jjb2012

A series of IRS documents, avialable under the Freedom of Information Act, appears to contradict the claims by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that only Tea Party organizations applying for tax-exempt status “received systematic scrutiny because of their political beliefs.” The 22 “Be On the Look Out” keywords lists, distributed to staff reviewing applications between August 12, 2010 and April 19, 2013, included more explicit references to progressive groups, ACORN successors, and medical marijuana organizations than to Tea Party entities.

From the earliest lists through 2012, the “historical” section of the lists encouraged reviewers to watch out for “progressive” groups with names like “blue,” as their requests for 501(c)(3) charitable status might be inappropriate. Their inclusion in this section suggests that the concern predates the initial 2010 list.

Explicit references to “Tea Party,” included in the “emerging issues” section of the lists, also began in August 2010 — but stopped appearing after the May 10, 2011 list. From that point on, the lists instructed agents to flag all political advocacy groups of any stripe. The documents instructed the agents to forward any “organization involved with political, lobbying, or advocacy” applying for 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) status be forwarded to “group 7822″ for additional review. Groups under both categories are limited in the amount of of lobbying and political activity each can undertake.


WHY not just make the IRS stand by the LAW as it is written?? EXCLUSIVELY charitable??

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

I agree, but....that would make too much sense for bureaucrats. :wink:

jay-are

Why not just operate as a tax exempt organization and then claim it on the tax return, and justify it with the documentation you submit, like you do when you claim any other deductions? Why do you have to qualify first? If you follow the rules, you will qualify.

vernon

if you do that you will lose your precious media matters

John C. Hyland

Good Morning! I am concerned that many who have responded to this story believe there was no IRS attack on Conservative Organizations when in fact, Obama and the IRS both apologized to the people for doing this terrible thing! Both appeared on TV newscasts or on Congress' investigation! We need to get things right or not at all!

jjb2012

So your solution is to CHANGE the law as written by congress??

Why not just enforce it??

jjb2012

This is not about any one ideology or another.
It is about enforcing a law as written and tell the truth about what the IRS actually did.

jjb2012

Please feel free to let us know where you get your "FACTUAL" information. I am concerned that you are willing to take an apology as an admission that any one group was targeted.

There was no inequity in the IRS enforcement to one particular group or another. Both Tea Party and Progressive groups were "targeted". Not just conservative as Mr Issa would have you believe.

vernon

what law by congress?all these rules are written by buracrats and the answer to no body.

jjb2012

Congress passed the current version of the Revenue Act of 1913 and this is what it stated.

Civil leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.

NOTICE no mention of financing of political organizations??

SO the IRS in 1959 IS the PROBLEM

Then in 1959 the IRS redefined the term "promotion of social welfare" to depart radically from the statute:

[a]n organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the people of the community. An organization embraced within this section is one which is operated primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterment's and social improvements.

John C. Hyland

I was just referring to facts presented by the President and the IRS officials. I was not giving any argument! Think and do what you think is right and just!
God Bless and have a grrrrrreat day!

jjb2012

You did not present any facts but rather tried to interpret what was actually said. Neither the IRS nor President Obama acknowledge that there was any orchestrated attack on any one group as your post suggests.

John C. Hyland

I heard both give an apology on TV. Not a news caster, but Obama and the IRS official in person. Seems unlikely that they would apologize if there was nothing to apologize for!
Does that make sense. Sometimes we just let our mind to the walking and don't let anything else in!

jjb2012

And again you heard what you wanted to hear.

Both statements were far from an acknowledgement that either specifically targeted any one group but rather the entire method of using keywords was faulty.

Can you not accept the fact that the IRS was targeting both conservative and progressive groups??

The Truth is this is on the record.

Everyone agrees that the IRS shouldn’t have targeted groups with “Tea Party” or “Patriot” in their names for special scrutiny in awarding tax-exempt status. NBC News reports two agents have been disciplined for doing so, and the Justice Department announced a criminal probe. But so far no one has identified a single conservative group that was denied status in the controversial review, though some faced bureaucratic hurdles and had their tax-exempt status delayed.

In fact, the only known 501(c)(4) applicant to have its status denied happens to be a progressive group: the Maine chapter of Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office. Although the group did no electoral work, and didn’t participate in independent expenditure campaign activity either, its partisan status apparently disqualified it from being categorized as working for the “common good.”

Ironically, the national organization and its earlier chapters had gotten tax-exempt status by the IRS during the Bush administration in 2006. But it appears as though the Maine group’s rejection triggered a review of the entire organization, and Emerge America and all of its chapters had their tax-exempt status revoked. Emerge reincorporated with 527 status, which requires it to report its donors. You can read the IRS letters explaining its decisions at the bottom of this post.

Here’s what director Karen Middleton has to say:

Emerge America and its initial state programs were granted 501(c)(4) status by the IRS several years ago. Later, when a new state program applied for the same status, it was denied because Emerge works only with women who are in the Democratic Party, so the IRS determined this did not meet the definition of “social welfare” for the common good. We believed this denial triggered a review of the Emerge programs that had already been granted c4 status, and consequently those statuses were revoked. Becoming 527 organizations has not hurt our fundraising or organizational expansion – we report our donors and continue our work fully transparently.

Again, the focus on Tea Party groups is wrong, but two-thirds of the groups reviewed had no Tea Party ties — and only a Democratic group had its status denied. This story is more politically complicated than the right lets on.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Latest figures show IRS targeted anywhere from 272 to 472 conservative groups and 6 Liberal groups. The problem is not the law its the enforcement and if you can't admit the enforcement of this law was partisan politics your a bigger ass than I thought.