The Real Cause of The IRS Scandal Dates Back to 1959

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I think that it's pretty much agreed by both sides of the political spectrum that singling out people and/or organizations for tax scrutiny based on their political ideology is not only illegal, but despicable to say the least and I believe that those responsible should be dealt with accordingly.

Now, I'm not sure how many of you watch The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, but he has been talking about something lately that I think everyone should be aware of, which is the real reason behind the IRS scandal.

To sum it up in a nutshell, the original IRS 501(c)(4) statutes which were written by Congress were unilaterally re-defined by the IRS Commissioner of the day back in 1959 and his definition has been used for enforcement purposes to this day.. The actual wording of the statute states;

www.irs.gov...


IRC 501(c)(4) provides for exemption of:
2Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.
2Local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
The statutory terms disclose that IRC 501(c)(4) embraces two general classifications:
a. Social welfare organizations, and b. Local associations of employees.


The change of definition happened in 1959 when the acting IRS Commissioner decided to interpret the word "exclusively," found in line one of the statute, to be defined as "primarily" which completely changed the meaning of the statute. To top it all off, he had no such authority to do so and to this day, Congress has done nothing to reverse it. I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't sue our elected leaders for "Congressional Malpractice."

Here's some recent videos explaining the situation we're in and how we got here;






So if Lawrence O'Donnell is right and I believe he is, the IRS agents who perpetrated this mess should never have been put in the position to have to make a determination of whether or not the "primary" focus of the organization was political or not. Under the actual statute, no political activity will be tolerated on the part of 501(c)(4) applicants.

Was this the first step towards allowing the influence of big money into the halls of government? Is this why organizations like the NRA, which happens to be a 501(c)(4), have more influence over our legislators than "we the people" have? Why has Congress allowed their legislation to be upstaged and re-written by this single IRS Commissioner?

I haven't yet been able to determine just exactly who the IRS Commissioner was in 1959, but I'm definitely curious to know more about him and what, or who, would lead him to make this change in the definition of the statute.

I only saw one Congressman ask questions with respect to this discrepancy at today's hearing and the answers he got were less that fruitful. How can this be anything other than blatantly illegal?




posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Me thinks the river Styx hath frozen over!!! Star and flag for a well done thread that is non partisan and makes a whole lot of sense!

I would just like to take it a step farther and say that the IRS is nothing more than NON governmental agency that is the gestapo force for the Federal Reserve Bank........
edit on 17-5-2013 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   


I think that it's pretty much agreed by both sides of the political spectrum that singling out people and/or organizations for tax scrutiny based on their political ideology is not only illegal, but despicable to say the least and I believe that those responsible should be dealt with accordingly.


Interesting comment which can be tested rather simply.

Given the political manipulation of a government agency to effect the outcome of the last presidential election it would be a fraud.

A being a fraud the current Potus.

So if people really believe that there would be a new election held.

Hands up who wants a new election?



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 


Thanks for the reply.

While I personally wouldn't use the word "gestapo" to describe them, I would wholeheartedly agree that our system of taxation has been completely corrupted and according to what I'm now hearing, some of those doing the corrupting have no such authority to do so.

Why won't Congress address this issue? Why aren't they hollering about this re-definition of the IRS statute being "shoved down their throats?"

I really expected to hear more about this in today's hearings but, with exception of that one Congressman, mum seemed to be the word of the day, at least on this topic.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Good find, (even though I am not a fan of O'Donnell).

I've always thought of the IRS in a bad light. I can understand their original purpose, but I believe that they have gone to far off the rails, with Congressional and Presidential (all of them) support.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
I haven't yet been able to determine just exactly who the IRS Commissioner was in 1959, but I'm definitely curious to know more about him and what, or who, would lead him to make this change in the definition of the statute.


According to Wiki, Dana Latham was the IRS commissioner from Nov 5, 1958 to Jan 20, 1961.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96



I think that it's pretty much agreed by both sides of the political spectrum that singling out people and/or organizations for tax scrutiny based on their political ideology is not only illegal, but despicable to say the least and I believe that those responsible should be dealt with accordingly.


Interesting comment which can be tested rather simply.

Given the political manipulation of a government agency to effect the outcome of the last presidential election it would be a fraud.

A being a fraud the current Potus.

So if people really believe that there would be a new election held.

Hands up who wants a new election?


Are you also asking for a new election to replace every one since 1959? Furthermore, there has not been any evidence that President Obama had any knowledge whatsoever that this was being done.

The real corruption that is at the "head of the snake," is the fact that Congress allowed an IRS Commissioner to re-define their legislation in 1959 and has done nothing to correct it to this day, almost as if they wanted it this way. That's why I mentioned the term, "Congressional Malpractice."

This isn't about your hatred for Obama or your nutty assed idea to hold another election.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeatherNLace

According to Wiki, Dana Latham was the IRS commissioner from Nov 5, 1958 to Jan 20, 1961.

en.wikipedia.org...


Thanks for that bit of information. Now I'm off to do some more digging.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 

Actually the "scandal" or abomination began in 1913 with the passing of the "Federal Reserve" Act, the alleged passing of the Sixteenth Amendment and the creation of the IRS.

Arguably one of the worst years in American history.

In addition to other false claims, the private Federal Reserve was created as a "lender of last resort". But they knew that the states would never agree to tax on incomes as a way to subsidize deficit spending.

Income tax had already been declared unconstitutional (see Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.), so they needed another way to claim this authority on a federal level.

Debt and taxes: the tried and true method of enslaving a population. Never before more apparent than it is now in Europe as they sign their lives away to repay a debt which is nothing more than electronic digits created by central banks.

edit on 17-5-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 





Are you also asking for a new election to replace every one since 1959? Furthermore, there has not been any evidence that President Obama had any knowledge whatsoever that this was being done.


The famous 'He didn't know'!

Awesome


The current administration is the most political in decades He knew anyone who thinks the IRS 'acted Alone' is not living in reality.

For the sake arguement let's say he didn't know(which he did) still wants the job he knows he didn't get the 'honest' way, and all his underlying's were actively electioneering for the guy.

If the above is not acceptable then it's sheer incompetence, pushing for bigger government, and has no clue what government does?

That is why there is that POTUS job in the first place to actually 'run' this country..




The real corruption that is at the "head of the snake," is the fact that Congress allowed an IRS Commissioner to re-define their legislation in 1959 and has done nothing to correct it to this day, almost as if they wanted it this way. That's why I mentioned the term, "Congressional Malpractice."


The real corruption is those who push for bigger government, and more control.
edit on 17-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Congressman: IRS asked pro-life group about 'the content of their prayers'

Tell me again how the IRS 'scandal' has existed since '59.

washingtonexaminer.com...

Report: IRS denied tax-exempt status to pro-lifers on behalf of Planned Parenthood

washingtonexaminer.com...



edit on 17-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
www.alt-market.com...
QUOTE:
The internal IG timeline shows a unit in the agency was looking at Tea Party and "patriot" groups dating back to early 2010. But it shows that list of criteria drastically expanding by the time a June 2011 briefing was held. It then included groups focused on government spending, government debt, taxes, and education on ways to "make America a better place to live." It even flagged groups whose file included criticism of "how the country is being run."

By early 2012, the criteria were updated to include organizations involved in "limiting/expanding government," education on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and social economic reform. END QUOTE:

Maybe the seeds were planted in 59 but the roots of corrupt policies have permeated into the very democratic process some still hold dear.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

The real corruption is those who push for bigger government, and more control.


And that sir, is a figment of your imagination.


You act as if the democrats are out there screaming for bigger government at every opportunity and nothing could be further from the truth, but then maintaining your distance from truth has become the new TP/GOP credo.

Democrats and those who support President Obama are asking for "better" government, not "bigger" government and in this instance, enforcement of the original statute would definitely be a move in the right direction.

The only people out there who are saying that anyone is asking for bigger government is you guys and it's just a flat out lie. Sooner or later, ya'll will come to the realization that just because you say something doesn't make it true and by the time that happens, I fear that your reputation will already be destroyed to the point that no one believes a damn word you have to say. I call that phenomena, "divine order."



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 





And that sir, is a figment of your imagination.


Historical abuses of power by government is a 'figment of imagination' ?

No that is a reality, and its latest incarnation is the IRS who was subsequently given more power thanks to that 'wonderful' care act.




You act as if the democrats are out there screaming for bigger government at every opportunity and nothing could be further from the truth


That is the truth for anyone paying attention to the last 5 years :

Examples: The NDAA, expansion of the patriot act powers, the push for gun control legislation, and healthcare.

Hell the current administrations platform is 'better living through government'.




Democrats and those who support President Obama are asking for "better" government, not "bigger" government


There it is there is no such think as 'better' government because the only way government can be better is smaller,less power, but that is a foreign concept to Democratic supporters.




The only people out there who are saying that anyone is asking for bigger government is you guys and it's just a flat out lie.


Nope as the gun control debate, and the healthcare debates show to all just who exactly is lying.




I fear that your reputation will already be destroyed to the point that no one believes a damn word you have to say. I call that phenomena, "divine order."


I agree if my name was Obama, but it isn't.
edit on 17-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Congressman: IRS asked pro-life group about 'the content of their prayers'

Tell me again how the IRS 'scandal' has existed since '59.

washingtonexaminer.com...

Report: IRS denied tax-exempt status to pro-lifers on behalf of Planned Parenthood

washingtonexaminer.com...


Some of the questions ask by IRS agents to those filing for exemption baffled me as well. When I heard them today, I thought to myself, "who comes up with this crap?"

Well I'm hoping that this question will be answered at some point in the near future and I think I heard the Inspector General imply that there is an ongoing investigation to uncover more of how this took place and who was responsible for these very intrusive and unjustified inquiries.

But, none of that changes the fact that these IRS agents should never have been put in the position of having to determine if politics was the "primary" function of the organization filing for tax exemption. Any indication of political activity whatsoever, should have been the endgate to consideration for 501(c)(4) status as the original statute clearly states that qualifying organizations must operate "exclusively" in the interest of social welfare.

Just knowing how the term "social welfare" gets stuck in the craw of TP/GOP supporters, I'm beginning to see some reasoning behind the possible motive for re-defining the original statute.




edit on 17-5-2013 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Then you must hold a deep seeded hatred for our founding fathers for even creating a government in the first place. Sounds like you just hate everything about America from it's very inception.

edit on 17-5-2013 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Great OP, Flatfish! Lots of great information that I know I never had any idea of at all.


S&F



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by neo96
 


Then you must hold a deep seeded hatred for our founding fathers for even creating a government in the first place. Sounds like you just hate everything about America from it's very inception.

edit on 17-5-2013 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)


The founders didn't create the current incarnation of what we call 'government'

That is a fact that can be taken to any fiat currency bank.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


What? You're stating that the reason for the political attacking is the interpretation of the statute? What a truly remarkably foolish notion.

The argument isn't whether their interpretation is correct, the argument is ONLY why were they told to do this and why did they AGREE? The obfuscation will come with the following: the REAL problem is that the IRS people simply can't follow all the rules, they were all just doing their job and did nothing wrong because the rules are so hard to understand. This is nuts, the tax folks are used and have been used as a weapon, period. The only question at hand is whether or not the private collection agency should be used as a weapon at all.

Watch, in two weeks, two weeks, the full blown TV argument will completely center around the unholy crises that is tax exempt anybody, and how NO ONE in these times of non stop war should shirk this share. Watch, in two weeks there will be zero mention of those or ordered the effort, or those who did it gleefully, and the demon will be those who don't pay but have to. Salvo one is this stupid argument about confusion over the statute.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

The founders didn't create the current incarnation of what we call 'government'


Well there's something that we can probably agree on. But then, they were dealing with a nation that consisted of 13 colonies and a population of less than 3 million, not a nation of 50 states and a population of 300 million.

One could only expect a little growth in the size of government over the years in order to meet the demands of a growing nation.





top topics
 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join