3 ms·

Tea party groups weren't targeted for audits. Groups that applied for tax exempt status on basis of providing social welfare were sent for additional screening

by eclipxe 13y ago

Tea party groups weren't targeted for audits. Groups that applied for tax exempt status on basis of providing social welfare were sent for additional screening to ensure the group was not primarily a political group. There were over 300 applications sent for additional screening. 1/3 were conservative groups. 1/3 were liberal. The whole problem was the selection criteria for being reviewed - based on the name of the group.

XorNot 13y ago
Which was a problem because its nearly impossible to review these groups properly anyway - the criteria are so broad that it's practically a subjective decision. Of course, Congress could amend the tax code to provide clear instructions to the IRS on what should and should not trigger review and what should be reviewed, but that all sounds a little bit too much like actually doing their jobs.
theflyingkiwi42 13y ago
Where does your 1/3 liberal come from? I cannot find that anywhere. You are corrected they were not targeted for AUDITS, but they were targeted. It is not just the problem that they were targeted based on name (I actually think that's pretty reasonable) but the questions that were asked, the time it took to get approved (or denied) and the fact that IRS lied to congress about it.
hga 13y ago
Your argument fails when it's noted that famous "Social Welfare" 501(c)(4) organizations include the NRA's lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, and the new version of Obama's Organizing for America, Organizing for Action. Perhaps ironically, the latter's first major action was to campaign for gun control after Newtown. In other words, the parameters of 501(c)(4) organizations were already well established, and being primarily "political" (when you think about it, a rather vaguely broad term) is just fine, you're focusing too much on the words of art "social welfare" vs. what they mean in practice. Even Obamacon (con as in "conservative") Peggy Nonan has woken up and realized the implications of this (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324412604578515673945731506.html?mod=rss_opinion_main http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732441260457851...): "What does it mean when half the country—literally half the country—understands that the revenue-gathering arm of its federal government is politically corrupt, sees them as targets, and will shoot at them if they try to raise their heads? That is the kind of thing that can kill a country, letting half its citizens believe that they no longer have full political rights." Do you really think that's OK?
sologoub 13y ago
My bad, not audits, but still...

by eclipxe 13y ago

XorNot 13y ago

Which was a problem because its nearly impossible to review these groups properly anyway - the criteria are so broad that it's practically a subjective decision. Of course, Congress could amend the tax code to provide clear instructions to the IRS on what should and should not trigger review and what should be reviewed, but that all sounds a little bit too much like actually doing their jobs.

theflyingkiwi42 13y ago

Where does your 1/3 liberal come from? I cannot find that anywhere. You are corrected they were not targeted for AUDITS, but they were targeted. It is not just the problem that they were targeted based on name (I actually think that's pretty reasonable) but the questions that were asked, the time it took to get approved (or denied) and the fact that IRS lied to congress about it.

hga 13y ago

Your argument fails when it's noted that famous "Social Welfare" 501(c)(4) organizations include the NRA's lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, and the new version of Obama's Organizing for America, Organizing for Action. Perhaps ironically, the latter's first major action was to campaign for gun control after Newtown. In other words, the parameters of 501(c)(4) organizations were already well established, and being primarily "political" (when you think about it, a rather vaguely broad term) is just fine, you're focusing too much on the words of art "social welfare" vs. what they mean in practice. Even Obamacon (con as in "conservative") Peggy Nonan has woken up and realized the implications of this (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324412604578515673945731506.html?mod=rss_opinion_main http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732441260457851...): "What does it mean when half the country—literally half the country—understands that the revenue-gathering arm of its federal government is politically corrupt, sees them as targets, and will shoot at them if they try to raise their heads? That is the kind of thing that can kill a country, letting half its citizens believe that they no longer have full political rights." Do you really think that's OK?

sologoub 13y ago

My bad, not audits, but still...