Five questions on the IRS mess

A few questions on the IRS scandal.

1) The core issue here is that the IRS was using the term “tea party” and its associated language as a flag for organizations that might be more political than the 501(c)4 designation permitted. As Juliet Eilperin writes, this kind of category-based approach to choosing which applications require more scrutiny is typical for the IRS. It’s even used in individual tax returns. The question was whether, when it came to the 501(c)4 groups, the only kind of political activity being rigorously screened was conservative political activity. Was tea party language the only red flag? Or did other kinds of politicized language set off alarm bells, too? If so, what was that language?

2) Was the Cincinnati office the only one that used the tea-party test or was it more widely applied? The fact that some tea party groups received scrutiny from Washington-based IRS employees doesn’t answer that question. We should expect tea party groups to get scrutiny when they apply for non-political 501(c)4 designation. The question is whether their applications were flagged through a politically discriminatory test that existed in other agencies, too.

3) Did the IRS higher-ups act appropriately? Right now, much of the reporting indicates that IRS higher-ups shut this down pretty much as soon as they heard about it. Their sin, if there was one, was that they didn’t disclose that anything had gone awry when asked whether the IRS was targeting conservative groups. But they may also have thought that this wasn’t targeting conservative groups — it was simply a reasonable, but ultimately unwise, way of filtering politicized applications for appropriate scrutiny. The IG report should tell us more on this score.

4) In which direction does our outrage point? Do we think the tea party groups really are primarily non-political social welfare organizations and they should’ve received 501(c)4 designation more smoothly? Or do we think that they’re clearly political organizations and their applications should’ve been closely scrutinized and maybe even rejected – but so too should the applications from a host of other politicized groups on the left and the right?

5) Do we want a personnel outcome, a political outcome, or a policy outcome? Is the right endgame simply that some IRS employees get fired? That the Obama administration gets embarrassed? Or is that Congress tightens the language governing who does and doesn’t qualify for 501(c)4 status so that the IRS doesn’t have so much discretion — and career employees don’t resort to these confused tactics — when reviewing applications? Note that if we go the legislative route, we could either widen the 501(c)4 designation, making it clear that political groups qualify, or we could narrow it, making it clear that they don’t.

The answers to these questions would go a long way in clarifying whether we have a real scandal or simply a bad filtering process on our hands, and what we should do about it.

Wonkbook’s Number of the Day: 1/3. That’s the share of all House committees that are now “investigating some aspect of the Obama administration,” according to Jake Sherman and Lauren French in Politico.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/wonkbook-five-questions-on-the-irs-mess/?hpid=z2

The IRS had every right to scrutinize these groups, they aren't for the purpose of "social welfare", as required, they are an absolute political party.

501(c) Groups — Nonprofit, tax-exempt groups organized under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code that can engage in varying amounts of political activity, depending on the type of group. For example, 501(c)(3) groups operate for religious, charitable, scientific or educational purposes. These groups are not supposed to engage in any political activities, though some voter registration activities are permitted. 501(c)(4) groups are commonly called "social welfare" organizations that may engage in political activities, as long as these activities do not become their primary purpose. Similar restrictions apply to Section 501(c)(5) labor and agricultural groups, and to Section 501(c)(6) business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards and boards of trade.

"The IRS had every right to scrutinize these groups, they aren't for the purpose of "social welfare", as required, they are an absolute political party."

Dems and social welfare. No social welfare for right wingers.

News Pigeon wrote:The IRS had every right to scrutinize these groups, they aren't for the purpose of "social welfare", as required, they are an absolute political party.

501(c) Groups — Nonprofit, tax-exempt groups organized under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code that can engage in varying amounts of political activity, depending on the type of group. For example, 501(c)(3) groups operate for religious, charitable, scientific or educational purposes. These groups are not supposed to engage in any political activities, though some voter registration activities are permitted. 501(c)(4) groups are commonly called "social welfare" organizations that may engage in political activities, as long as these activities do not become their primary purpose. Similar restrictions apply to Section 501(c)(5) labor and agricultural groups, and to Section 501(c)(6) business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards and boards of trade.

Thank you for the clarification, News Pigeon!

fshnski wrote:"The IRS had every right to scrutinize these groups, they aren't for the purpose of "social welfare", as required, they are an absolute political party."

Dems and social welfare. No social welfare for right wingers.

Do you even understand the meaning of the term "social welfare"........it means to ensure the betterment of society.

I know. If you want it, you pay for it.

fshnski wrote:I know. If you want it, you pay for it.

Does that include the wealthy who pay nothing while taking their money off shore? Because that's hurting our society as much as, if not more than the "deadbeats" the Republicans bitch about...

News Pigeon wrote:

fshnski wrote:I know. If you want it, you pay for it.

Does that include the wealthy who pay nothing while taking their money off shore? Because that's hurting our society as much as, if not more than the "deadbeats" the Republicans bitch about...

And there is no Democrats doing that? What a bunch of hypocrites.

If this frickin' mess doesn't get fixed there is no hope for our country.

I don't know about anybody else but I'm sick of giving. I'm sick of giving to things that only benefit a few. I'm sick of giving up my quality of life so somebody else can benefit. I'm sick of being made to accept things that I know in the deepest recess's of my heart are not in the best interest of our country. I'm sick of giving our country away to the world. I'm sick that my wholes life's investment in my country was for naught.

If you want 5 kids, pay for them. I didn't have 5 kids, why should I pay for all those who did, but couldn't afford them? I am with ya', fsh!

fshnski wrote:

News Pigeon wrote:

fshnski wrote:I know. If you want it, you pay for it.

Does that include the wealthy who pay nothing while taking their money off shore? Because that's hurting our society as much as, if not more than the "deadbeats" the Republicans bitch about...

And there is no Democrats doing that? What a bunch of hypocrites.

Yes, there are but the question was, "Does that include the wealthy who pay nothing while taking their money off shore?" I didn't specify a political party, I specified a social position.

That's what's wrong with the income tax. It should be a flat tax without all kinds of loopholes. Romney shouldn't get them, Obama and Pelosi shouldn't get them.

You need to research "flat tax"...it's not at all the solution.

Why don't you tell WHL in your own words what your concerns are? Tuesday 7:12.

I'm sorry. I must have missed you post.

News Pigeon wrote:The IRS had every right to scrutinize these groups, they aren't for the purpose of "social welfare", as required, they are an absolute political party.

501(c) Groups — Nonprofit, tax-exempt groups organized under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code that can engage in varying amounts of political activity, depending on the type of group. For example, 501(c)(3) groups operate for religious, charitable, scientific or educational purposes. These groups are not supposed to engage in any political activities, though some voter registration activities are permitted. 501(c)(4) groups are commonly called "social welfare" organizations that may engage in political activities, as long as these activities do not become their primary purpose. Similar restrictions apply to Section 501(c)(5) labor and agricultural groups, and to Section 501(c)(6) business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards and boards of trade.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Even Obama admitted today that "the behavoir of the IRS is outragous and they failed to apply the law". Tollerance for your views only...how enlighted you are.

NP, I know a lot more about the flat tax than you'll ever know.

Outerlimits wrote:

News Pigeon wrote:The IRS had every right to scrutinize these groups, they aren't for the purpose of "social welfare", as required, they are an absolute political party.

501(c) Groups — Nonprofit, tax-exempt groups organized under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code that can engage in varying amounts of political activity, depending on the type of group. For example, 501(c)(3) groups operate for religious, charitable, scientific or educational purposes. These groups are not supposed to engage in any political activities, though some voter registration activities are permitted. 501(c)(4) groups are commonly called "social welfare" organizations that may engage in political activities, as long as these activities do not become their primary purpose. Similar restrictions apply to Section 501(c)(5) labor and agricultural groups, and to Section 501(c)(6) business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards and boards of trade.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Even Obama admitted today that "the behavoir of the IRS is outragous and they failed to apply the law". Tollerance for your views only...how enlighted you are.

Ah yes, allow me to teach you a new word today...
scru·ti·nize
/ˈskro͞otnˌīz/
Verb
Examine or inspect closely and thoroughly.
Synonyms
examine - investigate - inspect - scan

You do understand that I used the word "scrutinize" most judiciously so as to not mislead...what I didn't say (and you are attempting to say) was that the IRS had the right to "single out" or delay the applicants, that's what makes this an egregious act.

BTW you should take advantage of spell check, you've misspelled several words..
behavoir: should be behavior
outragous: should be outrageous
Tollerance: should be tolerance
enlighted: should be enlightened
There, now you've been enlightened.... you're welcome.

WHL wrote:NP, I know a lot more about the flat tax than you'll ever know.

Really...who are you Clio The Psychic.
So tell me how a flat tax will work better than a progressive tax..and pls don't respond with your usual "I don't have to tell you anything" response.

WHL wrote:If you want 5 kids, pay for them. I didn't have 5 kids, why should I pay for all those who did, but couldn't afford them? I am with ya', fsh!

Five? Interesting choice of numbers. Got something against kids?

News Pigeon wrote:Ah yes, allow me to teach you a new word today...
scru·ti·nize
/ˈskro͞otnˌīz/
Verb
Examine or inspect closely and thoroughly.
Synonyms
examine - investigate - inspect - scan....

Blah blah blah…

You can’t challenge the facts so attempt to discredit the source. Nice to see you keep up with the liberal playbook.

Your clearly biased position does nothing aside from reveal your blind partisan view of this scandal, and to underscore your complete lack of understanding of what is actually involved. This is not about conservative groups ducking tax responsibilities; it is about conservative groups being singled out for harassment. The IRS has already admitted fault. That has been established.


Try to keep up.

Obama's scandals are the fault of his followers.

His supporters do not hold him accountable for anything. He blatantly lied several dozen times in his first term and if you brought it up you would get called a racist and all blame would be shifted towards someone else like Bush.

Top White House officials knew the IRS was targeting conservative groups for 23 months yet Obama claims that he just found out about it on Friday - the same time it hit the press.

Are you really that dumb to believe this?

It's the freaking Stockholm Syndrome.

"We're gonna punish our enemies, and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us" - Barrack Obama; Oct. 23, 2010

feel free to correct obama’s grammar

Matzoh Heppelwhite. wrote:

WHL wrote:If you want 5 kids, pay for them. I didn't have 5 kids, why should I pay for all those who did, but couldn't afford them? I am with ya', fsh!

Five? Interesting choice of numbers. Got something against kids?

She thinks she's feeding everyone else's kids, Matzoh!

Well said OL. The left has been getting away with this scam for too long. Enough is enough!

Not moving the needle, Outerlimits! Isn't that a term you like. Mitch McConnell: "Our primary goal is to make Obama a one term president, but we really screwed that one up!"