IRS Targeted Conservative Groups

[Diemen]

Given the current situation, I'm quite amazed at the irony of a Republican warning of people in government who feel they can bend the rules against those they disagree with.

[INDY500]

Ben Carson's IRS Audit Can't Possibly Be Coincidence

Ben Carson's IRS Audit Can't Possibly Be Coincidence

In the already blossoming IRS scandal, political organizations' applications for tax-exempt status were delayed or denied during last year's presidential campaign, and well into this year, simply because their names sounded too conservative. The IRS audit of renowned neurosurgeon Carson looks like exactly the same kind of abuse, and it must be subject to a formal independent investigation.

Carson on Wednesday told Fox's Bill O'Reilly that the IRS began examining his real estate holdings after his speech to the National Prayer Breakfast in February, in which he used tithing in the Bible to make a compelling case against progressive taxation. A humiliated Obama sat steaming a couple of seats away.

Carson recounted that ultimately the IRS conducted a full audit on him, finding no violations. Before giving his speech critical of Obama, the tax agency had never bothered the 62-year-old doctor.

Asked by O'Reilly if he thought he was targeted because of his politics, Carson said, "Whether that was the case or not, the fundamental issue here is that the freedom of our citizens is being threatened." He called IRS politically driven abuse a "much more serious thing than Watergate or Iran-Contra or Benghazi-gate. Freedom of speech — freedom of expression — is one of the major principles of our country."

Don't worry Dr. Carson, our president has vowed to "get to the bottom" of this scandal.

[nbcrusader]

Given the number of times IRS officials visit the White House, I'm sure they are working very hard on this scandal.

[INDY500]

The IRS vs. Privacy | National Review Online

Representative Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), as usual doing the unpleasant work of trying to figure out what exactly it is our so-called public servants are up to all day, requested a series of e-mail exchanges between IRS staffers and White House political personnel regarding provisions of the new health-care law requiring religious organizations to violate their consciences and pay for contraceptives and abortifacients. The e-mail transcripts came back partly redacted, and the IRS labeled those redactions “6103.” And those four digits are a serious problem for the IRS and the Obama administration.

The number 6103 is the IRS’s notation for information that is being redacted because it contains confidential taxpayer information. There are relatively few people authorized to view 6103 information, mostly nonpolitical staff at the IRS (i.e., the guy performing your audit) and, in a few narrow circumstances, particular members of Congress — not including Darrell Issa, apparently. But the content of those 6103 redactions is in e-mails sent by IRS professional staff, who have access to all manner of private taxpayer information, to White House political staff, who are barred by law from receiving 6103 information. There are two possibilities here: Either the IRS is attempting to stonewall Issa’s investigation by improperly and illegally redacting documents he has requested, or the IRS improperly and illegally shared confidential taxpayer information with White House political staff. The latter is the more likely outcome.

The e-mail transcripts are of some interest. The White House staffers plainly are attempting to figure out how to construe the rules so as to provide as few exemptions as possible, thereby maximizing the number of religious institutions roped into the contraception and abortion businesses. The White House staffers go so far as to ask questions about specific organizations — asking those questions of IRS professional staffers not authorized to disclose private taxpayer information. The answers and the redaction can be a bit amusing; one reads, “The large, well known ‘[redacted] universities — e.g. [redacted] — do not appear to be part of the [redacted] group ruling.” We think that chances are excellent that first redacted word is “Catholic,” given that later inquiries touch on the role of religious orders and the like.
The IRS employee here is Sarah H. Ingram, the former commissioner for tax-exempt and government entities — i.e., the superior of the suddenly retired Lois Lerner, the one-woman lie factory who got the IRS scandal rolling with her dishonesty and ineptitude. Ms. Ingram has been with the IRS for three decades; she knows the rules. Challenged by Representative Issa during his hearings, she claimed not to recall what exactly was underneath all those 6103 redactions. It does not really matter. Either she illegally shared confidential taxpayer information or the IRS is illegally interfering with a congressional investigation. The task now is to determine which of those is the case and to prosecute the guilty party or parties.

There is supposed to be a church-and-state separation between political and nonpolitical work in government, but that is more aspiration than fact. Here we have a longtime IRS employee collaborating with political staffers in order to maximize the reach of a controversial and contested policy. The policy itself may be unconstitutional, and the communications about it from Ms. Ingram, who is now in charge of enforcement of the Affordable Care Act, may have been illegal. Employees at the IRS who reported to her are in possession of sensitive financial information and have leaked it to damage their political enemies; others will soon be in possession of sensitive health-care information, too, in their role as Obamacare enforcers. If conservatives dislike having their tax returns leaked, they’re going to like it even less when it’s documents from the urologist or gynecologist.

This is a situation that is simply intolerable. The House is doing what it can, but this is a matter for a serious criminal investigation. We are not going to hold our breath waiting for Eric Holder to get serious about this, which means it is up to Representative Issa and, more important, to the American public to see to it that this abuse is not allowed to stand.

[PhilsFan]

I'm not reading a National Review article for unbiased commentary on Barack Obama.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

I'm not reading a National Review article for unbiased commentary on Barack Obama.

If the choice is between National Review and The Most Transparent Administration in History... guess which one I'm gonna trust?

[PhilsFan]

... What?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

If the choice is between National Review and The Most Transparent Administration in History... guess which one I'm gonna trust?

11 more years of crushing electoral disappointment and self-delusion it is then.

The grifters of the right (Palin, Cruz) will continue to profit.

[INDY500]

So Lois Lerner finally explained what happened at the IRS during her Congressional testimony Wed.

Just kidding, she took the Fifth.

[Irvine511]

Maybe if Issa shouted louder?

[deep]

[Irvine511]

It's against Issa's religion to have a black man interrupt him. He's just exercising his religious freedoms.

[Izzy.nyc]

Why bring race into it?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Izzy.nyc

Why bring race into it?

Long FYM insider-y backstory.

[Dfit00]

The IRS has always been interested in taxing the life out of the wealthiest organizations or individuals in the US, they are not interested in people who pay taxes on an income of less than $200K per year.

For all those Americans who complain about paying taxes and dealing with the IRS, I would recommend you to quit your US citizenship and move to a country where this inconvenience is not existent, that way you'll know how taxes are really handled and managed.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Dfit00

For all those Americans who complain about paying taxes and dealing with the IRS, I would recommend you to quit your US citizenship and move to a country where this inconvenience is not existent

It's as simple as that, folks.

[U2DMfan]

The IRS doesn't make the tax code anyway, it only enforces it.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Izzy.nyc

Why bring race into it?

Crying Racism | National Review Online

MARCH 7, 2014 12:00 AM
Crying Racism
For Democrats, anyone who disagrees is a racist — even other Democrats.

When seven Democratic senators voted with all of the Republicans to reject Debo Adegbile’s nomination to serve as head of the Justice Department’s civil-rights division, Harry Reid cried racism. It’s as if Reid was on autopilot, and the aide who usually touches his elbow to correct him wasn’t available. If the aide had been there, he would have whispered “Um, senator, you’re accusing your own side of racism.”

So welcome to the club, Senators Coons, Heitkamp, Manchin, Casey, Walsh, Donnelly, and Pryor. By disagreeing with Senator Reid, you’re all honorary racists, which is the same thing as being a Republican, according to the Democratic defamation machine.

It's all they got.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Diemen

It's as simple as that, folks.

Right, because we all work to serve the government -- not the other way around.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Right, because we all work to serve the government -- not the other way around.

You apparently missed my sarcasm.