3 ms·

I don't care to rehash the argument, but targeting nonprofits based on their names is at best arbitrary and uneven. Maybe it was accidental that conservative gr

I don't care to rehash the argument, but targeting nonprofits based on their names is at best arbitrary and uneven. Maybe it was accidental that conservative groups felt targeted. But given that non-profits aren't in the business of lawsuits, it's a due process concern when the IRS is arbitrary. Some sort of heuristic based on random sampling or less political profiling (location, governing structure, association with known tax evaders) makes more sense.

rtpg 8y ago
Yep, I had never really dug too much into this (partly because I would hear about it from people I know to act in bad faith), but I agree on the arbitrariness being a due process concern. I do feel like "random sampling" would make a lot more sense here. Other profiling feels like it might end up in the same spot though. Really the ideal thing is to improve the processes/rules and give enough resources to where they don't feel the need to have to pull fringe-political-shaped needles out of haystacks in the hopes that those needles happen to also be non-compliant shaped. Incentives are all weird here, and we end up in these messes. And some people take advantage of that to create a narrative that makes it _even harder_ to solve the real problem (imagine asking for more resources for compliance after this "IRS is being used for politics" stuff)