IRS 'scandal'

[TRoaches]

The President doesn't make the laws on control the IRS. He can appoint (with congress approval) and fire (at will) the commissioner oversight committee chair. It is part of the Department of Treasury and I doubt the President is briefed on the management of the IRS on any regular basis.

The laws that control the IRS are subject to court interpretation. In the video that you dismissed as irrelevant the former IRS commissioner and general counsel who is interviewed states that the Supreme Court decisions regarding the definition of income and the fifth amendment protection against self incrimination are inapplicable to the IRS's function. In other words, they are considered to be above the law as it is interpreted by the Supreme Court. It is true that the president does not make the laws that control the IRS, but if that well credentialed and highly credible source is to be believed it is also true that the IRS is not concerned with the legality of its actions.

 

You are incorrect in saying that the president does not control the IRS. The IRS is bureau of the Treasury department, which is a part of the executive branch, which the President controls. Even if his control is limited to appointing key people who create policy that ability amounts to de facto control of the bureau's policies.

[Lisnpuppy]

I didn't say he didn't have some control..I said he didn't make the LAWS that controlled them. I don't agree that his ability to appoint one person amounts to de facto control when the IRS has so many fingers in that business (and COngress must approve the appointment). Do you really think the President has any real knowledge of the day to day applications of IRS business? I say he has bigger fish to fry. And why would he want then to investigate groups that possibly help him in any way?

 

You also didn't comment on my other points. Again I say that it was a herring and that the real issue is why these groups are getting away with breaking the law.

[TRoaches]

I didn't say he didn't have some control....

Yes you did.

 

 

 

Do you really think the President has any real knowledge of the day to day applications of IRS business?

I don't think the president had a meeting where he instructed IRS personnel to target anyone. I do think that the President should be held accountable for misconduct within the executive branch, regardless of his prior awareness of the misconduct or lack thereof. This accountability is an inherent responsibility for any chief executive.

 

 

 

Again I say that it was a herring and that the real issue is why these groups are getting away with breaking the law.

 

I agree that the groups in question were most likely abusing the tax code, but I also know that the tax code is begging to be abused and is constantly abused by businesses, corporations, politicians, nonprofits, PACs, local governments, investors, and the IRS itself. The more legal resources and personal connections one has with regards to their tax liability the easier it is to avoid paying taxes. Title 26 is thousands of pages containing millions of words. (ETA: I just checked and Section One of Title 26 contains about 30k words, and there are 9834 sections). It costs over $1000 to purchase a printed copy of the tax code from the government printing office. Assuming that one comes in contact with money at some point during the year it is nearly impossible to avoid breaking the law according to Title 26 of the US federal code. Depending on court interpretation there may even be parts of the law that contradict each other in such a way that following one section means violating another.

 

It is unlikely that any single person could possibly be aware of the totality of the tax code. A corporation with an entire department dedicated to avoiding taxation would fair better, but it would still be difficult to the point of approaching impossibility for an entire law firm or legal department to maximize their retained income while completely avoiding breaking the law. A non-profit is unlikely to have a large legal department dedicated to tax law and would therefore be very likely to violate sections of the code.

 

So what we have is a law that defines as criminal a range of activities so broad that nearly every single group or individual is in some kind of violation. If a person of sufficient level of influence within the executive branch wanted to utilize this system to their advantage all they would have to do is subtly nudge the IRS cannon in the direction of their target and they are sure to get a hit. The person who is aiming the weapon may not be the President himself, but they are surely a member of the executive branch and the President is therefore accountable for their misconduct, should any be found.

 

The fact that such a scenario is possible means that any hint of such misconduct should be examined and pursued to the fullest extent. To downplay the whole possibility as political fiction or a "red herring" is to pave the way for future abuses. I don't know if any misconduct occurred or not, but it is worth examining.

Edited July 6, 2013 by TRoaches

[Lisnpuppy]

TRoaches quote: Yes you did.

 

No I did not, I said:

 

 

"The President doesn't make the laws on (that) control the IRS. He can appoint (with congress approval) and fire (at will) the commissioner oversight committee chair. It is part of the Department of Treasury and I doubt the President is briefed on the management of the IRS on any regular basis."

 

 

I also agree it needs investigating and a means put into place that allows them to keep track of theses things and be more neutral. However the rules on the tax exemption as it pertains in this matter are very clear. They straight out ask on the application if you are spending money on political things. (Well I suppose it sounds more official than that.) So how were they supposed to pick who gets audited? Have they always used keywords? Did they pick those words in order to catch conservative groups or because groups with these keywords in their name were more likely (from their past experience or statistics) to be political?

 

But this issue arose and the Republicans latched onto it saying that the IRS targeted conservative groups. Some are still saying that. They didn't admit that at least 1/3 of the groups audited were liberal. They didn't and haven't really questioned the issue for which the "random" picking of these groups purpose it was. To see if they were spending the money in ways that were against the law for a tax exemption of this type. I say they were not ignorant of this tax issue because they were asked directly on the application. They can not cry ignorance (either liberal or conservative) that they should not have been spending money that way.

 

So the red herring is the fact that the focus was made and narrowed to the complain conservative groups were being audited unfairly. This is not true and was not true and no one seems to care that so many of these tax exempt groups regularly lie on their application.

[TRoaches]

@Lisnpuppy: I assumed that when you wrote "laws on control" that "on" was a typo, and that "or" was the intended word but apparently I was mistaken, and "on" was supposed to be "that". I stand corrected.

 

Saying that any IRS rule is "very clear" ignores the massiveness of the IRS code, as I summarized in my previous post. Nothing is simple or clear in a law with 9834 sections. If the question is "Are you spending money on political things?" then there are several definitions that must be made:

 

-define "spending"

-define "money"

-define "political things"

 

Surely those definitions are codified somewhere, but I would wager that the definitions themselves are vague enough to be open to further questioning and interpretation.

 

You say that 1/3 of the groups audited were liberal groups. 1/3 of what total? All audits? All non-profit audits? All non-profit, suspected political group audits? If it is limited to political groups and 1/3 were audited it is reasonable to assume that around 2/3 were conservative groups. This means that twice as many conservative groups were audited. Now ask yourself if there are more conservative or liberal political groups in the country. I don't know the true statistics, but I would guess that there are more liberal groups in existence, given that forming a group to tackle an issue is more of a liberal trait than a conservative one. If there are more liberal groups in total, but more conservative groups being audited at a ratio of 2:1 then this seems to indicate that conservative groups were targeted being. The fact that they were not exclusively targeted and that about 1/2 as many liberal groups were targeted does not lessen the level of misconduct or prove a lack of bias in the auditing process.

 

You say in your post that the questions surrounding the IRS conduct are worthy of investigation and pose several good questions with regard to that conduct, then dismiss as a "red herring" the idea that conservative groups were targeted and state that this is "not true". If you are so sure that it is not true then why is it worth investigating? If it is worthy of investigation than why definitively state that it is not true?

[Lisnpuppy]

I guess my point is this...

 

The IRS needs a better way to pick the audits. I don't know the original law as to how they are supposed to do things. They may have been on the legal..if shady side of the law.

 

My issue is this....lets wave the red herring about "OMG they only targeted tea party groups" and pay no attention to those exempt organizations (from all sides) that have been blatantly ignoring the law. No..not any one person knows tax codes...but many people specialize in parts of tax codes. It is their jobs. To say that the tax law is too complicated is cutting ALL these groups slack that they do not deserve. Ignorance of the law is no excuse yet I never hear of these groups facing penalties or losing their status. What kind of large non-profit group doesn't have an attorney group with tax people watching their stuff? In fact here is the actual IRS info on the tax exempt charitable class that is under discussion and all the definitions you could want.

 

Like Share Print

Exemption requirements: 501©(3) organizations

To be tax-exempt under section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501©(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Organizations described in section 501©(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501©(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501©(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501©(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

 

 

Maybe its all jargon to us but for those that understand tax code its pretty clear. There are groups that spend most if not all their money for these things explicitly stated as no-nos. They don't even operate in the grey areas. Also some of these groups are being used by big business to funnel money into political organizations where they are prohibited by dollar amounts.

 

The IRS only targeted minor groups leaving the biggest relatively untouched. Why? Why if they really wanted to hit the tea party conservatives?

 

So the red herring is waving all this political side stuff around...this conservative vs liberal, republican vs democrat...and don't talk about that big elephant in the room of these groups breaking the law wholesale. Why? Because republican and democrat alike benefit from this. And if we can use this to block the President/democrats/whoevers from whatever it is they wish to do, then all the better. Its all so much political posturing as to make me ill.

[TRoaches]

My issue is this....lets wave the red herring about "OMG they only targeted tea party groups" and pay no attention to those exempt organizations (from all sides) that have been blatantly ignoring the law.

Nobody said that they only audited tea party groups, but that such groups were being audited more frequently than other similar groups. Earlier you stated that 1/3 of the audits were of liberal groups. We could draw a parallel example in racial profiling in law enforcement. If a police department is arresting people of one race twice as often as another, despite that race being a statistical minority in the community, then they are obviously targeting the people of that race. If the police response to an allegation of profiling was "but 1/3 of the people we arrested were (majority race)!" would it disprove the allegation of racial profiling? Of course not. In fact, it would be further evidence that the profiling is occurring, given that the majority racial group is being arrested at a much lower rate. Going back to the IRS targeting, if one type of group is being audited at a higher rate it is evidence of them being profiled in a similar way, and pointing to the 1/3 of the audits occurring against other opposing groups actually supports the notion rather than refutes it.

 

 

What kind of large non-profit group doesn't have an attorney group with tax people watching their stuff?....

 

The IRS only targeted minor groups leaving the biggest relatively untouched. Why? Why if they really wanted to hit the tea party conservatives?

 

I put these two quote together to demonstrate that you answered your own question. If larger groups that can afford better legal counsel were ignored while smaller groups were targeted it is further evidence suggesting a political motive behind the audits. Perhaps they ignored the larger groups and focused on the smaller ones because they were easier targets. If a law enforcement agency is focusing on easy targets while ignoring "big fish" they are doing a very poor job of enforcing the law. It would be like a police officer who only writes parking tickets and ignores armed robberies occurring right in his vicinity.

 

 

In fact here is the actual IRS info on the tax exempt charitable class that is under discussion and all the definitions you could want.

 

All it does is present more questions to be answered, and more definitions that must be clarified. For example, what does "substantial" mean, as it is used here? The rest of it seems to limit the group's activities only with regards to campaigns and legislation. Which group is violating this law, and in what way? You say that they "spend most if not all of the their money" on these prohibited activities, so it should be easy for you to give an example of a group that does this.

 

 

So the red herring is waving all this political side stuff around...this conservative vs liberal, republican vs democrat...and don't talk about that big elephant in the room of these groups breaking the law wholesale.

 

Here is what I am getting from this statement, and your general premise:

 

A) The IRS is accused of politically motivated misconduct and abuse of power

B) You do not deny or disprove the allegation of misconduct

C) You assert that the focus should be shifted from the IRS's conduct to that of the alleged victims of said conduct

D) You refer to the initial allegations as a "red herring"

 

The term "red herring", as you are using, it means an attempt to direct attention away from a particular topic and on to another. Ironically, this is precisely what you are doing by saying that the focus should be on the groups in question, rather than the IRS's handling of those groups. It is entirely possible that the groups were violating the law, but that is not the topic of discussion. It is the IRS's response to those possible violations, and the evidence that they were selective in their enforcement.

[colourwheel]

So the IRS is abusing power targeting certain groups unfairly. I think "we" can all agree on this.

 

But the topic is "IRS Scandal" where there is no scandal. Darrell Issa has been railing this investigation on the IRS for the last few month trying to link abuse back to the white house. The problem is Darrell Issa is not focusing on the bigger issue here and just trying to persecute the IRS as a politically bent organization. Darrell Issa has lost every means of credibility during the Investigation of the IRS where as he found abuse happening but never let go of the idea that the white house was behind the abuse. The real scandal is the railing of conservatives trying to make the public think Obama is behind all the abuse when there has never been one shred of evidence to show. All republican delegates just assumed Darrell Issa had some proof going on news channels and political talk shows spewing the same rhetoric Darrell Issa had in his mind about the IRS being a politically bent organization abusing power because of fictional "secret meetings" between Obama and IRS officials.

 

You can go back a few month ago and watch media coverage where as Darrell Issa started off the investigation as "a white house scandal". Now if you see coverage of the investigation it's no longer "a white house scandal" because Darrell Issa made a fool of himself based on partisan accusations and fictional theories that did not add up. The IRS like any organization is not perfect but most people from the conservative side are wanting to abolish the IRS to fix the problem where the only thing the IRS is doing is following the laws made by congress to collect taxes despite there being some abuse.

Edited July 7, 2013 by colourwheel

[sukeban]

So the red herring is waving all this political side stuff around...this conservative vs liberal, republican vs democrat...and don't talk about that big elephant in the room of these groups breaking the law wholesale. Why? Because republican and democrat alike benefit from this. And if we can use this to block the President/democrats/whoevers from whatever it is they wish to do, then all the better. Its all so much political posturing as to make me ill.

 

I second this. The "scandal" portion of this issue is entirely Washington "sound and fury" that distracts from the real issue, which, as Lis points out, is the malleable nature of these tax laws and how they provide for unlimited flows of cash into our political system--an arrangement that both parties benefit from and thus have no particular interest in undermining. Likely the only lasting effect of these allegations will be that the IRS will be even more hesitant in the future when it comes to enforcing these statutes, allowing "civic groups" on both sides even more leeway to engage in politicking, a lose-lose for the public, but a win-win for politicians and their special interest retainers.

 

I'd rather that we end all this "money is speech" madness and move to 100% public financing for campaigns, but alas that is currently held to be unconstitutional.... In the interim, however, perhaps the laws might be clarified to read that "ANY" funds spent on political media or electioneering are grounds to revoke the tax-exempt status of a group, with no possible quibbling over the dollar amounts or semantics.

 

@colourwheel

 

Also agreed. One has to appreciate the "honorable" Congressman's a priori reasoning on this rather than bothering with the facts. In the Republican media personality's fever dream, where Occam's Razor always cuts toward a direct line to the President, one truly has to marvel at the superhuman (indeed, God-like?) qualities attributed to the President, such as the ability to generate for himself seemingly infintite hours of the day in which to micromanage even the most insignificant aspects of government.

Edited July 7, 2013 by sukeban

[TRoaches]

So the IRS is abusing power targeting certain groups unfairly....... there is no scandal.

That seems very scandalous to me. If Romney were president and the IRS were found to be targeting abortion rights groups would that be scandalous? I would certainly think so, but it seems like you would see nothing wrong with this, because we should not expect the IRS to be "perfect". I don't expect perfection, but when something underhanded happens I expect action to correct it.

 

Darrell Issa is irrelevant. The truth or lack thereof with regards to the allegations against the IRS do not rest on Darrell Issa's credibility. I am more interested in what a relevant person has to say, such as Lois Lerner. Unfortunately, she refused to say much at all for fear of incriminating herself.

 

 

You can go back a few month ago and watch media coverage where as Darrell Issa started off the investigation as "a white house scandal". Now if you see coverage of the investigation it's no longer "a white house scandal" because Darrell Issa made a fool of himself based on partisan accusations and fictional theories that did not add up.

 

The media's editorial coverage of the investigation is also irrelevant to the veracity of the allegations.

 

 

The IRS like any organization is not perfect but most people from the conservative side are wanting to abolish the IRS to fix the problem where the only thing the IRS is doing is following the laws made by congress to collect taxes despite there being some abuse.

 

Again, if there was abuse of power occurring that is scandalous. It does not necessarily mean that the President ordered the abuse, but it happened in his administration. Managing the executive branch is his primary responsibility, and anything criminal that occurs within his administration is ultimately his responsibility. It is his responsibility to be made aware of it and to correct it if necessary. This does not mean micromanaging the IRS, but it does mean appointing people who can do that for him and holding them accountable for such problems, lest he be held accountable himself.

 

Also, it is not a purely partisan issue like you are implying. There are Democrats who are disturbed by the allegations and have aggressively pursued the investigation as well, including the ranking member of the House oversight committee.