IRS Targets Tea Party

[LMNO]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/14/us-usa-tax-irs-idUSBRE94B08I20130514?feedType=RSS&amp&dlvrit=992637

To sum up: Groups applying for 501(c)(4) status (tax exempt) with the words "patriot" or "tea party" received extra scrutiny from the IRS.  A lot of it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/05/irs_tea_party_investigations_the_internal_revenue_service_s_targeted_conservative.html

That's easy to believe. A typical letter looked like the one sent to the Ohio-based Liberty Township Tea Party—35 questions, most of them with multiple sections. Question 3: "Provide details regarding all of your activity on Facebook or Twitter." Question 5 asked for biographies of "each past or present board member, officer, key employee, and members of their families," to check whether any of these people might run for office, or might have filed a 501(c)(4) request for somebody else. Question 12 asked for a tally of all activity ever engaged in by the group, by percentage, adding helpfully that the "total of all activities should equal 100 percent." Question 34 asked for "copies of articles printed or transcripts of items aired" if the Tea Party had been covered by the media.

Naturally, this has blown the fuck up.  So much so that it's all politics and knee-jerking.  So I bring this up here, where we might be able to look at it rationally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization#501.28c.29.284.29
A 501(c)(4) covers Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees. The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities - generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election - is taxable. The law allows Section 501(c)(4) organizations to self-declare and hold themselves out as tax-exempt; they do not have to obtain any approval from the Internal Revenue Service, though they may. Its primary purpose cannot be election-related and cannot overtly support political candidates.



My thoughts:
1) It seems obvious that since the Tea Party is a de facto political organization, then scrutiny should be used when one files for a 501(c)(4), as there is a higher than normal probability of it being used primarily for election-related uses.

2) The scrutiny as evidenced above is overly harsh, and most likely falls outside of standard practices.

3) Don't most Tea Party people claim not to be Republicans?

4) Didn't some newspaper prove that most of the tea party was founded and funded by the Koch brothers, which would underscore the potential overt political use of the 501(c)(4)?  I couldn't find it through a quick search.

5) If they could simply self-declare, it seems odd that they would report it, as if they were trying to get messed with...

No conclusions, but this seems both curious and well-timed.

[Cain]

On the one hand, there is a case for greater scrutiny because common sense suggest that groups who are ideologically opposed to paying taxes (at least when Democrats are in charge) may actually fudge their tax records.

On the other hand, it's probably not out of the question that there is at least some form of political payback going on here.  I mean, the head of the IRS is a Presidential appointment.

[Junkenstein]

It could just be simple common sense.

Tea partiers seem to make bad decisions quite frequently. It wouldn't surprise me that one of those decisions was tax related. These people aren't exactly subtle either so I'd expect to see a great deal of social media evidence to back up any findings. I doubt all of them have posted "Dodged my taxes, take THAT Obama" but I'd bet there's enough to make it worthwhile.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

I'd be interested to see other examples where that sort of scrutiny has been employed. I think a strong case could be made for *some* enhanced scrutiny since a lot of these groups are astroturf for some commercial interest or another, so at the very least, their 501(c)(4) would be suspect. But then again, what Cain said...This happening under Obama is tricky in and of itself.

[Golden Applesauce]

There have been issues with the IRS being obnoxiously tough on LGBT groups in the not too distant past, which generated a supreme court ruling saying that the rules on who could become a nonprofit could not be so vague that they allowed individual IRS employees latitude to discriminate against speech protected by the First Ammendment. Apparently, they still are.

I've seen people complaining on twitter that this extra scrutiny was only applied to small groups, not the larger ones that actually spent the bulk of the money. Which would imply that the IRS was just being petty and biased, without also being effective where it mattered.

[Golden Applesauce]

On the one hand, there is a case for greater scrutiny because common sense suggest that groups who are ideologically opposed to paying taxes (at least when Democrats are in charge) may actually fudge their tax records.

On the other hand, it's probably not out of the question that there is at least some form of political payback going on here.  I mean, the head of the IRS is a Presidential appointment.

I think that if someone was successfully dodging taxes, they wouldn't have much incentive to agitate for lower taxes because, well, it's not their problem.

The single person most pissed about taxes is probably that one guy who actually pays sales tax for his online orders. Online sales are still subject to sales tax, the difference is that it's your responsibility to file all of it, manually, instead of the merchant.

[LMNO]

There are reports that groups containing the word "Progress" in their name also got extra scrutiny, and some were denied status, as well.

As an aside, my work means I have to occasionally read the IRS tax code.  That shit is vague as fuck.  Actual text: "If the loan is paid off within a short amount of time, it may be considered boot, and therefore taxable."

No definition as to what a "short amount of time" is, and no one at the IRS will tell you. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

In my unfortunately many dealings with the IRS, I have to say that they have been the nicest and most helpful people I have ever dealt with at any government agency other than the NIH.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Many, many dealings, spanning over a decade, including getting catastrophically behind in my taxes after my divorce. They were just super fucking nice and found ways to make everything all better.

Warm fuzzies for the IRS. Seriously.

[Cain]

On the one hand, there is a case for greater scrutiny because common sense suggest that groups who are ideologically opposed to paying taxes (at least when Democrats are in charge) may actually fudge their tax records.

On the other hand, it's probably not out of the question that there is at least some form of political payback going on here.  I mean, the head of the IRS is a Presidential appointment.

I think that if someone was successfully dodging taxes, they wouldn't have much incentive to agitate for lower taxes because, well, it's not their problem.

The single person most pissed about taxes is probably that one guy who actually pays sales tax for his online orders. Online sales are still subject to sales tax, the difference is that it's your responsibility to file all of it, manually, instead of the merchant.

I didn't actually say they were successful at it.  HSBC, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are successful at it.  The Teabaggers just wish they could be.

[Cain]

Or, I was wrong:

The transcript finally was released this week by Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the committee's ranking Democrat. In the interview of the IRS screening manager in the Cincinnati office, the manager – a self-described conservative Republican – said the idea of isolating Tea Party applications seeking tax-exempt status as "social welfare" organizations started with a low-level employee who was struggling over how to proceed on one Tea Party case that he had.

Amid doubts the Tea Party group qualified for the 501-c-4 tax-exempt status, a decision was made to consolidate the various Tea Party applications so they would all be treated in a similar fashion, according to the manager. "There was a lot of concerns about making sure that any cases that had, you know, similar-type activities or items included, that they would be worked by the same agent or same group," the manager said.

So, that's why the Cincinnati office ran a search for Tea Party groups, the manager said. "What I'm talking [about] here is that if we end up with four applications coming into the group that are pretty similar, and we assign them to four different agents, we don't want four different determinations. It's just not good business. It's not good customer service," the manager testified.

As for the supposed White House instigation, the manager said he was aware of none.

[Left]

Ya mean, the right-wingers are making up shit again?

                        -OR-

Ya mean, the right-wingers are still paranoid?

Actually, my thought was, if they are going over the Tea Party with a fine-tooth proctoscope, then are they doing the same to political groups that are left of the Democratic party as well...

...Apparently it was all a tempest in a tea-tard, though.   

[Cain]

A mix of the two.

Darrell Issa is definitely in the "making shit up" camp, though.  I am so surprised to discover that this is the case.

[LMNO]

Holy shit.

What I read above is ABSOLUTELY what a large organization would do. It's what MY company would do. That's pretty amazing. And makes total sense. Of course, no one will bieve it

[Cain]

More bad news for the Tea Party persecution complex:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/24/irs-chief-tea-party-occupy-tax

The Internal Revenue Service's screening of groups seeking tax-exempt status was broader and lasted longer than has been previously disclosed, the new head of the agency said on Monday.

An internal IRS document obtained by the Associated Press said that besides "tea party", lists used by screeners to pick groups for close examination also included the terms "Israel", ''progressive" and "occupy". The document said an investigation into why specific terms were included was ongoing.