5 ms·

IRS targeted groups critical of government

81 points by sinnerswing 13y ago

ck2 13y ago
This should be solved by removing tax-exempt status under 501c4 for all parties of any persuasion. Then remove tax exempt status for all religious organizations which is a huge scam anyway. This would be win-win for both stereotypes of the right wanting to "widen the base" and the left "liking taxes".
- newbie12 13y ago
  501 c4 organizations already have no tax-exempt status-- all advocacy donations are currently taxable.
  - ck2 13y ago
    "The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations" This means they can have pretend massive markup on everything and write it off. It's a dodge, just like many church "leaders" drive crazy expensive cars. Just eliminate it, no tax exemptions, everyone on the same level.
- pvnick 13y ago
  That's not a win-win situation - it's an oversimplified solution peddled as a win-win situation by the likes of r/politics.
- n3rdy 13y ago
  Or just scrap the whole tax thing. We were building roads and services before taxes. Every justification for taxation not only has evidence that there is no correlation between tax revenues and resolved problems, but that we are more than capable of solving these problems ourselves through voluntary collaboration, rather than coercive.
  - SageRaven 13y ago
    > We were building roads and services before taxes. That's all I need: Paying to use Verizon Interstate Highway in order to traverse my state. Infrastructure is one of the few things that taxes are pretty good for, as most everyone benefits from roads, utility grids, etc.. War, scanning air travelers, and installing the Great Eye of Sauron at every intersection are not good uses of public money.
gleenn 13y ago
Pretty outrageous to hear the IRS is doing this.
knowtheory 13y ago
As a counterpoint to a lot of the outrage, it's worth noting that the rules around 501c4 organizations are fucked. As Ezra Klein points out "The IRS was wrong to target the tea party. They should’ve gone after all 501(c)4s." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/10/the-irs-was-wrong-to-target-the-tea-party-they-shouldve-gone-after-all-501c4s/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/10/t... The fact that this has become a political issue is a huge failure of governance, not politics.
- newbie12 13y ago
  Wow Ezra Klein gets it completely wrong. I think he's confusing 501 c(4) and c(3). c(3) are traditional social welfare charities and donations to them are tax exempt, c(4) are explicitly for political lobbying and donations are taxable. (I worked as an executive in this space for a decade). c(4) cannot get involved in elections (they can't call for the election or defeat of a specific candidate) but they can do "voter education". But in any event, the donations made to a c(4) are not tax-deductible and are private. By the way, the c4 privacy rules emerged out of the civil rights movement, when there was a concern about the government punishing people supporting civil rights. Many groups-- think Sierra Club-- have both a c(3) and a c(4) and have internal accounting in place to keep track of it all.
PeterisP 13y ago
This is a classic approach used in Russia and other countries against anti-ruling-party organizations, but I had (probably naively) expected USA to be better than this.
- balkinbonkers 13y ago
  Remember though the right in the USA has been on a tear of paranoia. This sounds an awful lot like a bureaucratic directive ("there's an awful lot of alleged tea party groups raising a lot of dough, keep an eye out") being reinterpreted through the conspiracy lens
  - adventured 13y ago
    The right's paranoia is no worse than the paranoia the left spewed while Bush was in office. See: John Ashcroft, supposed spawn of Satan, or Hillary Clinton's vast right wing conspiracy theory. It's a rule of DC politics that whenever a new President is elected, the party that lost goes crazy until they're back in office (then they claim it's other guys that are crazy and paranoid).
    - omd 13y ago
      At least we can all agree that this story, just like Benghazi, comes from, as you put it, crazy right-wing paranoia.
      - gyardley 13y ago
        'We all' don't agree in the slightest, about this or the government's cynical attempt to blame the security failure in Benghazi on some random scapegoat's YouTube video. Speak for yourself and not others.
  - newbie12 13y ago
    The audits were in an election year and we are now learning included many conservative budget organizations, not just tea party groups.
vishaldpatel 13y ago
Many of these groups would like the IRS to go away entirely. Many of these groups would like to not pay taxes at all. Why would the IRS spend an equal amount of time investigating everyone, when certain groups go out of their way to paint big targets on their backs?
- eurleif 13y ago
  It's the IRS's job to collect tax revenue. It's not the IRS's job to protect its own existence. That's politics, and the IRS should not be involved in politics.
  - chc 13y ago
    I think you are misunderstanding. I believe the parent's point is not that the IRS is targeting anti-tax groups out of umbrage or fear, but that people who loudly declare taxation to be illegitimate are signaling, "Hey, I'm especially likely to try and evade paying taxes." Similarly, if there were a group dedicated to the idea that seducing little boys was OK, you could expect it to get some extra scrutiny from the FBI. This is not because the FBI is made up of little boys who feel threatened, but because these people are waving a big red flag that they're probably engaged in activities that the FBI has an interest in.
    - eurleif 13y ago
      You're using an extreme example, and I think a lot of people will agree in that case because it's extreme, but might have reservations about applying the same logic elsewhere. For example, should it be ok to single out people who advocate marijuana legalization for drug crime investigations? There has to be some restraint, or else people will be afraid to participate in the political process.
      - wtallis 13y ago
        I think it depends on what kind of "singling out" is being considered. What the IRS agents did in this case definitely crossed the line. But they should be allowed to scrutinize applications from suspect groups, and probably also be allowed to ask for more information to the extent that they would in a random audit. Further than that should require strong probable cause and warrants and all the other due process that was ignored by the IRS agents in this case. A drug case would probably get to the point of needing a warrant much sooner, since a pro-legalization activist isn't usually directly initiating contact with the government, so the government has no business asking for information without a warrant. But if a pro-legalization activist makes public statements about their illegal activities or intentions, it's okay for the DEA to keep an eye on those public statements and to use them to try to get a warrant.
belorn 13y ago
Quite often when privacy is discussed, some people ask why we need privacy. Some then continues on and say that its already lost and what ever harm is done and are things we need to live with. Well, this is the harm. Selective use of government "scrutiny" against those that are perceive as a threat. The only positive side of this news is that they haven't gone very far. String search of groups names feels very much like how block filters worked before deep-packet inspection. With the social graphs[1] already in existence, this type of targeting could be made very efficient and only requires the sharing of data between different government branches. https://www.softwarefreedom.org/events/2012/freedom-to-connect_moglen-keynote-2012.html https://www.softwarefreedom.org/events/2012/freedom-to-conne...
- mrtksn 13y ago
  Very well said. In my not-so-democratic home country, in many businesses the norm of doing business is not strictly by the law and the government turns blind eye on this as long as you play the ball. Whenever somebody upsets somebody in power, the might of the legal system crushes them without touching their cooperating competitors. It is completely legal way to silence anybody who you don't like that much. The non-profits are even more exposed. We even have a mayor who tried to demolish the campus of a prestigious university that issued reports about contamination in the drinking water, putting political pressure on the mayor. After some media circus(the mayor sent bogus samples to be analyzed but when university took the samples by itself, the results were much different), somehow he found an irregularity in the papers of the buildings and issued an order to for demolishing the 60 years old, architecture awards winning campus. Thankfully the court decided that destroying the university was not in benefit of the society and blocked the order. I have to note that this happened in the capital of the country, the irregularity was that the drawings were not in the exact same scale that the town required and somehow the legal system proceeded so quickly when lagging for years to prosecute many scandalous building projects of some friendly businessmen.
adventured 13y ago
It's worth noting the IRS also targeted various Jewish organizations (eg Z Street) as well, not just those critical of the government and taxation like the Tea Party. Clearly the IRS has a problem with targeting bias.
pekk 13y ago
Not accurate. This was politically self-defeating (for the IRS personnel concerned, in that period in Ohio) but it wasn't Orwellian. These groups are anti-tax, associated with the Sovereign Citizens movement, and also applying for a nonprofit status that legally constrains political activities that these were likely to engage in. And in the end, they all got their nonprofit status anyhow. So the screaming about how they were picked on is really disingenuous. Tax collection is a necessity for every first world country and unfortunately that means not taking every application for a nonprofit status at face value.
- newbie12 13y ago
  These are mainstream political groups that are opposed to excessive taxes and spending, they have nothing to do with tax avoidance schemes.
  - madaxe 13y ago
    These are fringe corporatist schills who present themselves as mainstream. The Tea Party is the Koch brothers' private political army.
    - noarchy 13y ago
      And? Unleash the IRS on them because you don't like the Kochs? You have to be able to do better than this.
      - madaxe 13y ago
        No, wasn't saying that, I was merely correcting the parent's understanding as to what the tea party is. The IRS's behaviour frankly only furthers their cause.
- brownbat 13y ago
  Moreover, it was also a decision at the staffer level that was corrected by superiors as soon as they found out about it, ie, before it had any meaningful impact. Fixing things before they break... puts them one up on the banking sector by my count.
jaynos 13y ago
Between 2010 and 2012, applications doubled in volume. A large part of that increase was Tea Party groups. Seems like the review was pointed at the right target (when I owned a business, I inspected the work of the new guys more than the people who had been with me for a few years). The real issue should be that 300 groups were reviewed and none were rejected. The 501(c)(4) class is filled with "social welfare" groups that provide no social welfare. The only "social welfare" I see is lobbying and ads filled with half truths (this goes for liberal groups as well, though not as much). If you want to limit abortions or allow more access to guns (just examples, not a description of the groups involved), feel free to do so with donations that get taxed. Just don't tell me it's in the name if social welfare.
- praxeologist 13y ago
  "Between 2010 and 2012, applications doubled in volume. A large part of that increase was Tea Party groups." Really? Do you have a source for that? I'm having a hard time finding a list of all these types of groups. There are some listed on wikipedia, everything from the Colbert SuperPAC to the Washington Science Fiction Association, so what constitutes "social welfare" seems to be pretty loosely evaluated.
DanielBMarkham 13y ago
One of the aspects of this that is completely unreported is the fact that in 2008, Congress gave the IRS sweeping new investigative powers. http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2013/05/09/next-target-of-irs-robo-audits-small-business http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2013... This allows them to do thing like pull all your emails and social activity simply on suspicion of doing anything wrong -- if you are flagged for any reason (as in this article) These processes are being automated. This means that it is possible, but currently unlikely, that whoever flagged these groups could have then automatically pulled down all the email and social networking chatter of the organizers behind the groups. This would have effectively given the government a "God's Eye View" of everything critics were saying and planning. This has been a year full of stories about the loss of freedom, but as far as the U.S. goes, this has the potential to be the biggest story yet.

81 points by sinnerswing 13y ago

ck2 13y ago

This should be solved by removing tax-exempt status under 501c4 for all parties of any persuasion. Then remove tax exempt status for all religious organizations which is a huge scam anyway. This would be win-win for both stereotypes of the right wanting to "widen the base" and the left "liking taxes".

newbie12 13y ago
501 c4 organizations already have no tax-exempt status-- all advocacy donations are currently taxable.
- ck2 13y ago
  "The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations" This means they can have pretend massive markup on everything and write it off. It's a dodge, just like many church "leaders" drive crazy expensive cars. Just eliminate it, no tax exemptions, everyone on the same level.
pvnick 13y ago
That's not a win-win situation - it's an oversimplified solution peddled as a win-win situation by the likes of r/politics.
n3rdy 13y ago
Or just scrap the whole tax thing. We were building roads and services before taxes. Every justification for taxation not only has evidence that there is no correlation between tax revenues and resolved problems, but that we are more than capable of solving these problems ourselves through voluntary collaboration, rather than coercive.
- SageRaven 13y ago
  > We were building roads and services before taxes. That's all I need: Paying to use Verizon Interstate Highway in order to traverse my state. Infrastructure is one of the few things that taxes are pretty good for, as most everyone benefits from roads, utility grids, etc.. War, scanning air travelers, and installing the Great Eye of Sauron at every intersection are not good uses of public money.

gleenn 13y ago

Pretty outrageous to hear the IRS is doing this.

knowtheory 13y ago

As a counterpoint to a lot of the outrage, it's worth noting that the rules around 501c4 organizations are fucked. As Ezra Klein points out "The IRS was wrong to target the tea party. They should’ve gone after all 501(c)4s." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/10/the-irs-was-wrong-to-target-the-tea-party-they-shouldve-gone-after-all-501c4s/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/10/t... The fact that this has become a political issue is a huge failure of governance, not politics.

newbie12 13y ago
Wow Ezra Klein gets it completely wrong. I think he's confusing 501 c(4) and c(3). c(3) are traditional social welfare charities and donations to them are tax exempt, c(4) are explicitly for political lobbying and donations are taxable. (I worked as an executive in this space for a decade). c(4) cannot get involved in elections (they can't call for the election or defeat of a specific candidate) but they can do "voter education". But in any event, the donations made to a c(4) are not tax-deductible and are private. By the way, the c4 privacy rules emerged out of the civil rights movement, when there was a concern about the government punishing people supporting civil rights. Many groups-- think Sierra Club-- have both a c(3) and a c(4) and have internal accounting in place to keep track of it all.

PeterisP 13y ago

This is a classic approach used in Russia and other countries against anti-ruling-party organizations, but I had (probably naively) expected USA to be better than this.

balkinbonkers 13y ago
Remember though the right in the USA has been on a tear of paranoia. This sounds an awful lot like a bureaucratic directive ("there's an awful lot of alleged tea party groups raising a lot of dough, keep an eye out") being reinterpreted through the conspiracy lens
- adventured 13y ago
  The right's paranoia is no worse than the paranoia the left spewed while Bush was in office. See: John Ashcroft, supposed spawn of Satan, or Hillary Clinton's vast right wing conspiracy theory. It's a rule of DC politics that whenever a new President is elected, the party that lost goes crazy until they're back in office (then they claim it's other guys that are crazy and paranoid).
  - omd 13y ago
    At least we can all agree that this story, just like Benghazi, comes from, as you put it, crazy right-wing paranoia.
    - gyardley 13y ago
      'We all' don't agree in the slightest, about this or the government's cynical attempt to blame the security failure in Benghazi on some random scapegoat's YouTube video. Speak for yourself and not others.
- newbie12 13y ago
  The audits were in an election year and we are now learning included many conservative budget organizations, not just tea party groups.

vishaldpatel 13y ago

Many of these groups would like the IRS to go away entirely. Many of these groups would like to not pay taxes at all. Why would the IRS spend an equal amount of time investigating everyone, when certain groups go out of their way to paint big targets on their backs?

eurleif 13y ago
It's the IRS's job to collect tax revenue. It's not the IRS's job to protect its own existence. That's politics, and the IRS should not be involved in politics.
- chc 13y ago
  I think you are misunderstanding. I believe the parent's point is not that the IRS is targeting anti-tax groups out of umbrage or fear, but that people who loudly declare taxation to be illegitimate are signaling, "Hey, I'm especially likely to try and evade paying taxes." Similarly, if there were a group dedicated to the idea that seducing little boys was OK, you could expect it to get some extra scrutiny from the FBI. This is not because the FBI is made up of little boys who feel threatened, but because these people are waving a big red flag that they're probably engaged in activities that the FBI has an interest in.
  - eurleif 13y ago
    You're using an extreme example, and I think a lot of people will agree in that case because it's extreme, but might have reservations about applying the same logic elsewhere. For example, should it be ok to single out people who advocate marijuana legalization for drug crime investigations? There has to be some restraint, or else people will be afraid to participate in the political process.
    - wtallis 13y ago
      I think it depends on what kind of "singling out" is being considered. What the IRS agents did in this case definitely crossed the line. But they should be allowed to scrutinize applications from suspect groups, and probably also be allowed to ask for more information to the extent that they would in a random audit. Further than that should require strong probable cause and warrants and all the other due process that was ignored by the IRS agents in this case. A drug case would probably get to the point of needing a warrant much sooner, since a pro-legalization activist isn't usually directly initiating contact with the government, so the government has no business asking for information without a warrant. But if a pro-legalization activist makes public statements about their illegal activities or intentions, it's okay for the DEA to keep an eye on those public statements and to use them to try to get a warrant.

belorn 13y ago

Quite often when privacy is discussed, some people ask why we need privacy. Some then continues on and say that its already lost and what ever harm is done and are things we need to live with. Well, this is the harm. Selective use of government "scrutiny" against those that are perceive as a threat. The only positive side of this news is that they haven't gone very far. String search of groups names feels very much like how block filters worked before deep-packet inspection. With the social graphs[1] already in existence, this type of targeting could be made very efficient and only requires the sharing of data between different government branches. https://www.softwarefreedom.org/events/2012/freedom-to-connect_moglen-keynote-2012.html https://www.softwarefreedom.org/events/2012/freedom-to-conne...

mrtksn 13y ago
Very well said. In my not-so-democratic home country, in many businesses the norm of doing business is not strictly by the law and the government turns blind eye on this as long as you play the ball. Whenever somebody upsets somebody in power, the might of the legal system crushes them without touching their cooperating competitors. It is completely legal way to silence anybody who you don't like that much. The non-profits are even more exposed. We even have a mayor who tried to demolish the campus of a prestigious university that issued reports about contamination in the drinking water, putting political pressure on the mayor. After some media circus(the mayor sent bogus samples to be analyzed but when university took the samples by itself, the results were much different), somehow he found an irregularity in the papers of the buildings and issued an order to for demolishing the 60 years old, architecture awards winning campus. Thankfully the court decided that destroying the university was not in benefit of the society and blocked the order. I have to note that this happened in the capital of the country, the irregularity was that the drawings were not in the exact same scale that the town required and somehow the legal system proceeded so quickly when lagging for years to prosecute many scandalous building projects of some friendly businessmen.

adventured 13y ago

It's worth noting the IRS also targeted various Jewish organizations (eg Z Street) as well, not just those critical of the government and taxation like the Tea Party. Clearly the IRS has a problem with targeting bias.

pekk 13y ago

Not accurate. This was politically self-defeating (for the IRS personnel concerned, in that period in Ohio) but it wasn't Orwellian. These groups are anti-tax, associated with the Sovereign Citizens movement, and also applying for a nonprofit status that legally constrains political activities that these were likely to engage in. And in the end, they all got their nonprofit status anyhow. So the screaming about how they were picked on is really disingenuous. Tax collection is a necessity for every first world country and unfortunately that means not taking every application for a nonprofit status at face value.

newbie12 13y ago
These are mainstream political groups that are opposed to excessive taxes and spending, they have nothing to do with tax avoidance schemes.
- madaxe 13y ago
  These are fringe corporatist schills who present themselves as mainstream. The Tea Party is the Koch brothers' private political army.
  - noarchy 13y ago
    And? Unleash the IRS on them because you don't like the Kochs? You have to be able to do better than this.
    - madaxe 13y ago
      No, wasn't saying that, I was merely correcting the parent's understanding as to what the tea party is. The IRS's behaviour frankly only furthers their cause.
brownbat 13y ago
Moreover, it was also a decision at the staffer level that was corrected by superiors as soon as they found out about it, ie, before it had any meaningful impact. Fixing things before they break... puts them one up on the banking sector by my count.

jaynos 13y ago

Between 2010 and 2012, applications doubled in volume. A large part of that increase was Tea Party groups. Seems like the review was pointed at the right target (when I owned a business, I inspected the work of the new guys more than the people who had been with me for a few years). The real issue should be that 300 groups were reviewed and none were rejected. The 501(c)(4) class is filled with "social welfare" groups that provide no social welfare. The only "social welfare" I see is lobbying and ads filled with half truths (this goes for liberal groups as well, though not as much). If you want to limit abortions or allow more access to guns (just examples, not a description of the groups involved), feel free to do so with donations that get taxed. Just don't tell me it's in the name if social welfare.

praxeologist 13y ago
"Between 2010 and 2012, applications doubled in volume. A large part of that increase was Tea Party groups." Really? Do you have a source for that? I'm having a hard time finding a list of all these types of groups. There are some listed on wikipedia, everything from the Colbert SuperPAC to the Washington Science Fiction Association, so what constitutes "social welfare" seems to be pretty loosely evaluated.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

One of the aspects of this that is completely unreported is the fact that in 2008, Congress gave the IRS sweeping new investigative powers. http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2013/05/09/next-target-of-irs-robo-audits-small-business http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2013... This allows them to do thing like pull all your emails and social activity simply on suspicion of doing anything wrong -- if you are flagged for any reason (as in this article) These processes are being automated. This means that it is possible, but currently unlikely, that whoever flagged these groups could have then automatically pulled down all the email and social networking chatter of the organizers behind the groups. This would have effectively given the government a "God's Eye View" of everything critics were saying and planning. This has been a year full of stories about the loss of freedom, but as far as the U.S. goes, this has the potential to be the biggest story yet.