The problem is the IRS BOLO list looks like it was aimed at conservatives.

[dkf]

Figure 3: Criteria for Potential Political Cases (June 2011)
Source: EO function briefing dated June 2011.

“Tea Party,” “Patriots” or “9/12 Project” is referenced in the case file

Issues include government spending, government debt or taxes

Education of the public by advocacy/lobbying to “make America a better place to live”

Statement in the case file criticize how the country is being run


http://mit.zenfs.com/100/2013/05/201310053fr-revised-redacted-11-copy.pdf

Determinations Unit employees stated that they considered the Tea Party criterion as a shorthand term for all potential political cases. Whether the inappropriate criterion was shorthand for all potential political cases or not, developing and using criteria that focuses on organization names and policy positions instead of the activities permitted under the Treasury Regulations does not promote public confidence that tax-exempt laws are being adhered to impartially. In addition, the applications for those organizations that were identified for processing by the team of specialists experienced significant delays and requests for unnecessary information that is detailed later in this report.

After being briefed on the expanded criteria in June 2011, the Director, EO, immediately directed that the criteria be changed. In July 2011, the criteria were changed to focus on the potential “political, lobbying, or [general] advocacy” activities of the organization. These criteria were an improvement over using organization names and policy positions. However, the team of specialists subsequently changed the criteria in January 2012 without executive approval because they believed the July 2011 criteria were too broad. The January 2012 criteria again focused on the policy positions of organizations instead of tax-exempt laws and Treasury Regulations. After three months, the Director, Rulings and Agreements, learned the criteria had been changed by the team of specialists and subsequently revised the criteria again in May 2012. (See Appendix VI for a complete timeline of criteria used to identify potential political cases). The May 2012 criteria more clearly focus on activities permitted under the Treasury Regulations. As a result of changes made to the criteria without management knowledge, the Director, Rulings and Agreements, issued a memorandum requiring all original entries and changes to criteria included on the BOLO listing be approved at the executive level prior to implementation.

[Roland99]

1. If that's the case, then why were less than 1/3 of all 296 cases identified w/those keywords?

[zerosumgame0005]

3. and why was the ONLY

organization who's application was denied that I have heard of a progressive one?

[Bay Boy]

2. Buy One Get One free?

Oh, never mind, that's BOGO not BOLO.

[Rex]

4. 70 out of 300...sorry not buying it.

Moving the goal posts won't change anything, the IRS is not going to be a scandal. Sorry.

[W_HAMILTON]

5. Footnote 16, from your link:

"We did not review the use of other named organizations on the BOLO listing to determine if their use was
appropriate."

The investigation was done at the behest of those in Congress that sought to determine if the IRS was "unfairly" targeting Tea Party groups. We do not know if the IRS targeted other groups since, as the footnote suggests, they did not investigate whether or not "other named organizations" on the BOLO listing were likewise "unfairly" targeted.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. The standard was improper. I fully believe this. However...

As my signature states today, 84% of the Tea Party-type groups flagged with the improper standard would have been flagged with a proper one. That's from the IG report's own numbers.

The improper standards made a lot of sense to people, especially here. I can see the reason behind it. But the Director of EO was right: the standards should have been based on activities, not policy statements and not names. Conservatives - hell, everybody - would be right to be upset about this.

But there is precious little justification to the amount of ire and conspiracy theories about this. You better believe this is coming to a 2014 campaign ad near you, because the IRS is an easy, easy target. The Republicans will mine this for decades. But at the heart of it all, the vast majority of groups would have been flagged anyway, and the conservative groups weren't even a majority of the flagged cases OR of the cases that wouldn't be caught by an impartial standard. The IRS just invented a new way to screw up. And that's one of their core skills.

[dkf]

12. The second problem is that these organizations were subjected to improper questions.

So yes maybe they would have been flagged, but with many other organizations with all being subject to onerous requirements.

I bet this would have been caught sooner if all sides of the spectrum were complaining about the intrusive nature. But coming only from one side that already seems loony, they were easy to discount.

It's a good thing they are correcting these types of problems. I'm glad.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Which led to the main thing holding up the scrutiny: an internal request for a standardized letter

They were reinventing the wheel every time. So they started to build a standard letter for additional questions, but due to instructions, no one worked on the case files while the letter was being built. And of course, it took 13 months to build a standard letter. The IRS just screwed up all sides of this issue, no doubt. But the evidence for actual partisan targeting is thin. And the evidence linking this to people higher up in the IRS (much less the White House) is non-existent.

[John1956PA]

16. I read one "burdensome" question was "Provide summaries of the books discussed in your meeting."

I read that a particular Tea Party group, a 501(c)4 applicant, stated on its application that part of its activities involved holding book discussion meetings. The IRS asked for a list and summary of the books discussed in those meetings. The head of the group became indignant. He fumed that he his time was too important to write book reviews. Instead, he mailed to the IRS copies of the discussed books.

From what I read, there were only two books which had been discussed. One book was a Glenn Beck title. If I were the head of the group, I would have foregone the theatrics and merely wrote to the IRS providing it with the titles of the two books, their authors, and summaries consisting of few sentences taken from Amazon.com. Everyone knows who Glen Beck is. The IRS would not expect the group to draft its own in-depth review of his book.

I think that, if any of these "aggrieved" Tea Party groups want to beat the drum about how the IRS requests have been overly burdensome on them, the tactic is going to backfire on them.

[Cirque du So-What]

7. A link to the document is found on the following website

http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/

which is an actual government website. That link you provided is driving my malware detector apeshit.

[John1956PA]

8. Thanks for pointing to the website which originally posted the report.

The more specific link is http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf

[grok]

9. I bet getting audited/reviewed will be held up as a badge of honor

at least by the right wing. AIn indication that you are feared by the the "state" and actually matter.

[Kingofalldems]

10. You should compile your numerous threads on this into one

Then we can all get a complete understanding of where you are coming from.

[Rex]

11. .

What do you think the next goal post will be?

[dkf]

13. It's all pieces of the puzzle. We don't know the entire picture yet.

I'm thinking its not malevolent, but just a very chaotic mess by people who can't see how bad it looks. We won't know for sure until we find whoever put together the list, track what they were saying, and talk to people in the know.

It's a big mystery! Fascinating stuff and better than TV.

[John1956PA]

14. For sake of context, I am posting snips from the I.G.'s report pages 6 & 7 quoted in the OP.

I am not contending that these snips serve as evidence to prove anyone's point. I am merely posting the snips to clarify from where in the Inspector General's May 14, 2013, report the excerpts referenced in the original post are derived.

[99Forever]

17. Golly.

Another thread defending the tax dodger parties, I wonder who started it?

[magellan]

18. Only if one doesn't read the TIGTA report carefully

On page 6 of the report, paragraph 2:

Based on our review of other BOLO listing criteria, the use of organization names on the BOLO listing is not unique to potential political cases. 16

The footnote referenced says:

16 We did not review the use of other named organizations on the BOLO listing to determine if their use was appropriate.

There were actually 298 potential political cases "inappropriately" identified (shown on page 14 of the report), but the report only discusses the 96 Tea Party flavor ones. Unfortunately that makes it look as if there was bias against conservative groups. But what about the other 202 cases "inappropriately" identified? We're given no sense of their names or political leanings, and no one with the power to ask seems to care that the same method was used on them.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. The problem is that Republicans are unhinged, and

Very Serious adult pragmatic sensible Democrats work fiercly to enable their insane crap.

When the Sensible Crowd spends more time thinking about evidence-based economics instead of how things might look to crazy people, then we might move towards an America that's more than a Thunderdome for the 99%.