IRS commissioner dares House GOP to hold him in contempt over Tea Party

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Just tell me what it is you'd like me to 'prove'? A complete sentence would be appreciated.

I'd like you to prove the claim you made. I highlighted that claim earlier when I asked you to prove it.

[UncleBeer 244]

I'd like you to prove the claim you made. I highlighted that claim earlier when I asked you to prove it.

Specificity ain't your long suit. Here's what you quoted:

In a perfect world that might be true, but since the IRS (a branch of the US government sworn to treat all citizens alike) by its own admission is deliberately limiting speech from one half of the political spectrum, then it's clearly not "cut right down the middle"; it's been effected by those in power.

Since you can't seem to express yourself, I'll have to guess that you'd like me to 'prove' for you that the IRS has admitted to limiting speech of conservatives. Is that correct? Or are you wishing I would 'prove' something else for you?

The Internal Revenue Service on Friday apologized for targeting groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names, confirming long-standing accusations by some conservatives that their applications for tax-exempt status were being improperly delayed and scrutinized.

The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was "inappropriate" targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.

IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.

Conservative groups have rejected an Internal Revenue Service apology for unjustifiably scrutinizing tax-exempt conservative groups during the 2012 election cycle. The IRS apology has seemingly validated conservatives' fears of politically motivated regulation.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Specificity ain't your long suit. Here's what you quoted:

Since you can't seem to express yourself, I'll have to guess that you'd like me to 'prove' for you that the IRS has admitted to limiting speech of conservatives. Is that correct? Or are you wishing I would 'prove' something else for you?

Well, keeping track of a conversation appears to be hard for you so let me try and help you out a little. Here's the exchange we're talking about.

Take a look at how much air time each side had and you will probably find that it cut right down the middle. Besides, who pays attention to these brain dead ads anyways? IMHO, they should just put away with that part of the IRS code altogether - that would maybe clean the airwaves a little from all this idiotic campaigning.

In a perfect world that might be true, but since the IRS (a branch of the US government sworn to treat all citizens alike) by its own admission is deliberately limiting speech from one half of the political spectrum, then it's clearly not "cut right down the middle"; it's been effected by those in power.

We're talking about the airtime each side got during the time frame in question. I said that you'd probably find that the airtime would split right down the middle and you said that it would not because yadda, yadda, yadda. I asked you to prove that the airtime was not right down the middle. And you delivered nothing to prove it. Is the task at hand clear enough to you now? If not, let me know and re-post it typing a bit slower for you.

[UncleBeer 244]

Well, keeping track of a conversation appears to be hard for you so let me try and help you out a little. Here's the exchange we're talking about.

We're talking about the airtime each side got during the time frame in question. I said that you'd probably find that the airtime would split right down the middle and you said that it would not because yadda, yadda, yadda. I asked you to prove that the airtime was not right down the middle. And you delivered nothing to prove it. Is the task at hand clear enough to you now? If not, let me know and re-post it typing a bit slower for you.

Since you've finally managed to express yourself in complete sentences, you can now be understood. I only had to ask several times...

Since many conservative groups were unfairly deprived of their right to purchase airtime by the US government (by unjustly denying them their 501c4 status), the amount of airtime is far less relevant than the mere fact that the ruling regime involved itself (illegally!) in the process at all! Prior restraint is not the government's business; in fact, it's expressly forbidden by the First Amendment.

Election rigging. Banana republic. Chicago Jesus.

Edited March 29, 2014 by UncleBeer

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Since you've finally managed to express yourself in complete sentences, you can now be understood. I only had to ask several times...

Since many conservative groups were unfairly deprived of their right to purchase airtime by the US government (by unjustly denying them their 501c4 status), the amount of airtime is far less relevant than the mere fact that the ruling regime involved itself (illegally!) in the process at all! Prior restraint is not the government's business; in fact, it's expressly forbidden by the First Amendment.

Election rigging. Banana republic. Chicago Jesus.

Well, most people can follow a simple conversation - I will keep in mind that you require things to be spelled out more clearly to follow along.

That said, thank you for acknowledging that you can't actually prove your claim. Instead you produce lots of hot air and nothing else.

No, I am not surprised.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[UncleBeer 244]

That said, thank you for acknowledging that you can't actually prove your claim. Instead you produce lots of hot air and nothing else.

Nonsense. Conservative airtime was directly and deliberately limited by illegal action by the Obama administration. The IRS has explicitly admitted as much. But they're really sorry.

[CarlosAndSveta 808]

Making demands, are we? Why not invest in one o' them fancy interweb thingies and look it up the specific legal citation yourself, if that's what you reaaaly need.

Why Don’t 501©(4)s Have to Disclose Their Donors?

Social welfare nonprofits don’t fall under the Federal Election Commission’s standard definition of a political committee, which, under FEC guidelines, must disclose its donors. Because 501©(4)s say their primary purpose is social welfare, they can keep their donors secret. The only exception is if someone gives them money and specifically states the funds are for a political ad.

And unlike political committees, social welfare nonprofits have a legal right to keep their donors secret. That stems from the landmark 1958 Supreme Court case, NAACP v. Alabama, which held the NAACP didn’t have to identify its members because disclosure could lead to harassment.

Fast forward to the post-Citizens United world of campaign finance where outside groups can now spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections so long as they are independent of candidates. Seeing the advantages offered by groups that can engage in political activity while keeping their donors secret, both Democrats and Republicans have seized onto this opening in the tax code.

That’s why in recent years, many new 501©(4)s have popped up right before the election season, focusing heavily on television advertising, usually attacking, though sometimes promoting, candidates running for office.

These nonprofits do have to report some of their activities to the FEC. When they run ads directly advocating for the election or defeat of a candidate, they have to tell regulators how much and what they spend money on — but not where the money comes from.

Since they can’t make these types of ads their sole activity, many 501©(4)s focus on so-called issue ads, which they only have to report to the FEC in defined windows before an election.

I agree with you that FEC disclosure laws don't apply to 501©(4) organizations. But the these organizations are subject to the Internal Revenue Code. IRC Section 7602(a)(1) grants the IRS the authority to examine books and records in enforcing the Internal Revenue Code. Here is the excerpt to the code section:

26 U.S. Code § 7602 - Examination of books and witnesses

(a) Authority to summon, etc.

For the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return, making a return where none has been made, determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax or the liability at law or in equity of any transferee or fiduciary of any person in respect of any internal revenue tax, or collecting any such liability, the Secretary is authorized—

(1) To examine any books, papers, records, or other data which may be relevant or material to such inquiry;

(2) To summon the person liable for tax or required to perform the act, or any officer or employee of such person, or any person having possession, custody, or care of books of account containing entries relating to the business of the person liable for tax or required to perform the act, or any other person the Secretary may deem proper, to appear before the Secretary at a time and place named in the summons and to produce such books, papers, records, or other data, and to give such testimony, under oath, as may be relevant or material to such inquiry; and

(3) To take such testimony of the person concerned, under oath, as may be relevant or material to such inquiry.

So the IRS can ask for records it thinks are relevant in an examination. In the case of Social Welfare Organizations the donor list would be relevant in determining whether an organization is primarily involved in social welfare. Let says a Social Welfare Organization applies for tax exempt status and the IRS asks for the donor list. The examination of the donor lists reveals that 95% of the 2 million in contributions received by the organization comes from political action committees. This would make the IRS examiner very suspicious of the organizations claim that its goal is primarily social welfare.

I have provided law to show that requesting a donors list from from is 501©(4) is legal. Let see which U.S. code section you rely on for your claim that requesting the donor list is highly illegal. Giving the donor list to the IRS is not public disclosure.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Nonsense. Conservative airtime was directly and deliberately limited by illegal action by the Obama administration. The IRS has explicitly admitted as much. But they're really sorry.

How much airtime did they admit to taking away?

[CarlosAndSveta 808]

I tried to edit my previous post since I didn't address the NAACP vs. Alabama case. But somehow the editing did not work. That case is not on point. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NAACP to keep its members from being harassed by the State and / or the public if the list was made public. Remember this happened in Alabama in the Jim Crow days.

[UncleBeer 244]

So the IRS can ask for records it thinks are relevant in an examination.

As with all matters of law, relevance and reasonability are the criteria for whether IRS inquiries are allowed or not.

The IRS itself says that 501cs "need not disclose their donors' identities". But they are charged with determining whether these groups' activities are chiefly concerned with 'social welfare' or politics. Not an easy distinction to make, so they are allowed to pose all manner of questions in order to make this assessment. Hopefully all questions are relevant and are asked equally of all groups along the political spectrum. This was clearly not the case with what the IRS perceived as 'conservative' organisations:

As you can see, MANY more questions were asked of the 'conservative groups, and the nature of the questioning was also not only irrelevant but offensive as well, going so far as to demand to know the contents of group members' prayers. Surely we can agree that this crosses a line. The IRS' own Inspector General found that questions posed to 'conservative groups were "unnecessary and burdensome" — including the request for "lists of past and future donors."

Another huge problem: once a group's 501c status is eventually approved, all IRS questions and the group's answers are to be released to the public. If donor lists were requested, they would also be released, contrary to the IRS' own guidelines and every measure of reasonability. It's obvious to all, even the Inspector General, that these questions were posed merely to have a chilling effect on "free speech" on the right.

Interesting and also relevant: Barack's 'brother-from-another-mother' Malik had his 501c personally approved by Lois Lerner within 30 days, even though he'd had operated it illegally for more than two years prior. Of course the entire Obama clan seem to get special treatment: Aunt Zeutuni and Uncle Onyango. The law is for little people.

[UncleBeer 244]

Interesting interview with Catherine Engelbrecht, who had the audacity to file for both 501c3 and 501c4 tax exempt status for her groups. This is what happens when you hold views the Obama administration doesn't like:

Up until the past few years I hadn’t been involved in political activities at all. My husband and I were busy running our small precision parts manufacturing business in Rosenberg, Texas which Bryan began two decades ago. But then I began to become more and more disturbed witnessing politicians making statements and decisions that stood in stark contrast to fundamental American ideals: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This prompted me to get involved in the Tea Party movement with others that share the same concerns. After attending rallies, I became motivated to see if more might be done to make a difference. This has taken me away from our family business, and thankfully, Bryan has been wonderfully supportive.

In 2009 I volunteered to serve as a polling place alternate judge for Fort Bend County. That was a well- managed system, although there was a need for many more volunteers. However this sort of honest operation wasn’t the case I began to hear about during meetings with officials from polling stations across the much larger Harris County. The gross irregularities many of them reported were very similar. In numerous reports people showed up at polls with multiple voter registration cards. In other prevalent instances, individuals were “delivered” to the polls telling workers they didn’t remember who they “were supposed to vote for”. They were then taken into booths by judges who directly “reminded” them who to vote for.

The offensive and shocking horror stories prompted me to create the King Street Patriots as an umbrella organization to support and defend American exceptionalism, constitutional governance and civic duty. True the Vote was founded for the specific purpose of working to ensure election integrity as a voter’s rights organization. Those rights apply equally to all legal voters, regardless of party or candidate preference.

Larry: Then after you filed, there were many more shocks in store for you. And while your story has been getting a great deal of national media attention, literally hundreds of other organizations that share common values have been similarly targeted for abusive treatment by government entities entrusted to protect us from tyranny. What makes your experience particularly chilling is that multiple government agencies appear not only to have launched costly and intimidating coordinated assaults upon your non-profit public service organizations, but against your personal finances and business operations as well.

Catherine: Yes, my personal, family and business circumstances began to change very dramatically soon after those July 2010 IRS filings.

First, FBI investigators appeared in December with questions about a person who had attended a couple of King Street program events. We don’t have members, didn’t know the individual well, and told them so. FBI people then contacted us again in January 2011 and questioned our director of operations about whether there was anything more to report. There wasn’t.

In May 2011 the FBI called once more for a general inquiry about King Street Patriots. That was the same month that the IRS audited our business tax accounts. The following month when the IRS audited my personal tax returns, the FBI returned again. In October 2011 we received a round of IRS questions about True the Vote…and another contact came from the FBI in November.

In February 2012 we received a third round of IRS questions on True the Vote, along with the first round of questions on King Street Patriots. That same month, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms did an unscheduled audit of our machine business. Although we had a license to make firearms parts, we had never done so. That was the first time BATF had ever come to our shop, and they examined it for five or six hours. They had showed up unannounced, and it struck us as very strange. BATF visited us again last April. We still don’t make any gun parts.

OSHA conducted its first-ever unscheduled audit of our facilities in July 2012. After the inspector minutely examined our premises and talked with our managerial staff and employees, she found only a couple of small problems…the wrong type of safety glasses on an employee…the wrong type of seat belt on a forklift. And although the inspector complimented us on a tightly-run shop, we later got slapped with a $25,000 fine. That represented quite a lot of money for our small business. We eventually negotiated it down to $17,000, but that was still a lot. It meant that instead of giving an employee a raise or hiring another worker, we wrote a check to the government.

In November 2012 we received more IRS questions on True the Vote, followed by more questions in March 2013. BATF returned in April 2013 with a second audit.

Larry: What sort of questions did the IRS ask?

Catherine: They asked more than 300 questions over four rounds of exchanges, and many were truly amazing. For example, they wanted to know every Facebook post and Tweet I had ever written , what groups I had spoken to and what I said, whether I had ever sought public office or ever intended to…it was endless. They also wanted to know backgrounds of our board members, and who all of our King Street Patriot speakers were. In response we submitted thousands of pages of answers. Some of those individual submissions have involved 500 pages – 600 pages – and that has required an enormous amount of time.

If the large number and strange nature of those IRS questions weren’t reason enough, it was when those other agencies began to appear at our doorsteps that we realized things were seriously and alarmingly amiss.

Larry: It seems all of that must have been very expensive for you, not to mention, unnerving, to suddenly find yourself and organizations subject to all that multi-agency scrutiny.

Catherine: This was certainly a very new, unpleasant and financially draining experience. Direct costs for IRS responses alone amounted to nearly one hundred thousand dollars…time and expenses for collecting and putting together mounds of materials in response to questions, accounting costs, and attorney charges. These expenses have and are placing a big burden on our family and business finances. The government has no such budget limitations, thanks to taxpayers such as us.

Evil prevails when good men do nothing.

[Peikko 1,575]

What a lot of hot air. I have the solution, limit the dollar amount that can be spent on political campaigns period and limit the length of time that a campaign can run. No one is interested in the ####### that these nutty groups produet on either side of the political spectrum, it's childish nonsense. Get rid of it.

Edited March 30, 2014 by The Truth™

[UncleBeer 244]

limit the dollar amount that can be spent on political campaigns period and limit the length of time that a campaign can run.

As I've said, I'd be in favor of that as well, as long as it's equally applied to all parties. No more administration election-rigging.

[Peikko 1,575]

As I've said, I'd be in favor of that as well, as long as it's equally applied to all parties. No more administration election-rigging.

Do you really need to highlight and bold that? Simple rules, simple to police, hard to circumnavigate no matter who is currently the 'administration'. The US should try it.

[UncleBeer 244]

Do you really need to highlight and bold that?

What's it to you?

Simple rules, simple to police, hard to circumnavigate no matter who is currently the 'administration'. The US should try it.

Heh: as far as I'm concerned, abolish the IRS (partly for their unapologetic role in this fiasco) and have folks pay a flat tax of (say...) 15%. Their returns could be filed on a postcard. And Obamacare's another fantastic bureaucratic clusterfeck. Big government doesn't do big well.