IRS inappropriately targets Tea Party, White House blames Bush

[Jon Miller]

No charitable contributions. Nothing. 10% FLAT ****ING TAX. What is so difficult to comprehend? No profit? After the 1st year, they need to fold.

You know who also would fold?

Every single corporation that exists right now.

Income for corporations is much much much larger than profits (for everything but Apple/some Finance).

JM

[Jon Miller]

No charitable contributions. Nothing. 10% FLAT ****ING TAX. What is so difficult to comprehend? No profit? After the 1st year, they need to fold.

You know who also would fold?

Every single corporation that exists right now.

Income for corporations is much much much larger than profits (for everything but Apple/some Finance).

JM

[Guynemer]

The government shouldn't be taxing political groups because political groups are explicitly protected by the Constitution "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances;" are providing a valuable public service (whether you agree with them or not, arguing issues in public sharpens thinking and cuts down on bad ideas); and are reliant entirely on donations and therefore have no profitable activity to tax. Money can only be collected from political groups by infringing on the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition their government.

Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, all taxes on individuals are unconstitutional, as they abridge our free speech rights.

That dog won't hunt, monseigneur.

[DinoDoc]

I said:

... and immediately followed it up with a suggestion that such investigation is partisan in nature.

[The Mad Monk]

IRS stalled conservative groups, but gave speedy approval to Obama foundation


By Carol D. Leonnig, Published: May 16 E-mail the writer

When the Barack H. Obama Foundation sought tax-exempt status to raise money for good works in Kenya, the Internal Revenue Service provided quick help.

The IRS approved charitable status for the foundation, which was run by President Obama’s brother and named after his father, in about a month’s time. The IRS also agreed to give the group this important financial status retroactively, back to 2009, when it had begun its fundraising.

The 34 days the IRS’s Cincinnati office took to process the foundation’s application stands in contrast to the waits of several months — and sometimes longer than a year — that several conservative groups say they experienced with the same office. Obama has apologized, saying Americans have a right to be angry that the office improperly targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny.

The IRS handling of the Obama-named group was revealed this week by a conservative watchdog group, the National Legal and Policy Center, and reported by the Daily Caller on Thursday. The Washington Post confirmed reports through public records of the group’s application and the IRS approval letter, signed by the unit director Lois Lerner.

Abon’go Malik Obama, the foundation’s executive director and the president’s brother, was not immediately available for comment. IRS and White House officials did not return calls and e-mails.

In 2009, the Barack H. Obama Foundation was accused by the National Legal and Policy Center of being a scofflaw. The group had been promoting itself as a charity and seeking donations that it said would be tax-deductible, but it lacked the required tax-exempt status. Groups must have or have an active application for tax-exempt status to solicit such donations.

Ken Boehm, executive director of the National Legal and Policy Center, said he found it “highly suspicious” — given that the average application took five to six months to approve — that the foundation received a speedy nod and retroactive cover.

“They were a sham charity,” he said. “You would think that would be a reason for more questions and scrutiny, and not a fast pass to go through the speedy line. All of that together just didn’t smell right. They were getting much faster service than average 501(c)(3) applicant.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/irs-stalled-conservative-groups-but-gave-speedy-approval-to-obama-foundation/2013/05/16/90c53e8a-be57-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_story.html

IRS Official in Charge During Tea Party Targeting Now Runs Health Care Office
Email 0 Smaller Font Text Larger Text | Print

By John Parkinson
@jparkABC

Steven Portnoy
@stevenportnoy
May 16, 2013 6:15pm

The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.

Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.

Her successor, Joseph Grant, is taking the fall for misdeeds at the scandal-plagued unit between 2010 and 2012. During at least part of that time, Grant served as deputy commissioner of the tax-exempt unit.

Grant announced today that he would retire June 3, despite being appointed as commissioner of the tax-exempt office May 8, a week ago.

As the House voted to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act Thursday evening, House Speaker John Boehner expressed “serious concerns” that the IRS is empowered as the law’s chief enforcer.

“Fully repealing ObamaCare will help us build a stronger, healthier economy, and will clear the way for patient-centered reforms that lower health care costs and protect jobs,” Boehner, R-Ohio, said.

“Obamacare empowers the agency that just violated the public’s trust by secretly targeting conservative groups,” Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., added. “Even by Washington’s standards, that’s unacceptable.”

Sen. John Cornyn even introduced a bill, the “Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act of 2013,” which would prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury, or any delegate, including the IRS, from enforcing the Affordable Care Act.

“Now more than ever, we need to prevent the IRS from having any role in Americans’ health care,” Cornyn, R-Texas, stated. “I do not support Obamacare, and after the events of last week, I cannot support giving the IRS any more responsibility or taxpayer dollars to implement a broken law.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also reacted to the revelation late Thursday, stating the news was “stunning, just stunning.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/irs-official-in-charge-during-tea-party-targeting-now-runs-health-care-office/

That's beautiful, man.

[Felch]

Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, all taxes on individuals are unconstitutional, as they abridge our free speech rights.

That dog won't hunt, monseigneur.

That's a strange idea of logical. Individuals often engage in non-protected activities. In contrast, a political group exists only to facilitate a constitutionally protected activity. It's no more reasonable to tax political groups than it would be to tax the act of voting.

[regexcellent]

Is a group that teaches people about the dangers of global warming a political group or an educational group? Does it get tax exempt status or not?

[giblets]

The real question is why does any political group get tax exempt status? The law as written says tax exempt status can ONLY be granted to groups which are EXCLUSIVELY for social benefit groups yet in 1959 the IRS wrote a policy statement saying they interpreted the word "exclusively" to mean primarily which just is wrong according to the definitions of the English language.

Just enforce the law AS WRITTEN so that no political group gets tax exempt status and then this problem goes away because you remove the gray area of "are they primarily political or not" and it just becomes "do they do anything political?" and if so they don't get tax exempt status. Make political groups pay their taxes just like everyone else and then there can be no question of favoritism. The whole problem just goes away and all we have to do is enforce the existing laws as written.

Because if political groups weren't exempt non-profits would pretend to not have a political agenda in order to maintain their tax-exempt status, and then it would be the IRS's responsibility to distinguish which groups really are political and which ones do not have a political agenda (which would be problematic because there is a great deal of ambiguity in the distinction). This would greatly increase the risk of the IRS being used by the party in power to suppress the opposition and give its side the upper hand which could potentially be detrimental to democracy. Giving all non-profits devoted to social welfare except political ones tax-exempt status would be a bad idea.

[Jon Miller]

Is a group that teaches people about the dangers of global warming a political group or an educational group? Does it get tax exempt status or not?

If scientists are leading it and it is in the area of their expertise (and they are considered as scientists by the community/greater scientific community), then it is an educational group.

I don't understand this 'tax exempt status' thing. If it is non-profit it isn't going to pay taxes on profits. As far as charitable contributions, I would (maybe?) be OK with removing them (maybe increasing charitable contributions from the state, like Sweden has).

JM

[Jon Miller]

Is a group that teaches people about the dangers of global warming a political group or an educational group? Does it get tax exempt status or not?

If scientists are leading it and it is in the area of their expertise (and they are considered as scientists by the community/greater scientific community), then it is an educational group.

I don't understand this 'tax exempt status' thing. If it is non-profit it isn't going to pay taxes on profits. As far as charitable contributions, I would (maybe?) be OK with removing them (maybe increasing charitable contributions from the state, like Sweden has).

JM

[MrFun]

Apparently, some Republicans have altered some of the released White House's Benghazi emails.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Move the Benghazi discussion stuff over to the Benghazi thread. This is the catch all for:

IRS scandal

AP wiretap Scandal

HHS shaking down businesses they ultimately will regulate scandal

and any other late breaking scandals yet to be announced. (Over/under is 2 by Monday)

[DinoDoc]

This seems like a very bad narrative developing for the Admin:

The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating allegations that the Internal Revenue Service had targeted conservative groups, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

At the first Congressional hearing into the I.R.S. scandal, J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, told members of the House Ways and Means Committee that he informed the Treasury’s general counsel of his investigation on June 4, and Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin “shortly thereafter.” The new information came as part of a routine briefing of the investigations that the inspector general would be conducting in the coming year, and he did not tell the officials of his conclusions that the targeting had been improper, he said.

[Felch]

Is a group that teaches people about the dangers of global warming a political group or an educational group? Does it get tax exempt status or not?

It's both and it should be tax exempt. Non profit groups that teach the benefits of global warming are also political and educational, and also deserve tax exempt status. It's irrelevant if there are scientists leading it or not. Elementary schools are educational, and most of them aren't staffed by eminent scholars.

[Sava]

Climate science is only political because retarded republicans made it so.