IRS targets Tea Party

[BigRedBuster]

That's one step in the chain of people who should resign or be fired over this. The IRS agents responsible for the "targeting" should be fired, as well as their supervisor and perhaps (depending on the structure there) the second-level supervisor.

 

The acting commissioner's resignation is largely symbolic. While probably warranted, he'll get another high-level job somewhere else and the root of the problem - the agents doing the persecuting and their supervisory staff - will remain.

 

 

I pretty much agree with this. Not sure how "symbolic" the resignation is due to the fact he basically lied to congress over the last year when he claimed it wasn't happening.

 

I agree all the agents and support staff need to be gone.

[carlfense]

Honest questions

 

1) Who here believes that the tea party is for social welfare?

 

and

 

2) Who has issues with "dark money" in elections?

 

I'm just curious and nothing more. Personally I don't think the tea party is for better social welfare(which is the main reason for being tax exempt under 501© 4) due to their stance on courts, immigration, health care, debt reduction etc, etc. And also I don't think "dark money" should be used in politics. I dislike every stinking commercial, flier and e-mail I receive. I will vote for someone based off my own information that I find for laws and politicians. Again, I'm just asking.

That question is at the heart of the two-step that's necessary with this story . . .

People are (rightfully) outraged that the IRS targeted Tea Party groups. The Tea Party groups say that they were targeted because of their political beliefs . . . but if the Tea Party groups that were targeted are non-partisan social welfare groups (as required to maintain their tax status and the anonymity of their donors) how can any targeting of them be partisan? As an analogy, isn't race a prerequisite for racial discrimination?

 

As I think Junior said, all of these groups should have been given extra scrutiny regardless of which way they lean.

[knapplc]

Not sure how "symbolic" the resignation is due to the fact he basically lied to congress over the last year when he claimed it wasn't happening.

 

The only reason I say "symbolic" is the belief that he'll get some cushy job somewhere else making the same or better money. A resignation when you have a better job waiting in the wings isn't much punishment.

[BigRedBuster]

Not sure how "symbolic" the resignation is due to the fact he basically lied to congress over the last year when he claimed it wasn't happening.

 

The only reason I say "symbolic" is the belief that he'll get some cushy job somewhere else making the same or better money. A resignation when you have a better job waiting in the wings isn't much punishment.

 

True.

[Someone]

He was set to quit anyway so not as big of deal as it should be.

Interesting turn of phrase.

 

How big of a deal should it be and how can it be made a bigger deal.

 

I think a case could be made for a federal whistle blower lawsuit that could disgorge him and the guy before him of a portion of the pay for failure to do the job they were paid for.

[Someone]

That's one step in the chain of people who should resign or be fired over this. The IRS agents responsible for the "targeting" should be fired, as well as their supervisor and perhaps (depending on the structure there) the second-level supervisor.

 

The acting commissioner's resignation is largely symbolic. While probably warranted, he'll get another high-level job somewhere else and the root of the problem - the agents doing the persecuting and their supervisory staff - will remain.

 

I agree all the agents and support staff need to be gone.

Given the fact that the FBI has swept in and is interviewing and removing evidence, I think the staff should consider themselves lucky if all that happens to them is that they get fired.

[krill]

Now that I've actually sat down and read through non-biased reporting of what actually happened, this hardly seems like a scandal at all. A small group of individuals took a short-cut to filter applications for non-profit groups that were themselves skirting campaign laws on a huge scale. So far as we know, this was not done at anyone's behest, and it shouldn't be shocking that filtering top level directives to change practices down to front line employees through a huge bureaucracy took so long.

 

Now what are the chances that congress springs into action to rectify obvious flaws in campaign finance laws that are allowing groups supporting both parties to directly engage in political activities as non-profit organizations? Or even, god forbid, give the IRS better tools to check applications in an unbiased manor. This was obviously a huge issue in the last election with seemingly anyone willing to open a checkbook starting a political group to endlessly bombard us all with political advertising.

[strigori]

The simple question is how do any 501c groups have tax exempt status? Anyone with a quarter of a brain can tell they are only partisan political entities. Which are not to be exempt, and therefore required to show donor lists. The entire uproar is just over the words 'tea party' which is by its nature a political identification. An exact violation of the rules for tax exempt status. As these 501c groups are supposed to be non political.

[navysker]

I found this FAQ a little insightful from the IRS web page if anyone is interested.

 

 

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Questions-and-Answers-on-501©-Organizations

 

Question number one makes just baffles me. 501© 3 need IRS approval to be tax exempt but 501© 4 does not.

[Someone]

I found this FAQ a little insightful from the IRS web page if anyone is interested.

 

 

http://www.irs.gov/u...)-Organizations

 

Question number one makes just baffles me. 501© 3 need IRS approval to be tax exempt but 501© 4 does not.

That is a good explaination but the link doesn't work because 501( c) becomes 501(copyright symbol)

 

Us www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Questions-and-Answers-on-501(g)-Organizations and change the g to a c.

[navysker]

I found this FAQ a little insightful from the IRS web page if anyone is interested.

 

 

http://www.irs.gov/u...)-Organizations

 

Question number one makes just baffles me. 501© 3 need IRS approval to be tax exempt but 501© 4 does not.

That is a good explaination but the link doesn't work because 501( c) becomes 501(copyright symbol)

 

Us www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Questions-and-Answers-on-501(g)-Organizations and change the g to a c.

 

My apologies. I was at work and in a hurry. I didn't even pay attention to it.

[Someone]

Here is a news story from March 2012 where the IRS admits it is taking a hard look at 501-c3 and c4 organizations.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/us/politics/irs-scrutiny-of-political-groups-stirs-harassment-claim.html?pagewanted=all

[carlfense]

Looks like I (and most of the national media) were played by Issa.

 

http://www.nytimes.c...f=politics&_r=0

 

I guess I should know better than to trust anything that results from his witch hunts.

 

Downgrade my assessment from "completely unacceptable" to "meh." Now if only the people who lied about this would be held accountable . . .

[Junior]

Looks like I (and most of the national media) were played by Issa.

 

http://www.nytimes.c...f=politics&_r=0

 

I guess I should know better than to trust anything that results from his witch hunts.

 

Downgrade my assessment from "completely unacceptable" to "meh." Now if only the people who lied about this would be held accountable . . .

 

But 4 Americans are dead, Carl.

[carlfense]

But 4 Americans are dead, Carl.

Yep. I see that Issa, apparently realizing that the jig is up with the IRS "scandal," is back to subpoenaing witnesses about . . . BENGHAZI!