501( c )3 Investigation Thread (Split from Larry Kaifesh/Behghazi)

[WtJen]

I see you are avoiding dealing with the issue of the video tape and the lies that were told to prop up that narrative until it fell apart.

 

I suppose we could have relied on Eric Holder conducting an internal investigation of Benghazi. Just look how helpful he has been with Fast and Furious and the IRS scandals.

 

I am content with Congress investigating Obama and his minions until Obama is perp walked out of the White House. That is their job. To act as a check on the executive branch.

[Tompo]

I see you are avoiding dealing with the issue of the video tape and the lies that were told to prop up that narrative until it fell apart.

 

I suppose we could have relied on Eric Holder conducting an internal investigation of Benghazi. Just look how helpful he has been with Fast and Furious and the IRS scandals.

 

I am content with Congress investigating Obama and his minions until Obama is perp walked out of the White House. That is their job. To act as a check on the executive branch.

 

 

 

I'm not avoiding it at all. It's BEEN investigated countless times. Congress found NOTHING. There were no lies. Do you think this president or any president doesn't get his information from intelligence sources? How many MILLIONS of dollars were wasted investigating this non scandal?

The IRS also investigated liberal groups--but you won't hear that from talk radio and FOX news. It doesn't help with their narrative. And, fast and furious was going on prior to Obama.

if you want to live in a bubble and only believe rumors that make you happy, have at it. The rest of us rely on facts, not partisanship to base our opinions.

[WtJen]

You do realize that there was a considerable difference in the number of liberal groups who were investigated and denied versus the conservative groups who were investigated and denied or put on hold their tax exempt status?

 

I can look that up for you if you want. Anything to help. If you don't like wiki, I can give you sources like the New York Times or Washington Post.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_IRS_controversy

 

Over the two years between April 2010 and April 2012, the IRS essentially placed on hold the processing of applications for 501©(4) tax-exemption status received from organizations with "Tea Party", "patriots", or "9/12" in their names. While apparently none of these organizations' applications were denied during this period,[Note 2] only 4 were approved.[53] During the same general period, the agency approved applications from several dozen presumably liberal-leaning organizations whose names included terms such as "progressive", "progress", "liberal", or "equality".[53][54] However, the IRS also selected several progressive- or Democratic-leaning organizations for increased scrutiny. An affiliate of the liberal group Emerge America had its request for tax-exempt status denied, leading to a review (and the eventual revocation) of the larger Emerge America organization's tax-exempt status.[52] The conservative National Review states that a November 2010 version of the IRS's BOLO list indicates that liberal and conservative groups were in fact treated differently because liberal groups could be approved for tax-exempt status by line agents, while tea party groups could not.[6]

[Tompo]

You do realize that there was a considerable difference in the number of liberal groups who were investigated and denied versus the conservative groups who were investigated and denied their tax exempt status?

 

I can look that up for you if you want. Anything to help.

 

 

The numbers are irrelevant. besides, would that list come from a respected news source? or some blog? The fact is, you will not hear--in your bubble-- that liberal groups were also investigated by the IRS. In fact, the IRS is doing their job--when groups that are NOT a charity organization, applying for status, when they're obviously a political organization.

[WtJen]

 

You do realize that there was a considerable difference in the number of liberal groups who were investigated and denied versus the conservative groups who were investigated and denied their tax exempt status?

 

I can look that up for you if you want. Anything to help.

 

The numbers are irrelevant. besides, would that list come from a respected news source? or some blog? The fact is, you will not hear--in your bubble-- that liberal groups were also investigated by the IRS. In fact, the IRS is doing their job--when groups that are NOT a charity organization, applying for status, when they're obviously a political organization.

 

The numbers are extremely relevant. If conservative groups are denied a voice prior to the 2012 election, that affects results.

[Tompo]

The latest congressional report on the Internal Revenue Service's botched review of nonprofit status applications by politically active groups finds no evidence of intentional wrongdoing or political bias.

 

After news broke that the IRS had ramped up reviews of such groups as they applied for tax breaks -- with most of the focus on conservative nonprofits -- Congress launched numerous probes into the agency's activities, and allegations flew that the IRS had been used to target President Barack Obama's opponents.

None of those investigations, however, have found evidence of intentional wrongdoing. The latest yearlong effort, by the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, comes to the same conclusion in a lengthy report released Friday.

The report echoes the results initially found by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, but also criticizes that early inquiry for leaving out the liberal groups that also suffered excessive scrutiny.

 

"A review of nearly 800,000 pages of documents and the conduct of nearly two dozen IRS and TIGTA employee interviews produced no evidence of political bias by the IRS against conservative groups that filed 501©(4) [tax-exempt] applications, a finding which is consistent with TIGTA’s June 2014 letter stating that the TIGTA audit 'found no evidence of political bias,'" the latest report says.

 

What the IRS was guilty of, according to the Senate committee report, was using "inappropriate screening criteria when it flagged for increased scrutiny applications based upon the applicants' names or political views rather than direct evidence of their involvement with campaign activities."

But the new report faults the inspector general's office for igniting a false furor over the targeting of conservatives, while its early evaluation ignored liberal groups that had received extra scrutiny based on having names with words such as "ACORN," "Occupy" and "progressive."

 

The inspector general, J. Robert George, and others in his office ignored evidence brought to their attention regarding liberal targeting, even as George was testifying to various congressional committees, the new report found. IRS officials and a lawyer in George's office had informed the inspector general that liberal groups were targeted in "be on the lookout" notices, or BOLOs, the report says.

 

"Even after learning about them, the senior TIGTA officials remained silent for weeks about the BOLO entries for liberal groups, and provided incomplete and inaccurate testimony about them at Congressional hearings," the report says. "When the BOLO listings for liberal groups were finally disclosed by Members of Congress and the media, senior TIGTA officials insisted that the IRS had not disclosed those listings during the TIGTA audit, despite ample evidence to the contrary."

 

The investigations subcommittee is chaired by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.). In a dissent included in the 228-page document, the panel's ranking member, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), argues that it's the committee that is ignoring real bias by the IRS.

"The Majority’s interpretation of the evidence fails to capture the extent of the IRS's bias against conservative groups and flagrant abuse of power," McCain said in a statement.

 

"Our tax system should not -– and cannot -– be used as a weapon to target political opponents, as the IRS has clearly done, especially when that agency is, at times, tasked with administering laws that involve political free speech," he added. "This troubling scandal raises serious concern about the integrity of our nation's tax collectors and requires further investigation as damaging facts continue to come to light."

The Senate subcommittee is continuing to investigate, focusing in particular on Lois Lerner, the former IRS official who oversaw the exempt organizations division and who pleaded the Fifth Amendment in refusing to testify about the targeting. A key issue has been the retrieval of emails lost in a crash of her hard drive. The Senate report says that it has reviewed some 67,000 of those emails.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/05/irs-targeting-senate_n_5773476.html

[WtJen]

Huffpo? *snort* LOL

[Tompo]

 

 

You do realize that there was a considerable difference in the number of liberal groups who were investigated and denied versus the conservative groups who were investigated and denied their tax exempt status?

 

I can look that up for you if you want. Anything to help.

 

The numbers are irrelevant. besides, would that list come from a respected news source? or some blog? The fact is, you will not hear--in your bubble-- that liberal groups were also investigated by the IRS. In fact, the IRS is doing their job--when groups that are NOT a charity organization, applying for status, when they're obviously a political organization.

 

The numbers are extremely relevant. If conservative groups are denied a voice prior to the 2012 election, that affects results.

 

 

 

These groups were applying for NON PROFIT status. A "conservative group"--or a liberal group--SHOULD be targeted by the IRS. They're NOT non profits when they're involved in politics.

Was it ok for the IRS to target liberal groups under Bush?

[Tompo]

Huffpo? *snort* LOL

 

 

Wikepedia?? LOL! is not a news source. Atta boy, live in that bubble.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/24/politics/irs-targeting/

 

Washington (CNN) -- The Internal Revenue Service targeted liberal groups as well as conservatives seeking tax-exempt status, a Democratic congressman charged on Monday after the agency acknowledged the inappropriate practice continued until last month.

Rep. Sander Levin said the term "progressives" was included on IRS screening lists of applicants for tax-exempt status made available to Congress on Monday.

It was the first confirmation that the "Be on the Lookout" or BOLO lists used criteria targeting liberal groups after an inspector general's report made public last month said the IRS had used words such as "tea party" to determine possible extra scrutiny.

Earlier, the first substantive review of the controversy by the IRS showed the agency used multiple lists of inappropriate criteria in assessing tax-exempt applications up until this month, more than a year later than previously revealed.

Daniel Werfel, the IRS acting commissioner, provided no details of what inappropriate criteria were on the lists, but said "there was a wide-ranging set of categories and cases that spanned a broad spectrum."

 

The practice of using BOLO lists in considering tax-exempt applications has been suspended, Werfel told reporters.

Shifting polls contradict key deposition

Levin's disclosure that progressive groups also were targeted follows a liberal claim that their side also came under extra scrutiny based on political titles or other language in their applications.

In a statement, the Michigan Democrat questioned why the Treasury inspector general who initially disclosed the IRS targeting, J. Russell George, focused only on BOLO lists that contained conservative labels.

The inspector general's report "served as the basis and impetus for a wide range of congressional investigations, and this new information shows that the foundation of those investigations is flawed in a fundamental way," Levin's statement said.

A spokesperson for George later responded that the report focused only on BOLO criteria used to refer cases for extra scrutiny of potential political activity that would make groups ineligible for tax-exempt status.

Conservative groups complained about their applications being delayed for months and even years, receiving demands for inappropriate questioning from the IRS.

Republicans have claimed the controversy amounted to political retribution against enemies of the administration, an accusation denied by the White House and the IRS.

In response to Levin's statement, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Dave Camp said the inclusion of "progressives" on a BOLO list did not prove that liberal groups underwent the same extra scrutiny of conservative groups cited in the inspector general's report.

CNN Poll: Did White House order IRS targeting?

Political firestorm

The controversy that became public last month with the release of George's report ignited a political firestorm in Washington while fueling conservative mistrust of President Barack Obama's administration.

Use of some lists of conservative labels for further screening stopped in May 2012 when IRS officials were first notified of the practice.

However, Werfel's review showed that other inappropriate lists continued to be used until as recently as this month by the unit that handles tax-exempt applications.

Werfel was informed on June 12, 2013, that other BOLO lists were still in use. He immediately suspended use of any BOLO lists by the unit that handles tax-exempt applications, his review said.

He noted that his investigation, while still incomplete, found no evidence so far of intentional wrongdoing by IRS personnel, involvement by anyone outside the IRS or that targeting extended into other areas of the agency.

"Several key leaders, including some in the commissioner's office, failed in multiple capacities to meet their managerial responsibilities at various points during the course of these events," Werfel's report said. "Most notably, there was insufficient action by these leaders to identify, prevent, address, and disclose the problematic situation that materialized with the review of applications for tax exempt status."

Remember that IRS scandal . . . ?

Five IRS managers have been replaced, from the previous acting commissioner whom Werfel succeeded to the head of the unit based in Cincinnati that handles tax-exempt applications.

In addition, Werfel created an Accountability Review Board to recommend within 60 days "any additional personnel actions necessary to hold accountable those responsible" for the targeting disclosed by the inspector general's report.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Monday that Obama believes Werfel's report "is an important step in ensuring accountability for any staff that acted inappropriately, identifies the failures in their systems that allowed the misconduct to happen, and takes a forward-looking systemic view at the agency's management."

The White House ordered the review by Werfel when he started the job on May 22 in the aftermath of George's audit that found targeting of some conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.

Werfel was given 30 days to complete the review, and the House Ways and Means Committee has scheduled a hearing for Thursday on the report, with Werfel as the lone witness.

Series of investigations

The targeting scandal and a separate inspector general's report that documented wasteful spending on IRS conferences in past years have led to a series of investigations of the tax collection agency by Congress, the Department of Justice, the tax administration inspector general's office and Werfel.

The IRS admitted there was unfair targeting of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status starting in 2010, but officials said the action was a bureaucratic shortcut in its Cincinnati office rather than an exercise of political bias.

[WtJen]

You really don't understand how 501C non-profit groups work do you? Political action is allowed under IRS rules

 

Here is another link to the Washington Post with a good graphic on how conservative groups were targeted.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/acting-director-of-irs-resigns/2013/05/15/a3ff12b8-bda4-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_story.html?hpid=z1

[Tompo]

You really don't understand how 501C non-profit groups work do you? Political action is allowed under IRS rules

 

Here is another link to the Washington Post with a good graphic on how conservative groups were targeted.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/acting-director-of-irs-resigns/2013/05/15/a3ff12b8-bda4-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_story.html?hpid=z1

 

 

No one is denying some conservative groups were investigated. But, some liberal groups were investigated too--but that fact is never heard in your bubble.. Not EVERY group is qualified to receive a non profit status. That's the IRS's JOB to investigate such cases.

[WtJen]

Tompo,

 

I suggest you educate yourself on what 501C groups are allowed to do. The IRS admitted that conservative groups were unfairly targeted and their applications put on hold. The IRS director had to resign over it.

 

http://www.asaecenter.org/Resources/whitepaperdetail.cfm?ItemNumber=12202

[Tompo]

I suggest you read up on the rules regarding 501c....

 

http://www.nonprofitexpert.com/political-campaigns/

 

What activities can jeopardize tax-exempt status?

 

For 501©(3)s, the four main activities that can jeopardize the organization’s tax-exempt status are:

• activity that results in private benefit or inurement;
• lobbying activity, if it constitutes a substantial part of the organization’s overall activities or if it exceeds a predetermined dollar amount;
• any political campaign activity; and
• unrelated business activity that is substantial when compared with the organization’s exempt-function activities.

 

What is the ban on political activity?

 

It is a requirement imposed by Congress for the privilege of being recognized as exempt from federal income tax under section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

As a key element in its program to secure compliance with the ban on political campaign activity by section 501©(3) organizations, the Internal Revenue Service educates organizations about the ban and puts them on notice of the enforcement program.

[WtJen]

501©(3) organizations can, and often should, lobby at all levels of government. Federal tax law has always permitted some lobbying by nonprofits. The 1976 lobbying tax law passed by Congress made that expressly clear. The Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") followed with implementing regulations. The federal government clearly supports lobbying by 501©(3) organizations. Together, the law and regulations provide wide latitude for 501©(3) organizations to lobby.

 

The law makes it very clear how much a 501©(3) organization can spend on lobbying - up to $1 million depending on the size of the organization - if the 501(h) election is made. The law also makes it clear which activities are lobbying and which are not. For example, lobbying occurs only when there is an expenditure of money by the 501©(3) for the purpose of attempting to influence legislation. Where there is no expenditure by the organization for lobbying (such as lobbying by members or volunteers), there is no lobbying by the organization.

 

The right of citizens to petition their government is basic to our democratic way of life, and associations, including 501©(3)s, are one of the most effective vehicles for making use of citizen participation in shaping public policy. Fortunately, the legislation passed by Congress in 1976 makes it possible for 501©(3)s to lobby freely for the causes, communities and constituencies they serve.

[Tompo]

Tompo,

 

I suggest you educate yourself on what 501C groups are allowed to do. The IRS admitted that conservative groups were unfairly targeted and their applications put on hold. The IRS director had to resign over it.

 

http://www.asaecenter.org/Resources/whitepaperdetail.cfm?ItemNumber=12202

 

 

No, not only conservative groups were targeted. Some liberal groups were too. You seem to want to ignore that.

SOME political activity is allowed, depending on a complex IRS rules.

Was it wrong when the IRS targeted liberal groups under Bush? I don't seem to recall the conservative outrage at that time.

[Tompo]

501©(3) organizations can, and often should, lobby at all levels of government. Federal tax law has always permitted some lobbying by nonprofits. The 1976 lobbying tax law passed by Congress made that expressly clear. The Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") followed with implementing regulations. The federal government clearly supports lobbying by 501©(3) organizations. Together, the law and regulations provide wide latitude for 501©(3) organizations to lobby.

 

The law makes it very clear how much a 501©(3) organization can spend on lobbying - up to $1 million depending on the size of the organization - if the 501(h) election is made. The law also makes it clear which activities are lobbying and which are not. For example, lobbying occurs only when there is an expenditure of money by the 501©(3) for the purpose of attempting to influence legislation. Where there is no expenditure by the organization for lobbying (such as lobbying by members or volunteers), there is no lobbying by the organization.

 

The right of citizens to petition their government is basic to our democratic way of life, and associations, including 501©(3)s, are one of the most effective vehicles for making use of citizen participation in shaping public policy. Fortunately, the legislation passed by Congress in 1976 makes it possible for 501©(3)s to lobby freely for the causes, communities and constituencies they serve.

 

 

Very true. It's also true it's the IRS' job to investigate groups who claim to be non profits--when they're really not.

[mauserme]

Split from here

[Bud]

this pretty much boring, is becoming reduced to name calling and derision and is frankly a never ending struggle between two polar opposites.

 

I think everyone understands that both of you believe in two different perceptions. Why don't you both just put each other on ignore and move on? You're not going to resolve this and i doubt very seriously either one of you is going to convince the other of the righteousness of your beliefs.

 

This is a waste of bandwidth, polarizing and non productive thread without any redeeming values.

[Tompo]

this pretty much boring, is becoming reduced to name calling and derision and is frankly a never ending struggle between two polar opposites.

 

I think everyone understands that both of you believe in two different perceptions. Why don't you both just put each other on ignore and move on? You're not going to resolve this and i doubt very seriously either one of you is going to convince the other of the righteousness of your beliefs.

 

This is a waste of bandwidth, polarizing and non productive thread without any redeeming values.

 

 

It's not about "righteousness of beliefs". It's about fact vs fiction. It's about sticking up for a rumor just because it satisfies your ideology. I don't put anyone on ignore. To put people on ignore simply because of a different opinion would mean I'd want to live in an echo chamber, where I'd only hear my own opinion said back to me.

[Bud]

whatever

[DoYouFeelLucky]

Maybe if we had the supposedly lost emails, we could put this all to rest. However, the rules of investigation say that if someone thought it was important to hide something, then it's important to establish why. It would also be good to review the list of "liberal" groups that were targeted. A "liberal" group is not necessarily an Obamacrat aligned group, and the targeting was directed towards groups not aligned with the Obamacrat mantra.

[ljnowel]

I love it when someone complains about Fox News as biased and says they aren't real news and then cites CNN and HUFFPO! LOL!!!

 

There is no sense in taking the discussion any further. That alone shows a head in the sand.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tompo]

I love it when someone complains about Fox News as biased and says they aren't real news and then cites CNN and HUFFPO! LOL!!! There is no sense in taking the discussion any further. That alone shows a head in the sand. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

There's no comparison between FOX and CNN. FOX openly admits they're biased. Huffington Post is merely an online news aggregator. I compiles news articles from all over the web.

[ljnowel]

 

I love it when someone complains about Fox News as biased and says they aren't real news and then cites CNN and HUFFPO! LOL!!! There is no sense in taking the discussion any further. That alone shows a head in the sand. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

There's no comparison between FOX and CNN. FOX openly admits they're biased. Huffington Post is merely an online news aggregator. I compiles news articles from all over the web.

 

CNN just pretends they aren't biased while pouring it on thick and heavy there is a direct comparison. One is left and one is right.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tompo]

 

I love it when someone complains about Fox News as biased and says they aren't real news and then cites CNN and HUFFPO! LOL!!! There is no sense in taking the discussion any further. That alone shows a head in the sand. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

There's no comparison between FOX and CNN. FOX openly admits they're biased. Huffington Post is merely an online news aggregator. I compiles news articles from all over the web.

CNN just pretends they aren't biased while pouring it on thick and heavy there is a direct comparison. One is left and one is right.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Last I checked CNN doesn't have anchors that are openly hostile to any ideology other than their own.

[clenz]

Umm - Jay Carney?

 

Maybe not an anchor but pretty overt about his ideology

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

 

[ljnowel]

 

 

 

 

I love it when someone complains about Fox News as biased and says they aren't real news and then cites CNN and HUFFPO! LOL!!! There is no sense in taking the discussion any further. That alone shows a head in the sand. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

There's no comparison between FOX and CNN. FOX openly admits they're biased. Huffington Post is merely an online news aggregator. I compiles news articles from all over the web.

 

 

CNN just pretends they aren't biased while pouring it on thick and heavy there is a direct comparison. One is left and one is right.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

Last I checked CNN doesn't have anchors that are openly hostile to any ideology other than their own.

 

Did you really type that with a straight face? This post alone destroys any credibility your argument ever had. You are as biased to the left as anyone here is to the right.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BobPistol]

 

These groups were applying for NON PROFIT status. A "conservative group"--or a liberal group--SHOULD be targeted by the IRS. They're NOT non profits when they're involved in politics.

Was it ok for the IRS to target liberal groups under Bush?

 

 

And leftist groups are "non-profit"? That's BS.

 

Anyone who seeks to be a crony of the left is doing so because of the huge $$$$ and power to be made by being yet another crony.

 

Politicians and their cronies always get richer and power. Government is not a "non-profit" - the political class makes $ and power, and that's how they profit.

 

If there was no money or power in politics (left or right) there would be far fewer people in it.

 

But to you, only "right wing" groups are in it for the $$$. So don't act like you're all "neutral and facts" when that is not the case.

[Tompo]

Umm - Jay Carney? Maybe not an anchor but pretty overt about his ideology Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

 

If he's not an anchor, like I specified, your point is moot.

[Tompo]

 

 

 

 

I love it when someone complains about Fox News as biased and says they aren't real news and then cites CNN and HUFFPO! LOL!!! There is no sense in taking the discussion any further. That alone shows a head in the sand. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

There's no comparison between FOX and CNN. FOX openly admits they're biased. Huffington Post is merely an online news aggregator. I compiles news articles from all over the web.

 

 

CNN just pretends they aren't biased while pouring it on thick and heavy there is a direct comparison. One is left and one is right.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

Last I checked CNN doesn't have anchors that are openly hostile to any ideology other than their own.

Did you really type that with a straight face? This post alone destroys any credibility your argument ever had. You are as biased to the left as anyone here is to the right.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Absolutely totally, straight and factual face. Are you saying O'Reilly, Hannity and Kelly are NOT biased?