May 14, 201313 yr How do you get on 'the list'? Democratic Underground - Anyone here helped Obama at [email protected]? - Democratic Underground "Anyone here helped Obama at [email protected]? [TABLE=class: post-message] [TR] [TD=width: 1%][/TD] [TD=width: 99%] " Enough of the talk...we need to get busy and start putting together a databank of healthcare opponents. [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] I think PP92 turned me last year....
May 14, 201313 yr The second article of impeachment that was drafted against Nixon cited his, and his subordinates' use of the IRS to intimidate political opponents. It was a factor in Nixon's loss of support among Republicans and his decision to resign.
May 14, 201313 yr Where this gets even more disturbing is the new and expanded powers given to the IRS from the AHCA (Obamacare). There is almost no information the IRS does not have on you now. This includes health records and information.
May 14, 201313 yr On a lighter note, in the event I decide not to pay my "fair share" this year, can I just aplogize to the IRS for my transgressions and have it go away...I'm pretty sure they wont take that as a valid defense.
May 14, 201313 yr On a lighter note, in the event I decide not to pay my "fair share" this year, can I just aplogize to the IRS for my transgressions and have it go away...I'm pretty sure they wont take that as a valid defense. I know they won't.
May 14, 201313 yr I work at IRS in Human Resources. We just received the following from Acting Commissioner Steve Miller (not of Jet Airliner fame): Mistakes were made, but they were in no way due to any political or partisan motivation. We are — and will continue to be — dedicated to reviewing all applications for tax-exempt status in an impartial manner. We sought to centralize work in this area in 2010 because our office of Exempt Organizations observed a sharp increase in the number of section 501©(3) and 501©(4) applications coming from groups potentially engaged in political campaign intervention. Between 2010 and 2012, the number of applications for 501©(4) status more than doubled, from 1,591 to 3,398. Because the law limits and in some cases prohibits political intervention by exempt organizations, the IRS must carefully review applications based on the facts of each case. While centralizing cases for consistency made sense, the way we initially centralized them did not. There was a shortcut taken in our processes to determine which groups needed additional review. The mistakes we made were due to the absence of a sufficient process for working the increase in cases and a lack of sensitivity to the implications of some of the decisions that were made. These are factually complex and sensitive cases, and it's challenging to separate out political issues from those involving education or social welfare. It's not always a clear area, and there are no bright-line tests for what constitutes political intervention. Yet, the IRS is tasked with monitoring and enforcing this difficult area. We fixed the situation last year, and have made significant progress in moving the centralized cases through our system. To date, more than half of these cases have been approved or withdrawn. These applications, which came from all parts of the political spectrum, received the same, even-handed treatment. The new procedures we have implemented ensure the mistakes we made won't be repeated. We want to stress that our employees — all career civil servants — will continue to be guided by tax law and not by partisan issues. The IRS remains committed to protecting the integrity of our nation's tax system. This article appears on the USAToday website and will probably appear in tomorrow's paper.
May 14, 201313 yr LHL today: Kentucky activist rejects IRS apology for targeting groups | Politics and Government | Kentucky.com
May 15, 201313 yr I work at IRS in Human Resources. We just received the following from Acting Commissioner Steve Miller (not of Jet Airliner fame): Mistakes were made, but they were in no way due to any political or partisan motivation. We are — and will continue to be — dedicated to reviewing all applications for tax-exempt status in an impartial manner. We sought to centralize work in this area in 2010 because our office of Exempt Organizations observed a sharp increase in the number of section 501©(3) and 501©(4) applications coming from groups potentially engaged in political campaign intervention. Between 2010 and 2012, the number of applications for 501©(4) status more than doubled, from 1,591 to 3,398. Because the law limits and in some cases prohibits political intervention by exempt organizations, the IRS must carefully review applications based on the facts of each case. While centralizing cases for consistency made sense, the way we initially centralized them did not. There was a shortcut taken in our processes to determine which groups needed additional review. The mistakes we made were due to the absence of a sufficient process for working the increase in cases and a lack of sensitivity to the implications of some of the decisions that were made. These are factually complex and sensitive cases, and it's challenging to separate out political issues from those involving education or social welfare. It's not always a clear area, and there are no bright-line tests for what constitutes political intervention. Yet, the IRS is tasked with monitoring and enforcing this difficult area. We fixed the situation last year, and have made significant progress in moving the centralized cases through our system. To date, more than half of these cases have been approved or withdrawn. These applications, which came from all parts of the political spectrum, received the same, even-handed treatment. The new procedures we have implemented ensure the mistakes we made won't be repeated. We want to stress that our employees — all career civil servants — will continue to be guided by tax law and not by partisan issues. The IRS remains committed to protecting the integrity of our nation's tax system. This article appears on the USAToday website and will probably appear in tomorrow's paper. That's a load of garbage.
May 15, 201313 yr I am sure the IRS was backed and just did not have time get to all the requests. Well, maybe not.... Obama's half brother got 501© status - without paperwork and in less than a month.... Lois Lerner approved exemption for Obama brother's 'charity' | The Daily Caller In a New York Post article dated May 8, 2011, an officer of the foundation admitted, “We haven’t been able to find someone with the expertise” to apply for tax-exempt status. Nevertheless, a month later, the Barack H. Obama Foundation had flown through the grueling application process. Lerner granted the organization a 501© determination and even gave it a retroactive tax exemption dating back to December 2008.
May 15, 201313 yr I work at IRS in Human Resources. We just received the following from Acting Commissioner Steve Miller (not of Jet Airliner fame): Mistakes were made, but they were in no way due to any political or partisan motivation. We are — and will continue to be — dedicated to reviewing all applications for tax-exempt status in an impartial manner. We sought to centralize work in this area in 2010 because our office of Exempt Organizations observed a sharp increase in the number of section 501©(3) and 501©(4) applications coming from groups potentially engaged in political campaign intervention. Between 2010 and 2012, the number of applications for 501©(4) status more than doubled, from 1,591 to 3,398. Because the law limits and in some cases prohibits political intervention by exempt organizations, the IRS must carefully review applications based on the facts of each case. While centralizing cases for consistency made sense, the way we initially centralized them did not. There was a shortcut taken in our processes to determine which groups needed additional review. The mistakes we made were due to the absence of a sufficient process for working the increase in cases and a lack of sensitivity to the implications of some of the decisions that were made. These are factually complex and sensitive cases, and it's challenging to separate out political issues from those involving education or social welfare. It's not always a clear area, and there are no bright-line tests for what constitutes political intervention. Yet, the IRS is tasked with monitoring and enforcing this difficult area. We fixed the situation last year, and have made significant progress in moving the centralized cases through our system. To date, more than half of these cases have been approved or withdrawn. These applications, which came from all parts of the political spectrum, received the same, even-handed treatment. The new procedures we have implemented ensure the mistakes we made won't be repeated. We want to stress that our employees — all career civil servants — will continue to be guided by tax law and not by partisan issues. The IRS remains committed to protecting the integrity of our nation's tax system. This article appears on the USAToday website and will probably appear in tomorrow's paper. I would like to see the groups they accepted between 2010 and 2012. As to the bolded, what was the "short cut"?
May 15, 201313 yr I would like to see the groups they accepted between 2010 and 2012. As to the bolded, what was the "short cut"? There still hasn't (to my knowledge) been any record of a group turned down due to the increased (and rule-breaking) scrutiny, although a few apparently self-terminated. The shortcut referred to would have to be referencing the targeting of groups whose application included "Tea Party" "Patriot" and "9/12" (those are the terms I've seen, probably a few others but I think you get the idea of what the "shortcut" is.)
May 15, 201313 yr That's a load of garbage. It was simply bureaucratic mumbo jumbo. Use a lot of words to say nothing, and by all means, never answer the question. We need to simplify the tax system to the point where the IRS is no longer necessary. And just think, soon they will be a big part of Obamacare.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.