IRS Knew Teap Party Was Targeted for Additional Income Tax Scrutiny

[digimon7068]

Are you contradicting yourself here? The second quote is what I was trying to say earlier.

no...not at all...i was actually just agreeing with you...i don't have a problem with "grass-roots law enforcement initiatives"

you and i have a lot more in common, theoretically-speaking, than you might expect...or maybe you already know that.

my current office is in close proximity to a couple of bars...i've been pulled over a couple of times during tax season, at 2 am, on my way home from the office...(i'm assuming) because my car was parked behind my office, there is a bar right across the street, and i drove away at closing time...and, i've been "tailed" all the way home on several occassions as well...i don't have a problem with it...if it helps keep the streets safe, who am i to argue? i don't see it as any sort of violation of my privacy or as any sort of violation of any "fair-play" rules.

 

[miplank]

Man that response was eat up with stupid. Stick to roid board.,,,!!!!

can I stfu & gtfo?

 

[Headholio]

1. Is the IRS discriminating when it focuses more audits on wealthier people with larger deductions? Or is that just efficient use of limited IRS resources?

2. If the FBI spends time survailling mosques that have proclaimed a pro-jihad attitude, is that still racial discrimination, or is that focusing on likely suspects?

3. If a tea bagger group is dedicated to the idea that all federal tax is robbery and immoral, are they deserving of IRS scrutiny or just people who are part of a political party?

Since Plunkey won't understand the meaning behind these questions I'll explain:

1 is an example of an accepted practice where randomness is not the preferred method for candidate selection.
2 and 3 are examples where a group has identified itself as being worthy of scrutiny for good cause, separate from their race or political party etc.

The analogy of a Republican administration scrutinizing planned parenthood or other (so called) liberal groups is not valid if they do not self identify as being in favor of breaking laws (and not paying the federal tax you owe is against the law).

A more reasonable analogy would be FBI spending more time to scrutinizing High Times Magazine, vs Time Magazine. High Times is within its 1st ammendment rights to print whatever it wants, but it could be suspected of breaking laws (all those beautiful pictures of tasty buds couldn't happen without being in posession of those tasty buds).

 

[billfred]

1. Is the IRS discriminating when it focuses more audits on wealthier people with larger deductions? Or is that just efficient use of limited IRS resources?

2. If the FBI spends time survailling mosques that have proclaimed a pro-jihad attitude, is that still racial discrimination, or is that focusing on likely suspects?

3. If a tea bagger group is dedicated to the idea that all federal tax is robbery and immoral, are they deserving of IRS scrutiny or just people who are part of a political party?

Since Plunkey won't understand the meaning behind these questions I'll explain:

1 is an example of an accepted practice where randomness is not the preferred method for candidate selection.
2 and 3 are examples where a group has identified itself as being worthy of scrutiny for good cause, separate from their race or political party etc.

The analogy of a Republican administration scrutinizing planned parenthood or other (so called) liberal groups is not valid if they do not self identify as being in favor of breaking laws (and not paying the federal tax you owe is against the law).

A more reasonable analogy would be FBI spending more time to scrutinizing High Times Magazine, vs Time Magazine. High Times is within its 1st ammendment rights to print whatever it wants, but it could be suspected of breaking laws (all those beautiful pictures of tasty buds couldn't happen without being in posession of those tasty buds).

you are making arguments for something the IRS and the President are admitting was wrong.

 

[Headholio]

you are making arguments for something the IRS and the President are admitting was wrong.

Well, we should mark this down as a time that Headholio disagrees with Obama.

But the story needs more context. According to the article:

On Jan, 25, 2012, the criteria for flagging suspect groups was changed to, "political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform/movement," the report says.

So its not just the Tea Party that was targeted. Educating on the Constitution would lead to IRS scrutiny? I would say they need more justification than that.

But.....

Even more context:

A 501-C4 tax exempt organization can participate in politics, but must have "Social Welfare" as their primary activity.

So you might have thought that Carl Rove's Crossroads group is a right wing political group, but no, its a social welfare group!

So, the IRS needs to scrutinize these groups that are claiming 501-C4 tax exempt status to make sure they are truly Social Welfare groups and not just political groups which should be paying taxes.

So words like "Tea Party" would flag a group as being political and worthy of scrutiny as to their tax exempt status, or so says the IRS.

Doesn't seem like earth shattering news.

 

[billfred]

Well, we should mark this down as a time that Headholio disagrees with Obama.

But the story needs more context. According to the article:



So its not just the Tea Party that was targeted. Educating on the Constitution would lead to IRS scrutiny? I would say they need more justification than that.

But.....

Even more context:

A 501-C4 tax exempt organization can participate in politics, but must have "Social Welfare" as their primary activity.

So you might have thought that Carl Rove's Crossroads group is a right wing political group, but no, its a social welfare group!

So, the IRS needs to scrutinize these groups that are claiming 501-C4 tax exempt status to make sure they are truly Social Welfare groups and not just political groups which should be paying taxes.

So words like "Tea Party" would flag a group as being political and worthy of scrutiny as to their tax exempt status, or so says the IRS.

Doesn't seem like earth shattering news.

the point is not targeting that type of organization. It is targeting the one that is affiliated with just one party. Come on man - you are sharper than this.

 

[Headholio]

the point is not targeting that type of organization. It is targeting the one that is affiliated with just one party. Come on man - you are sharper than this.

I get what the accusation is, but the article isn't really clear that that is the case, and the Inspector General's final report on the investigation isn't out.

In all, about 300 groups were singled out for additional review, Lerner said. Of those, about a quarter were singled out because they had "tea party" or "patriot" somewhere in their applications

.


Who were the other 75% of groups that were targeted? Were they just right wing groups? Or were the political keywords unbiased and used to fairly scrutinize political groups that want tax exempt status?

 

[digimon7068]

Well, we should mark this down as a time that Headholio disagrees with Obama.

But the story needs more context. According to the article:



So its not just the Tea Party that was targeted. Educating on the Constitution would lead to IRS scrutiny? I would say they need more justification than that.

But.....

Even more context:

A 501-C4 tax exempt organization can participate in politics, but must have "Social Welfare" as their primary activity.

So you might have thought that Carl Rove's Crossroads group is a right wing political group, but no, its a social welfare group!

So, the IRS needs to scrutinize these groups that are claiming 501-C4 tax exempt status to make sure they are truly Social Welfare groups and not just political groups which should be paying taxes.

So words like "Tea Party" would flag a group as being political and worthy of scrutiny as to their tax exempt status, or so says the IRS.

Doesn't seem like earth shattering news.

political groups don't have to pay taxes...they are exempt under IRC 527...jus' sayin'

 

[redsamurai]

BO needs to lop-off a bunch of heads. If he doesn't, then it is on him. If he does, he'll deserve accolades.

The government's tax arm being used as a weapon to quell political dissent is 100% against every liberal and conservative principal. This isn't a (R) or (D) thing, this is just plain tyrannical government.

couple years ago it was Hollywood people getting hit up by the IRS and all the libs screamed that they were getting targeted cause they gave heaps of money to the dems. Same old shit now just from the other side so STFU and move on.

 

[redsamurai]

Barry and Shrub are about equal in terms of presidential quality. I don't particularly care for either.

And yet you for 8 years you tongued his ass with no syrup nor jelly....none whatsoever.