Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't care whether or not Congress finds out if this was "political".
What the IRS did was wrong.
Get the workers on the stand and ask them point blank who told them to do what they did.
Then get that guy on the stand and ask point blank who told them what to do that.
Work your way up until you get the person that originated the "faulty process".
When people are threatened with legal/jail time they will squeal if they were not responsible.
What happens when you get them on the stand, and they say, "Well we were deluged with new applications. Congress requires that we review every application, and the rules say political organizations can't get the tax exemption. So we started looking at the applications, and a lot of them seemed political. Like, tea party. The "Tea Party" name was all over the news, there were "Tea Party" candidates running for office. It seemed like if an organization called itself a "Tea Party" it was pretty likely to be at least partly involved in politics. It didn't seem wrong when we did it. If we're supposed to investigate these applications for political involvement, we just thought their names was a good place to start. We're sorry. We didn't think it through. We made a mistake."
You dont get to change your argument after being proven wrong. Your response to me was about the motive, not the action it self, now you are saying you dont care about the motive because there is proof liberal groups were targeted as well.
I wasn't trying to debate or arguing that it was political.
I was pointing out that people already got fired and the IRS already admitted guilt.
And that the Dems can't seen to get their heads around having already admitted guilt.
If the IRS admitted guilt then I am assuming they did do something wrong and to target right wing groups certainly is political in nature.
What was proven wrong ?
I go by what I've read in the press. Pick any 2 sites and you'll read two different stories on the same issue.
If I read Huffpost it says one thing and if I read Fox it says another.
Only 2/3 of the applications that received closer scrutiny weren't conservative organizations.
That's a tough fact to overcome when you are asserting that they only targeted one side of a political equation. 2/3 of the applications weren't conservative organizations.
Political equation. I never said conservative. All were groups that were counter to Obama's positions.
What happens when you get them on the stand, and they say, "Well we were deluged with new applications. Congress requires that we review every application, and the rules say political organizations can't get the tax exemption. So we started looking at the applications, and a lot of them seemed political. Like, tea party. The "Tea Party" name was all over the news, there were "Tea Party" candidates running for office. It seemed like if an organization called itself a "Tea Party" it was pretty likely to be at least partly involved in politics. It didn't seem wrong when we did it. If we're supposed to investigate these applications for political involvement, we just thought their names was a good place to start. We're sorry. We didn't think it through. We made a mistake."
Well we'll never know until we get them on the stand..right ?
The IRS said it was rogue workers. All they need to do is prove it.
But if that is the case then Obama just fired a guy for all the wrong reasons..didn't he ?
ALL? The credit repair agencies were counter to Obama's positions?
LOL, that on occasion there were legitimate investigations is not in question. None of the groups that were aligned with Obama's positions were targeted.
Well we'll never know until we get them on the stand..right ?
The IRS said it was rogue workers. All they need to do is prove it.
But if that is the case then Obama just fired a guy for all the wrong reasons..didn't he ?
No. He fired a guy because that guy was responsible for making sure the agency didn't use bias in any of it's operations. The fact that profiling was implemented may be the responsibility of the "rogue" workers. The fact that profiling continued to be implemented for eighteen months is the responsibility of management. This was a failure of management. And as I've said before, everyone involved, the workers and their managers, should be fired. But managers should be penalized further, because they should have understood why the profiling was wrong, and should have stopped it immediately.
When the conservative group's applications were held for years, but liberal applications were approved quickly, they in effect lost money. And how many just disbanded because the process was taking so long?
If you think this is OK, then you deserve the dictatorship that is being put in place.
Strawman. A group doesn't have to disband, that is a choice, that has nothing to do with the IRS, getting tax exempt status is not a freaking right. Stop pretending that it is.
Now again there was a report produced by the Treasury that investigated this.
Highlights
Highlights of Report Number: 2013-10-053 to the Internal Revenue Service Acting Commissioner, Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division.
IMPACT ON TAXPAYERS
Early in Calendar Year 2010, the IRS began using inappropriate criteria to identify organizations applying for tax-exempt status to review for indications of significant political campaign intervention. Although the IRS has taken some action, it will need to do more so that the public has reasonable assurance that applications are processed without unreasonable delay in a fair and impartial manner in the future.
WHY TIGTA DID THE AUDIT
TIGTA initiated this audit based on concerns expressed by members of Congress. The overall objective of this audit was to determine whether allegations were founded that the IRS: 1) targeted specific groups applying for tax-exempt status, 2) delayed processing of targeted groups’ applications, and 3) requested unnecessary information from targeted groups.
WHAT TIGTA FOUND The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management:
1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued.
Although the processing of some applications with potential significant political campaign intervention was started soon after receipt, no work was completed on the majority of these applications for 13 months. This was due to delays in receiving assistance from the Exempt Organizations function Headquarters office. For the 296 total political campaign intervention applications TIGTA reviewed as of December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant,
none had been denied, and 160 were open from 206 to 1,138 calendar days (some for more than three years and crossing two election cycles).
More than 20 months after the initial case was identified, processing the cases began in earnest. Many organizations received requests for additional information from the IRS that included unnecessary, burdensome questions (e.g., lists of past and future donors). The IRS later informed some organizations that they did not need to provide the information that was previously requested. IRS officials stated that any donor information received in response to a request from its Determinations Unit was later destroyed.
WHAT TIGTA RECOMMENDED TIGTA recommended that the IRS finalize the interim actions taken, better document the reasons why applications potentially involving political campaign intervention are chosen for review, develop a process to track requests for assistance, develop and publish guidance, develop and provide training to employees before each election cycle, expeditiously resolve remaining political campaign intervention cases (some of which have been in process for three years), and request that social welfare activity guidance be developed by the Department of the Treasury.
In their response to the report, IRS officials agreed with seven of our nine recommendations and proposed alternative corrective actions for two of our recommendations. TIGTA does not agree that the alternative corrective actions will accomplish the intent of the recommendations and continues to believe that the IRS should better document the reasons why applications potentially involving political campaign intervention are chosen for review and develop and publish guidance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
