Gene363
  • Gene363
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
13 years ago
From NPR, NOT Fox news.🐴


...Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups, said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association:

"That the practice was initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati and was not motivated by political bias. After her talk, she told The AP that no high level IRS officials knew about the practice. She did not say when they found out."

Lerner said some organizations that included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in applications for tax-exempt status were put through unnecessary, additional reviews, the AP adds.

Lerner told the conference that about 75 organizations that were "tea party" or "patriot" groups were singled out. She said the extra scrutiny came in part because there was a surge in applications from groups seeking tax-exempt status. As reviewers searched for signs that some of the groups might be engaging in political activity (which could disqualify them from being granted tax-exempt status), they looked for keywords. Among those that the reviewers looked for were "tea party" and "patriot."



http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/10/182867374/irs-apologizes-for-singling-out-tea-party-and-patriot-groups 
teedubbya
13 years ago
Read this earlier. THIS is bad ju ju. WTF? Someone needs to go.
teedubbya
13 years ago
‘I’m not good at math’: The IRS’ public relations disaster
Posted by Aaron Blake on May 10, 2013 at 2:18 pm

About a half-hour into a conference call with reporters Friday afternoon, senior Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner said something she will regret.

“I’m not good at math,” she confessed as she tried to summon a statistic.

Lerner clarified that she is a lawyer and not an accountant (a fair defense) but the remark instantly blew up on Twitter — an IRS official being bad at math!? — and wound up punctuating what was a torturous response to the IRS’ admission that it inappropriately targeted tea party groups.

A skeptical press corps peppered Lerner with questions, many of which she and her staff were unable or unwilling to answer.

A sampling:

1. IRS officials claimed that there was no political bias behind the targeting of these conservative groups, but they failed to produce any examples of similar targeting of groups with non-conservative-sounding names. Initially, they suggested that other non-conservative-sounding names might have been targeted. By the end of the call, though, Lerner acknowledged: “I only said that because I never like to say ‘absolutely not.’ I don’t have any information on that.”

2. Lerner wouldn’t say whether anyone is being disciplined, then appeared to say there was no disciplinary action, then went back to saying she wouldn’t comment. Federal personnel rules appear to prohibit Lerner from discussing discipline, so she has some justification for not commenting. But that justification was never explained, and instead she was pressed repeatedly on why she wouldn’t discuss discipline.

3. Lerner said she disclosed the information because someone asked her about it Friday morning — indicating that she had no plans to release the information publicly, despite the confirmed wrongdoing.

4. When asked how they found out about the wrongdoing, Lerner said the investigation stemmed from media reports about conservative groups claiming that they were targeted, not from any internal review.

5. Lerner and her staff tried to get off the phone call after less than half an hour of questioning, but Columbia Journalism Review reporter (and Pulitzer Prize winner) David Cay Johnston informed them that they had better stay and answer everyone’s questions. They stayed on the call for another 20 minutes. By the end, they said Lerner had to get to some appointments and cited the “repetitive” line of questioning. Johnston informed them that it was because they weren’t answering the questions.

teedubbya
13 years ago
Following tea party complaints, IRS admits 'mistakes'

Posted by
CNN's Ashley Killough
(CNN) - Responding to a flurry of complaints from conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, the Internal Revenue Service admitted Friday it made "mistakes" in the last few years while trying to process those requests.

Multiple tea party groups reported significant delays and excessive questioning from IRS officials while trying to obtain 501(c)(4) status.



While the groups and conservative members of Congress cried foul, the agency strongly contests the notion that groups were targeted out of political bias.

Lois Lerner, director of tax exempt organizations for the IRS, said on a conference call Friday that the IRS office in Cincinnati that handles most applications for 501(c)(4) status had seen a strong uptick in applications of 1,500 to 3,400 between 2010 and 2012.

Any applications that were incomplete, lacked consistent information, or indicated a group would be involved with some type of advocacy, were filed into a certain group for further review.

However, approximately 75 of the 300 groups that were filed for further review were simply filed because they had the names "tea party" and "patriot," Lerner said.

"They did pick the cases by names and that's absolutely inappropriate and not the way we should do things," she said, though stressing it was done as a "shortcut," not out of "political bias."

Lerner did not disclose what the remainder of the 300 groups had in common, or whether they had any political affiliations. She repeated that they ranged across a "broad spectrum" of groups and did not release any names.

"It was an error in judgment and it wasn't appropriate," Lerner said. "But that's what they did."

The AP first reported Friday's IRS admission, when Lerner answered a question about the issue at a conference in Washington. The IRS later held the conference call with reporters.

Groups applying for tax exempt status are allowed to do advocacy, so long as their primary activities are dedicated to "social welfare," according to IRS rules. When an advocacy case is filed for further review, the IRS tries to determine if the group plans on sticking by that calculus.

However, when the IRS employees were seeking to make that determination, Lerner admitted they went too far.

"Some of the letters were far too broad," she said, adding that some asked for donor lists. "When this came to my attention, we took some action to try and undo some of these things."

See a sampling of a questionnaire (provided by The American Center for Law and Justice).

When Eric Wilson, executive director for the Kentucky 9/12 Project, filed for not-for-profit status in December 2010, he was told he'd receive a response within 90 days. What he received instead was an inquiry with a total of 88 questions asking for what he describes as "far reaching information."

They wanted membership lists and detailed information about directors of the group, such as their private activities outside the organization, he said. They also requested copies of pages on their website and social media accounts, such as Facebook and Twitter.

To comply with every request, Wilson said it would have required 5,000 printed pages. "They were trying to bury us in time and money," he said.

Wilson responded with a one-page letter, saying the questionnaire was beyond normal requests and they would not comply. He started noticing posts online and through contact with like-minded conservative groups that they were receiving similar questions from the IRS.

Last month, on April 1, Wilson finally received his approval letter from the agency in a 200-word letter, simply stating they had been designated a 501(c)(4) organization with no explanation for the delay.

While Wilson described the IRS' comments today as a "victory for free speech and liberty," he still wants more questions answered and called for further review.

The issue began getting national attention, with members of Congress weighing in and legal groups fighting on behalf of the conservative groups. In March 2012, a dozen U.S. senators led by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, sent a letter to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman asking for more information about this situation.

The American Center for Law and Justice in Washington represented 27 of the groups and lobbied for action to be taken on the matter.

"The IRS admission and apology should have come much sooner," Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, said. "It took the threat of legal action to get the IRS to make this admission. And while many of the organizations we represent have finally been granted tax-exempt status, we demand the IRS to immediately approve the pending applications for the remainder of our clients."

Tom Zawistowski, executive director for the Portage County TEA Party who helped lead the then-Ohio Liberty Council, also experienced difficulty for three years and worked with the ACLJ. He said Friday the apology was "appropriate."

"I think it was without doubt wrong. We knew it was wrong in the beginning," he said. "They had no right, whatsoever,...no right to deny us tax exempt status that 501(c)(4) groups routinely received."

Zawistowski said he has a four-inch thick binder of stuff they were asked to send, including speakers lists and printouts of every page from its website and Facebook page, every tweet.

Click here and here to see the questionnaire sent to Zawistowski.

He also refused to comply. Zawistowski applied for the status in June 2009 and received final confirmation on December 22, 2012.

In an appearance before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight in March 2012, Shulman was asked about the controversy. Rep. Charles Boustany, R-Louisiana, asked if it was true the IRS was politically targeting conservative groups.

"Yes, I can give you assurances. We pride ourselves in being a non-political, non-partisan organization," he said. "There is absolutely no targeting. This is the kind of back and forth that happens when people apply for 501(c)(4) status."

Reaction to the IRS' admission was swift. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced Friday the House would investigate the matter, saying in a statement "the IRS cannot target or intimidate any individual or organization based on their political beliefs."

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell called on the White House to conduct "a transparent, government-wide review" to ensure similar practices weren't being carried out at other agencies.

McConnell, who called an apology from the IRS insufficient, deemed the IRS tactics "political thuggery" with no place in American politics.

"Now more than ever we need to send a clear message to the Obama Administration that the First Amendment is non-negotiable, and that apologies after an election year are not an sufficient response to what we now know took place at the IRS," McConnell wrote in a statement.

The left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union also called out the IRS.

"Even the appearance of playing partisan politics with the tax code is about as constitutionally troubling as it gets," Michael Macleod-Ball, chief of staff at the ACLU's Washington legislative office, said in a statement. "With the recent push to grant federal agencies broad new powers to mandate donor disclosure for advocacy groups on both the left and the right, there must be clear checks in place to prevent this from ever happening again."

Tea Party groups were similarly incensed. The Tea Party Patriots, one of the nation's largest, rejected an IRS apology and insisted on resignation from the officials involved in the targeting.

"The IRS has demonstrated the most disturbing, illegal and outrageous abuse of government power," wrote Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator for Tea Party Patriots, in a statement. "This deliberate targeting and harassment of tea party groups reaches a new low in illegal government activity and overreach."

Meanwhile, two Republicans on the House Oversight Committee, Chairman Darrell Issa and Rep. Jim Jordan, wrote in a joint statement, "The fact that Americans were targeted by the IRS because of their political beliefs is unconscionable. The Committee will aggressively follow up on the IG report and hold responsible officials accountable for this political retaliation."

The Democratic chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Sen. Carl Levin, also said an investigation into the matter was required.

Treasury Spokesman Anthony Coley said his department would "fully support the IRS Inspector General's review of this matter."

"The Treasury Department expects all individuals and organizations to be treated fairly by the IRS. Anything less is inappropriate and unacceptable," Coley said.

Jay Carney, President Barack Obama's press secretary, said Friday the IRS' actions were "inappropriate."

"We would fully expect the investigation to be thorough and for corrections to be made in a case like this," Carney continued. "And I believe the IRS has addressed that and has taken some action, and there's an investigation ongoing."

Of the 300 groups that were filed for further review, 130 have been approved, 180 are still in process and about 25 are under review, Lerner said.

Asked when the IRS began looking into complaints, Lerner said she could not give a time frame. Pressed further on when senior IRS officials became aware of the situation, Lerner said she "did not feel comfortable answering."

Lerner said they have implemented changes to prevent similar mistakes in the future. When asked if there has been disciplinary action, Lerner said "No." Attempting to clarify later, she said she meant to say she wouldn't comment on personnel issues.

snowwolf777
13 years ago
Hey, they said they were sorry.

You people have to learn to forgive and forget.

You know who you are.

🐴
jetblasted
13 years ago
So it seems anyone who is not affiliated with the Democratic Party is now considered an enemy of the State.
Gene363
  • Gene363
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
13 years ago

So it seems anyone who is not affiliated with the Democratic Party is now considered an enemy of the State.

jetblasted wrote:



Yup, no Obama cone of protection.

Brewha
13 years ago


Yup, no Obama cone of protection.

Gene363 wrote:


Not yet. 'Cone issues' have to be canonized by Le HockeyDad.
Gene363
  • Gene363
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
13 years ago

Not yet. 'Cone issues' have to be canonized by Le HockeyDad.

Brewha wrote:



True, but you know what he is going to say. [frypan]
Burner02
13 years ago
Think they are really sorry?

Welcome to the new world order.
Brewha
13 years ago

True, but you know what he is going to say. [frypan]

Gene363 wrote:


Meaningless until Beldar weights in . . . .
Gene363
  • Gene363
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
13 years ago

Meaningless until Beldar weights in . . . .

Brewha wrote:



Oh my, he's gotten to you, was it a reeducation camp director position?

rfenst
13 years ago
OK.

I read everything above and the seemingly unanimous incriminations of the situation(s) by both sides of the isle and the Executive Branch. Given that such bipartisanship denouncement is so rare, I hypothesized that politics may not be the only reason for what seems to have happened. So, I started to try to read the actual IRS code at the heart of the matter. Surprise, surprise! A person needs to be born with a particular set of brain cells organized in a very specific pattern to even be able to be trained to understand what's involved- and I certainly am not one of them.

So, I found an IRS publication that is supposed to explain matters more easily and while I do not profess to truly understanding some to much of what I read, here is my non-political, background summary:

Average time for approval of a properly and fully documented Application for a 501(c)(4) about 10-15 years ago was 90 days. When an Applications was incomplete or the IRS needed further, additional information and/or documentation, the average approval time extended out to 210 days. Mind you, this was a decade ago. PACs were certainly around, but not like they were in the last two Presidential Elections. More recent indications of the time frames are averages of 60-365 days. Remember well, these are just the averages.

The problem, it seems, purely from the IRS' perspective is that a Subsection (4) is not taxable while a 501(c)(3) is taxable. Likewise, donations to each are tax deductible and non-tax deductible, respectively. So, the implication I see is that there is a ton of money here and there are very serious financial advantage to one type of Subsection organization vs. the other and their donors. Obviously, it is highly likely the norm that every somewhat similar organization tries to obtain the economically more advantageous Subsection (4) approval.

Hyper-complexity arises in part because both permit political lobbying, contributions, and support for specific issues and candidates. And, there is further technical complexity in the matter because a Subsection(4) is even permitted to own a Subsection (3). That is, a tax exempt organization can own its own non-tax exempt organization. Go figure that one out!

As one may suspect, the two Subsections have different contribution and reporting rules regarding contributor lists and the corresponding amounts one can lawfully contribute to each. On top of that, there is the issue of anonymous donation vs. identified donation reporting rules, which are based on how the two types of organizations operate.

And, the Application process is beyond complex, while at the same time it is my personal experience that the number of qualified 501(c)(3-4) accountants and lawyers in each state is very, very small- and further diminished by partisan politics.

So, my best bipartisan suspicion is that many organizations' Subsection (c)(4) applicants are unable to adequately prepare their own Applications because they simply lack the expertise (no surprise);don't even actually realize the maze they are walking in to; and cannot afford to hire professional assistance. This is a non-partisan shame for each of the separate "grass roots" organizations in each state which are not, by definition affiliated with one another, let alone a national umbrella organization.

Without personally getting in to the politics of all of this and the pointing of fingers, I found the following to be the least partisan in nature and most helpful in realizing and kind of understanding the unfathomable complexities here:


www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicl03.pdf‎

www.levin.senate.gov/download/?id=e113a062-73bb-42dd-bf16
www.levin.senate.gov/download/?id=9599e4e1-0fc6-48f6-83aa
www.levin.senate.gov/download/?id=6d757f18-737b-4d8f-b7b0

For those who simply can put their partisanship/ideology aside, I can honestly tell you that the links to letters back and forth from Senator Levin and the IRS are truly helpful to understanding all this IRS crap is... crap, and it seems like his promise to delve into campaign reform during this, his last term, is very serious- and hopefully as sincere as I think it just may be. Having spent a few hours learning a bit, I am further convinced that considering government paid for run-offs and elections is worthy of further consideration...
HockeyDad
13 years ago

OK.

Given that such bipartisanship denouncement is so rare,

rfenst wrote:




By bipartisan do you the Tea Party and the Republicans?! Democrats aren't too worried about it.

Cone Of Protection status is not available to 3rd parties. We live in a perfectly good one err two party system and there is no room for anyone else.
rfenst
13 years ago

We live in a perfectly good one err two party system and there is no room for anyone else.

HockeyDad wrote:



Yup. For now.
teedubbya
13 years ago
The White House denounces it now, after the election is over and after they have been forced to.

This is not bipartisan outrage. It has been partisan outrage all along. I think you've been politically hoodwinked.

Something really smells here.
rfenst
13 years ago

The White House denounces it now, after the election is over and after they have been forced to.

This is not bipartisan outrage. It has been partisan outrage all along. I think you've been politically hoodwinked.

Something really smells here.

teedubbya wrote:



Agreed. Someone will step down, asked to resign or be fired as a sacrifice. That person or an underling or two will be fired too- and then sing like a bird!
ZRX1200
13 years ago
I love how their is no investigation into this but EVERY MOTHER FUGGIN news outlet is reporting "lower level employees"...........

May very well be the case but this believe what your told do no investigation media is pathetic.


Lazy pieces of sheet so it from both sides too not just D or R.
snowwolf777
13 years ago
Patience, please! They are still retooling the Benghazi talking points.

The paperwork is piling up. IRS scandal talking points have been pushed off for the next month or two.

In place of a test pattern, we will be looping footage of the Imperial Leader's inspiring call to that gay basketball player.[frypan]
HockeyDad
13 years ago
The important thing is we need to ban assault rifles.
Users browsing this topic