The IRS wants YOU — to share everything

[badrose]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/the-irs-wants-you-to-share-everything-91378.html

The Internal Revenue Service asked tea party groups to see donor rolls.
It asked for printouts of Facebook posts.
And it asked what books people were reading.
A POLITICO review of documents from 11 tea party and conservative groups that the IRS scrutinized in 2012 shows the agency wanted to know everything — in some cases, it even seemed curious what members were thinking. The review included interviews with groups or their representatives from Hawaii, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas and elsewhere.
The long-awaited Treasury Department inspector general report released Tuesday says the agency itself decided some of its questions to conservative groups were way over the line — especially the one about donors.
(Also on POLITICO: Watchdog: IRS used ‘inappropriate criteria’)
The report shows that top IRS officials put a stop to some of the questions in early 2012, including the ones that asked tea party groups who their donors were, what issues were important to them and whether their top officers ever planned to run for office. And they told the investigators they planned to destroy the donor lists that had already been sent in.
But interviews with members of the groups paint a more dramatic picture than the bland language of the report, which just says the IRS “requested irrelevant (unnecessary) information because of a lack of managerial review, at all levels, of questions before they were sent to organizations seeking tax-exempt status.”
“They were asking for a U-Haul truck’s worth of information,” said Toby Marie Walker, the president of the Waco Tea Party.
(Also on POLITICO: White House stuck on IRS scandal response)
Some groups even gave up in the face of the IRS questions.
Several of the groups were asked for résumés of top officers and descriptions of interviews with the media. One group was asked to provide “minutes of all board meetings since your creation.”
Some of the letters asked for copies of the groups’ Web pages, blog posts and social media postings — making some tea party members worry they’d be punished for their tweets or Facebook comments by their followers.
(PHOTOS: 10 slams on the IRS)
And each letter had a stern warning about “penalties of perjury” — which became intimidating for groups that were being asked about future activities, like future donations or endorsements.
In one instance, the American Patriots Against Government Excess was asked to provide summaries or copies of all material passed out at meetings. The group had been reading “The 5000 Year Leap” by Cleon Skousen and the U.S. Constitution.
The group’s president, Marion Bower, sent a copy of both to the IRS. “I don’t have time to write a book report for them,” she said.
The Albuquerque Tea Party was asked about connections to other groups — Conspiracy Brews, Marianne Chiffelle’s Breakfasts, Concerned Citizens for Limited Government, Concerned Citizens for Common Sense.

[CitizenBBN]

They stopped some of it in 2012. The problem being they may have known about it in early 2011 or earlier. It also didn't really stop it and even the IRS admits they don't know how many groups could STILL be undergoing this process as of today. In just a few days the list of groups targeted grew from 300 to 471 by the IRS' own count. More and more are coming forward now that they know they aren't alone or that this treatment was unusual and inappropriate.

It has also become clear this wasn't just in the Cincy office. Groups who have had reviews from California to DC are reporting the same treatment. This wasnt' an isolated incident.

The main justification given was that they had a huge increase in applications so they tried to create special procedures. What that implies is that their workload increased so to try to handle it they made adjustments. Their adjustment was to ask for massively MORE information than normal and conduct far more time consuming and in depth reviews than ever. Uh, that's not how one responds when trying to deal with an increase in workload. You cut down the info you require, you create uniform procedures and questions. Here they had questions all over the map by office and by group, sometimes asking for member and donor lists, sometimes not, sometimes asking for minutes of meetings or if they planned to run for office and sometimes not.

I don't buy that explanation at ALL. Even the IRS isn't so stupid as to respond to a workload problem by INCREASING the amount of work to be done substantially. What it did was not streamline the handling, rather it delayed the processing of these applications for months on end, IMO in hopes they'd either just give up or when they were finally approved it would be well past the point they could make any difference in the upcoming elections.

What points to it being a higher up issue, and not just happenstance to have been all conservative organizations, is the grilling of Jewish groups about their stance on Israel. OK I can see a few low level liberals with their high minded ideals who happen to work in the Cincy IRS office giving a few "Tea Party" groups a hard time. You're telling me those same people are also going to scrutinize Jewish non-profit groups about their views on Israel? That your average Cincinnati liberal IRS worker is concerned about that issue? Of course then you have these IRS agents from Cali to Cincy to DC all apparently getting on the phone and deciding to do a lot more than just hassle a few Tea Party groups. They decide, all on their own despite the fact that they probably never talk to each other, to drag nearly 500 (at current count) through a process the likes of which they've never undertaken before.

If this were a handful of cases I might see it as a good example of how government is so very fallible b/c the people in it are so fallible, but when we get to 500 groups across multiple political segments whose only connection is support of policies opposed by this Administration, I no longer see it as a low level procedural blip. I won't go so far as to say Obama was on the phone telling the agents to do it, but I do think it required at least the tacit approval of people higher up than the front line field agents to persist at this level for so long, and once we start climbing that ladder we need to find out how far up it goes in order to get out all the cancer.

[CitizenBBN]

FWIW talked to a tax person last night about this who said for a lot of these groups they didnt' have to apply for approval, you can just declare yourself a 501(c)4 and start doing stuff, so one explanation put forward is that maybe the liberal groups didn't apply so they weren't as impacted.

Possible, but easily verified or dispelled. We need the IRS to release a list of all the applications over the last 2 years (501c(4)s are public record so that's not an issue), then see how many were of the different political groups and what percentage of those in each group were given this tax rectal exam. Not hard at all to determine if it targeted conservative groups disproportionately. not that we don't already know the answer given that the IRS seems to have conceded the point from the outset.

[Doc]

I don't buy that explanation at ALL. Even the IRS isn't so stupid as to respond to a workload problem by INCREASING the amount of work to be done substantially. What it did was not streamline the handling, rather it delayed the processing of these applications for months on end, IMO in hopes they'd either just give up or when they were finally approved it would be well past the point they could make any difference in the upcoming elections.


I don't buy it either but enough Americans will that it won't matter. Hell, enough bought the "it was a spontaneous reaction to a youtube video" excuse to make Benghazi irrelevant, so why would not enough American's buy this half baked, illogical reasoning? The American population is D-U-M-B, plain and simple. They follow what is told to them rather than think for themselves. Most can't form an option, instead relying on what is told to them.

[CitizenBBN]

I don't buy it either but enough Americans will that it won't matter. Hell, enough bought the "it was a spontaneous reaction to a youtube video" excuse to make Benghazi irrelevant, so why would not enough American's buy this half baked, illogical reasoning? The American population is D-U-M-B, plain and simple. They follow what is told to them rather than think for themselves. Most can't form an option, instead relying on what is told to them.

As you know, you'll get no argument from me. Most people are idiots who never stop for a second to question or think for themselves. I don't even care if I disagree with someone, just stop and try to form a cogent opinion on your own and I'll be happy.

From what I can tell about 40% of Americans think the three branches of government are Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Anniston. The next 20% aren't much better off.

[UKHistory]

Depending on what an organization does and what type of federal funding it seeks, you don't necessairly have to have a 501c to operate.

Some grant programs don't require a 501 c3 status for instance while others will do be recognized as a non-profit.

A mid level career employee is not going to make such a list and begin holding up his or her work load because of ideology. Most mid level folks in Cincinnatti are like folks you and I know. Some are from and still love in Kentucky.

No this was orchestrated by higher ups who will or could potentially pass the buck onto regular folks who are just trying to make a living.


FWIW talked to a tax person last night about this who said for a lot of these groups they didnt' have to apply for approval, you can just declare yourself a 501(c)4 and start doing stuff, so one explanation put forward is that maybe the liberal groups didn't apply so they weren't as impacted.

Possible, but easily verified or dispelled. We need the IRS to release a list of all the applications over the last 2 years (501c(4)s are public record so that's not an issue), then see how many were of the different political groups and what percentage of those in each group were given this tax rectal exam. Not hard at all to determine if it targeted conservative groups disproportionately. not that we don't already know the answer given that the IRS seems to have conceded the point from the outset.

[bigsky]

This is an Obama ordered deal and you can tell by the "Bush did it too" deflective rationalizations being offered up by the left.

[CitizenBBN]

Depending on what an organization does and what type of federal funding it seeks, you don't necessairly have to have a 501c to operate.

Some grant programs don't require a 501 c3 status for instance while others will do be recognized as a non-profit.

A mid level career employee is not going to make such a list and begin holding up his or her work load because of ideology. Most mid level folks in Cincinnatti are like folks you and I know. Some are from and still love in Kentucky.

No this was orchestrated by higher ups who will or could potentially pass the buck onto regular folks who are just trying to make a living.

I agree completely. If it were one or two people or a 4-5 cases OK it may be someone being stupid, there are stupid people everywhere, but I agree completely the idea of already well worked agents dragging out cases for years on their own initiative, not one but as many as 500 so far, ignores that these are just ordinary folks doing a job and not faceless jack booted thugs. I have friends who have and do work at all levels of government and the tax system on both sides. Some have some pretty radical political views, both left and right, and I doubt any of them would jeopardize their job by going this far overboard on some cause that should be an ordinary course of business part of their job.

I don't know how high up it went, but it wasn't started and operated for YEARS by front line field agents in multiple offices. Like the Benghazi youtube line and so many others, the defenses are so absurd it's insulting.

[UKHistory]

And another element, my own speculation, some of these groups probably did not know 1) what kind of paperwork was necessary 2) didn't understand the questions and 3) probably were a little slow themsevles in responding to IRS request for legit information.

Now you throw those issues on top of someone being slow for a variety of reasons and you get some of the delays. Not all. And that does not explain away these lists.

Those terms and lists are real and that is a problem. Across many federal agencies there are a lot of concerns about non-profits. Political ideology is one very important perceived (I do believe real) bias issues. However non-profits have been receiving scrutiny across the federal government since President Obama's administration began.

[Doc]

As you know, you'll get no argument from me. Most people are idiots who never stop for a second to question or think for themselves. I don't even care if I disagree with someone, just stop and try to form a cogent opinion on your own and I'll be happy.

From what I can tell about 40% of Americans think the three branches of government are Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Anniston. The next 20% aren't much better off.

I agree. Form your own opinion. It might be wrong but at least its yours!

Most folks are more interested in Angelina Jolie's double mastectomy than the IRS going after certain groups. Shocking but true.

[dan_bgblue]

Most folks are more interested in Angelina Jolie's double mastectomy than the IRS going after certain groups. Shocking but true.

That is quite unusually if one considers both events include boobs. Seems that the public would be as interested in one set of boobs as the other.

If it is not OK to type boobs here, please delete.

[CitizenBBN]

Lots going on today.

IRS Commissioner has resigned.

An attorney for two pro-life groups has come forward, sounds like with some documentation at least with letters she sent to the IRS, showing them pressuring those groups and even insisting they could not protest Planned Parenthood or may need to give "balance" to their materials. http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/irs-told-pro-life-group-not-to-picket-planned-parenthood.html

More groups are coming forward, an increasingly broad range of generally perceived "conservative" groups.


The White House is trying hard to get on the other side of the table on this, expressing outrage. We'll see how long they stick to that as things move up the ladder. I'll be quite curious.

[Darrell KSR]

I semi-regularly submit applications for favorable tax determinations for nonprofit clients. Although it is true that no favorable determination letter is *required* if an entity meets nonprofit status, it is equally true that donors are much harder to attract without one; hence, it becomes a staple for most.

With the scrutiny going on right now, I'm going to encourage every client to put "Tea Party" in their name and let me submit them hurriedly. Really, anything works. I bet right now is the easiest time to get something pushed through you'll ever find lol.

Oh--this is, without a doubt, a very high level decision. Makes no sense for it to be anything but.

Sent using Forum Runner.

[UKHistory]

Something else that concerns me about these groups and the IRS staff who are processing the paperworks.

However well intended these applicants are they may not understand the process. This is not surprising. Federal application procedures make sense to me but I have been doing this for 19 years.

But just like the grantee that doesn't understand record keeping or allowable costs under that grant project, it is very possible some of these groups are looking to to engage in activities that legally are prohibited by non-profits. They are not trying to violate the regs they might not know what they are. And in many cases non-profits walk a thin line between being socially conscious and political.

I am not saying these prohibitions are right or wrong. I need to read the regs to better know what they are.

But you combine passionate but novice people applying for a 501 and mix that with admin staff that are trying to actually see if organization activities meet the definition of a non-profit, and you have a problem.

Some of these folks know the regs better than others. Some of these folks at the IRS are probably not great communicators and trying to discern the truth or reality of a group's actions based on their applications and websites can be tricky.

Government can be nefarious. There could be an element of this. Sometimes it is not a big plot. Sometimes it is just an understaffed office with poor communication skills trying to handle a lot of application from equally poor communicators from the public.

Think of Star Wars. Yes you have two Sith Lords in the Emperor and Vader. Total evil. Tremendously effective. Below them you have some other bad dudes like Tarkin.

Somewhere down the line you have a few of those guys that Vader kills for incompetence. I am not trying to rip peers, I am just saying even in a big empire you don't have everyone on the same page all the time.

[badrose]

I could understand that if the applications being scrutinized weren't exclusively conservative. And I get the work overload thing except they're piling more work on by trying to get ridiculous details.

[CitizenBBN]

The President today in a press conference:

Q: 'Can you assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agency's actions before your counsel's office found out on April 22?'
A: 'I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the (inspector general) report...'

Mr. President, I see what you did there.

What a treat to live under the "most transparent Administration in history".

[Doc]

Odds are Obama's personal knowledge about the shinanagans occurring at the IRS were as much as Bush knew about Abu Ghraib, but its their responsibility.

[KeithKSR]

History, these groups had attorneys filing the paperwork, and attempting to followup on the paperwork with the IRS.

Given that no liberal groups have come forward, and there are a ton of them that come into existence each week, it is obviously a ploy from the top. Obama won reelection based upon his "grassroots" effort; looks like he also maneuvered to prevent the grassroots efforts of the conservatives.

Obama took Chicago politics to Washington with him.

[dan_bgblue]

From Tea Party to ObamaCare (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/16/second-irs-official-to-leave-amid-tea-party-scandal/)

Just like Fast and Furious the guilty parties do not really lose their jobs, they just get shifted around

[Doc]

interesting hearings today, thats for sure.

[MickintheHam]

I like the IRS. They are great professionals. I only have the utmost respect for all of them. That's all you'll get me to say on a public message board.

[bigsky]

I like the IRS. They are great professionals. I only have the utmost respect for all of them. That's all you'll get me to say on a public message board.

"Laughing as I +1 this"

[bigsky]

The President today in a press conference:

Q: 'Can you assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agency's actions before your counsel's office found out on April 22?'
A: 'I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the (inspector general) report...'

Mr. President, I see what you did there.

What a treat to live under the "most transparent Administration in history".

Pay no attention to the Illinois criminals behind the Curtain.

[Doc]

I like the IRS. They are great professionals. I only have the utmost respect for all of them. That's all you'll get me to say on a public message board.

Are you going to claim that like me, you too are a proud member of the Tea Party? No way the go after any professed tea partier now!

[badrose]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?hp&_r=3&

Treasury Knew of I.R.S. Inquiry in 2012, Official Says

WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

I think this could be it.

[CitizenBBN]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?hp&_r=3&

Treasury Knew of I.R.S. Inquiry in 2012, Official Says

WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

I think this could be it.

I guess I shouldn't root for a corrupt Administration, but since I know this one is I'd sure like to see them pay for their misdeeds.

That article covers several interesting points, a couple I've seen elsewhere and some I haven't:

-- Even the "apology" by Ms. Lerner itself was a fake. Miller admitted the question that was asked that led to the apology had been planted (his description) by Ms. Lerner with a tax attorney in the meeting. They wanted to get the apology out there for some reason, maybe with the IG report coming out or maybe Ms. Lerner or someone is trying to expose this, but instead of releasing a statement they even set up a fraud just for that part. These are not straight forward people. Even their admissions are based on deceit.

-- In her apology Ms. Lerner said she learned about the issue from news reports. We now know she was aware of it since sometime near its inception.

-- As a Fox story says as well, Commissioner Miller was aware of this practice last spring, but less than a month after sending an IRS team to Cincy regarding the practice he told Congress there was no targeting of conservative groups. I believe he also testified before Congress later that same year and again denied this practice was happening.

-- Not in this story but the Fox one, but it was Miller who promoted (it was a promotion by his own description) the person in charge of this group to head the Obamacare group. So he knew about it, she knew about it, and she got a promotion and moved to the President's favorite wet dream policy.

Congress was asking about this process for a year, the IRS denying it all along.

[CitizenBBN]

The President today in a press conference:

Q: 'Can you assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agency's actions before your counsel's office found out on April 22?'
A: 'I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the (inspector general) report...'

Mr. President, I see what you did there.

What a treat to live under the "most transparent Administration in history".


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?hp&_r=3&

Treasury Knew of I.R.S. Inquiry in 2012, Official Says

WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

I think this could be it.

I wanted to respond with these together b/c we see a pattern here. When asked if the WH had knowledge of the targeting, Obama didn't just say "I" had no knowledge, narrowing the question from the White House generally (plausible deniability), he also said he had no knowledge of "the report",which was not in the question.

Was that not really a deflection or a narrowing but a slip? Now that officials outside the IRS were being made aware of the investigation ("the report"), it calls into question who knew what and when within the Administration and White House generally. Did Obama know of the report and thus his answer was a parapraxis and not just a deflection or re-defining of a question?

[CitizenBBN]

Some details on what some of the groups experienced. No surprise groups are lining up to sue.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/17/could-lose-everything-tea-party-groups-prepare-to-sue-irs/

The next time Devereaux heard from the IRS, they had requested details and credentials on every single speaker and all the educational materials provided in the 78 classes held at the hotel. The IRS also wanted information on all 45 vendors, their credentials and a donor list.

[jazyd]

You can thank our education system. What students have told me lately has gotten me rather miffed, why they watch " finding nemo" over and over in a top high school is beyond me

QUOTE=CitizenBBN;87856]As you know, you'll get no argument from me. Most people are idiots who never stop for a second to question or think for themselves. I don't even care if I disagree with someone, just stop and try to form a cogent opinion on your own and I'll be happy.

From what I can tell about 40% of Americans think the three branches of government are Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Anniston. The next 20% aren't much better off.[/QUOTE]

[dan_bgblue]

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/VarveG/2013/VarveG20130520_low.jpg

[CitizenBBN]

Apparently the White House Counsel knew at least a month ago about this mess. Supposedly he told the Chief of Staff to not tell the President, in which case you have the worst White House Counsel in history, or the White House is lying again. So just like Benghazi they're either liars or idiots or both. I'm going with both.

Seriously, an audit report is about to be released saying the IRS was unfairly targeting conservative groups for 2 years, an issue Republicans in the House had raised more than once in the last year, but it wasn't going to be an issue worthy of letting the President know? Yeah. Uh huh.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/20/white-house-timeline-irs-scandal-when-were-told-shifts/

[BigBluePappy]

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/VarveG/2013/VarveG20130520_low.jpg

Thank you Dan, I got my first belly laugh of the day, not to mention a little RC in my nose.
Bravo!
:sHa_clap2:

[CitizenBBN]

You know a situation has gotten fundamentally, undeniably bad when both Rep. Cummingg and Rep. Issa, the ranking heads of the House Oversight Committee, are equally frustrated and angry at an administrative branch department.

Lerner today took the 5th after an opening statement that, IMO if under oath, is a great setup for her perjury trial despite her then not answering questions. No one at the IRS knows who created the list, exactly when it was created, or why after more than a year of questioning from multiple Congressional committees and multiple Congressmen in separate correspondence not one of them admitted the list or program existed in any way.

IMO they're all guilty of lying to Congress. At least 4 people now have been proven to have known the IRS was automatically sending every 501(c) application with certain words like "Tea Party" in the name for detailed review, yet they all denied any such targeting of those groups was going on directly to Congressional committees. How is that not lying to Congress? How is that not perjury and a violation of any number of other laws regarding federal employees? Yet they continue to admit they knew about it and continue to say the fact that they denied it to Congress when directly questioned wasn't lying to Congress.

Rep Lynch, a Democrat, said at the top if the IRS agents weren't more cooperative and that was their choice, this was heading to a special prosecutor. The Democrats are as ticked off as the Republicans b/c they ALL were lied to. It seems their rank as Members of Congress has overwhelmed their party affiliation on this one, as it should be.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/22/top-irs-official-refuses-to-testify-at-hearing-invokes-5th-amendment/

[CitizenBBN]

So now the company line is that senior Obama staff knew about this but they never told the President anything. Plausible deniability.

Also a complete lie b/c you don't not tell the President these things, and even if you do tell him you still have plausible deniability b/c you don't have to admit to it, so you always tell him. Who has the guts to not tell a sitting President about such a huge potential scandal? Seriously?

So again their answer is utter incompetence, b/c that's better than the alternative of being corrupt liars.

[DanISSELisdaman]

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/28/18563008-irs-higher-ups-requested-info-on-conservative-groups-letters-show?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=5

[CitizenBBN]

A Cincy office agent has testified to the House that the Tea Party search directive came from Washington, not from agents within the Cincy office.

The agent in the Cincinnati office, in which the targeting took place, told congressional investigators that he or she was told in March 2010 by a supervisor to search for Tea Party groups applying for tax-exempt status and that “Washington, D.C., wanted some cases.”

The agent said that by April the office had held up roughly 40 cases and at least seven were sent to Washington. In addition, the agent said, a second IRS employee asked for information on two other specific applicants in which Washington was interested.

When asked by congressional investigators about allegations and press reports about two agents in Cincinnati essentially being responsible for the targeting, the agent responded:

“It's impossible. As an agent we are controlled by many, many people. We have to submit many, many reports. So the chance of two agents being rogue and doing things like that could never happen. … They were basically throwing us underneath the bus.”


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/02/interviews-with-irs-agent-suggest-tea-party-targeting-came-from-washington/#ixzz2V6zKQEf0