Organizations were singled out because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications for tax-exempt status, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for their list of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.
"That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review," Lerner said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association.
"The IRS would like to apologize for that," she added.
May 10, 2013
"The Internal Revenue Service inappropriately flagged conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election..."
"... to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status, a top IRS official said Friday."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
238 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 238 of 238I don't see enough to jump to big conclusions beyond the Cincinnati office.
Why would you?
That would be trouble for your political party.
I mean, it isn't as if these "low level staffers" have a manager or anything.
So you want a full accounting of what happened and what transgressions were committed. Then you want to know who was responsible and what the consequences for them will be. And you want all done transparently.
Anything to add to the very practical wishlist other than hoping Obama goes to hell when he dies?
Matt said...
Yes, if they were asking to disclose donors then I agree THAT is an issue
There is no "if"
It happened.
Organizations were singled out because they included the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their applications for tax-exempt status, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups.
In some cases, groups were asked for their list of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.
You can stop trying to obfuscate now, Matt.
Thanks.
Not only that, they were asked for information on family members. And all of this happened in support of the same administration that joked about it.
Remember when I said, back when he made that joke, that you don't even joke about things like that to avoid the appearance of impropriety?
Shoulda listened.
they were asked for information on family members
Small potatoes!!!
So you want a full accounting of what happened and what transgressions were committed. Then you want to know who was responsible and what the consequences for them will be. And you want all done transparently.
With Harry Reid in charge of the Senate, that is not happening.
Matthew Sablan
In the link:
About 75 groups were inappropriately targeted. None had their tax-exempt status revoked, Lerner said.
Harassment = victory!
And this:
The agency — led at the time by a Bush administration appointee — blamed low-level employees, saying no high-level officials were aware.
Sounds almost like a non-story. Almost. Hell, if Bush had done this the left would have gone crazy. I'll admit this.
phx said...
So you want a full accounting of what happened and what transgressions were committed
It is rather instructive you can't bring yourself to admit something went wrong here.
In fact, it was illegal.
But when Matt, who is a partisan hack, chimes in that this is "small potatoes" you rush in to agree.
What do you think that says about you?
"Lerner said 150 of the cases have been closed and no group had its tax-exempt status revoked, though some withdrew their applications."
-- The withdrawing their applications? That's the chilling effect.
Matt said...
Harassment = victory!
Notice how you've been reduced to making jokes after your silly bullshit is easily refuted.
Also note, you've moved the goal posts so harassment is ok, as long as nobody lost their tax-exempt status.
Hack.
The withdrawing their applications? That's the chilling effect.
No, the harassment is.
See, in Matt-land, when you are harassed you never get frustrated and quit trying to be a tax-exempt group.
Matt is a silly hack.
Jay
You and I are defining 'potatoes' differently.
It is small potatoes. Boring soggy potatoes, actually. A few heads will roll at the Cincinatti office and that's that.
Big potatoes would be if all this was directed from instructions at the White House. But if the Bush appointed head of the IRS didn't know then, well.... [insert conspiracy here]?
Matt: Actually, no. There will be no disciplinary action.
Matt said...
Jay
You and I are defining 'potatoes' differently.
It is small potatoes. Boring soggy potatoes, actually.
Said
someone who has never been audited.
Small potatos? No. With or without white house direction, rogue federal bureaucrats can make anyone's life a living or dying (if you're a Branch Davidian) hell. The more power the people give up, the greater the potential danger. Its only small potatoes to you because this time it wasn't you who was being harassed.
“You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man’s freedom. You can only be free if I am free”
Clarence Darrow
Too bad liberals don't actually want freedom for anyone.
Matt said...
They weren't 'harassed'. They were simply asked to fill out a questionnaire to prove that they were eligible for 501(c) status because they had not filled out all paperwork.
This is not true. They were subjected to an additional level of scrutiny because IRS bureaucrats targeted their political beliefs. And the overwhelmingly likely cause was the bureaucrats sympathy to the leftist demonization of tea party groups since the two groups are largely overlapping.
The more I look, the more I think this is something that could have been dumped on pretty much any random Friday. And it doesn't look like they were getting ahead of a story about to break.
This is a false flag op. The real story is still Benghazi.
phx said...
"But remember, Liberal Fascism is sheer nonsense."
Some righties quivering in their loins that this just may be a real-life example of Liberal Fascism.
Did you even bother to click the link I provided?
Look, I know you've already copped to being lazy, but could you put in at least minimal effort here?
Every single one of the organizations needs every single dime they spent answering the inappropriate queries of this abuse of privacy and power.
And people need to be fired.
Did you even bother to click the link I provided?
Look, I know you've already copped to being lazy, but could you put in at least minimal effort here?
Actually you're right, I didn't. And if you post it here again I will. Promise.
If those flagged groups had only added "gay" in front of "tea party" and "patriot" their applications would have gotten the Jason Cillins treatment.
If you think you like the IRS now, just wait until the 2014 tax year when your Form 1040 will make you prove you had qualified Obamacare health coverage for every month of the year for every person listed on your return, or else have a penalty added to the amount due or reducing the refund. Bend over and squeal folks!
phx said...
Actually you're right, I didn't. And if you post it here again I will. Promise.
Trying to honestly engage people that aren't interested in honest engagement is a waste of time Chip.
Trying to honestly engage people that aren't interested in honest engagement is a waste of time Chip.
Oh yeah? How many people click on every link someone posts in a blog comment. It's dangerous you jackass.
phx said...
Trying to honestly engage people that aren't interested in honest engagement is a waste of time Chip.
Oh yeah? How many people click on every link someone posts in a blog comment. It's dangerous you jackass.
You didn't claim it was dangerous though did you? You mocked the very idea additional information would be relevant, because for your purposes it isn't.
You didn't claim it was dangerous though did you?
Normally people don't bleg you to click on the link they posted. In response sometimes politeness is the better policy, sometimes not.
phx said...
You didn't claim it was dangerous though did you?
Normally people don't bleg you to click on the link they posted. In response sometimes politeness is the better policy, sometimes not.
Not a great recovery after letting the mask slip. It doesn't really reclaim anything, plus it comes off whiny. If you can't do better you should probably just give up.
Not a great recovery after letting the mask slip. It doesn't really reclaim anything, plus it comes off whiny. If you can't do better you should probably just give up.
Give up what, Darrell? Answering your constant pussy need for my attention?
I'll gladly give it up.
Give up what, Darrell?
Sorry I got you confused with the other Darrell.
"Do you mind however if some of us reserve our judgement on that matter until we know more or an actual investigation is underway?"
Then when if its actually investigates your side will say its old news and what does it matter.
Sorry. Time to have your mess front page for a while..only way to get accountability.
"Lerner said the practice was initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati and was not motivated by political bias."
Except we already know that there were also groups in CA that got the same treatment. Liars.
"About 75 groups were inappropriately targeted. None had their tax-exempt status revoked, Lerner said."
That's because they were asked on the initial application. They had NO TAX EXEMPT status to revoke. Lying by defining dishonestly.
And there's over a dozen groups (who are part of the lawsuit) that still haven't been ruled on.
Matt said...
Jay
You and I are defining 'potatoes' differently.
It is small potatoes
Right.
It is such "small potatoes" that you're here lying about what actually happened.
When "small potatoes" things happen, lying is like totally indicative of said things being "small potatoes"
But if the Bush appointed head of the IRS didn't know then, well
Notice the rush to drop the name Bush as quickly as possible.
Notice the intellectual laziness to not wonder why these IRS agents thought it a good idea to flag these returns.
But so far as I can tell this was all from low level staffers in a Cincinnati office who were trying to find the easiest way to separate the paperwork
Except we know that is a lie. Lead counsel knew of it in 2011.
Big potatoes would be if all this was directed from instructions at the White House. But if the Bush appointed head of the IRS didn't know then, well.... [insert conspiracy here]?
Treasury Secretary Geithner has NO control over the IRS?
Isn't THAT a scandal in and of itself?
They LIED to you about it. And the Dems STILL don't give a shit.
limo service in san francisco can be one of two things night mare or a fulfillment of your expectations that being a clean, safe inexpensive ride or trip to home or work like most people are usually tired from their plane ride and the last thing they want to deal with is a unfriendly monterey plaza hotel and spa driver, dirty car and extremely expensive.
Post a Comment