two truly huge scandals to be visited on the agency in its entire 100-year history. (The IRS began in its modern incarnation in 1913, the year the 16th Amendment was ratified.) And Watergate didn't kill the IRS's reputation, only Nixon's.

    The effect in terms of public approval can be seen in the polls. Fox News, in May, compared its recent IRS polling with its polling 10 years ago. In May 2003, just under a third of all respondents said they had little or no faith in the IRS—a high number, perhaps, but a cantankerously American one. In May 2013, that number had jumped to 57%. Around the time of Fox's 2013 poll, Gallup had 60% of Americans seeing the IRS as an agency that "frequently abuses its powers." And Gallup had 42% of respondents saying the IRS did a "poor" job, more than double the figure from 2009.

    One irony here is that the Obama White House, always keen to increase the reach and power of government, also seems profoundly disinterested in good governing. It is strange. The long-term project of liberalism involves encouraging the idea of faith in government as a bringer or guarantor of greater justice. But who needs more government if government works so very badly, and is in its operations unjust?

    This White House is careless with the reputation of government. They are a campaigning organization, not a governing one.

    You might think at this point the White House might begin to think cleverly and strategically. That they would very showily give the scandal their time and attention—really give it some priority. That they might show daily indignation, and see to it that the IRS is utterly forthcoming with Congress. That would have two effects. First, it would help the IRS recover if the public saw it being responsive, as opposed to speaking in the usual word salad punctuated with "We have no comment." Second, it would help the Obama White House look responsive, responsible and actually interested in good governance.

    Instead the president and his spokesman just run around and call the scandal phony. That's their big contribution: It's phony. It was better in the old days, 2½ months ago, when they feigned outrage.

    You would think also the leadership of the IRS would, at this point, be a bit head-bowed—eager to deal publicly with the agency's problems, to be responsive with Congress and, most of all, to demonstrate good faith after the lying that marked the early days of the scandal.

    But that is not what's happening. House investigators this week said they have in fact received less than 1% of the documents they have been asking for from the agency. The IRS itself at one point identified a whopping and rather intimidating 65 million documents that might be relevant to the tea-party scandal. To date—almost three months into the scandal became public—the House Ways and Means Committee says the IRS has turned over only 13,000 pages. And some of them were duplicates.

    It's gone beyond what staff aides were, last month, calling "slow walking." Chairman Dave Camp said in a statement the IRS's actions look "a lot like obstruction." One aide said: "Patience is wearing thin."

    Meanwhile, investigations continue, interviews are ongoing. Congressional investigators believe they have picked up an unusual amount of checking in with and requesting approval and guidance from the office of the IRS general counsel. They also believe they are picking up an intense level of decision making between that office and Lois Lerner, former head of the exempt organizations office. The committee is particularly interested in all correspondence and communications between the general counsel's office, the Treasury Department, and the White House.

    An observer might fairly say that the IRS appears to be stringing the story out, that they are more preoccupied with damage control than finding out what exactly happened in the tea-party scandal. Perhaps the agency, and the administration, is thinking that if they string the story out it may disappear into the summer. Maybe its momentum will be broken. Maybe people will begin to think, when they see an IRS headline on page B-12, that they've already read that story. Maybe slowing everything down will take the steam out of the entire investigation.

    That might seem a politically astute move—not governmentally responsible but politically astute. Letting the story go forward in slow dribs and drabs won't help the IRS recover its reputation and begin to function in a healthy way, but it may limit immediate political damage to the administration.

    But a slow walk of documents carries political risk. It may keep the story down, but it will keep it alive by keeping it from being resolved. Republicans on the Hill show no signs of losing interest. They seem anxious to stay on the story, for all the obvious reasons, both public-spirited and self-interested.

    But they may begin issuing subpoenas. And if the story goes into the fall, and continues through the winter, perhaps even the spring, it will become an active drama within the 2014 election cycle.

    Which would make the administration's recent moves not only governmentally lacking, but politically maladroit.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Evidence may indicate that the IRS was even more corrupt than we thought!

     

    Image

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Evidence may indicate that the IRS was even more corrupt than we thought!

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    Image

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.



    Obstruction charges will likely have to be filed!

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Evidence may indicate that the IRS was even more corrupt than we thought!

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    [/QUOTE]

    No I do not need to taste the conservative bastions of staunch opposition...     

    [/QUOTE]


    You wil be one of those that say "if it wasnt for the republican attack dogs"

    Like when people try to make Clintons disgrace out to be "it's just a BJ" and not about the crime he committed by lying under oath!

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Evidence may indicate that the IRS was even more corrupt than we thought!

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    huh



    Have someone read it to you.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Evidence may indicate that the IRS was even more corrupt than we thought!

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    Image

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.



    Anyone else would be thrown in jail by now for obstruction and any corporation would be raided and records seized.

    Its a real travesty that parts of our federal govt act like they are above the law!

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Evidence may indicate that the IRS was even more corrupt than we thought!

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]Have someone read it to you.



    It'll still be just as stupid.

    Typical tvoter swill: blah blah blah, crap crap crap. Shoot the messenger and run away.

    [/QUOTE]

    Have a good weekend! LMAO

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: Evidence may indicate that the IRS was even more corrupt than we thought!

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vRyJ9rRDnsUJ:online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    In all the day-to-day of the IRS scandals I don't think it's been fully noticed that the overall reputation of the agency has suffered a collapse, the kind from which it can take a generation to recover fully. In the long term this will prove damaging to the national morale—what happens to a great nation when its people come to lack even rudimentary confidence in the decisions made by the revenue-gathering arm of its federal government? It will also diminish the hope for faith in government, which whatever your politics is not a good thing. We need government, as we all know. Americans have a right to assume that while theirs may be deeply imperfect, it is not deeply corrupt. What harms trust in governmental institutions now will have reverberations in future administrations.

    The scandals that have so damaged the agency took place in just the past few years, since the current administration began. And it is not Republicans on the Hill or conservatives in the press who have revealed the agency as badly managed, political in its actions, and really quite crazily run. That information, or at least the early outlines of it, came from the agency's own inspector general.

    But the point is that it was all so recent. It doesn't take long to crater a reputation. The conferences, seminars and boondoggles in which $49 million was spent, including the famous "Star Trek" parody video—all that happened between 2010 and 2012. The targeting of conservative groups, the IRS leadership's public lies about it, the leaking of private tax information to liberal groups or journalists, the abuse of donor information—all that took place since the administration began, in 2009. Just this week, an inspector general report revealed excessive travel spending by a handful of IRS executives in 2011 and 2012.

    All of it has produced the biggest IRS scandal since Watergate. Which makes it the second of only two truly huge scandals to be visited on the agency in its entire 100-year history. (The IRS began in its modern incarnation in 1913, the year the 16th Amendment was ratified.) And Watergate didn't kill the IRS's reputation, only Nixon's.

    The effect in terms of public approval can be seen in the polls. Fox News, in May, compared its recent IRS polling with its polling 10 years ago. In May 2003, just under a third of all respondents said they had little or no faith in the IRS—a high number, perhaps, but a cantankerously American one. In May 2013, that number had jumped to 57%. Around the time of Fox's 2013 poll, Gallup had 60% of Americans seeing the IRS as an agency that "frequently abuses its powers." And Gallup had 42% of respondents saying the IRS did a "poor" job, more than double the figure from 2009.

    One irony here is that the Obama White House, always keen to increase the reach and power of government, also seems profoundly disinterested in good governing. It is strange. The long-term project of liberalism involves encouraging the idea of faith in government as a bringer or guarantor of greater justice. But who needs more government if government works so very badly, and is in its operations unjust?

    This White House is careless with the reputation of government. They are a campaigning organization, not a governing one.

    You might think at this point the White House might begin to think cleverly and strategically. That they would very showily give the scandal their time and attention—really give it some priority. That they might show daily indignation, and see to it that the IRS is utterly forthcoming with Congress. That would have two effects. First, it would help the IRS recover if the public saw it being responsive, as opposed to speaking in the usual word salad punctuated with "We have no comment." Second, it would help the Obama White House look responsive, responsible and actually interested in good governance.

    Instead the president and his spokesman just run around and call the scandal phony. That's their big contribution: It's phony. It was better in the old days, 2½ months ago, when they feigned outrage.

    You would think also the leadership of the IRS would, at this point, be a bit head-bowed—eager to deal publicly with the agency's problems, to be responsive with Congress and, most of all, to demonstrate good faith after the lying that marked the early days of the scandal.

    But that is not what's happening. House investigators this week said they have in fact received less than 1% of the documents they have been asking for from the agency. The IRS itself at one point identified a whopping and rather intimidating 65 million documents that might be relevant to the tea-party scandal. To date—almost three months into the scandal became public—the House Ways and Means Committee says the IRS has turned over only 13,000 pages. And some of them were duplicates.

    It's gone beyond what staff aides were, last month, calling "slow walking." Chairman Dave Camp said in a statement the IRS's actions look "a lot like obstruction." One aide said: "Patience is wearing thin."

    Meanwhile, investigations continue, interviews are ongoing. Congressional investigators believe they have picked up an unusual amount of checking in with and requesting approval and guidance from the office of the IRS general counsel. They also believe they are picking up an intense level of decision making between that office and Lois Lerner, former head of the exempt organizations office. The committee is particularly interested in all correspondence and communications between the general counsel's office, the Treasury Department, and the White House.

    An observer might fairly say that the IRS appears to be stringing the story out, that they are more preoccupied with damage control than finding out what exactly happened in the tea-party scandal. Perhaps the agency, and the administration, is thinking that if they string the story out it may disappear into the summer. Maybe its momentum will be broken. Maybe people will begin to think, when they see an IRS headline on page B-12, that they've already read that story. Maybe slowing everything down will take the steam out of the entire investigation.

    That might seem a politically astute move—not governmentally responsible but politically astute. Letting the story go forward in slow dribs and drabs won't help the IRS recover its reputation and begin to function in a healthy way, but it may limit immediate political damage to the administration.

    But a slow walk of documents carries political risk. It may keep the story down, but it will keep it alive by keeping it from being resolved. Republicans on the Hill show no signs of losing interest. They seem anxious to stay on the story, for all the obvious reasons, both public-spirited and self-interested.

    But they may begin issuing subpoenas. And if the story goes into the fall, and continues through the winter, perhaps even the spring, it will become an active drama within the 2014 election cycle.

    Which would make the administration's recent moves not only governmentally lacking, but politically maladroit.




    Thank you so much for all the information.  I, for one, appreciate it.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Evidence may indicate that the IRS was even more corrupt than we thought!

    Chris Wallace went after Treasury Secretary Jack Lew over the investigation—or lack thereof, in Wallace’s estimation—of alleged targeting by the IRS of conservative 501(c)(4) groups.

    The IRS scandal—which had receded in recent weeks after an audit by the Inspector General revealed progressive groups were scrutinized in addition to conservative organizations, and produced no evidence linking the behavior to a political appointee—was revived this week when President Barack Obama’s invoked “phony scandals” in his speech in Galesburg, Illinois.

    Lew was directed by Obama to follow up on the Inspector General’s report. Wallace challenged Lew to defend the thoroughness of his investigation into the IRS’ behavior, and ferociously pursued Lew’s answered.

    “We went through to find the facts,” Lew said. “It was equal opportunity bad judgment. It was conservative groups, it was progressive groups.”

    “At equal numbers, or grossly disproportionate number of conservative groups?” Wallace asked.

    “There are an equal number of groups, but the bad judgment was equal opportunity,” Lew said. “There were a number of supervisors, all career, who exercised bad judgment, who were relieved of their responsibilities. I think what happened there was unjustifiable…[But] there’s no political official who condoned it or authorized it.”

    Wallace invoked the testimony of Carter Hull, an outgoing IRS official, who has said he was ordered to send tea party applications to the chief counsel’s office. The chief counsel, William Wilkins, is one of two political appointees in the IRS, and reports to the Treasury Department.

    “To be clear, there are 1600 lawyers in the chief counsel’s office,” Lew said. “There was no suggestion that this went to the one political person in that office. There’s no evidence of it, there has been no evidence of it.”

    “Wait a minute!” Wallace said. “Have you asked him?”

    “I’m leaving the investigation the proper people who do the investigations—”

    “Has somebody in the Treasury Department asked William Wilkins what he knew about this?” Wallace said.

    “Chris, there is no evidence that this went to any political official.”

    Wallace was not happy with this answer. “Well—there hasn’t been an investigation! The Justice Department’s isn’t complete. The Inspector General never conducted an investigation, he conducted an audit. So where’s the investigation?”

    “An awful lot of time has gone into asking a lot of questions of a lot of people,” Lew said. “I’m not saying it’s done. We will cooperate with all of the ongoing investigations. We have and will. I’m just challenging you’re assertion that something has been shown, when no evidence has been produced to show it.”

    “I’m just wondering why the questions haven’t been asked,” Wallace finished, clearly dissatisfied

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/wallace-destroys-jack-lew-over-irs-scandal-wheres-the-investigation-the-questions-havent-been-asked/

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Evidence may indicate that the IRS was even more corrupt than we thought!

    In response to ampoule's comment:

    Thank you so much for all the information.  I, for one, appreciate it.




    You are most welcome. I will not let it die until the facts are known. Just because some discount it as phoney has no bearing. When the IRS releases the documents and we KNOW what happened then it will go away.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Evidence may indicate that the IRS was even more corrupt than we thought!

    Washington (CNN) -- The Republican congressman spearheading a House probe of alleged Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative political groups accused the head of the IRS on Tuesday of obstructing his panel's investigation.

    California GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, warned acting IRS chief Daniel Werfel that if "the IRS continues to hinder the committee's investigation in any manner, the committee will be forced to consider use of compulsory process."

    Issa did not elaborate on exactly what steps his panel's Republican majority may be prepared to take, though he noted that impeding congressional investigators could result in a prison term of up to five years.

    "Obstructing a congressional investigation is a crime," Issa stressed in a letter co-signed by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.

    "Despite your promise to cooperate fully with congressional investigations, the actions of the IRS under your leadership have made clear to the committee that the agency has no intention of complying completely or promptly with the committee's oversight efforts," Issa said.

    "The systematic manner in which the IRS has attempted to delay, frustrate, impede, and obstruct the committee's investigation raises serious concerns about your commitment to full and unfettered congressional oversight," Issa wrote.

    Responding to Issa's claim, an IRS spokeswoman told CNN the agency is "aggressively responding to the numerous data requests we've received from Congress."

    "We are doing everything we can to fully cooperate with the committees, and we strongly disagree with any suggestions to the contrary," Michelle Eldridge said.

    Among other things, Issa claimed the IRS has handed over only 12,000 of the more than 64 million pages of documents initially identified as potentially relevant to the investigation into the alleged unfair targeting of conservative outfits seeking tax-exempt status.

    "This incredibly slow pace of production has been an unnecessary attempt to frustrate the committee's oversight efforts," he said.

    Edridge, in turn, argued that "while the volume of raw data collected ... is quite high, it is a misleading figure to use in order to determine the volume of material the IRS will ultimately produce."

    "The vast majority of it is completely unrelated to the congressional investigations," she said. "Once the data is limited to the time period in question, and the issue in question, we expect the final tally of produced documents will be far lower -- in the neighborhood of 460,000 documents or fewer."

    Eldridge said 70 of roughly 1,500 attorneys in the IRS chief counsel's office are currently working full time to respond to congressional inquiries into the matter.

    It is a "time and labor intensive review process," she said.

    For his part, Issa also complained that documents produced by the IRS "contain excessive redactions that go well beyond those necessary to protect confidential taxpayer information."

    Furthermore, Issa asserted that a senior IRS official -- Cindy Thomas -- had been "affirmatively prevented" from providing congressional investigators with relevant documents in her possession.

    Additionally, the chairman blasted the IRS for allegedly trying to "carefully orchestrate the public release" of information contained in a 30-day review of the matter back in June -- before providing the information to the committee.

    Issa and other Republicans have insisted for months that after President Barack Obama was first elected, the IRS started unfairly targeting conservative outfits seeking tax-exempt status.

    Democrats, however, argue the IRS improperly scrutinized groups on both the left and right as part of a clumsy attempt to administer vague election-related tax laws.

    IRS inspector general: Liberals also on target list

    At a speech in his home state of Illinois last week, Obama ripped what he labeled Washington's "endless parade of distractions, political posturing and phony scandals."

    The controversy has been the subject of numerous congressional hearings. And on Monday, Issa and Jordan argued for a new investigation -- this time into alleged IRS targeting of conservative groups that already have tax-exempt status.

    Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on Issa's panel, called the information underlying the new assertion "partial and incomplete," and designed to fit a pre-existing "political narrative."

    House GOP leaders have indicated they intend to keep publicly pressing on the issue this week, voting on a proposal to prevent the IRS from implementing or enforcing any provisions in the president's health care reform law.

    Top House Republicans have also suggested their members highlight the matter during the upcoming August congressional recess.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Evidence may indicate that the IRS was even more corrupt than we thought!

    Of course the the IRS Scandal is even more corrupt than we thought ..... that's because Issa is involved in the investigation

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Evidence may indicate that the IRS was even more corrupt than we thought!

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    Of course the the IRS Scandal is even more corrupt than we thought ..... that's because Issa is involved in the investigation



    Yea Democrats hated Starr too.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Evidence may indicate that the IRS was even more corrupt than we thought!

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    tvoter, the poseur who claims to hate government spending, approves of $70,000,000 to investigate one beej?

     

    Oh right. There was a D next to the name so any amount spent on making him look bad was worthwhile.




    lol what a tool, i didnt care at all about the BeeJ; I refused to make excuses for a POTUS that lied under oath!

    but, you knew that.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Evidence may indicate that the IRS was even more corrupt than we thought!

    The Internal Revenue Service's scandalous targeting of tea party and conservative groups refuses to die, as one by one the administration's explanations prove untrue.

    We were told that the White House, like the rest of the country, learned about the program on May 10 through a planted question asked of then IRS official Lois Lerner at an American Bar Association conference. Turns out the White House knew earlier. We were told the targeting was the work of a few rogue IRS employees in Cincinnati. Then those employees insisted that they were being managed from Washington.

    We were told that no political appointees were involved, but now we know the scandal goes at least to the office of Obama appointee and IRS Chief Counsel William Wilkins. We were told that liberal groups were targeted, too. But then the IRS's inspector general, whose report exposed the harassment, clarified that only conservative groups were targeted.

    Now the administration line is that the scandal is nonetheless "phony." That assertion is part of a Democratic counteroffensive contending that the tea party and conservative groups applying for "charitable" tax status never should have sought such IRS approval.

    Rep. Xavier Becerra (D., Calif.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, argued on "Meet the Press" on May 19 that conservative groups were, "under the guise of a charity, [using] undisclosed millions of dollars to do political campaigns." At a May hearing, Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.) claimed that the groups were supposed to spend their money on "charitable activities," and demanded of the IRS, "How could you all in the IRS allow the tax breaks funded basically by the taxpayer [to be spent] on these political campaign expenditures?"

    Liberal columnist Jeffrey Toobin has also taken up the theme that the groups were seeking improper tax advantages. Writing in the May 14 issue of the New Yorker, Mr. Toobin argued that if approved by the IRS, the tea party groups would not pay taxes on contributions received. "In return for the tax advantage," he wrote, these groups "must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates."

    Charities fall under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, and they include the Red Cross, Boy Scouts, churches, private colleges and even overtly agenda-oriented organizations such as the NAACP and the Sierra Club Foundation. Contributions are tax deductible to the donor, and for that reason the organizations are prohibited from engaging in political activities.

     

    Yet conservative groups targeted by the IRS did not seek tax status as charities. They were applying for designation as nonprofits operating under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, for "the promotion of social welfare." Contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations are not tax deductible, so there is no "tax break" for their donors. Nor do the groups themselves get a "tax advantage." Mr. Toobin argues that these groups should be reclassified under Section 527 of the tax code. More on that below, but 527 organizations also pay nothing in taxes. So there is no "tax advantage" to operating as a 501(c)(4).

     

    So why was the IRS involved at all, and why does it matter? The answer is that the IRS scandal is part of a long-term assault on First Amendment rights. Thanks to "campaign finance reform," citizen groups must navigate a maze of government paperwork and apply to the IRS for a tax license to speak on politics. People literally need a lawyer to figure it out, and not just any lawyer, but one from the highly compensated and mostly Washington, D.C.-based bar practicing "political law."

     

    The standard used by the IRS to decide who qualifies for 501(c)(4) tax status is an arbitrary "facts and circumstances" test that few people understand. If more than 50% of an organization's activities might support or oppose candidates under the vague "facts and circumstances" test, then the group is placed in the same tax status—Section 527—as candidate committees, political parties and political-action committees.

     

    Social-welfare groups under Section 501(c)(4) must disclose the campaign activity they undertake, but they do not have to publicly disclose information about their donors and members to either the IRS or the Federal Election Commission. This is the result of 70 years of Supreme Court decisions protecting the privacy right of Americans to associate in groups without disclosing their affiliations to the government.

     

    Democrats want the IRS to require the conservative groups to register as political committees under Section 527. This would increase their regulatory burden by requiring them to file quarterly or monthly reports detailing their receipts and expenditures. It would also force them to reveal personal information about their supporters and members, enabling government retaliation and laying the groundwork for unofficial harassment of those supporters. Such harassment has become a routine tactic of the political left, especially since it was successfully used to target financial supporters of California's Proposition 8—which banned same-sex marriage in the state—to get them fired from jobs, for instance.

     

    IRS apologists argue that Section 501(c)(4) requires organizations to operate "exclusively for the promotion of social welfare," but Section 501(c)(4) has never been interpreted to prohibit all political activity.

     

    This explains why left-wing groups such as MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, Naral Pro-Choice America, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence have operated for years under 501(c)(4) status. They spend millions to support liberal candidates and agendas, with nary a protest from Democrats now raging against the tea parties and other conservatives. By delaying approval for conservative groups, the IRS left them in legal limbo, with uncertain liabilities, obligations and ability to act—exactly what the Obama administration wanted.

     

    But this raises another question: Why aren't political education and discussion a form of promoting "social welfare"? What kind of democracy claims that political participation is not in the interest of "social welfare?"

     

    Rep. Becerra argues that 501(c)(4) status should be reserved for "something good, not groups that are in business to do politics." That's a remarkable statement from a man who has spent the past 22 years in elective office. Yet this is also the logic of the campaign finance "reform" movement that has wielded so much political influence over the last 40 years. Its drumbeat is that participating in public affairs is bad.

     

    Regardless of how high the scandal goes, we should question a culture and philosophy that made so many career IRS officials feel comfortable scrutinizing groups merely because they had "tea party" or "patriot" in their names.

     

    Americans should participate in the political life of the nation. That is what the First Amendment was intended to protect. Shame on those who discourage self-government.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Evidence may indicate that the IRS was even more corrupt than we thought!


    Stalling, Stalling, STALLING

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Evidence may indicate that the IRS was even more corrupt than we thought!


    IRS still targetting conservative groups??

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2387588/Americas-tax-collectors-targeting-tea-party-groups-IRS-agent-told-congressional-investigators.html

     

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share