Skip to main content

The IRS is being accused of selectively targeting Tea Party and Conservative groups that were applying for 501(c) tax exempt status. These tax exempt organizations cannot engage in political campaigns. Technically speaking their purpose is educational and for the social welfare.

It is a fact that Tea Party and Conservative groups have been blowing through the limits of what 501(c) nonprofits are allowed to do. As I stated in the article “Liberals Outrage On IRS Tea Party Scrutiny Unjustified & Foolish”, the IRS was justified and doing their jobs in researching these groups that have been actively corrupting the body politic. Unfortunately many Liberals and the President in public articulate otherwise.

The Treasury Inspector General Report For Tax Administration is out. This is the report that President Obama and Whitehouse Chief Spokesman Jay Carney have been alluding to in their respective press conferences. The highlights of the report follow:

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

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.

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 previously requested information. 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, finalize 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 finalize and publish guidance.

Unfortunately it is evident this report was written with a conclusion already predetermined for political reasons. The evidence is that the report’s conclusion matches the narrative by most pre-report.

For those that make the argument that this IRS must not be allowed to scrutinize lest our base be scrutinized when no longer having the Whitehouse, it is important to note that argument is invalid. When the GOP is in the Whitehouse they act with impunity. They are unconcerned about political correctness. This is not said from a partisan perspective but from a factual one. They actually used the IRS to audit the NAACP and churches. They acted. And their base was OK with it.

The Liberal base's false sense of purity as opposed to political reality hurts our ability to push our moral agenda which allows the evil of their platform to dominate our body politic. We must grow up to the reality of now.

That the ill intended groups were justifiably targeted is considered politically incorrect. Once again, the Right Wing has been successful in changing the parameters of the narrative and Liberals simply lick their wounds and try to regroup as opposed to confront unjustified objections directly, forcefully, and with moral resolve.


IRS IG Report



LIKE My Facebook PageVisit My Blog: EgbertoWillies.com

Originally posted to ProgressiveLiberal on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:48 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Teabaggers deserve their tax shelter (6+ / 0-)

    They're taxed enough already, you know.

    Really, how much air does anybody think this shit has?  1 week at the most is my prediction.

    Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

    by yet another liberal on Tue May 14, 2013 at 07:59:49 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for giving me the scoop on the (0+ / 0-)

    BS meter for this.  For a second I thought it might be serious, but I see it's just more thin smoke and will be gone yesterday.

  •  I can't help but feel (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fou, Sylv

    if Lerner hadn't issued such a strong apology that this issue wouldn't have blown up so quickly.  Bad PR.

  •  Interesting footnote (#12) on page 4: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    white blitz, The Jester, Sylv
    12 A future audit is being considered to assess how the EO function monitors I.R.C. §§ 501(c)(4)–(6) organizations to ensure that political campaign intervention does not constitute their primary activity.
    Wonder what the RightWing Noise Machine will say when the IG comes back with a report that the IRS should do MORE audits of 501(c)4 organizations to validate that they are in compliance with the political activities restrictions of the IRC.

    I wish there was a list of the TeaParty 501(c)4 organizations that originated in 2009-2010 and see if they still exist. Driving a bunch of money through a short-lived 501(c)4 would be an easy way to abuse the rule, by the time the fraud is caught, the organization has disbanded and has no assets for the IRS to go after.

  •  Page 8 finding: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sylv
    Some applications with indications of significant political campaign intervention were not identified for review by the team of specialists
    So the IG finds that the IRS should be MORE vigilant in its selection to review MORE potentially political organizations. Hmmm...
    •  right, more vigilant based on neutral (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      erush1345, JesseCW, VClib, Adam B

      criteria.  ie, the TP filter was both overinclusive and underinclusive, which is the hallmark of a crappy methodology.

      •  Not sure filter was "over inclusive" IG seems to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LI Mike

        think not. The apparent problem isn't actually with the filter, but the fact that the terms in the filter happen to match to "politically sensitive" terms.

        The facts seem to be we have the grifter class finding a new way to launder money, and all seeming to come up with very similar sounding names and (possibly identical) purposes. So it isn't very surprising that those newly frequent terms garner some additional scrutiny.

        Reading the entire IG report leads me to believe that the IG found shortcuts that shouldn't have been taken (like trying to group similar applications) activities that SHOULD have been taken and other indications of an overworked enterprise.

        To me the scandal is that all of these organizations actually were approved. They ARE political organizations, they shouldn't be tax exempt.

    •  Vigilant, not biased. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      Hard conclusion to argue with, and not at all self-contradictory.

      "The thing about smart motherfuckers is that they sound like crazy motherfuckers to dumb motherfuckers." Robert Kirkman

      by JesseCW on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:23:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I still don't see "bias" in what happened (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LI Mike

        There really were a whole lotta new applications for "social welfare" organizations that spouted right wing political trope. With the increase, there had to be an increase in scrutiny, because all apps are supposed to be scrutinized. The fact that lots of "tea party" folks didn't get an immediate license to grift, doesn't mean that they were discriminated against, it just means that there were a lot of those grifters filling the pipeline.

  •  Huh? (9+ / 0-)

    What is the evidence that "this report was written with a conclusion already predetermined for political reasons," other than the fact that you don't like the conclusion?

    You said it's evident. Show the evidence.

  •  wow (6+ / 0-)

    Forget reality. Even the IRS say they were wrong but you think it is OK to target groups because of their ideology? Remember that when a gop runs the WH.

    Nixon would be proud of you.

    •  You missed the point. The groups targeted were (6+ / 0-)

      not targeted in a vacuum. They Tea Party in the aggregate's primary activity has never been education or social welfare and as such any group under that banner must be researched to ensure in meets the criteria. This is rather simple and should not be a scandal. There is visual evidence from the inception of these organization.

      At some point the semblance of political correctness is nothing but impotence.

      •  Wow. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW, johnny wurster, erush1345, Adam B

        You cannot be serious? It's Ok to use the IRS as a political weapon? And your name is "progressive liberal". Yes groups are subject to review of an application but this was beyond that. The groups were targeted by name, and treated differently only because of their name or description. Get real.

        And while apparently there have been instances of  retaliation (NCAAP) due to their political statements, this is a systematic attack based on ideology. Not a response to an individual statement. It is really chilling to think that if you have "progressive"in your name you would harassed by the IRS.

        i guess you're also cool with secretly eavesdropping on news organizations as well.

        •  The IRS should audit ALL 501C groups period and (5+ / 0-)

          with a fine tooth comb.  It is not ideology they are looking for, it is ignoring the rules that allow them the tax exemption.  Do you feel good that your tax dollars are used to support these whacko's, I don't.

          •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW, erush1345

            All, not some based on politics. Which is what they did.

            •  Is it clear they did it on politics or did they do (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ProgressiveLiberal

              it because similar groups have a history of breaking the rules.  A group whose ONLY purpose is EDUCATION of a particular POV is suspect on their face.  Most of our organization DO something, conservation(action not talk), the Patriot Groups are solidly in the political camp and as such just their application should be heavily scrutinized.  A dog dressed as a cat is still a dog.

            •  NO THEY DID NOT (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ProgressiveLiberal

              First, these were not audits, these were reviews of applications for tax exempt status.

              Second, read the report - there is NO evidence that they were selected based on politics. NONE.

              The IRS does this all the time: if there is a new law, a new type of transaction, a new type of group, and they see a high volume of activity in that area, they will select that group/transaction for additional scrutiny.

              The IRS did this with environmental groups during the Clinton administration - was this Clinton's fault? Were they being political then?

              The IRS did this with charities that popped up after 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina: while they expedited their review of those applications, they also went over them more closely than a "regular" charity because of the potential for fraudsters and scammers.

              They did this with so-called investment clubs - those got a harder look due to the potential that investment brokers were really behind them and using them to hide income.

              The only point of dispute appears to be that the IG wants the IRS to be more transparent and specific in the criteria they use to select for heightened scrutiny, and to communicate this better. The IRS appears to be balking at this somewhat, presumably because they don't want their hands tied in going after areas of potential fraud or noncompliance.

              If the FBI or DOJ investigation finds evidence that there was no basis for heightened scrutiny other than the political leanings of the organizations, then I agree - this would be an abuse and heads should roll.

              But so far, this is not the case.

              Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

              by absdoggy on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:25:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes there is. (0+ / 0-)

                I never said it was an audit, it was extra scrutiny- often unnecessary - for certain groups. Groups with certain political and ideological names. Which were targeted based on those words. And you do not think that is political?

                The report says:

                "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,"
                As the President said:

                "intolerable and inexcusable."

                •  No, I don't necessarily think it was political (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sylv

                  I am a CPA and have dealt with the IRS before on similar matters.

                  My point is, what the IG's report is describing is exactly what the IRS has done in other similar situations.  Again, I ask you - during the Clinton administration, the IRS singled out environmental group applications for tax exempt status (different code section, but same principle).  They did so in the same manner - based on the group's name and/or policy position. Was this political?

                  No it was not.  They did so because they were getting a high volume of such applications, because they were new groups more commonly associated with political lobbying than charitable or social welfare purposes, and these 2 factors led the IRS to believe that there was an increased risk of fraud or noncompliance among these type organizations. The same is true for other types of groups and other types of financial transactions: new, unusual and high volume of activity is going to alert the IRS to increase scrutiny.

                  The IG says the criteria should have been "indications of political campaign intervention". Okay, but how can there be such indications unless the IRS asks additional questions and applies extra scrutiny?

                  Also, I think the IRS has a legitimate difference of opinion with the IG on this point: if the IRS cannot apply additional scrutiny based on new, unusual or sudden high volume of activity, then be prepared for a lot more fraud going on until the compliance division is able to catch them on the back end and its only years later that the IRS is able to apply extra scrutiny.

                  Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

                  by absdoggy on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:02:45 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Two other points: (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Kristin in WA

                  If the IRS had selected the  "Jewish Environmental Defense Fund" for extra review back in the 1990s, do we automatically assume that the IRS must be a bunch of anti-semites?

                  If the IRS selected the "African-Americans of Georgia Investment Club" for audit, do we automatically assume the IRS must be racist?

                  No we don't - they were simply caught up in the review of new and high volume applications for environmental groups and investment clubs that was going on at the time. Same principle applies here.

                  Second, the President said IF the IRS had a politically motivated basis for doing this it was intolerable and inexcusable.  IF.  Which has not been shown.

                  Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

                  by absdoggy on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:09:57 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Was their selection systematic? (0+ / 0-)

                    Sis they use the terms Jewish or African to apply extra scrutiny? No. Apples and bricks. That is the difference: specific terms were used to identify which applications would receive extra scrutiny without regard to their potential for not meeting the standard (which is supposed to be the criteria). Over 300 were identified- every single application with those terms.

                    It is chilling to think that under different circumstances the trigger could be Jewish, Africa, Progressive, etc.  It is wrong period.

                    •  Yes, the selection was systematic (0+ / 0-)

                      Specific terms were used to identify which applications would get extra scrutiny.

                      And here's the key point - "without regard to their potential for not meeting the standard".

                      That's false. There was regard to their potential for not meeting the standard. The potential was the fact that they were a new type of group, there was a high volume of applications, and in a short period of time, all of which create a potential for fraudsters and non-compliance.

                      As I have noted - under different circumstances the trigger has been "environmental", "investment club", "Hurricane Katrina", etc.  

                      This time the trigger was "tea party".  But again - the question is why was "tea party" a trigger?  The evidence suggests it was for the same reason that "environmental" was - the potential for fraudsters and non-compliance during a high-volume wave of new entities trying for tax exempt status.  

                      If the IRS agents involved are interviewed, or we examine their emails/letters/etc. and discover that this was not the case - that they selected these groups in an attempt to damage the Tea Party cause - then by all means fire them, and hell, put Karl Rove in charge of an independent probe into whether this involved the White House.

                      But that's not what the IG report says.

                      In the end, the IG report is correct in saying that the IRS should have been more transparent about this, and communicated better about it.  These failures more than anything are what has led to the President's remarks and the IRS' apology.

                      But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that a legitimate IRS practice of targeting certain groups or transactions due to the new and high volume nature of their activity is wrong.

                      Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

                      by absdoggy on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:08:03 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No I was referring to (0+ / 0-)

                        african, or jewish.

                        You make a case that the IRS itself doesn't make.

                        The evidence suggests it was for the same reason that "environmental" was - the potential for fraudsters and non-compliance during a high-volume wave of new entities trying for tax exempt status.
                         

                        Why only those right wing terms? Why not progressive?

                        I would the out the baby- but treat all babies fairly- which the IRS didn't do.

          •  and not to mention that many are scams (0+ / 0-)

            look at their books. How much is spent on selves vs actually delivery of services. Many spend 80% or more on themselves and lifestyle, not services or education. It's just another tax shelter. As I recall a fellow tried to start one of those in the Austin area, got made at the IRS because he owed back taxes and refused his application and his wife hated him so he flew his plane into their building. I think in this case he was trying to start a "church." Anyway politics has EVERYTHING to do with it. There ain't supposed to be the taint of politics in this kind of non-profit.

        •  you misunderstand this law the same way the Tea (0+ / 0-)

          Party misunderstands. it is the job of the IRS to be sure that those who apply for 501(c)4 are performing a social service and not involved in political influence - no mater what kind of politics. It happenss that there were hundreds of teaparty applications and just having the name tea party or patriot in the name is a red flag that there is some kind of political action. I mean if it calls itself a goose, it's a goose. I'll also add that many of these applications were submitted by scam artists who saw an opportunity to get some money out of old white scaredy fat cats and it's the IRS's job to stop that nonsense as well.

    •  BTW, None of us need to wonder what (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fou, Sylv

      GOP will do when in the WH. They act without impunity. They are unconcerned about political correctness. This is not said  from  partisan perspective but from a factual one. They actually use the IRS to audit the NAACP and churches. THEY ACTED. And their base was OK.

      Our base's sense false sense of purity as opposed to political reality hurts our  ability to push our MORAL agenda which allows the evil of their platform to dominate our body politic. We must grow up to the reality of now.

      •  I meant to say this earlier (0+ / 0-)

        i both cases they were responding to specific incidents (and neither turned out to have been penalized) a campaign as by the NAACP and the speech at the Church. Not a 'speculative"  preemptive action based only upon ideological "words".

  •  some comments: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345, VClib, Adam B, valion
    It is a fact that Tea Party and Conservative groups have been blowing through the limits of what 501(c) nonprofits are allowed to do.
    If the IRS were to use partisan criteria as the basis for singling out groups, they absolutely need to have strong statistical support for it.  The TIGTA report provides no evidence that the IRS had any factual basis of the sort you postulate.
    Technically speaking their purpose is educational and for the social welfare.
    Social welfare includes lobbying for and against political issues, of course.  It's a given that the TP groups were "political" in that they supported positions on issues, but that's a different thing from being "political" per the tax code.
    They actually used the IRS to audit the NAACP and churches.
    The IRS acted appropriately in those cases.  They received complaints and they investigated.  AFAICT, there was no inappropriate conduct by the IRS.
  •  Can't wait to read your diary when the IRS (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345, Adam B

    starts asking you or a group you belong to, to give them donor lists, web postings, minutes of meetings, what you are reading...etc.

    Report page 26:

    Figure 8: Seven Questions Identified As Unnecessary by the EO Function
    Number
    Question
    1
    Requests the names of donors.
    2
    Requests a list of all issues that are important to the organization and asks that the organization indicate its position regarding such issues.
    3
    Requests 1) the roles and activities of the audience and participants other than members in the activity and 2) the type of conversations and discussions members and participants had during the activity.
    4
    Asks whether the officer, director, etc., has run or will run for public office.
    5
    Requests the political affiliation of the officer, director, speakers, candidates supported, etc., or otherwise refers to the relationship with identified political party–related organizations.
    6
    Requests information regarding employment, other than for the organization, including hours worked.
    7
    Requests information regarding activities of another organization – not just the relationship of the other organization to the applicant.
    Source:
    The IRS wants YOU — to share everything

    Several of the groups were asked for résumés of top officers and descriptions of interviews with the media. One group was asked to provide “minutes of all board meetings since your creation.”

    Some of the letters asked for copies of the groups’ Web pages, blog posts and social media postings — making some tea party members worry they’d be punished for their tweets or Facebook comments by their followers.

    http://www.politico.com/...
    •  My diary would be based on the facts (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zootwoman

      Which is, that the IRS has been charged with determining the qualification for and compliance with 501(c)4, a section of the internal revenue code - i.e. THE LAW.

      The IRS determined they needed to ask these questions to determine qualification for tax exemption under 501(c)4. The whole premise of 501(c)4 is bogus to begin with, but the law is the law, and the IRS is charged with enforcing it.

      As to the questions, I would note the following:

      Donors - is there just one? If so, is it a social welfare organization or just a fraudster trying to hide income? Are all donors registered political lobbyists? If so, is it a social welfare organization or a political lobbyist organization that shouldn't be tax exempt? Etc.

      #6: employment, hours worked outside organization:  again, this is trying to catch a fraudster.  If there's only one person employed and he/she has no other job and this is their only means of income, it's a red flag for a potential fraudster.

      #2 - #5: It appears to me that these are questions designed to get at whether it's an issues oriented, candidate oriented or lobbyist oriented organization, all of which are treated differently for tax purposes.

      Don't blame the IRS for doing its job.

      Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

      by absdoggy on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:37:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  how else would they be able to judge (0+ / 0-)

      whether is it a political group and whether is is a scam to avoid taxes. You need to know who you are giving tax exemption too. Otherwise everyone could file one and no one could be denied. I'll say again if you call yourself tea party - you've called yourself a political entity and called attention to the fact that you are in the politics business and not the social services business.

      One one hand I think no one should be tax exempt - no church- no social service - no richy rich. On the other hand why tax someone who is doing the  "good" that would otherwise have to be paid for by taxes. Oh - that only if you think anyone should be doing good for those who can't do it themselves. But then define good. that's a losing proposition of there ever was one, just get in an argument with any tea party advocate or anti abortionist. The ask them why they aren't interested in education or health car for all. It's a circular mad world.

  •  I just don't get it. There's not a shred of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jec, Adam B

    evidence that President Obama was in any way involved here, except maybe very tangentially in a general Command Responsibility sense.

    If that changes, I think most active members of this site know I'll vigorously point it out.  But right now, there is no chain from these abuses to his desk.

    President Obama sure didn't make excuses for this.  He called it wrong - flatly wrong.  He's right.

    I just don't understand why the people I usually see defending him at all costs are disagreeing with him on this issue.

    I'm kind of confused.

    "The thing about smart motherfuckers is that they sound like crazy motherfuckers to dumb motherfuckers." Robert Kirkman

    by JesseCW on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:23:01 AM PDT

    •  Anyone saying Obama was involved (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Adam B, Sylv

      is loony toons.  The problem is one of IRS internal controls and procedure, which is a pretty old story.  They've been a sloppy mess for awhile, and this is another instance of it. (granted, they have a mighty tough job!)

    •  It's because they can't read. (0+ / 0-)

      They can't read the law and understand it's meaning. The IRS is supposed to discriminate against political applications in this case. Period the the answer is yes, I am still discriminating against politically active applications because I am supposed to you dimwitted illiterate dolt. Actually it would be a good idea to leave the last part off. Have I quit beating my child? ummm the answer is you are asking the wrong question. what is the right question? What does the law mean and is the IRS enforcing the law? Looks to me like the so called left wing took more of a beating than the so called right wing. AS to Glenn Beck's fussing - there's a scam artist if there ever was one. What percent of his non profit is used to support life style vs what part is used to "educate" or for social services. You know I have a right to know because it's my- our tax dollars that have to make up for supporting his non-profit. build streets in front of it, water, etc. So I want to know if his non profit is being used to change the landscape of the body politic.

      •  They're supposed to apply the same standards (0+ / 0-)

        to each individual applicant, not target groups because of their ideology.

        you dimwitted illiterate dolt.
        Yeah.  The Inspector General is an illiterate dolt.  

        I'll put my faith in an angry wall of text rant instead.

        "The thing about smart motherfuckers is that they sound like crazy motherfuckers to dumb motherfuckers." Robert Kirkman

        by JesseCW on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:30:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Call a tea party group today (0+ / 0-)

    And ask about there educational opportunities.   Let's O'Keeffe them.

    The Republican party has become the politburo of capitalism. It seeks to direct the direction this country is going NO MATTER WHAT WE THE PEOPLE THINK.

    by tarminian on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:17:40 AM PDT

  •  Out of all the idiots involved... the IRS are the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nattiq

    only ones actually DOING THEIR JOBS.

    Congress should try it sometime, they might like it.

    When you suddenly have 20,000 idiots filing for 501C3 the bells and red flags go off, if they DIDN'T these same GOP scumbags would be screaming about the scandal of incompetence at the IRS. ;P

    And yes, on the net this mechanism of setting up a 501C3 was being touted as a great get rich quick scam for tax evasion and something your wife can do for extra income.

    Republicans being republicans.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site