Jump to content

IRS apologizes for targeting conservative groups...


Numbers

Recommended Posts

Like it or not... you should.  That non profit that wants to feed children may only be sending 2 or 3 pennies of every dollar donated to actually feeding children.  The CEO may be using it as a simple revenue engine.  Wouldn't you want that to be found out?

 

But, lets stay along your line of thinking... even if you did say that political non-profits should be scrutinized more than charitable ones... you still need to scrutinize that classification equally across ALL of them.

 

Not that Daily Show is a great source of info, but in that recording she says roughly 75 out of 300 NPO applications tagged for scrutiny were for "right wing organizations" or however it was worded.  How is that significant?  In my opinion groups with titles such as "Patriot" etc should be under scrutiny from law enforcement, not just the IRS, but as others have pointed out when you represent a movement that embraces tax resistance and such that seems like a pretty good reason for the IRS to investigate your application for NPO status.  Regardless, when these groups only represent a quarter of those that were flagged I'm not sure how that indicates any concerted effort to target them, even if it wasn't legitimate.

 

I hope the public finds these never ending "scandals" aimed at hamstringing the Obama presidency as transparent as I do, but sadly I doubt that is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not that Daily Show is a great source of info, but in that recording she says roughly 75 out of 300 NPO applications tagged for scrutiny were for "right wing organizations" or however it was worded.  How is that significant?  In my opinion groups with titles such as "Patriot" etc should be under scrutiny from law enforcement, not just the IRS, but as others have pointed out when you represent a movement that embraces tax resistance and such that seems like a pretty good reason for the IRS to investigate your application for NPO status.  Regardless, when these groups only represent a quarter of those that were flagged I'm not sure how that indicates any concerted effort to target them, even if it wasn't legitimate.

 

I hope the public finds these never ending "scandals" aimed at hamstringing the Obama presidency as transparent as I do, but sadly I doubt that is the case.

I hope so too but this is just fodder for people who had an agenda to then now start having evidence to support what they already thought. Confirmation bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your not going to scrutinize a non profit that wants to feed children less then a nonprofit that is related to a political party that wants to not pay taxes. Thats simply dumb.

 

 

I understand where you are coming from regarding these people by their nature are anti-tax so they by the nature of the IRS might get a little more scrutinity, and I agree with that notion 100%

 

However there are alot of 508s that are feed the children types that are preforming fraud too and should get scrutinized as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're not going to add something of substance to the discussion and just throw out stupid crap, then don't add at all.

 

This statement makes you sound like an idiot.  I'm not saying you are one but this makes you sound like one.

 

 

It's funny some people around here wanted to pretend that there isnt a ignorant part to the tea party that they are just good American Patriots, and then someone like Justice shows up here and confrims it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I hope the public finds these never ending "scandals" aimed at hamstringing the Obama presidency as transparent as I do, but sadly I doubt that is the case.

 

 

Oh it's completely transparent to me.

 

Sad thing is that when these folks continue to cry wolf on things like the birth certificate thing, the muslim thing, the radical pastor thing, the paling around with terrorists thing, the soft on support for Israel thing, the he's not black he's half white thing, the he's a socalist thing (biggest one), the they shoved Obamacare down our throats thing, the Obamacare is a goverment takeover of our healthcare system thing, the Benghazi thing, the fast and the furious thing, the fema coffins thing, the AP snooping thing, the he's taking our guns thing, the Jay-Z goes to Cuba thing, the non-real-issue I'm sure will pop-up next thing.  It distracts us from actual issues.

 

Like the he's not a liberal by fiscal and forgien policy he's a 90s republican thing, the he's as much of a neo-liberal as the past admin thing, the he's as much of a neo-con as the past admin thing, the drones thing, the civil liberties thing, the lack of a backbone on prosecuting anyone on wall st. thing, the he's owned by the lobbiests as much as the others are thing.

 

You know real issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It's funny some people around here wanted to pretend that there isnt a ignorant part to the tea party that they are just good American Patriots, and then someone like Justice shows up here and confrims it.

 

 

The problem IMO is that it's an umbrella for all sorts of people, some of whom are probably just supporters of downsized government and all that. Unfortunately it's really a banner uniting the vaguely angry and ridiculously uninformed Alex Jones types. It's also legitimized a whole slew of radicals, from religious extremists to thinly-veiled white supremacists and so on.. Basically a grab-bag of white, lower-middle class rabble feeling disenfranchised & threatened because they've been told their position of largely-unacknowledged privilege is being challenged by changing demographics.

 

Very rich people paying less-rich people to tell middle class people to blame their problems on poor people, so they can get richer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The problem IMO is that it's an umbrella for all sorts of people, some of whom are probably just supporters of downsized government and all that. Unfortunately it's really a banner uniting the vaguely angry and ridiculously uninformed Alex Jones types. It's also legitimized a whole slew of radicals, from religious extremists to thinly-veiled white supremacists and so on.. Basically a grab-bag of white, lower-middle class rabble feeling disenfranchised & threatened because they've been told their position of largely-unacknowledged privilege is being challenged by changing demographics.

 

Very rich people paying less-rich people to tell middle class people to blame their problems on poor people, so they can get richer.

 

 

and those middle class people eat it up sadly and vote against their own interests

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It's funny some people around here wanted to pretend that there isnt a ignorant part to the tea party that they are just good American Patriots, and then someone like Justice shows up here and confrims it.

well your mom confirmed it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your not going to scrutinize a non profit that wants to feed children less then a nonprofit that is related to a political party that wants to not pay taxes. Thats simply dumb.

 

No.   In that line of business which is auditing.   You have to be objective and apply the same due dilligence.   

 

Persumably there is a method to the madness.  The scrunity exists for a reason.    You can "profile" but you can't vary the application.  

 

From a corporate standpoint this was the inherent flaw with the accounting scandals although the source of the damaging objectivity was different.

 

Your term of "profiling" might be correct as you have to do that in order to be more effective.   However, with declaration of this rouge employee there is already an admission that normal procedures weren't followed.

 

Remove the political nature of this.   I got to audit expense reports.   I physically can't audit them all.   I have to "profile" to get make my review more effective.

 

However,  whatever that "profile" ends up being it has to be applied to the entire population or the results are going to be flawed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No.   In that line of business which is auditing.   You have to be objective and apply the same due dilligence.   

 

Persumably there is a method to the madness.  The scrunity exists for a reason.    You can "profile" but you can't vary the application.  

 

From a corporate standpoint this was the inherent flaw with the accounting scandals although the source of the damaging objectivity was different.

 

Your term of "profiling" might be correct as you have to do that in order to be more effective.   However, with declaration of this rouge employee there is already an admission that normal procedures weren't followed.

 

Remove the political nature of this.   I got to audit expense reports.   I physically can't audit them all.   I have to "profile" to get make my review more effective.

 

However,  whatever that "profile" ends up being it has to be applied to the entire population or the results are going to be flawed. 

You dont think auditors should look into things deeper that they view as being more likely to contain errors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://blacksportsonline.com/home/2013/05/caption-the-photo-eagles-ol-evan-mathis-peeing-on-irs-building-sign/

 

I hope Mathis doesn’t owe any Taxes, because I am sure an audit is coming his way now. He is straight on Instagram flexing,  Bleacher Report captured the photo before Chip Kelly makes him take it down and drink a protein shake (no more fast food at the Eagles camp).

 

Evan-Mathis-Peeing-IRS-Sign.jpg

 

Surprisingly, they didn't say Ex-Bengal...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still not understanding this one. Imagine you sit down at a poker table where there is a guy watching to make sure no one cheats. He is going to watch fairly closely so no one cheats. But then a guy walks in who openly says I don't care about the rules I will cheat if necessary to win. Wouldn't the guy watch him closer? Shouldn't the NFL watch Bill Bellicheck closer than Marvin Lewis because Bellicheck is a known cheater?

Lets say I own a convenience store. 10 people walk in. 4 older men dressed in suits, 3 younger men dressed in khaki's and polos and 3 other younger men dressed like rappers. I would be an idiot if I gave the same scrutiny to the first 7 that I gave the last 3.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets say I own a convenience store. 10 people walk in. 4 older men dressed in suits, 3 younger men dressed in khaki's and polos and 3 other younger men dressed like rappers. I would be an idiot if I gave the same scrutiny to the first 7 that I gave the last 3.

 

Definitely; any one of the guys dressed like rappers probably have more $ than the other 7 combined. 

 

 

 

 

 

ninja-gansta-dollar-ninja-nunchuck-gangs

 

 

 

 

Seriously though, I can tell you from having worked in a c-store for a few years a while back, it never ceased to amaze me the people who would try to swipe stuff.  Winos and crackheads are obvious, but college chets were way more likely to try and shoplift than "gangsta" types, they rarely did if they were over high school age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You dont think auditors should look into things deeper that they view as being more likely to contain errors?

 

I don't know how you come to that conclusion.     What you had been suggesting up to that point had merit.   However what you are not grasping is those techinques that you describe as "profiling" or now "look into things deeper" should be determine prior to the review and how they are going to be applied.

 

The fact that it is known and there is internal reports and findings at the very least they identified "rogue" employees  tells you procedures were violated.   That culture in the IRS doesn't just start doing that kind of shit for nothing.  

 

The shit your talking about should be built in their review and if there any entity in the world that should understand objectivity and indpendence it's the IRS. 

 

What we are witinessing today is the fall out of when audit procedures are violated.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still not understanding this one. Imagine you sit down at a poker table where there is a guy watching to make sure no one cheats. He is going to watch fairly closely so no one cheats. But then a guy walks in who openly says I don't care about the rules I will cheat if necessary to win. Wouldn't the guy watch him closer? Shouldn't the NFL watch Bill Bellicheck closer than Marvin Lewis because Bellicheck is a known cheater?

Lets say I own a convenience store. 10 people walk in. 4 older men dressed in suits, 3 younger men dressed in khaki's and polos and 3 other younger men dressed like rappers. I would be an idiot if I gave the same scrutiny to the first 7 that I gave the last 3.

 

Difficult analogy to dissect.  If the review process is the poker table, the guy who says he's going to cheat if necessary to win is the Tea Party for example, and the rules are the ones that govern filling out the forms necessary for filing taxes... 

 

Nobody knew these groups were cheating.  Merely filing out the paper work for tax exemption does not mean they plan on cheating the IRS, nor does it mean they will.  These groups did everything they were supposed to when filing and nobody at the time of filing said anything and its been years since some of these groups have been around.  If there is a question of cheating, bring it up at the onset of filing and not years later when it will look extremely partisan in nature.

 

What I do know is  that if the IRS does investigate a person they will more than likely find an error on your paperwork if they dig enough.  Does an error make you a cheat ?

 

The best explanation on the way I feel is at the following address:

 

http://business.time.com/2013/05/14/the-irs-was-wrong-but-many-political-groups-should-not-be-tax-exempt/

 

 

In the past, these groups would have claimed tax-exempt status as Sec. 527 organizations. There are no contribution limits, no restrictions on who may give, and no limits on how they spend their money (except they cannot advocate for a specific candidate). But 527s must disclose the names of the fat cats who use them to finance political campaigns.  And groups that thrive on political dark money will do almost anything to avoid transparency. So they walked through the (c)(4) door opened by the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision.

 

Because the law is so ambiguous and because IRS scrutiny of these groups is so fraught with political landmines (as the recent unpleasantness proves), the IRS had been reluctant to review this issue all.  Now it seems, the agency took a much-needed hard look at some groups, but did so in a clumsy and seemingly partisan way.

 

Regrettably, by apparently focusing only on conservative (c)(4)s, the IRS has only succeeded in making all these groups—on the political right and the left– even more immune from investigation.

 

 

The only way to avoid this whole mess is going to be a costly and expansive review of ALL of these political groups and not just singling out conservative groups...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still not understanding this one. Imagine you sit down at a poker table where there is a guy watching to make sure no one cheats. He is going to watch fairly closely so no one cheats. But then a guy walks in who openly says I don't care about the rules I will cheat if necessary to win. Wouldn't the guy watch him closer? Shouldn't the NFL watch Bill Bellicheck closer than Marvin Lewis because Bellicheck is a known cheater?

Lets say I own a convenience store. 10 people walk in. 4 older men dressed in suits, 3 younger men dressed in khaki's and polos and 3 other younger men dressed like rappers. I would be an idiot if I gave the same scrutiny to the first 7 that I gave the last 3.

 

That's because you fail to realize the IRS has these procedures in place already.    In the world of the IRS and we are clearly seeing today when they don't follow their procedures it results in political witch hunts, congressional reviews, internal review, dudes resigning etc. 

 

Before this blew up to the national view they had already performed internal reviews and identified the root cause as "rogue" employees.   This isn't backroom poker game or even the NFL (however the Goodell did get drug through court and had some of his actions reversed) the IRS isn't doing this on a level were your examples are even applicable.

 

Goodell went off the reservation with the Saints and did pay a price.     If somehow there was a governing body of your pokeroom example and if the guy responsible for catching cheating went out of bounds on procedures he'd probably be fired.

 

Your late to the game a violation of procedure already happened.   We are living the aftermath currently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...