IRS apologizes for targeting conservative groups...

[scharm]

 

You have essentially said they were declared guilty so they must have done it.  Then claim my thoughts are not valid.

 

Nope.   They have in fact admitted errors.   That is not my thoughts or judgement.    

 

Your attempts at trying to justify the behavior are not valid.      

[scharm]

 

Should convicted sex offenders receive more scrutiny when they apply for teaching positions?

 

Members of NAMBLA?

 

I believe sex offenders are forced to register and I also believe an applicant has to give permission for a background check.   The hiring decisions of a teacher have to meet the applicable laws and applicable job requirements.    If that hiring process is not followed fairly it should be questioned. 

 

Just the same a "Patriot" organization that is a CONVICTED tax cheat should have its tax exempt status reviewed/removed however the process to determine tax exempt status has to be applied fairly or objectivly. 

 

The questions of what you or I think is proper is ultimately invalid.   The IRS has admitted errors in their procedures.  The people responsible for the oversight have confirmed the errors through their comments.

[T-Dub]

 

The questions of what you or I think is proper is ultimately invalid.   The IRS has admitted errors in their procedures.  The people responsible for the oversight have confirmed the errors through their comments.

 

Right, because no employee at a federal agency has ever jumped on a grenade in order to make a potential scandal go away..

 

Regardless of whether you believe their actions were justified or not, using resignations and apologetic press releases as evidence of actual wrongdoing is kind of ridiculous

[MichaelWeston]

So is this essentially what happened.

 

Group A: Fill out form X

Group B: Fill out form X, Y and Z because you have a different name

 

Because that seems bad

 

I was taking it as

 

Group A submits form: Gets Level of Scrutiny 2

Group B submits form: Gets level of Scrutiny 7

 

I have a problem with the first scenario not the second.

[scharm]

 
Right, because no employee at a federal agency has ever jumped on a grenade in order to make a potential scandal go away..
 
Regardless of whether you believe their actions were justified or not, using resignations and apologetic press releases as evidence of actual wrongdoing is kind of ridiculous

They admitted error. The inspector general found error.

So is this essentially what happened.
 
Group A: Fill out form X
Group B: Fill out form X, Y and Z because you have a different name
 
Because that seems bad
 
I was taking it as
 
Group A submits form: Gets Level of Scrutiny 2
Group B submits form: Gets level of Scrutiny 7
 
I have a problem with the first scenario not the second.

Don't matter. Your justification is invalid.

[MichaelWeston]

They admitted error. The inspector general found error.

Can you tell me what that error was?

[scharm]

Can you tell me what that error was?

Developed inappropriate criteria and bad management that allowed it to continue.

[MichaelWeston]

Developed inappropriate criteria and bad management that allowed it to continue.

What was the process and what was the inappropriate criteria and at what point was this criteria used?

[scharm]

It was a process and criteria that gets your ass chewed by congress and the point it was used was apparently the wrong point.

[T-Dub]

Can you tell me what that error was?

 

 

Doing something that provided "conservatives" another opportunity to attack the current administration.

[|Numbers|]

 

 

Doing something that provided "conservatives" another opportunity to attack the current administration.

 

The worse thing is that it causes people on both sides to lose faith in government.  Things like this make it harder to look at anyone because scrutiny is upon the IRS now instead of the organizations.

 

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

[Jamie_B]

 

The worse thing is that it causes people on both sides to lose faith in government.  Things like this make it harder to look at anyone because scrutiny is upon the IRS now instead of the organizations.

 

 

 

Which gives the anarchists a rallying cry

[T-Dub]

 

The worse thing is that it causes people on both sides to lose faith in government. 

 

I would humbly suggest that our government has been doing an increasingly thorough job of that for at least the last 50 years

[MichaelWeston]

What was the process and what was the inappropriate criteria and at what point was this criteria used?

So no one can answer this? I can't seem to find this online.

[|Numbers|]

So no one can answer this? I can't seem to find this online.

 

Michael, here is a page you need to go to that includes the entire 54 page report.  Here is a sampling of information;

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-14/full-irs-inspector-general-report-inappropriate-targeting-conservative-groups

 

 

We are currently reading through the just released 54 page report from the IRS' Acting Deputy Inspector General Michael McKenney, but for now here are the key excerpts from the findings section.

 

From Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review

 

The mission of the IRS is to provide America’s taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all. According to IRS Policy Statement 1-1, IRS employees accomplish this mission by being impartial and handling tax matters in a manner that will promote public confidence. However, the criteria developed by the Determinations Unit gives the appearance that the IRS is not impartial in conducting its mission. The criteria focused narrowly on the names and policy positions of organizations instead of tax-exempt laws and Treasury Regulations. Criteria for selecting applications for the team of specialists should focus on the activities of the organizations and whether they fulfill the requirements of the law. Using the names or policy positions of organizations is not an appropriate basis for identifying applications for review by the team of specialists.

 

The Determinations Unit developed and began using criteria to identify potential political cases for review that inappropriately identified specific groups applying for tax-exempt status based on their names or policy positions instead of developing criteria based on tax-exempt laws and Treasury Regulations.

 

 

 

...or you can go here for the entire 54 page report;  Titled:  TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review May 14, 2013  Reference Number: 2013-10-053

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/141500838/Irs-Ig-Report

[MichaelWeston]

I thought if you were involved with politics you couldn't get tax exempt status. So they are not allowed to ask if they are involved in these things?

[|Numbers|]

I thought if you were involved with politics you couldn't get tax exempt status. So they are not allowed to ask if they are involved in these things?

 

I think it would be best to try and read the whole 54 page document.  IRS is very confusing and makes for a very difficult read.

 

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Political-Organizations/Exempt-Function-Political-Organization

 

 

Exempt Function - Political Organization

 

The exempt function of a political organization is influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election or appointment of an individual to a federal, state, or local public office or office in a political organization.  The election of Presidential or Vice-Presidential electors is also part of the exempt function of a political organization.  Activities that directly or indirectly relate to or support an exempt function are exempt function activities.

 

Exemption Requirements - Political Organizations

 

A political organization subject to section 527 is a party, committee, association, fund, or other organization (whether or not incorporated) organized and operated primarily for the purpose of directly or indirectly accepting contributions or making expenditures, or both, for an exempt function.

 

A political organization must be organized for the primary purpose of carrying on exempt function activities. A political organization's primary activities must be exempt function activities. A political organization may engage in activities that are not exempt function activities, but these may not be its primary activities.

 

To be exempt, a political organization must file a timely notice with the IRS that it is to be treated as a tax-exempt organization.

 

 

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/rr2004_6.pdf

[|Numbers|]

I thought if you were involved with politics you couldn't get tax exempt status. So they are not allowed to ask if they are involved in these things?

 

I think the answer to your question is both yes and no.  Reading the document will allow you to understand the questions they are allowed to ask and the ones in which they are not allowed to ask when establishing criteria for review.

[|Numbers|]

Read http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/rr2004_6.pdf

 

from page 328 on, with the various scenarios 1 - 6.

 

Its only a few pages long and helps understand the situation a little better and is a little more succinct than other sources.

[MichaelWeston]

I think the answer to your question is both yes and no.  Reading the document will allow you to understand the questions they are allowed to ask and the ones in which they are not allowed to ask when establishing criteria for review.

So at what specific point did the IRS act incorrectly?

[MichaelWeston]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/jeffrey-toobin-did-irs-actually-do-anything-wrong_724594.html

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/irs-tea-party-scandal-congress-nonprofit-obama

Makes a little more sense now. But if they were getting tons of new applications from a source that seemed both political and anti-tax....I would have scrutinized them more myself.

[Homer_Rice]

ProPublica piece.

[BengalBacker]

http://youtu.be/0N8TykuZvTY

[Homer_Rice]

Middle ground...

 

“Freedom of speech is, no doubt, one of most important fundamental rights. It is unacceptable in every way for a government agency to unfairly scrutinize any organization because of their political affiliations. The IRS has unequivocally made a mistake here. I am sorry your organizations were singled out like this, and while I think this was a case of foolish account management and dangerously careless shortcuts, I will not hesitate to say that the IRS was wrong.

 

“But as I listen to this discussion, I’d like to remind everyone what we are talking about here. None of your organizations were kept from organizing or silenced.  We are talking about whether or not the American taxpayers would subsidize your work. We are talking about a tax break.

 

[T-Dub]

Not sure why any organization, church included, that engages in political lobbying of any kind should receive tax-exempt status.