Back

ABA Journal

Home

Tax Law

IRS official apologizes for singling out ‘tea party’ and ‘patriot’ groups

May 10, 2013, 10:38 am CDT

Comments

I hear an apology, but no assurance that the practice will stop.

By sunforester on 2013 05 10, 10:53 am CDT

The fact that the Obama Administration would use the IRS as an instrument against its political opponents in an election year is appalling.

By Yankee on 2013 05 10, 11:08 am CDT

Very consistent with Obama’s Chicago-style “politics.”

And the media blackout on Benghazi and Gosnell continues while the Emperor plays . . .

By Marc on 2013 05 10, 11:22 am CDT

Way to go Cincinnati.

By Pushkin on 2013 05 10, 11:42 am CDT

During the 2012 election, the Obama campaign attacked eight of Romney’s contributors on its web site, falsely accusing them of having “less-than-reputable records,” of “betting against America,” and worse.

This sort of strategy goes back to the beginning of Obama’s political “career.”

By Marc on 2013 05 10, 12:20 pm CDT

The same folks that argue for racial profiling are upset when associational profiling is used. That’s funny. Is it a secret that tea party nutjobs and their kindred sovereign citizens are more likely to cheat on their taxes?

By NoleLaw on 2013 05 10, 12:21 pm CDT

You have no basis for smearing tea party activists as racists and tax cheats, or treating them as Second Class Citizens

By Yankee on 2013 05 10, 12:36 pm CDT

@6: Who exactly are the “folks that argue for racial profiling”?

By Marc on 2013 05 10, 12:53 pm CDT

In 2009, Obama joked about using the IRS to harass his enemies.

Abuse of Executive Power is not something to make light of.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260113149028331.html

By Yankee on 2013 05 10, 2:15 pm CDT

Certainly a condemnable practice!  However, it dooees seem to me that these groups have nothing to fear if they’re playing by the rules.  Here, I see no allegation that anyone was ACTUALLY excluded unlawfully.  That makes it certainly not as bad as Bush’s DOJ excluding attorneys from programs based on alleged political affiliation. 

I would rather the IRS spend its time stripping politically-involved “religious groups” of their tax-exempt status!!!!!

By Anonymous on 2013 05 10, 2:39 pm CDT

@10 You write: “However, it dooees seem to me that these groups have nothing to fear if they’re playing by the rules.”

That is a bunch of Bull S___!! 

These Tea Party groups no doubt had to expend their limited resources to respond to admittedly politically motivated audits from an entity with virtually unlimited resources.  You can’t glibly dismiss this Nixonian abuse of power. 

By the way, Bush is not President, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with any policy initiated during the Bush Administration.  Talk about a red herring.

By Yankee on 2013 05 10, 2:51 pm CDT

I don’t see that alleged anywhere above?  Dyou actually know thats what happened?

I’m not really trying to excuse it.  I’m only sayin theres a difference between excluding people unlawfully and just policing compliance more closely.

The teabaggers will burn themselves out without Obama’s help.  And unlike in Bush’s DOJ, nothing here, well not in the article, links it to the direct will of a high administration official.

Seems like you have some facts to establish before burning someone at the stake no matter how much you hate him.

By Anonymous on 2013 05 10, 2:58 pm CDT

@12 You conclude: “Seems like you have some facts to establish before burning someone at the stake no matter how much you hate him. “

Burning who at the stake? Obama?

You appear to be confused about who the aggrevied party is here: Hint: It is not Obama.

Rather, it is these American Citizens - - - exercising their Constitutionally protected rights of free speech - - - who have been given special attention by the instrumentalities of the National government for the sole reason that they oppose the policy initiative of Obama.  Obama has proven himself to be no better than some South American tinhorn dictator.

By Yankee on 2013 05 10, 3:09 pm CDT

and how do you know Obama ordered this?

I agree with you if he did.

But I think you’re jumping to conclusions cause of your political bias we see on here all the time

By Anonymous on 2013 05 10, 3:11 pm CDT

‘Somebody’ ordered this.

That person needs to be identified, first and criminally prosecuted if possible.

Surely you would agree that if it is established Obama ordered this, that he should be impeached and removed from office?????????????????????????

By Yankee on 2013 05 10, 3:24 pm CDT

Absolutely.  Long as youre willing to have the same happen for the Bush DOJ and wouldn’t treat it differently?

By Anonymous on 2013 05 10, 3:27 pm CDT

@16 ” Long as youre willing to have the same happen for the Bush DOJ and wouldn’t treat it differently?”

Holy smokes: Bush is not President; Obama is.

When we talk about impeachment, we’re talking about the incumbent office holder: That would be Obama.

By Yankee on 2013 05 10, 3:31 pm CDT

Obviously.  I mean about investigating and prosecuting the people responsible.

By Anonymous on 2013 05 10, 3:32 pm CDT

I was sympathetic until I read “tea party”.

But seriously, I’m no fan of Obama, but I’m not seeing how this is connected to Obama in a way that makes him directly responsible. I know someone said he isn’t the target of these comments, but his name’s been mentioned 16 times.

I think it’s highly unlikely that Obama directly ordered this to happen or was informed of this, but to play the devil’s advocate, maybe that’s what he would want all of us to assume. In any event, whoever authorized this picked the perfect target because I assume the majority of people really won’t care once they hear the words “Tea Party” .

By MiddleGround on 2013 05 10, 4:08 pm CDT

@19:  This has Obama written all over it.  He is renowned for this sort of thing.

‘I assume the majority of people really won’t care once they hear the words “Tea Party” .”

Why do you assume that?

By Marc on 2013 05 10, 4:29 pm CDT

Meaning you got no proof.  And no answer for whether you’d also prosecute the Bush administration officials for something similar that actually excluded people unlawfully.

By Anonymous on 2013 05 10, 4:56 pm CDT

@19 “. . . the majority of people really won’t care once they hear the words ‘Tea Party’” .

So the tyranny of the majority is how we do business in the country these days?  Wow!  So much for equal justice of law.

By Yankee on 2013 05 10, 5:55 pm CDT

Well—were they or were they not tax cheats?

By AndytheLawyer on 2013 05 10, 7:07 pm CDT

These groups had nothing to fear if they had nothing to hide.

By American Patriot on 2013 05 10, 8:49 pm CDT

@24 These groups have nothing to hide.  However, there is a cost associated with responding to this politically motivated government audit that they should not be required to bear.

By Yankee on 2013 05 10, 9:04 pm CDT

Obama and his cronies have to respect for the rule of law.

By tim17 on 2013 05 10, 9:54 pm CDT

@25 Then they have nothing to fear. Lucky for them this wasn’t politically motivated.

By American Patriot on 2013 05 11, 1:55 am CDT

What they fear is what we all should fear: That the instrumentalities of government are being used to harass political groups because of their beliefs. 

The admission made by the IRS yesterday that TEA Party groups were singled out conclusively established that this was “politically motivated.” Now we have to establish how far up in the Obama Administration this order was given, identify who gave the order to put this practice in office, and remove them from office.

By Yankee on 2013 05 11, 6:23 am CDT

@28 conclusively established that this was “politically motivated.”

Nope, it doesn’t. Why don’t you read the article and learn what actually happened before you post.
Now, Monica Goodling excluding candidates from non-partisan DOJ jobs because of political beliefs, that was conclusively established as being “politically motivated.”

The circle of Republican hypocrisy never ends.

By American Patriot on 2013 05 11, 10:54 am CDT

Even the left-wing Washington Post in an editorial today is demanding an independent investigation: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/playing-politics-with-tax-records/2013/05/10/e36dfe5a-b9b7-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html

By Yankee on 2013 05 11, 11:22 am CDT

The Wall Street Journal is also calling for an independent investigation: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324744104578474932153689410.html

By Yankee on 2013 05 11, 11:26 am CDT

I agree.  These groups had nothing to hide, so what was the problem.

Democrats have nothing to hide, so I see no problem with auditing everyone registered as a democrat.  Time to pay your fair share.

By associate on 2013 05 11, 11:50 am CDT

Rationalizing criminal behavior based on your political affiliation is disgusting and immoral.  But to be expected from democrats.

By associate on 2013 05 11, 12:00 pm CDT

It was reported today (Saturday, May 11th) that senior IRS officials knew that agents were targeting Tea Party groups back in 2011:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/irs-officials-knew-agents-targeting-tea-party-report-article-1.1341393

By Yankee on 2013 05 11, 5:10 pm CDT

@33

It’s certainly expected from republicans. Got Monica Goodling?

By American Patriot on 2013 05 11, 8:07 pm CDT

To get and keep their tax-exempt status, 501(c)(4) groups cannot endorse a political candidate or a political party.

The number of groups seeking 501(c)(4) status more than doubled from 2010 to 2012, coinciding in part with the surge of Tea Party enthusiasm.

Considering the limits on resources, it only makes sense to review those groups which have the most blatantly political-themed names to confirm that they meet the standards for 501(c)(4) status.

Republicans/conservatives like to whine about the government not using common sense and then they whine when the government actually uses a common sense approach. So far, all evidence indicates that this was not a top-down directive.

Like I said, if these groups had nothing to hide, they had nothing to fear. The circle of Republican hypocrisy never ends.

By American Patriot on 2013 05 11, 8:15 pm CDT

Excerpt from the Articles of Impeachment against Richard Milhous Nixon:

“Article 2

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

This conduct has included one or more of the following:

1.He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.”

Adopted 28-10 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, July 27, 1974

By Yankee on 2013 05 12, 6:25 am CDT

In the words of Terry Moran, the liberal hosts of the ABC News show Nightline: “A truly Nixonian abuse of power by the Obama Administration . . .” (May 10, 2013)

By Yankee on 2013 05 12, 6:33 am CDT

So we’re agreed that you, Yankee, support abuse of the 501(c)(4) tax status by partisan political groups.

By American Patriot on 2013 05 12, 1:48 pm CDT

On the IRS scandal, Obama has lost the support of reliable left-winger Joe Klein,

Some are speculating that the IRS scandal was revealed to take the attention off of Benghazi.

Hmm?

By Yankee on 2013 05 12, 10:15 pm CDT

You don’t have to keep re-confirming that you, Yankee, support abuse of the 501(c)(4) tax status by partisan political groups. Got it the first time.

By American Patriot on 2013 05 13, 1:33 am CDT

Yankee wins.  Obama has promised not to run for re-election in 2016.

By AndytheLawyer on 2013 05 13, 10:13 am CDT

Several years ago I got an exemption for the Yemen American club. Part of their activities were teaching English and Citizenship. I gave them a CYA letter to avoid political activities and actually inspected their premises and had them remove all political items including bumper stickers for city council. I bet if we did it today we would be investigated for the English and Citizenship classes.

By Oldtaxguy on 2013 05 13, 11:12 am CDT

“These actions by the IRS are an outrageous abuse of power and a breach of the public’s trust. Targeting groups based on their political views is not only inappropriate but it is intolerable. Americans expect the IRS to do its job without passion or prejudice. We need to get to the bottom of what happened here . . . The IRS will now be the ones put under additional scrutiny.”

Max Baucus (D-Montana)

By Yankee on 2013 05 13, 11:17 am CDT

#44—Agreed.  But now we have Obama agreeing with you and Baucus. 

Try not to hyperventilate.

By AndytheLawyer on 2013 05 13, 1:28 pm CDT

@45 You observe: “But now we have Obama agreeing with you and Baucus.”

Now that his Administration has been caught red-handed doing something that rises to the level of an impeachable offense, it is not that Obama could have said that this practice is acceptable.

His strategy going forward will be to find a scape goat in his Administration to take the blame.

By Yankee on 2013 05 13, 2:46 pm CDT

Impeachable?  What’s the specific high crime and misdemeanor, and where’s your evidence?  Particularly as nobody in the IRS claims the White House knew what it was doing?

By AndytheLawyer on 2013 05 13, 3:18 pm CDT

The whole (c) system could do with a lot of tightening up.  Various C3s, while not having investors to reap profits, have executives who do.  The organization’s surplus goes to saleries and bonuses.  Of course many have a commendable benefit to donation/income ratio, but that’s not one of the criteria for the status.

By Walt Fricke on 2013 05 13, 3:43 pm CDT

@47 “Particularly as nobody in the IRS claims the White House knew what it was doing.”

That has not been established.

By Yankee on 2013 05 13, 4:23 pm CDT

@49

Sure it has but that won’t stop Conservatives from wasting tens of millions of US taxpayer dollars on a partisan witchhunt.

By American Patriot on 2013 05 13, 8:45 pm CDT

@50 You assert: “Sure it has . . .”

No it hasn’t!!

News of this abuse of authority broke just a couple days ago.  At the time this story broke, the seemingly rogue IRS agents were located in the IRS’s Cincinnati Offices.

And THIS MORNING, the Washington Post broke the story that this operation was likely directed out of IRS’s Washington, DC offices.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-denounces-reported-irs-targeting-of-conservative-groups/2013/05/13/a0185644-bbdf-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html?hpid=z1

By Yankee on 2013 05 14, 8:27 am CDT

@51 - Yankee, let’s get into some reading comprehension. “Particularly as nobody in the IRS claims the White House knew what it was doing” means that nobody yet has come forth with the claim that the White House knew what was going on in the IRS. That is true until someone comes forward and says the IRS’ practices were known in the White House. Got it now?

By NoleLaw on 2013 05 14, 8:29 am CDT

By the way, no one has a problem with the FBI profiling mosques with radical imams to investigate terrorism. Why wouldn’t the IRS focus more scrutiny on radical anti-tax groups to look for violations of the tax code? Before getting all excited that the IRS was targeting groups based on political ideologies, it might make sense to look at what part of that political ideology might lead the IRS to take a closer look.

It would make sense for the ATF to look closely at an organization advocating for moonshining, wouldn’t it?

By NoleLaw on 2013 05 14, 8:36 am CDT

@52 This is not a question of reading comprehension. 

The fact that the “White House” presently claims that it was not involved, obviously does not establish that that White House was not involved.

How far up this corruption extends up the food chain is something that Congress must dig into.

By Yankee on 2013 05 14, 8:36 am CDT

@54 - It is purely reading comprehension. @ 47 was asking for evidence of an impeachable offense; part of his point is that there is no indication that any of the IRS’ activities were known to the White House, which would be relevant to any talk of impeaching the President. He pointed out that nobody from the IRS has come forth to suggest these actions were known to the White House. They might or might not have been known, but it is a fact that up to this point, no such claim has been made by the IRS. That is precisely what “[p]articularly as nobody in the IRS claims the White House knew what it was doing” means.

It is hard to have debates with you sometimes because you often do not respond to points that others make.

By NoleLaw on 2013 05 14, 8:40 am CDT

@55 You assert: “It is hard to have debates . . . “

This is not the time to “debate”, but rather the time to “investigate.”  The story has evolved dramatically in just the last 12 hours, and likely will develop as the week continues, particularly after Congress begins to dig in.

You knee jerk inclination to circle the wagons to protect Obama speaks volume.  (And, who knows, when the facts are all in, this scandal may indeed stop short of the Whitehouse - - - then again, maybe not.)

By Yankee on 2013 05 14, 8:55 am CDT

Come on, nobody posting here is “investigating” the matter, all we do is bs one way or the other (“debate” was admittedly a generous term).

Your last sentence is right on, so quit calling for impeachment until you at least know what happened and by whose orders.

By NoleLaw on 2013 05 14, 8:59 am CDT

I’m not calling for impeachment - - - at least yet.

Rather @36 I mentioned the historic fact that the Articles of Impeachment for Richard Nixon included using the IRS against his political enemies.

Ironically, 40 years ago this week (May 17, 1973) the Senate Watergate Hearing begin - - - the beginning of the end of Richard Nixon.
_______________________

“Article 2
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:
1.He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.”
Adopted 28-10 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, July 27, 1974

By Yankee on 2013 05 14, 9:10 am CDT

Since when did prosecuting criminals become a witch hunt?

By associate on 2013 05 14, 10:39 am CDT

Obama cannot be trusted.  He continues to lie and lecture on Benghazi in the face of overwhelming evidence.

He has a screw loose.

By Marc on 2013 05 14, 12:16 pm CDT

#59—Since the Puritans ran things in Salem, Mass.

By AndytheLawyer on 2013 05 14, 3:07 pm CDT

Comment removed by moderator.

By American Patriot on 2013 05 14, 6:38 pm CDT

Fast and Furious, Benghazii, AP, IRS - Obama needs to resign or be impeached.

By tim17 on 2013 05 15, 10:01 am CDT

@63

Have some cheese with your whine.

By American Patriot on 2013 05 15, 10:21 am CDT

#63—President Joe Biden?

Works for me.  With 2 years under his belt, he’d be a shoe-in for the 2016 and 2020 elections.

By AndytheLawyer on 2013 05 15, 10:44 am CDT

Comment removed by moderator.

By NoleLaw on 2013 05 15, 1:21 pm CDT

“What the IRS did is an outrage! Show outrage. Oh, wait a second, I’m not supposed to read that.”

- Barack Obama

By Marc on 2013 05 15, 1:26 pm CDT

Ta gueule Marc, if you do not like this country, leave the way you came.

By NoleLaw on 2013 05 15, 1:32 pm CDT

@66

Agreed.

By American Patriot on 2013 05 16, 12:54 am CDT

While I don’t condone targeting any specific group based on alleged “political leaning” it is important to remember that the 501(c)(4) status not only provides for tax-exemption, but also avoids disclosure of the donors.  Secrecy in who is contributing to what is part of the problem with our current political situation.  Rather than ham-stringing the IRS in what it should be doing (making sure that groups actually do qualify for the requested status) we should be concentrating on making sure that the investigations are done in a non-discriminatory manner.

By Janice G on 2013 05 17, 8:40 am CDT

I just want to know who’s going to jail for these crimes.

By associate on 2013 05 17, 9:01 am CDT

@71 - You mean applying for unwarranted tax exempt status?

By NoleLaw on 2013 05 17, 9:07 am CDT

I gotta say, I absolutely LOVE and truly appreciate Anonymous’s, American Patriot’s, AndytheLawyer’s and Nolelaw’s posts above, for they lay bare for all to see the authors’ complete & utter hypocrisy and partisan blindness.  Thank you, guys, because now we all know that we can simply ignore anything you say, since you are far more concerned with protecting your party than having any intellectual honesty or integrity with your words.

And all the same old, predictable arguments too.  # 1, deny.  # 2, claim, oh, no real harm, no foul (do you all *really* not understand that these groups had to incur signifcant extra expenses—expenses NOT forced upon liberally-named 501(c)(4) orgs??).  # 3, the old “if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.”  (I mean, extra kudos for that one, stealing a page from the law & order crowd’s favorite argument against civil liberties, state surveillance, and even extrajudical executions by drone.)  # 4, slander the messenger (e.g., personal insults to Marc; and seriously, I can’t imagine that if someone on here denigrated a person for being from, say, Iran or Nigeria, that that post wouldn’t be stricken and perhaps the person even reported to bar authorities), and finally, the coup de’tat ... “but Bush did worse.”  That one just never gets old, does it guys?

I really, really don’t get it.  The IRS’s actions were shameful, unlawful, and extremely dangerous in a supposedly free, democratic country.  There is simply no defensible reason, none at all, to attempt to defend, deny, or minimize such actions.  I think even “constitutional scholar” Obama gets that—or at least realizes that he has to pretend to.

By Just Some Bloke on 2013 05 17, 11:26 am CDT

@73 - If you’re an attorney and you do not call foul on folks calling for prison and impeachment before it is clear precisely who did what, to what extent, and on whose orders, it is you that is revealing partisan blindness. But rather than throwing out insults, let’s engage in a discussion as grownup attorneys might.

To what extent were tea party groups unfairly scrutinized? How many, of the many that filed for tax exempt status were singled out? Is the problem that tea party 501(c)(4) applicants were mainly promoting social welfare as opposed to engaging in politics, and were being unfairly denied tax favored status, or that liberal groups that mainly engage in politics were granted 501(c)(4) status while tea party groups were denied?

An investigation will be made, and heads have and likely will roll once the facts are out. That is how the process works. Histrionics only drown out legitimate calls for investigation, consequences, and reform that would ensure the IRS does not use its power in a partisan fashion.

By NoleLaw on 2013 05 17, 12:08 pm CDT

OK, Nole, perhaps I was a tad harsh including you in that group.  Anonymous and American Patriot (love the irony of that name) are much more blatantly and blindly partisan, and I’ll just flat-out admit it drives me a bit nutty hearing people like them constantly trying to justify and excuse anything and everything Obama does by blaming it on Bush and saying that he did worse.  Maybe he did—so what?  For better or worse, he’s done & gone.  It’s just such a lame argument.  Take the high road and admit it when “your side” errs.  And I for one, even though I did vote for him, was very critical of some of Bush’s actions at the time, and said so to many people.  Anyway, you & I have had some enjoyable and rational exchanges in the past, and, in re-reading your posts, I see that many of them are just bantering w/ Yankee and/or making the point that we should not jump to conclusions that this was ordered or even knowingly tolerated by Obama himself.  As long as we all agree that it was wrong and cannot be tolerated from any party in power, we’re good.

I don’t have factual answers to all your questions yet, but it seems some of them may be quibbling around the edges.  If even one organization was targeted based on political beliefs, it was one too many—regardless of left or right (just like I think the hacking of AP records was outrageous even though that is, in my humble opinion, a left-leaning organization).  And I have to disagree with your analogy @ 53 about targeting the mosques of radical imams who have espoused the violent overthrow of the United States.  You make a fair point about “profiling”—personally I have no problem with it, to me it’s just a euphemism for efficient use of gov’t resources.  So IF there legitimately was evidence that all these conservative groups (not just tea party, you know) that were targeted had espoused violence—or even tax evasion—then that is certainly a mitigating fact.  I have not heard such alleged, however, and to the contrary am aware of numerous groups so targeted that had no such agendas.

By Just Some Bloke on 2013 05 17, 2:11 pm CDT

Heck, I can be as partisan and snarky as the next poster, but often that is spurred by other snark/partisanship. Not an excuse, just an explanation. But I see so much partisan rage here from the far right wing when the facts have not even been established yet.

And while I appreciate your criticism of partisan hackery on these threads, it is disingenuous to not condemn both sides if one is to condemn anyone. I think there might be a slow trend towards finally discussing issues and dispensing with the insults, though we’ll see where that goes.

I’m with you though on one point, let’s save the predictable partisan name-calling and bickering(from both sides). The comments on this site are not nearly as substantive and professional (and I contributed to that, I’ll admit) as they should be considering this is the ABA site.

By NoleLaw on 2013 05 17, 2:43 pm CDT

#70 Janice G - my thinking exactly.  I think that the C4 system has fundamental problems, one of which is squishy definitions.  Think of the educational leg - I found a group to educate about the dangers to health of smoking, or texting while driving.  You found one to educate about the dangers of Federal budget deficits.  Taxpayers are subsidizing both sort of doubly - first because any surplus our efforts produce (maybe we are good at lining up donors) escape taxation, and secondly because the donors now pay less in taxes than they otherwise would.  Unsurprisingly, applications for this status (or some of the other Cs, for that matter) can easily contain a certain amount of fluff, as applicants exaggerate or succumb to wishful thinking about the success they envision.  They really do merit close scrutiny, because the IRS has (though some don’t believe this) limited resources for checking up later.  It would bother me not a whit if the IRS gave exacting scrutiny to groups wanting to save the whales, or the flat earth society, or any grouping for that matter.  But it appears they don’t have the resources to give every application the same amount of inspection (which should be no surprise), so how to choose?  Would it be right to give just a cursory examination of the application of a group whose purpose was to educate the American public about the fact that income taxes are unconstitutional, and no one needs to or should pay them?  Would not sovereign citizen be a kind of red flag?

By Walt Fricke on 2013 05 17, 4:58 pm CDT

Now it’s revealed that the IRS used the ABA to provide the soil to plant the question leading to Lerner’s apology.  It makes me wonder as a member who the ABA represents and whether its 501(c)(3) status should be reviewed.

By Michael on 2013 05 23, 10:11 am CDT

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.