IRS admits targeting conservative groups

[LawBeefaroni]

Issa has definitely been on a witch hunt for the past 4 years. I still try to evaluate each claim on the merits, but every time he seems to be skewing the story and the facts in a 110% partisan fashion in order to generate headlines for the base, never mind the truth.

Who, Darrell Issa the car thief, insurance fraudster, loan shark, and stock manipulator? If he's ever on the right side of an issue, it's only because by pure coincidence it happens to play into his aims.

[Pyperkub]

Oh, I'm well aware of his history, but even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in awhile. It's also good to know what the kerfuffle is about when trying to filter the noise.

[Rip]

Congressional investigators say they uncovered emails Wednesday showing that a former Internal Revenue Service official at the heart of the tea party investigation sought an audit involving a Republican senator in 2012.

The emails show former IRS official Lois Lerner mistakenly received an invitation to an event that was meant to go to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

The event organizer apparently offered to pay for Grassley's wife to attend the event. In an email to another IRS official, Lerner suggests referring the matter for an audit, saying it might be inappropriate for the group to pay for his wife.

"Perhaps we should refer to exam?" Lerner wrote.

In one email, Lerner indicates that she won't attend the event.

"Don't think I want to be on the stage with Grassley on this issue," she wrote.

Ways and Means is one of three congressional committees investigating the way the IRS processed applications for tax-exempt status. The Justice Department is also investigating.

Also Wednesday, a group of Republican senators — including Grassley — said they want to expand a Senate investigation to look more closely at how the agency lost the emails.

http://news.yahoo.com/emails-irs-offici ... 4ARUnQtDMD

AP story, or do you guys consider that a hole of right wing spin as well?

[Zarathud]

There is no targeting or scandal. Information sent to Lerner from a charity about a questionable speaking engagement compensation showed income unlikely to be declared. If your work pays for your wife to accompany you on travel, it's income. If Grassley failed to declare, he would underreport income and potentially be in violation of other reporting rules. Was there an actual investigation? No, it seems like office gossip.

IRS agents are known to do worse -- they find out about unreported income by trolling the internet. They compare info about sports deals to declared income, check whether the winner of Survivor declared the prize as income, and so on. I tell clients under audit that their public info on the internet may be used against them. Don't declare you can't pay the estate tax while tweeting about your cruise around the world.

It's a dick move and politically stupid given Sen. Grassley's political power, but not targeting. This is another made-up talking point, this time coming from the former Senator. Or do you think Senators are above the law? The House Republicans think so with the SEC.

[Rip]

There is no targeting or scandal. Information sent to Lerner from a charity about a questionable speaking engagement compensation showed income unlikely to be declared. If your work pays for your wife to accompany you on travel, it's income. If Grassley failed to declare, he would underreport income and potentially be in violation of other reporting rules. Was there an actual investigation? No, it seems like office gossip.

IRS agents are known to do worse -- they find out about unreported income by trolling the internet. They compare info about sports deals to declared income, check whether the winner of Survivor declared the prize as income, and so on. I tell clients under audit that their public info on the internet may be used against them. Don't declare you can't pay the estate tax while tweeting about your cruise around the world.

It's a dick move and politically stupid given Sen. Grassley's political power, but not targeting. This is another made-up talking point, this time coming from the former Senator. Or do you think Senators are above the law? The House Republicans think so with the SEC.

In a statement, Grassley's office said the senator did not attend the event, and did not receive any invitation intended for Lerner.

"This kind of thing fuels the deep concerns many people have about political targeting by the IRS and by officials at the highest levels," Grassley said. "It's very troubling that a simple clerical mix-up could get a taxpayer immediately referred for an IRS exam without any due diligence from agency officials."

So getting invited to an event even if you don't accept or go can get you audited? How fucked up is that?

[GreenGoo]

Is that better or worse than being randomly chosen?

Sorry if I missed it, but did he actually get audited? Because so far we've seen an email that asks the question whether a wife receiving a gift that has monetary value is worthy of an audit. Was the answer yes? no? Maybe?

Under what conditions would it be acceptable to single out a member of the opposite political party for an audit?

If it helps, I think every one of these bastiges should be audited every single year. Including Lerner.

[Zarathud]

The audit is the due diligence. Lois Lerner was invited to the conference but didn't go (speaking at conferences was part of her job) and at the time wondered whether to flag the issue for audit to follow up on -- the charity would announce if Sen. Grassley attended, submit reports on payments and file an annual report. If any of that was inconsistent, the IRS could ask the charity or Sen. Grassley to provide further info.

Take away?

1. It didn't go that far. No investigation occurred, just water cooler speculation.

2. If Grassley didn't attend, it would have died if it was referred.

3. If Grassley did attend with his wife and followed the law by reporting the payment for his wife's travel, it would have died if it was referred.

4. If it was referred, Grassley attended with wife (who received paid travel) and Grassley reported it but not on his taxes, it would have been resolved on public info.

5. Only if it referred, Grassley attended with his wife (who received paid travel) and Grassley never reported it anywhere would there be an audit with legs.

That's pretty far down a rabbit hole where Grassley wouldn't be innocent anyway. Is this where you think there's a scandal? Benghazi at least had a tragedy of dead Americans.

[Rip]

The audit is the due diligence. Lois Lerner was invited to the conference but didn't go (speaking at conferences was part of her job) and at the time wondered whether to flag the issue for audit to follow up on -- the charity would announce if Sen. Grassley attended, submit reports on payments and file an annual report. If any of that was inconsistent, the IRS could ask the charity or Sen. Grassley to provide further info.

Take away?

1. It didn't go that far. No investigation occurred, just water cooler speculation.

2. If Grassley didn't attend, it would have died if it was referred.

3. If Grassley did attend with his wife and followed the law by reporting the payment for his wife's travel, it would have died if it was referred.

4. If it was referred, Grassley attended with wife (who received paid travel) and Grassley reported it but not on his taxes, it would have been resolved on public info.

5. Only if it referred, Grassley attended with his wife (who received paid travel) and Grassley never reported it anywhere would there be an audit with legs.

That's pretty far down a rabbit hole where Grassley wouldn't be innocent anyway. Is this where you think there's a scandal? Benghazi at least had a tragedy of dead Americans.

She wasn't invited. She got Grassley's invitation because of a computer mistake. She then acted on something she had no reason to know and only knew the gift had been offered IF Grassley accepted the invitation (which he did not). Not only that but there is nothing even wrong with the gift. The only way it would be a problem is if he failed to claim it. On returns he had yet to file and wouldn't for a long time in the future.

The fact an audit wouldn't have legs isn't the important part. That is the old "well if you have nothing to hide" approach. It is a bullshit way people try to get the stupid to be ok with having their privacy violated.

[Zarathud]

After reading the 3-sentence e-mail chain, Lerner raised the question about whether the charity could make the offer (raising the issue of whether the charity offered an impermissible "private benefit"). The other employee informed Lerner that the tax issue was only income, and the charity's act wasn't prohibited.

Lerner and Grassley were both potential invitees by organizations wanting to have an "inside government viewpoint." I've attended many seminars hoping to get the inside scoop on a potential development from Congressional staff and/or IRS employees. Lerner wasn't reading Grassley's e-mail unsolicited, the e-mail was sent to her by mistake. No invasion of privacy. No sinister motives. Someone made a mistake.

This isn't just a tax issue, but a Congressional ethics reporting issue. Privately financed travel has resulted in several scandals. But if you think it's fine for people to make unrestricted gifts to their Senators, perhaps you should read the Senate ethics rules.

All privately funded travel must be pre-approved by the House or Senate ethics committees. Ethics committee approval can be secured only after both the invited congressional employee and the private sponsor certify the trip's conformity with congressional rules and provide a satisfactory answer about its connection with the invitee's official duties of Congress. According to House rules, "Travel will not be approved if it does not include sufficient officially-connected activities, or if it includes excessive amounts of unscheduled time for opportunities for recreational activities during the official itinerary, even if such activities are engaged in at personal expense."

This is the type of request that raises reasonable questions, but they're not tax issues unless unreported. Grassley probably realized the invitation was inappropriate, just as Lerner realized that she "didn't have a dog in this fight." There's no "there" there, unless you make up something nefarious to make the story interesting.

[Zarathud]

Let's remember that Lois Lerner, the alleged tool of the Obama administration, was actually selected as Director of the Exempt Organizations Division in 2005 during President G.W. Bush's Administration. And that she worked for the Department of Justice for the Federal Election Commission in 1981 and appointed its head in 1986 during Reagan administration before joining the IRS in 2001.

She's hardly the hand-picked tool of that evil socialist Obama to run rough-shod over his political enemies.

[Rip]

After reading the 3-sentence e-mail chain, Lerner raised the question about whether the charity could make the offer (raising the issue of whether the charity offered an impermissible "private benefit"). The other employee informed Lerner that the tax issue was only income, and the charity's act wasn't prohibited.

Lerner and Grassley were both potential invitees by organizations wanting to have an "inside government viewpoint." I've attended many seminars hoping to get the inside scoop on a potential development from Congressional staff and/or IRS employees. Lerner wasn't reading Grassley's e-mail unsolicited, the e-mail was sent to her by mistake. No invasion of privacy. No sinister motives. Someone made a mistake.

This isn't just a tax issue, but a Congressional ethics reporting issue. Privately financed travel has resulted in several scandals. But if you think it's fine for people to make unrestricted gifts to their Senators, perhaps you should read the Senate ethics rules.

All privately funded travel must be pre-approved by the House or Senate ethics committees. Ethics committee approval can be secured only after both the invited congressional employee and the private sponsor certify the trip's conformity with congressional rules and provide a satisfactory answer about its connection with the invitee's official duties of Congress. According to House rules, "Travel will not be approved if it does not include sufficient officially-connected activities, or if it includes excessive amounts of unscheduled time for opportunities for recreational activities during the official itinerary, even if such activities are engaged in at personal expense."

This is the type of request that raises reasonable questions, but they're not tax issues unless unreported. Grassley probably realized the invitation was inappropriate, just as Lerner realized that she "didn't have a dog in this fight." There's no "there" there, unless you make up something nefarious to make the story interesting.

There wasn't anything remotely inappropriate about it. they offered to pay his wife's expenses not his. The house ethics rules have no bearing on who does or doesn't pay his wife's expenses. the only way this is a problems is if he and his wife failed to claim it as income.

It was never about a gift to the senator himself.

[Rip]

Let's remember that Lois Lerner, the alleged tool of the Obama administration, was actually selected as Director of the Exempt Organizations Division in 2005 during President G.W. Bush's Administration. And that she worked for the Department of Justice for the Federal Election Commission in 1981 and appointed its head in 1986 during Reagan administration before joining the IRS in 2001.

She's hardly the hand-picked tool of that evil socialist Obama to run rough-shod over his political enemies.

Don't recall suggesting that Obama placed her there. He was just more than happy to encourage her to carry out his agenda. Sometimes you put people in place to do your dirty work sometimes you just take advantage of people already there that are willing to do it.

[Teggy]

Don't recall suggesting that Obama placed her there. He was just more than happy to encourage her to carry out his agenda. Sometimes you put people in place to do your dirty work sometimes you just take advantage of people already there that are willing to do it.

Do you want to back that up with some facts?

[RunningMn9]

Do you want to back that up with some facts?

[GreenGoo]

That is the old "well if you have nothing to hide" approach. It is a bullshit way people try to get the stupid to be ok with having their privacy violated.

Er, that's not how audits work. Also, what expectation of privacy do your financial records have versus the IRS?

Maybe because you run your own company you don't experience IT audits from external sources. I don't know. I know that audits often happen because something triggers the audit. I also know that audits happen to ensure compliance even when there is nothing specifically that triggered the audit.

I might be sympathetic to your point of view if the invite had arrived at a disinterested 3rd party who then forwarded it on to the IRS. But that's not what happened. You're asking someone high up in the IRS to ignore a potential trigger for an audit because they got that information by mistake. That ain't happening and I'm not even sure that's a reasonable stance to take.

The worst part of all this is that you're outraged that they briefly discussed whether an audit was warranted. They never acted on it. Whether that's because he never attended or because they decided that no audit was required I don't know, nor do I particularly care. You're mad because the IRS considered investigating.

Look, I don't like tax departments either, but I'm not going to freak out because they talk about what does or doesn't warrant an audit.

[Isgrimnur]

Perhaps we should subject Rip's business e-mails to public scrutiny. I'm sure he's never made a jest about breaking policy or the law or made an off-color remark that could be taken out of context and used to pillory him.

[GreenGoo]

It was never about a gift to the senator himself.

Er...that's also not how it works. My wife doesn't get random gifts from vendors because I happen to be attending one of their sales pitches. If there is confusion, remove the senator from the equation. Does the gift of free travel still exist? What would be the purpose of the organization paying for the wife's travel if the senator was not attending the event? What is the motive behind providing the wife with free travel?

The gift is clearly for the senator. That someone else also benefited from it is irrelevant.

I can't believe that you of all people are arguing that gifts to family members of politicians, solely because they *are* family members of politicians, is perfectly ok.

[The Meal]

I'm just happy we live in a country where the taxation arm looks closely at members of Congress.

[GreenGoo]

I'm just happy we live in a country where the taxation arm looks closely at members of Congress.

Or in this case, didn't.

[Rip]

That is the old "well if you have nothing to hide" approach. It is a bullshit way people try to get the stupid to be ok with having their privacy violated.

Er, that's not how audits work. Also, what expectation of privacy do your financial records have versus the IRS?

Maybe because you run your own company you don't experience IT audits from external sources. I don't know. I know that audits often happen because something triggers the audit. I also know that audits happen to ensure compliance even when there is nothing specifically that triggered the audit.

I might be sympathetic to your point of view if the invite had arrived at a disinterested 3rd party who then forwarded it on to the IRS. But that's not what happened. You're asking someone high up in the IRS to ignore a potential trigger for an audit because they got that information by mistake. That ain't happening and I'm not even sure that's a reasonable stance to take.

The worst part of all this is that you're outraged that they briefly discussed whether an audit was warranted. They never acted on it. Whether that's because he never attended or because they decided that no audit was required I don't know, nor do I particularly care. You're mad because the IRS considered investigating.

Look, I don't like tax departments either, but I'm not going to freak out because they talk about what does or doesn't warrant an audit.

That some group offered to pay for his wife's expenses IS NOT A TRIGGER.

[Zarathud]

It could have been -- there ARE limits on payments by charities to "disqualified persons" which includes politicians under Code Section 4946(c). Congress threw the book at certain transactions which are prohibited "private benefit" such as making gifts or payments which aren't for services rendered. The penalty is 10% of the payment and 200% if you don't fix it on audit.

Her colleague considered it compensation income as a part of the speaker fee for showing up to talk -- using the words it's "not prohibited." It's not like ANYONE would ever criticize a politician for getting bribed or inappropriate payment for his speaker's fee...

Spoiler:

Like Rip criticized the Clintons not too long ago.

There are many legal nuances about charities the public has no clue about, which is how I make my living, but makes it easy to attack Lerner.

[Rip]

It could have been -- there ARE limits on payments by charities to "disqualified persons" which includes politicians under Code Section 4946(c). Congress threw the book at certain transactions which are prohibited "private benefit" such as making gifts or payments which aren't for services rendered. The penalty is 10% of the payment and 200% if you don't fix it on audit.

Her colleague considered it compensation income as a part of the speaker fee for showing up to talk -- using the words it's "not prohibited." It's not like ANYONE would ever criticize a politician for getting bribed or inappropriate payment for his speaker's fee...

Spoiler:

Like Rip criticized the Clintons not too long ago.

There are many legal nuances about charities the public has no clue about, which is how I make my living, but makes it easy to attack Lerner.

But there was no transaction. It was an invitation that wasn't even taken. Should I send invitations to the entire Congress to my birthday and offer to pay for their wives to see if I can get them all audited or scrutinized?

If it was an e-mail with Grassley accepting the invitation and thanking them for paying for the wife I would have no problem with it. But it wasn't. It was an unsolicited invitation to which Grassley had no control over and in no way responded to.

If a drug dealer asks me to buy some drugs should that give police the right to search my property? Even if I said no thanks buddy?

[Isgrimnur]

If a drug dealer asks me to buy some drugs should that give police the right to search my property? Even if I said no thanks buddy?

There are probably plenty of judges that would sign that warrant. If the cops actually tried to get one first.

[Zarathud]

I ask my colleagues about a lot of legal questions when the transaction hasn't happened yet. It's a past time for some legal commentators to speculate how a transaction may have been structured -- yesterday I was discussing how Starbucks could have set up their scholarship program.

Have you ever asked someone how an IT problem would get resolved before you had a client with the problem?

[Rip]

I ask my colleagues about a lot of legal questions when the transaction hasn't happened yet. It's a past time for some legal commentators to speculate how a transaction may have been structured -- yesterday I was discussing how Starbucks could have set up their scholarship program.

Have you ever asked someone how an IT problem would get resolved before you had a client with the problem?

"Perhaps we should refer to exam?" Lerner wrote.

That isn't a question asking what they should do IF he accepted the invitation. That is asking if they should do one now.

The other IRS official, Matthew Giuliano, waved her off, saying an audit would be premature because Grassley hadn't even accepted the invitation.

At least someone there had an understanding of the law.

[Zarathud]

It's not like the IRS has funds to conduct sting operations. Ever get a 1099 or W-2? It's so the IRS has a flag who to audit if income isn't reported. This would be the same thing.

If it happened. But it didn't.

[RunningMn9]

[Rip]

While those obviously neglecting to report things and have a history of such abuses barely get noticed.

Longtime Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel failed to report an all-expense-paid trip he took to China just four years after he was censured by the House for accepting improper travel, the National Journal reported Thursday.

The 84-year-old New York congressman, who won a tight primary contest this week, was one of 10 lawmakers from Congressional Black Caucus who went on the 10-day trip last August. According to the National Journal, Rangel is the only one of the group who has not either listed the trip on annual financial disclosure forms or asked for an extension on their reports.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06 ... latestnews

[Zarathud]

Too bad Rangel's e-mail wasn't mistakenly sent to Lois Lerner.

[RunningMn9]

While those obviously neglecting to report things

Really?

[GreenGoo]

worker#1: Hey, co-worker, does this warrant an audit?
worker#2: No.
worker#1: Ok.

Rip: ARGLEBARGLE!

[msduncan]

Rip: Brick wall dude. Don't bother. Whatever the fuck this administration does will be excused and justified here. Leave it and lower your fucking blood pressure.

[Pyperkub]

It could have been -- there ARE limits on payments by charities to "disqualified persons" which includes politicians under Code Section 4946(c). Congress threw the book at certain transactions which are prohibited "private benefit" such as making gifts or payments which aren't for services rendered. The penalty is 10% of the payment and 200% if you don't fix it on audit.

Her colleague considered it compensation income as a part of the speaker fee for showing up to talk -- using the words it's "not prohibited." It's not like ANYONE would ever criticize a politician for getting bribed or inappropriate payment for his speaker's fee...

Spoiler:

Like Rip criticized the Clintons not too long ago.

There are many legal nuances about charities the public has no clue about, which is how I make my living, but makes it easy to attack Lerner.

But there was no transaction. It was an invitation that wasn't even taken. Should I send invitations to the entire Congress to my birthday and offer to pay for their wives to see if I can get them all audited or scrutinized?

If it was an e-mail with Grassley accepting the invitation and thanking them for paying for the wife I would have no problem with it. But it wasn't. It was an unsolicited invitation to which Grassley had no control over and in no way responded to.

If a drug dealer asks me to buy some drugs should that give police the right to search my property? Even if I said no thanks buddy?

And there was no audit sought Read the emails- the "smoking gun" is not that at all. It's a quick question to a collegue from a Blackberry for chrissakes.

[Smoove_B]

Whatever the fuck this administration does will be excused and justified here.

Including secretly taking over the IRS and directly pulling the audit strings by appointing Lois Lerner via time machine, as previously established on the last page.

[RunningMn9]

Rip: Brick wall dude.

And see, here everyone else was thinking that Rip is the brick wall. It's all so confusing.

[Pyperkub]

For those who didn't see the Report from last year, here's the link (it's a pdf):

To determine if organizations other than those specifically identified in the inappropriate criteria were processed by the team of specialists, we reviewed the names on all applications identified as potential political cases.18Figure 4 shows that approximately one-third of the applications identified for processing by the team of specialists included Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names, while the remainder did not. According to the Director, Rulings and Agreements, the fact that the team of specialists worked applications that did not involve the Tea Party, Patriots,or 9/12 groups demonstrated that the IRS was not politically biased in its identification of applications for processing by the team of specialists

To determine if cases without indications of significant political campaign intervention were sent to the team of specialists, we reviewed all of the applications identified as potential political cases as of May 31, 2012. Applications That the IRS Determined Should Be Processed by the Team of Specialists – We reviewed all 298 applications that had been identified as potential political cases as of May 31, 2012. In the majority of cases, we agreed that the applications submitted included indications of significant political campaign intervention. However, we did not identify any indications of significant political campaign intervention for 91 (31 percent) of the 296 applications 27 that had complete documentation.

Potential political cases took significantly longer than average to process due to ineffective management oversight. Once cases were initially identified for processing by the team of specialists, the Determinations Unit Program Manager requested assistance via e-mail from the Technical Unit to ensure consistency in processing the cases. However, EO function management did not ensure that there was a formal process in place for initiating, tracking, or monitoring requests for assistance. In addition, there were several changes in Rulings and Agreements management responsible for overseeing the fulfillment of requests for assistance from the Determinations Unit during this time period. This contributed to the lengthy delays in processing potential political cases.

[Zarathud]

That squares with my experience. The auditors I dealt with ended up almost apologetic about the delays and having to ask more questions after review by their supervisors.

[Pyperkub]

This article does explain a bit of the conservative conspiracy theorists:

exposes a truth way more horrifying than some dark conspiracy spanning Zionist bankers and Jay-Z's record label: the fact that access to information doesn't actually make us smarter.

See, conspiracy buffs have a very specific method -- they'll pore through the available data until they find something that confirms their belief, like an odd shadow in a single moon landing photo that somehow proves the whole thing was the most expensive and pointless hoax of all time (seriously, if they were going to fake it, couldn't they have thrown in some aliens or something to make it interesting?). They ignore all of the other evidence, so the sheer volume of available data actually makes their job easier.

I don't think the conspiracy theorists have any idea how hard it would be to conspire the bureaucracy to do something like this. Either these people are absolutely brilliant con artists with tons of hidden blackmail leverage - in which case they are impressively competent Illuminati running the world...

... or they are moderately competent (at best) bureaucrats dealing with an ever-increasing web of demands to enforce the ever changing laws and protect our democracy on ancient technology with a seriously inadequate budget and a moderately competent (at best), perpetually short-handed staff.

[Kraken]

This is the same government that bungled the health care website, right?

[Pyperkub]

This is the same government that bungled the health care website, right?

Nah, they outsourced that