General Discussion

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)

62. Well, I'm not sure I follow

Wed May 29, 2013, 03:07 PM

May 2013

Last edited Wed May 29, 2013, 06:36 PM - Edit history (1)

501(C)(3) has nothing to do with any of this. That is for charities and educational institutions. None of the political groups, to my knowledge, was brash enough to try to get a 501(C)(3) determination.

They were all 501(C)(4)s. and the reason they wanted to do that was so they could take unlimited donations without disclosing any of the donors. Then they fed this money through to PACs ANONYMOUSLY that used it entirely for political purposes. Along the way, some of them actually tried to appear like there was some social welfare purpose, but that was mostly a sham. None of them should have been given determination letters. These were just money laundering operations.

The scandal is that the IRS didn't apply ENOUGH scrutiny -- not that they did too much.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Maybe the IRS WASN�T Wrong About the Tea Party Groups [View all] riqster May 2013 OP

Maybe stereotypes actually work...doesn't mean you can or should use then. dkf May 2013 #1

Agreed in principle riqster May 2013 #4

The IRS said they needed to target based on activity, not names. dkf May 2013 #9

Names can indicate activity riqster May 2013 #18

But that wasn't the criteria, to look for all names that indicate political activity. dkf May 2013 #21

This decision was not made in a vacuum riqster May 2013 #22

Funny how no one is owning up to it. Maybe it was done in a vacuum... dkf May 2013 #23

No, there have already been some heads rolling riqster May 2013 #36

Exactly, like if a number of people from the middle east hijacked jets hughee99 May 2013 #38

I'd say you're talking more general riqster May 2013 #41

Your example seems pretty general to me. hughee99 May 2013 #42

Let me be more precise riqster May 2013 #46

Now you're talking about pulling over people who match the specific description hughee99 May 2013 #47

And how do you know that? BlueStreak May 2013 #29

here you go TheFutureWillCome May 2013 #53

My point exactly. From that article: BlueStreak May 2013 #58

An audit consists of a predetermined sampling percent, say every tenth record - ten percent. xtraxritical May 2013 #26

No, the keywords were used for a BOLO list, be on the lookout for. dkf May 2013 #28

I'm telling you how audits are conducted. xtraxritical May 2013 #50

This was the processing of applications, not an audit. dkf May 2013 #52

Technically they "audit" the applications. Leave me alone if you think you know better. xtraxritical May 2013 #59

I don't think it's stereotypes - it's stated goals. CincyDem May 2013 #6

If the IRS could point to a stated goal, they wouldn't be in trouble... brooklynite May 2013 #10

I hate to break it to you but pretty much everyone wants to avoid taxes and its not illegal. dkf May 2013 #13

Thanks for the career advice, I'll take it under advisement. n/t CincyDem May 2013 #17

Yes, and if I advertise my intention to break a law, or even bend it riqster May 2013 #20

Al Gore was praised for his tax avoidance last year. nt Dreamer Tatum May 2013 #35

Oh come on. gcomeau May 2013 #25

you are correct noiretextatique May 2013 #55

No, that is not correct. BlueStreak May 2013 #60

thanks for the clarification noiretextatique May 2013 #61

Well, I'm not sure I follow BlueStreak May 2013 #62

thanks again...i got it this time noiretextatique May 2013 #63

NYT had a good piece yesterday malaise May 2013 #2

Yep. My blog post linked to it. riqster May 2013 #3

OH PLEASE MAKE IT SO!!!!!! tblue May 2013 #30

When POTUS gets the last laugh it will be all good malaise May 2013 #34

Yeah, but it would be a bigger laugh riqster May 2013 #37

I did wonder why he jumped in so early but you know malaise May 2013 #39

I jumped early too riqster May 2013 #40

how shocking! noiretextatique May 2013 #57

Back in the early hours when this "scandal" FIRST broke, Blue_Tires May 2013 #5

And you were correct malaise May 2013 #7

You saw more clearly than I did at the time riqster May 2013 #8

Silly me! I thought the IRS was run by the Obama Administration... brooklynite May 2013 #11

No. But the IRS was thrown to the wolves tblue May 2013 #31

Of course it was ... Cosmocat May 2013 #12

It has to be said more than a few DUers "rolled over on it," too... Blue_Tires May 2013 #19

Yeah. But we are not POTUS. tblue May 2013 #32

exactly noiretextatique May 2013 #56

? Takket May 2013 #14

The IRS cannot make statements about in-process investigations riqster May 2013 #16

The GOP media machine did their best and some were swayed siligut May 2013 #15

The whole 501(c)(4) exemption seems problemmatic at its core. Zealots of all stripes have always Nimajneb Nilknarf May 2013 #24

Oops. Kingofalldems May 2013 #27

of course they weren't! Whisp May 2013 #33

Your sig quote is a fun line, but... Jefferson?? (n/t) thesquanderer May 2013 #43

Thanks for pointing out the erroneous attribution, thesquanderer. Nimajneb Nilknarf May 2013 #45

D'oh! That has been there for years, and you're the first one who caught my error. riqster May 2013 #48

Gee ...anti tax groups get targeted by IRS. They made it easy to be targeted.... L0oniX May 2013 #44

yup--I was surprised and shocked when Obama came out all apologetic& blaming the IRS librechik May 2013 #49

On May 15, I posted, "The IRS and the administration have overdone the apologies to the Tea Party" John1956PA May 2013 #51

no maybe about it: the IRS was not wrong noiretextatique May 2013 #54