IRS 'targeted' groups with 'Occupy' and 'Progressive' in names

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



The IRS wasn't after just the Tea Party, Progressives, or Medical Marijuana: Open Source Software was a regular on IRS watch lists from 2010 to 2012. Did they think it was a for-profit scam, or did they just not understand the approach?"


yro.slashdot.org...

so now we have,
tea party ect
occupy ect
open source ect

all being targeted,
at what point de we just admit the only problem is that everyone who applied for tax exempt status got scrutiny?

i admit that that the BOLO (be on the look out) list were illegal,
but its starting to look like everyone who applied got investigated.

if they cant investigate for fear of backlash should these exemptions just be granted to everyone who applies?

xploder




posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


charles1952 has it right.

this new "news" is just a scheme to attempt to justify the whole thing.

"just doing their jobs" is total BeeEss.

This is a White House plot to divert the guilt.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Who cares who the IRS targets?

Just fire them all anyways for being tyrants and because "No Taxation without Representation!"



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Dear anyone,

When I have new information, I believe it's wrong to hide it, whether it's for my position or against it.

I have learned that "progressive" groups were on the same list as "conservative" groups. But what happened after that is very interesting.

Eliana Johnson explains the phoniness:

...screeners were instructed to treat progressive groups differently from tea-party groups. Whereas they were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status "may not be appropriate" for progressive groups - 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from conducting any political activity - they were told to send applications from tea-party groups off to IRS higher-ups for further scrutiny.

That means the applications of progressive organizations could be approved by line agents on the spot, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were "currently being coordinated with EOT" - Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive organizations were not.

www.americanthinker.com...

Hope that helps with the understanding. Yes, "conservative" groups were treated more harshly than "progressive" groups, even though both were on the list.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


dear charles,
sometimes if you go looking for something by excluding everything else you can see what you want to not whats there,


The Treasury inspector general (IG) whose report helped drive the IRS targeting controversy says it limited its examination to conservative groups because of a request from House Republicans.
A spokesman for Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, said they were asked by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) “to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations.”


www.dailykos.com...


On Monday, we learned that the IRS didn't single out tea party groups after all. Instead, they were looking for political groups, including not just tea party groups, but progressive groups as well. They may have used a flawed method for flagging the groups, but the IRS's intent was clear: to identify political groups that were not legally entitled to receive the tax-exempt benefit they sought to receive.


lets have an investigation and ignore everyone else who were investigated,
and cause controversy because "our guys" were investigated without pointing out so was everyone else.

no one seems out raged occupy was scrutinized,
and that fact was intentionally left out of the debate.

you are not being persecuted by the IRS unless your saying that charity should be allowed to be used for politics and electioneering

xploder



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 

Dear XPLodER,

Apparently this is something I'll have to give more time to, thanks.

As far as what I think your point is, well, I'm not sure. We know that just about every government official has apologized for the IRS targeting conservative groups. The IRS Inspector General says the applications of such groups were handled improperly. It's been going on since 2010. At least 41 conservative groups have joined a law suit against the IRS. There are many stories in the press from individual conservative groups describing the IRS's impropriety. It was complaints from conservative groups to their Congressmen that got this started.

And you're suggesting what? That liberal groups were targeted, too? You pretty much have to believe that. How do we explain the lack of squawking from liberal groups? They don't mind being abused by the IRS? The Tea Party groups can get press coverage, but liberal groups can't?

No reasonable explanation has been offered. It's been proven that Conservative groups were treated badly and they squawked. We don't yet have proof that Liberal groups have been treated badly, and they haven't squawked.

I'd really appreciate an explanation.

With respect.
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by XPLodER
 

And you're suggesting what? That liberal groups were targeted, too? You pretty much have to believe that. How do we explain the lack of squawking from liberal groups? They don't mind being abused by the IRS? The Tea Party groups can get press coverage, but liberal groups can't?


Media coverage of the Occupy protests was very limited and heavily biased (as summed up in this cartoon: scottdagostino.files.wordpress.com... ) for perhaps somewhat understandable reasons. Covering the protest adequately would have likely caused the major media to basically bite the hands that feed them as advertising is the number one revenue stream for news sites. I know that locally the first march of Occupy here had an estimate of over 10,000 participants. CNN reported it as being "hundreds". While the Tea Party were left fairly alone, the Occupy Movement was crushed under a heavy boot. If there is any reason why this particular liberal group isn't screaming, it's because it was all but murdered for protesting about the bank bail out and scandals and the Supreme Court decision in FEC v. Citizens United that shifted political control further towards corporations. Can't scream if you're all but dead.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
IMO the different reactions to the IRS "targeting" comes from differing views on the IRS. Go back 50 years. Most Americans hate paying taxes, but The Left was neutral as to the IRS. The Far Left was blowing up banks and military related offices/buildings. They did join the war tax resistance, but the IRS itself as an organization did not inflame passions.

This was different than the Far Right. The Far Right saw the IRS as an example of creeping Socialism and/or Communism. Passions were inflamed to destroy the IRS as an institution. A godfather of the Tax Protest Movement


Porth becomes an activist and garners something of a following among right-wing audiences, traveling around the country distributing tax protest literature that includes a book, A Manual for Those Who Think That They Must Pay an Income Tax.

source

The far right, extremist John Birch Society helped spread their anti-govt passion after 1980, with followers donating money to establish think tanks and support various far right groups. And people like the Koch family had lots of money to help spread their extremist views and influence politics.


the Kochs, like many other hard-right conservatives, redefine “socialism” as almost any form of government which taxes citizens and regulates businesses.

source

When Darrell Issa wants to "expose a scandal", he really intends to throw red meat out to his party's base (which includes Tea Party/Patriot organizations) to inflame their passions. (anti-Obama, anti-govt, anti-IRS) And that base plays right into the Koch corporate mantra of "getting govt off our backs", i.e. we don't like taxes and regulations on our corporations.

On closer inspection, where the Left would see bureaucratic bumblings in trying to get a job done efficiently, the Right sees another example of the evils of govt.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by desert
 

I could really use a little clarification, please.

On closer inspection, where the Left would see bureaucratic bumblings in trying to get a job done efficiently, the Right sees another example of the evils of govt.
Do you mean that the Left sees the current IRS episode as "bureaucratic bumbling," and nothing more?



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Yes, that is my contention. To handle the increase in applications, "non-neutral" filters were used, but that action was not a nefarious plot to harass certain groups.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by desert
 

Dear desert,

You might be right about the increase in applications, but I and others have doubts.


Both Steven Miller, the agency’s acting commissioner until he stepped down Wednesday, and Lois Lerner, director of the agency’s exempt-organization division, have said over the past week that IRS officials started the scrutiny after observing a surge in applications for status as 501(c)(4) “social welfare” groups. Both officials cited an increase from about 1,500 applications in 2010 and to nearly 3,500 in 2012. President Obama asked Mr. Miller to resign on Wednesday.

The scrutiny began, however, in March 2010, before an uptick could have been observed, according to data contained in the audit released Tuesday from the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration.

The number of 501(c)(4) applications for all of 2010 was actually less than in 2009.

“It doesn’t bear out the statement that there was a surge in 2010,” said Bruce Hopkins, a tax attorney specializing in nonprofits. “That’s inconsistent with what Lois said last week.”


philanthropy.com...

So it appears that the "non-neutral" examinations weren't caused by application pressure.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   
The Treasury IG said: "...While we have multiple sources of information corroborating
the use of Tea Party and other related criteria we described in our report, including
employee interviews, e-mails, and other documents, we found no indication in any of
these other materials that "Progressives" was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for
political campaign intervention.

Based on the information you flagged regarding the existence of a 'Progressives' entry on BOLO lists, TIGTA performed additional research which determined that six tax-exempt applications filed between May 2010 and May 2012 having the words 'progress' or 'progressive' in their names were included in the 298 cases the IRS identified as potential political cases. We also determined that 14 tax-exempt applications filed between May 2010 and May 2012 using the words 'progress' or 'progressive' in their names were not referred for added scrutiny as potential political cases. In total, 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words 'progress' or "progressive" in their names were processed as potential political cases. In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the timeframe of our audit."

(PDF of letter)
Treasury Inspector General Response

Either he made it up, or the standards were applied unfairly.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


there is more than two options
you see if the tea party groups were emailing each other instructions on how to apply then the whole lot could be investigated,

there were massively more tea party groups applying
and if they colluded to apply via email to apply, that would then be enough to look at "the group" in more depth

that is but one example of another option.

xploder



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   
The IG report tells us why they were selected for investigation. Apparently, they were chosen because of the names on the BOLO list. Why were 70% of the left-leaning organizations not given further scrutiny, while 100% of the right-leaning groups were? You're spinning the IG report just like you're spinning the original BOLO list to imply that the law was applied appropriately.

"we found no indication in any of these other materials that "Progressives" was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention."


And frankly, I'm disgusted with money in our campaigns, so I'd like to see all of them done away with, left or right. The report, if you read it, says nearly 70% of the cases selected for further scrutiny (of all leanings) should have been reviewed based on actual criteria --and that more than 175 additional cases should have been investigated, but were not (how much money would you like to bet/lose that these groups are predominantly left-leaning).

It is possible (but extremely unlikely) that 100% of the conservative groups should have been investigated -- but even if true it would be a distraction to the real issue of whether the law was applied fairly and equally across the board. If your best defense is that the groups were properly investigated because of the names appearance on the BOLO, we're still left scratching our heads as to why the other cases ("Progressive", "Occupy", etc) were not properly investigated. So let us not pretend this was being applied fairly when the IG who had access to all the information has found otherwise. If it's your endless and nameless hypotheticals against the IG report who already undertook the investigation, I have a pretty good idea on who I find more reliable.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
The IG report tells us why they were selected for investigation. Apparently, they were chosen because of the names on the BOLO list. Why were 70% of the left-leaning organizations not given further scrutiny, while 100% of the right-leaning groups were? You're spinning the IG report just like you're spinning the original BOLO list to imply that the law was applied appropriately.


i have already stated the BOLO lists WERE illegal, and that their USE was not proper.
you "contend" that what happened after the BOLO lists was targeting,
i contend what was done after the BOLO lists was legal.
you ignore the possibility that these groups "colluded" with each other, and therefore were investigated as a whole.



"we found no indication in any of these other materials that "Progressives" was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention."


no but
occupy
open source
and others were on the BOLO lists


And frankly, I'm disgusted with money in our campaigns,


so am i


so I'd like to see all of them done away with, left or right. The report, if you read it, says nearly 70% of the cases selected for further scrutiny (of all leanings) should have been reviewed based on actual criteria --and that more than 175 additional cases should have been investigated, but were not (how much money would you like to bet/lose that these groups are predominantly left-leaning).


the irs office was de-funded.
they had MORE applications to process with less staff thanks to cuts in staff levels.

it is my personal opinion that tea party groups communicated their want for tax exempt status,
and were "coached" on how to apply, what to state and how to structure the charity so that 49% of the tax exempt money raised could be used for politics.

if this was the case then the IRS would ask for emails on any group that applied with tea party in their name.

an important point would be,
IF all the tea party groups used the same blueprint for application, and that application was illegal then that would give the IRS the ability to scan emails from these groups to see if a political group (tea party) was getting tax advice from one source.

now do you not find it odd that SO MANY tea party groups "applied" for exemption "ALL AT THE SAME TIME" ?

THE REAL QUESTION HERE IS WHY SO MANY TEA PARTY GROUPS APPLIED ALL AT ONCE?



It is possible (but extremely unlikely) that 100% of the conservative groups should have been investigated -- but even if true it would be a distraction to the real issue of whether the law was applied fairly and equally across the board. If your best defense is that the groups were properly investigated because of the names appearance on the BOLO, we're still left scratching our heads as to why the other cases ("Progressive", "Occupy", etc) were not properly investigated. So let us not pretend this was being applied fairly when the IG who had access to all the information has found otherwise. If it's your endless and nameless hypotheticals against the IG report who already undertook the investigation, I have a pretty good idea on who I find more reliable.




their would be criteria, that would come into play once some connection to another application for exemption was found.

it has been noted that most of the left leaning groups applied independently of each other, and had no political
wing of their organization.

i believe all of this distracts from the real crime of subverting charity (tax exempt status)
for political purposes.

lets see a 1-1 investigation left-right

so IF the outcome was fair.
rather than complain about the process

xploder



edit on 1/7/13 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
you ignore the possibility that these groups "colluded" with each other, and therefore were investigated as a whole.

You're right, I'm ignoring a hypothetical you invented that there is no evidence of.


THE REAL QUESTION HERE IS WHY SO MANY TEA PARTY GROUPS APPLIED ALL AT ONCE?

The same reason there was an uptick in left-leaning organizations. People with money trying their best at social engineering before the elections.


i believe all of this distracts from the real crime of subverting charity (tax exempt status)
for political purposes.

No, they should string them all up, left or right. And 69% of the investigations had a legal reason to take further action. I'm all for that. I'm against action taken solely on the basis of a groups name, especially when it is not applied equally across the board.



rather than complain about the process

The ends justifies the means is not supposed to be the rule of law in this land.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Charles dear, it was 16 less ..16 ... calculating ... calculating ... .9% ... that's point nine percent in case the decimal point doesn't show up clearly ...less than 1%. IMO whatwith the 2008 rule requiring ANOTHER FORM (990N) for 501c's to fill out, I still contend that someone at the IRS decided a clever way to handle the amount of incoming applications even in 2009 was to institute the filters, which were put in place early in 2010 and proudly used till the practice was questioned.

I know someone who stood in line at my local DMV office over 4 hours ... even with an appointment! It's not just the wheels of justice that grind slowly!

Karl Rove and the Sierra Club no doubt have lawyers and accountants do all the interface with the IRS for them. We "little people" get stuck trying to do paperwork either alone or with much less help. And I believe that many of us justifiably complain of the time and questions asked, because we have to do all the legwork.

Even this Republican lawmaker made a point to not rule out "ineffective management"

“At the very least it's ineffective management,” Boustany says. “We know some egregious abuses occurred at the IRS and whether it's ineffective management, negligence, or deliberate political egregious violations of First Amendment rights for political purposes, we’re going to get to the bottom of it.”

source

He actually started his probe in 2011. Even his justice grinds slowly for his constituents.

Mr. Issa picks this up as something worthy of a scandal. Once again Mr. Issa makes an ass out of himself, but he doesn't mind, because it's all for a worthy cause. He loves looking sincere and honest, playing the game as any sociopath would. At least this time even fellow party members cautioned him about overplaying his hand.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by desert
 

Dear desert,

Thanks for the kind reply. I think you make a fair point that bureaucratic ineptitude is involved. I'm afraid I still have a couple of questions.

If, as you point out, these "questionable" shortcuts have been in place for at least four years, why were they not changed or leaked? It didn't take Snowden even a year. Were these the only shortcuts which could have been used? I could see it if the IRS went through a tax season, then said "These shortcuts are really unfair, let's change them."

The other thing which creates a huge impression in my mind is the large parade of high government officials saying, "This was outrageous, we're deeply sorry. We'll get rid of the IRS head (two weeks before he was scheduled to retire anyway), I plead the Fifth, etc." If the whole thing was a simple bureacratic mistake, I don't understand the breast beating. Even Jon Daley (sp?) called it a real scandal on his program.

Then, whether it was intended or not, the effect was to harm one side of the political spectrum much more than the other. The government has no hesitation in going after actions which have no bad intent, but a bad effect. Just ask the companies which used to run criminal background checks prior to hiring. The EEOC is now declaring that practice is discriminatory because a greater percentage of blacks have criminal records than whites.

But a good post, for which I thank you.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


you said,

Either he made it up, or the standards were applied unfairly.

that statement implies there is only two options.

you said,

You're right, I'm ignoring a hypothetical you invented that there is no evidence of.


i said,

you ignore the possibility that these groups "colluded" with each other, and therefore were investigated as a whole.


you saying there is ONLY two options (that you know about) is countered by my example of why (hypothetical) the whole group could be considered for investigation as a group.

this is in effect one of many possabilites on offer other than simple malice.
this is only hypothetical and only offered to show you there might be many reasons to investigate a group instead of individual applicants.


No, they should string them all up, left or right. And 69% of the investigations had a legal reason to take further action. I'm all for that. I'm against action taken solely on the basis of a groups name, especially when it is not applied equally across the board.


IF there was not collusion between groups, to apply as a individual yet act as a group then i agree.
in fact why dont ALL groups get investigated as a matter of course?
is it because the office had staff levels cut?


The ends justifies the means is not supposed to be the rule of law in this land.


i am not suggesting it is,
i think a 1-1 audit would give us a more clear picture.

you cant disagree that the only way to see if the whole thing WAS fair is to take a look at the outcome,
if what you claim is correct then there should be a clear correlation between groups who should have been investigated,
and their stated reason for exemption, and weather they were actually electioneering

xploder



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


hello


Dark Money Group Spent On House Race, Then Told IRS It Didn’t


www.nationalmemo.com...


Such social welfare nonprofits are not supposed to have political campaign activity as their primary purpose — but the ambiguities around how the IRS measures such activity and how it screens the groups are at the center of the recent investigations of the IRS’s treatment of Tea Party groups.

ProPublica has documented how nonprofits that spent millions of dollars on ads in the 2010 elections failed to report or underreported that political spending to the IRS. The tax form that the groups are required to file with the IRS specifically asks for details on any campaign spending.


what if all the claims of targeting, are to distract from under reporting of political spending.........?

xploder





new topics
 
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join