IRS apologizes for targeting conservative groups...

[MichaelWeston]

 

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.  

 

From what I can tell there was just simply a filter that filtered out entities witht he name tea party and patriot in them for further inspection.

[MichaelWeston]

 

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. 

 

I guess I dont understand why its a violation. Why should they be treated equally. One is openly anti-tax and will do whatever they can to not be taxed. The others are not.

 

My understanding is that they are getting in trouble for scrutiinizing a group that it seems like they very well should be scrutinizing with greater depth.

[|Numbers|]

 

I guess I dont understand why its a violation. Why should they be treated equally. One is openly anti-tax and will do whatever they can to not be taxed. The others are not.

 

My understanding is that they are getting in trouble for scrutiinizing a group that it seems like they very well should be scrutinizing with greater depth.

 

Each and every one of them were approved to be a tax exempt organization (according to a previous post of mine which outline how).  IF there was a problem with the organizations at the time of filing for exempt status they would not have been approved.  Since they were approved there is nothing to quote unquote to distinguish and / or draw attention to them from what they had filed for previously (nothing is NEW is their "mission statement" ).  Otherwise, in my eyes it would be similar to an airport screener singling out the one man who had a turban on his head for anal probing...

[Homer_Rice]

 

I guess I dont understand why its a violation. Why should they be treated equally. One is openly anti-tax and will do whatever they can to not be taxed. The others are not.

 

My understanding is that they are getting in trouble for scrutiinizing a group that it seems like they very well should be scrutinizing with greater depth.

I'm not sure that simply being anti-tax justifies undue scrutiny, provided that said anti-tax 501( c ) 4 candidates are in compliance with the law. A large part of the problem with our modern political turmoil is a willingness to bypass due process and to circumvent the spirit of the law by exploiting loopholes in the the letter of the law. Thus, you get the Executive branch issuing executive orders when a matter ought properly be in the purview of the Legislative branch. You get the Federal judiciary settling elections which ought properly be handled by the states, etc... Even if one concedes, and I do, that out government is organic and therefore subject to modification over time, there are certain red lines that ought to be approached with care.

 

The taxing power of the government is potentially a very powerful means of exacting punishment of one's political opponents via this gray area of authority in our processes. As such, extra caution ought to be taken not to overstep those boundaries. Are the Tea Party folks in violation of the law? No, not after Citizens United. And just because one dislikes the use of government to de facto destroy government--which is, imo, part of the Tea Party meme--extrajudicial means of punitively acting against such groups if not acceptable, imo. I've got no problem with profiling, but I do have a problem with unwarranted delays, etc... in granting legal status to an organization that is acting in accordance with the law, even if I despise their intent.

[scharm]

 

From what I can tell there was just simply a filter that filtered out entities witht he name tea party and patriot in them for further inspection.

 

Well now you've crossed over from just wondering what the issue is to now applying your own personal opinion on the procedure itself.   

 

At this point it really doesn't matter what you can tell.    The entity in question has already admitted "errors".   An entity like that isn't going to do it if all it was a "simple" filter.

 

That part is done.  No debate they did something in "error" or "wrong".    We are now clearly in the stage beyond that gets into all the political BS and figuring how many take the blame and how far up the blame goes.

 

If the procedure was justified we wouldn't be in that stage at all.  

[MichaelWeston]

 

Well now you've crossed over from just wondering what the issue is to now applying your own personal opinion on the procedure itself.   

 

At this point it really doesn't matter what you can tell.    The entity in question has already admitted "errors".   An entity like that isn't going to do it if all it was a "simple" filter.

 

That part is done.  No debate they did something in "error" or "wrong".    We are now clearly in the stage beyond that gets into all the political BS and figuring how many take the blame and how far up the blame goes.

 

If the procedure was justified we wouldn't be in that stage at all.  

 

So what did they do beyond the filtering out and agressive and thorough scrutiny of groups that as part of thier mission have we don't want to pay taxes?

[scharm]

 

I guess I dont understand why its a violation. Why should they be treated equally. One is openly anti-tax and will do whatever they can to not be taxed. The others are not.

 

My understanding is that they are getting in trouble for scrutiinizing a group that it seems like they very well should be scrutinizing with greater depth.

 

I think you need to undestand that even before this was public knowledge to this level there was already an internal review and they already applied some level of wrong doing.  

 

Like I stated before it's the destroying of objectivity and independce similar to what you saw in corporate accounting scandals with Enron.  Except the source destroying the objectivity and independence is different source. 

 

1 factor in the corporate scandals was External Auditors looking the other way mostly because the client was paying $$$$ for other consulting projects etc.   Do you really not understand potential concerns of an entity that is funded by tax dollars admittedly misapplied it's procedures towards groups that are anti-tax?  Really?

[scharm]

 

So what did they do beyond the filtering out and agressive and thorough scrutiny of groups that as part of thier mission have we don't want to pay taxes?

 

I got no idea because I have not read the report but do you think 2 dudes all of sudden resign over nothing?    Do you think an entity like the IRS admits "rogue" employees if the procedures were justified? 

[MichaelWeston]

 

I think you need to undestand that even before this was public knowledge to this level there was already an internal review and they already applied some level of wrong doing.  

 

Like I stated before it's the destroying of objectivity and independce similar to what you saw in corporate accounting scandals with Enron.  Except the source destroying the objectivity and independence is different source. 

 

1 factor in the corporate scandals was External Auditors looking the other way mostly because the client was paying $$$$ for other consulting projects etc.   Do you really not understand potential concerns of an entity that is funded by tax dollars admittedly misapplied it's procedures towards groups that are anti-tax?  Really?

 

But why do you want them to be objective when one entity is clearly more likely to be tryng to evade taxes?

 

I got no idea because I have not read the report but do you think 2 dudes all of sudden resign over nothing?    Do you think an entity like the IRS admits "rogue" employees if the procedures were justified? 

 

Two be perfectly honest I think something else was going on, something actual scandal worthy and these guys took the fall. Because this seems like how I would want them to do business. If I were in charge I think it would make perfect sense to audit organizations who try to evade taxes more thoroughly then those who do not.

[MichaelWeston]

 

I got no idea because I have not read the report but do you think 2 dudes all of sudden resign over nothing?    Do you think an entity like the IRS admits "rogue" employees if the procedures were justified? 

You seem to be making pretty strong statments for not reading the report.

[scharm]

 

But why do you want them to be objective when one entity is clearly more likely to be tryng to evade taxes?

 

Two be perfectly honest I think something else was going on, something actual scandal worthy and these guys took the fall. Because this seems like how I would want them to do business. If I were in charge I think it would make perfect sense to audit organizations who try to evade taxes more thoroughly then those who do not.

 

2 guys just resigned and you are questioning the need of objectivity?  OK.    The IRS wants and needs their procedures to be objective to avoid this outcome.

 

You are still stuck on defending their actions.  Again, the entity itself has already admitted the "error". 

 

Your last statements show that you are still confused on the order of events.    

 

The IRS allows tax exempt status for organizations.   They have vetted procedures to do exactly what you are talking about.   However and this is the big issue the procedures were applied in error and apparently with bias (failure of objectivity).     If you were in charge and you got approval for what methods you deemed necessary and operated in accordance with that and then one of your subordinates misapplies your previously approved direction.....  you have problems and if it was like this situation we are now in the process of finding out how deep those problems go and why they occured.   

 

That is the boat you missed. 

[scharm]

You seem to be making pretty strong statments for not reading the report.

 

No.  I am just pointing out the statements made by the IRS individuals that had access to that report and its findings.  

 

You seem to be confused.   This isn't an issue of someone from Go-Bengals knows or saw something at the IRS and starts a thread to discuss and we all weigh in on with our thoughts on whether it's right or wrong.   That's already been determined for us.

 

The IRS admitted the error.  Today they claim "they failed the American people".   -  Whatever your feelings about justifying the errors is pointless.    They occured.  They have been classified as "errors".     Clearly they are in some violation of their mission. 

 

Now it is a matter of how far it goes and who is best at covering their ass.    

 

As explained before the IRS fills a role as independent governing body.  You claimed that intially you wanted to know wha tthe issue is, the issue is the IRS destroyed their objectivity by not following or misapplying their procedures.      

[MichaelWeston]

 

No.  I am just pointing out the statements made by the IRS individuals that had access to that report and its findings.  

 

You seem to be confused.   This isn't an issue of someone from Go-Bengals knows or saw something at the IRS and starts a thread to discuss and we all weigh in on with our thoughts on whether it's right or wrong.   That's already been determined for us.

 

The IRS admitted the error.  Today they claim "they failed the American people".   -  Whatever your feelings about justifying the errors is pointless.    They occured.  They have been classified as "errors".     Clearly they are in some violation of their mission. 

 

Now it is a matter of how far it goes and who is best at covering their ass.    

 

As explained before the IRS fills a role as independent governing body.  You claimed that intially you wanted to know wha tthe issue is, the issue is the IRS destroyed their objectivity by not following or misapplying their procedures.      

Why should they be objective in this situation when it would be more efficient and effective to be subjective and target people more likely to cause an issue.

[scharm]

Why should they be objective in this situation when it would be more efficient and effective to be subjective and target people more likely to cause an issue.

 

1. Easy answer  and accurate answer - Well they are currently getting their ass handed to them on a national stage.   Again, you first must recognize that they did do something in violation of their procedures.

 

2. Further explanation - You a miss applying the were the objectivity is in play.   Their procedures that were in place accounts for your inquiry of efficiency and effectiveness.   However they were not "objective" in applying those procedures.    There is your problem.

 

 

You want somebody to agree what they did was right and that's hard to do when officials are falling on their swords and now the highest authority of the country (President) is claiming he put corrective actions in place the minute he found out about it. 

[gatorclaws]

Why should they be objective in this situation when it would be more efficient and effective to be subjective and target people more likely to cause an issue.

 

Yeah, airports should have heavy screening lines for everyone Islamic. Asians should have to go through more tests to get their drivers license.

 

Who gets to determine which groups to target for more scrutiny? Is there anything proving the tea party is attempting to illegally avoid paying taxes? As long as they're trying to lower taxes through the proper channels I don't see why they deserve to be targeted.

[Jamie_B]

It shouldnt have happened, however I'm curious why the outrage is only happening now?

 

When the IRS targeted Liberal Groups

[T-Dub]

 

Yeah, airports should have heavy screening lines for everyone Islamic. Asians should have to go through more tests to get their drivers license.

 

Who gets to determine which groups to target for more scrutiny? Is there anything proving the tea party is attempting to illegally avoid paying taxes? As long as they're trying to lower taxes through the proper channels I don't see why they deserve to be targeted.

 

 I think that comparison is a stretch.  Judging someone based on race is unfair largely because it's random and beyond our control; politics are a choice. Judging someone based on their beliefs and ideas is perfectly valid.

 

 More specifically, the Tea Party isn't so much a "party" in any truly organized sense as far as I can tell so much as a loose conglomeration of anyone with an anti-government viewpoint, regardless of their reasoning.  As such they've become a haven for tax resister groups (and worse), which is not the same thing as being anti-tax.  They've invited groups that actively, sometimes violently, resist being taxed under their umbrella. 

 

Although I agree that IRS investigations as a means of punishing political opponents are wrong, when groups self-identify as part of a movement that condones something illegal it's hard to fault the people in charge of enforcing those same laws for reacting accordingly.

[scharm]

 

 I think that comparison is a stretch.  Judging someone based on race is unfair largely because it's random and beyond our control; politics are a choice. Judging someone based on their beliefs and ideas is perfectly valid.

 

 More specifically, the Tea Party isn't so much a "party" in any truly organized sense as far as I can tell so much as a loose conglomeration of anyone with an anti-government viewpoint, regardless of their reasoning.  As such they've become a haven for tax resister groups (and worse), which is not the same thing as being anti-tax.  They've invited groups that actively, sometimes violently, resist being taxed under their umbrella. 

 

Although I agree that IRS investigations as a means of punishing political opponents are wrong, when groups self-identify as part of a movement that condones something illegal it's hard to fault the people in charge of enforcing those same laws for reacting accordingly.

 

Eh, say that again?   The comparison was using airport screening and drivers licensing as examples.   Those involve DMV and TSA, right?   So did you mean to say those groups can judge individuals on the basis of their beliefs and ideas is valid?

 

So a lawyer that defends DUI suspects and is challenging the evidence and the manner it is obtained is fair game to receive more scruntiy than others when obtaining a license just because the DMV concludes well "Hey he must want to drink and drive all the time" 

 

People that work for alcohol companies that challenge the DUI criteria, they are fair game? 

 

A airline passenger that believes the screening process is largely inefficent deserves the extra check because they can conclude "Hey he must be trying to sneak something on".

 

Is Islam a race or a belief? 

[T-Dub]

Is Islam a race or a belief? 

 

Was that a serious question?

[MichaelWeston]

 

Yeah, airports should have heavy screening lines for everyone Islamic. Asians should have to go through more tests to get their drivers license.

 

I have no problem with this if there is evidence that it happens more often.

 

You still have not really explained why they are not allowed to be subjective here, atleast to a point where I understand it and I am a pretty smart guy...decently smart anyway...ok well adequate. 

 

You have essentially said they were declared guilty so they must have done it.

 

I want the IRS to thoroughly investigate groups that are anti-tax moreso then the big brothers big sisters of southwest ohio.  What could possibly be wrong with that.

 

I want the SEC to investigate people who have as part of their organizational mission not folllowing the laws of the SEC more thoroughly.

 

I want the border patrol to investigate people  who have as part of their organizational mission not folllowing the laws of immigration more thoroughly.

 

 

I want the welfare office to investigate people who have as part of their organizational mission not folllowing the laws of the welfare office more thoroughly.

 

This isn't partison at all. It's logic. When it comes to taxes anything related to the tea party should be a substantial red flag.

[MichaelWeston]

So a lawyer that defends DUI suspects and is challenging the evidence and the manner it is obtained is fair game to receive more scruntiy than others when obtaining a license just because the DMV concludes well "Hey he must want to drink and drive all the time" 

 

People that work for alcohol companies that challenge the DUI criteria, they are fair game? 

 

These are strawmen.

 

The two don't logically connect in the same way.

[scharm]

 

Was that a serious question?

 

Just confirming your thoughts.   It was in the first example and you went on about race and beliefs. 

 

These are strawmen.

 

The two don't logically connect in the same way.

 

Really?  Explain.  

 

By the way they are examples and questions.   No one is arguing they are the same the response was made to confirm the thought process not try to prove a point to someone.

 

I'd love know why those examples aren't connected. 

[scharm]

I have no problem with this if there is evidence that it happens more often.

 

You still have not really explained why they are not allowed to be subjective here, atleast to a point where I understand it and I am a pretty smart guy...decently smart anyway...ok well adequate. 

 

You have essentially said they were declared guilty so they must have done it.

 

I want the IRS to thoroughly investigate groups that are anti-tax moreso then the big brothers big sisters of southwest ohio.  What could possibly be wrong with that.

 

I want the SEC to investigate people who have as part of their organizational mission not folllowing the laws of the SEC more thoroughly.

 

I want the border patrol to investigate people  who have as part of their organizational mission not folllowing the laws of immigration more thoroughly.

 

 

I want the welfare office to investigate people who have as part of their organizational mission not folllowing the laws of the welfare office more thoroughly.

 

This isn't partison at all. It's logic. When it comes to taxes anything related to the tea party should be a substantial red flag.

 

Eh,  again.   Your thoughts are not valid.  IRS has admitted the error.  The President of the United states vowed to fix the error. 

 

That should cover any of your questions as to "why"? 

[MichaelWeston]

 

Eh,  again.   Your thoughts are not valid.  IRS has admitted the error.  The President of the United states vowed to fix the error. 

 

That should cover any of your questions as to "why"? 

 

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

[MichaelWeston]

 

Just confirming your thoughts.   It was in the first example and you went on about race and beliefs. 

 

Really?  Explain.  

 

By the way they are examples and questions.   No one is arguing they are the same the response was made to confirm the thought process not try to prove a point to someone.

 

I'd love know why those examples aren't connected. 

 

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

 

Members of NAMBLA?