Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
Sat May 18, 2013, 06:11 PM May 2013

The problem is the IRS BOLO list looks like it was aimed at conservatives. [View all]

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.

19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If that's the case, then why were less than 1/3 of all 296 cases identified w/those keywords? Roland99 May 2013 #1
and why was the ONLY zerosumgame0005 May 2013 #3
Buy One Get One free? Bay Boy May 2013 #2
70 out of 300...sorry not buying it. Rex May 2013 #4
Footnote 16, from your link: W_HAMILTON May 2013 #5
The standard was improper. I fully believe this. However... Bolo Boffin May 2013 #6
The second problem is that these organizations were subjected to improper questions. dkf May 2013 #12
Which led to the main thing holding up the scrutiny: an internal request for a standardized letter Bolo Boffin May 2013 #15
I read one "burdensome" question was "Provide summaries of the books discussed in your meeting." John1956PA May 2013 #16
A link to the document is found on the following website Cirque du So-What May 2013 #7
Thanks for pointing to the website which originally posted the report. John1956PA May 2013 #8
I bet getting audited/reviewed will be held up as a badge of honor grok May 2013 #9
You should compile your numerous threads on this into one Kingofalldems May 2013 #10
. Rex May 2013 #11
It's all pieces of the puzzle. We don't know the entire picture yet. dkf May 2013 #13
For sake of context, I am posting snips from the I.G.'s report pages 6 & 7 quoted in the OP. John1956PA May 2013 #14
Golly. 99Forever May 2013 #17
Only if one doesn't read the TIGTA report carefully magellan May 2013 #18
The problem is that Republicans are unhinged, and MannyGoldstein May 2013 #19
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The problem is the IRS BO...