IRS inappropriately targets Tea Party, White House blames Bush

[-Jrabbit]

That's been the obvious irony the whole freaking time, dude.

See? It''s not IRS malfeasance; it's IRS incompetence.

[Dinner]

How is it incompetence when there were SUPPOSED to stop political groups from illegally using 401.c.4 designation to get out of paying taxes and/or disclosing who their donors are? The law, as written, says that 401.c.4 groups have to be exclusively social welfare groups and not political but in 1959 the IRS "clarified" that they interprited the word exclusively to mean mostly; which is wrong. All of the political groups trying to get 401.c.4 status are illegal as the law is written.

[Alexander's Horse]

Does anyone seriously believe that a tax office needs political guidance to go after people like the teabaggers who a. believe they pay too much tax b. openly resent paying it and c. claim that lawful taxes are unconstitutional? I would have thought any good tax inspector could have worked out this is a high risk group for tax evasion.

[SlowwHand]

Taxation isn't a constitutional issue. There is no "right to tax" provision.

[Jon Miller]

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

JM

[SlowwHand]

Section 8. You are correct. Although, the very first wording is

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

You forgot to stutter. Mental lapse?

[-Jrabbit]

How is it incompetence when there were SUPPOSED to stop political groups from illegally using 401.c.4 designation to get out of paying taxes and/or disclosing who their donors are? The law, as written, says that 401.c.4 groups have to be exclusively social welfare groups and not political but in 1959 the IRS "clarified" that they interprited the word exclusively to mean mostly; which is wrong. All of the political groups trying to get 401.c.4 status are illegal as the law is written.

Again, that's what I'm saying. The IRS has been incompetent at properly applying the law as written. These groups almost universally get their status granted, both sides of the aisle, and it's not a new thing.

Again, it's the reason this whole issue has been so lol-arious from the get-go.

Why are you correcting me when I'm agreeing with you?

[DinoDoc]

Does anyone seriously believe that a tax office needs political guidance to go after people like the teabaggers who a. believe they pay too much tax b. openly resent paying it and c. claim that lawful taxes are unconstitutional?

Straw men aside, the rather idiotic and ham handed attempt to palm this off as an act by two rogue employees is what drew peoples attention in the first place.

I would have thought any good tax inspector...

I can see why someone working for an incredibly powerful arm of the US Government interested in punishing people he disagrees with would key in on people who put down on their paperwork that they want to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution for extra attention.

[Jon Miller]

Section 8. You are correct. Although, the very first wording is

You forgot to stutter. Mental lapse?

I thought we were talking about the constitution. You quoted one bit, I quoted another bit.

I quote:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

I deleted because I do try sometimes. I am not going to delete one out of every two posts I make, though, so don't expect me to try all the time.

I won't delete this time.

jM

[Jon Miller]

Amendment 16 is just as much part of the constitution as section 8.

In fact, you could argue that it is a more relevant part of the constitution than section 8, as newer sections clarify (or even remove) older ones.

Imagine if the 28th amendment was passed making it illegal to own firearms. Obviously then it the second would be no longer valid (as currently interpreted at least). The constitution would say that it was illegal to own firearms.

jM

[DinoDoc]

I deleted because I do try sometimes. I am not going to delete one out of every two posts I make, though, so don't expect me to try all the time.

Could we expect you to get a better internet service? Or simply learn to post?

[Alexander's Horse]

Look you guys are the experts on your own government. All I'm saying is tax officials are pretty much a law to themselves at the best of times. All they care about is defending the revenue. For some of them it's like a holy mission, their purpose in life. They don't care who is in power or who they are going after. Many of them are zealots. I don't know of any other public officials who can elevate taxation to a kind of personal vocation. Some of them get a weird look in their eye when they talk about their job I have seen it. They see tax evasion as theft and complaining about tax as smoke where there might be fire. The Tea party people would deeply offend crazy officials like that. We see the results.

[SlowwHand]

I understand your point and can certainly see it as being true, but the question is, is/was it proper? The answer is No.

[Alexander's Horse]

I agree with you. It was wrong and tax officials are quite prone to getting it wrong, especially where politics is involved.