45 thoughts on “The IRS General Counsel”

1. Believe me, this stinks to high heaven. However, is it really accurate to say there was no POSSIBLE “innocent” explanation for such a meeting? What if Obama was considering the IRS chief counsel for another position in the administration and wanted to discuss that?

   1. I report, you decide. It’s an opinion of someone with a lot of experience in the Beltway. Is an eight-hour meeting required for a job interview?

2. Read the comments on the post. Apparently it’s routine for agency general counsels to visit the White House.

   Ho, hum, another non-scandal revelation.

   if career IRS employees acted on their own, it means the integrity of American democracy itself is threatened

   Really? Groups claiming to not be primarily interested in electoral politics have their applications for special tax status delayed, and democracy is threatened? Meanwhile, 200,000 Floridians don’t vote because of long lines at the polls, but that isn’t a threat to democracy.

   1. Why shouldn’t conservative groups be allowed to get the same tax status as Democrat groups, including Obama’s own campaign organization? Why do Democrat groups sail through with minimal delay when conservative groups go through years of harassment?

      OFA received its status in a matter of days and its charter explicitly lays out political activism as its only purpose for existence.

      Remember that the IRS persecution of political dissidents supposedly ended but the affected groups still have not received approval. Will this continue past 2014?

      But ya, at least no one was sent to a prision camp but it certainly looks like a DOJ that refuses to prosecute friends of Obama wouldn’t have a problem punishing his enemies.

   2. If people are not allowed to assemble and petition the government without excessive taxation by the government, then indeed the integrity of American democracy is threatened. This is the notion put forward by groups like OFA and MoveOn. Those concerned about excessive taxation by government in general should be provided the same rights to assemble as those concerned about anemic government spending. That bureaucrats can decide whose speech is given special privileges and who is not should be frightening to all Americans.

      And its not just the IRS; Democrats are pushing to regulate who can be called a journalist. VoterID is apparently bad, but establishing federal requirements to publically observe matters in some form of published format is good? There seems to be trend in all this.

      1. If people are not allowed to assemble and petition the government without excessive taxation by the government

         The groups in question weren’t claiming 501c3 exemption from taxation (they have little tax liability in any case), they were claiming to be 501c4 social welfare groups so they wouldn’t have to report donations.

         1. They weren’t claiming 501c3 exemption because they didn’t believe it applied for some of the same reasons that Gerrib doesn’t think it applies, see Gerrib’s quote of the 501c3 law below.

         2. “they were claiming to be 501c4 social welfare groups so they wouldn’t have to report donations.”

            And yet ProPublica ended up with this information…

   3. I think it’s worth noting the circumstances of the actual meeting with the President. Apparently, 13 other people were involved. So this could have been some sort of pep talk by the president for appointees. Or given that it happened a couple of days before a sudden change of policy, an opportunity for Obama to talk about meddlesome priests and how convenient it would be, if someone were rid the world of a few of them.

      When are these IRS people going to get investigated BTW?

3. It’s worth noting that, per still-valid law: Under law, tax-exempt organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code are prohibited from participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office. Charities, educational institutions and religious organizations, including churches, are among those that are covered under this code section.
   These organizations cannot endorse any candidates, make donations to their campaigns, engage in fund raising, distribute statements, or become involved in any other activities that may be beneficial or detrimental to any particular candidate. Even activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate on the basis of nonpartisan criteria violate the political campaign prohibition of section 501(c)(3).

   So, clearly none of the Tea Party organizations applying for tax-exempt status were advocating for particular candidates. How again was democracy threatened?

   1. The applications in question were for 501c4 status, and 501c4 groups can engage in electoral politics, it just can’t be their primary purpose.

      It’s still a breathtaking display of chutzpah for groups to simultaneously claim that they aren’t primarily interested in elections, and that the IRS targeting hampered their ability to influence elections.

      1. Chutzpah is Democrats engaging in this activity while using the power of the state to prevent their political opponents from engaging in the same behavior.

         Mubarek is probably wondering how Obama gets away with all this stuff.

   2. Chris, if Bush and Cheney had denied tax exempt status to one little offshoot of MoveOn, the police would’ve had to put on riot gear to protect the firemen trying to put out all the burning cars.

      1. Memories are so short. The IRS did go after liberal groups (e.g. anti-war churches and the NAACP) when Bush was president. I don’t recall any riots.

         1. Hundreds of groups or just a couple? If it is wrong to go after one, why not hundreds? And after the vitriol directed at Bush at the time, why wont Democrats hold their leaders to the same standards when the behavior is so much worse?

            Last I checked NAACP is still a non-profit and TP groups have been waiting years to enjoy the same rights as Democrat groups.

   3. Your post would be valid except for one little point. They were not applying for 501(c)3 status but for 501(c)4 which has different rules. Nice try.

   4. So why do Democrat groups get non profit tax exempt status? Why do rules have seperate meanings depending on party affiliation?

   5. So all these Tea Party groups were just like my homeowner’s association? (Link goes to the official IRS definition of 501c4). Or organizations that “hold an annual festival of regional customs and traditions?”

      They were, and are, clearly political groups, and just like Organizing for America, should be held to a higher level of scrutiny.

      Questions: was any Tea Party group actually denied 501c4 status? How did the delay of 501c4 approval prevent the organizations hamper their activities? Donations to 501c4s are not tax-deductible, and a non-profit would, by definition, not have much profit to be taxed.

      1. was any Tea Party group actually denied 501c4 status?

         Nope.

         How did the delay of 501c4 approval prevent the organizations hamper their activities?

         They had to take time away from their “social welfare” activities to fill out IRS questionnaires.

         Donations to 501c4s are not tax-deductible

         But they can be kept private, which is why Crossroads GPS and Priorities USA wanted that status. Since both are purely political organizations, it’s ridiculous that they were both approved.

         1. Since both are purely political organizations, it’s ridiculous that they were both approved.

            And OFA? MoveOn? MediaMatters? Since Gerrib is outraged that a political organization get 501c3 status, here’s this from MediaMatters:

            Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c )(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

            I await Gerrib’s and Jim’s outrage that MediaMatters can receive tax deductible donations while operating as a political organization.

            1. Media Matters doesn’t advocate for specific political candidates, nor do they lobby anybody. They’re certainly more educational than a group complaining that they couldn’t influence an election.

               OFA and MoveOn are not 501c3, which makes a difference, as has been explained to me.

               Everybody is still dodging the question – what groups were denied (if any) and what (if any) impact did a delay in being approved have on their activities?

               (Hint: “Many” or “a lot” are not answers. Specifics please.)

            2. Media Matters doesn’t advocate for specific political candidates, nor do they lobby anybody.

               Except that Media Matters Action Network 501c4 does lobby. Do you think the IRS scrutinizes their returns to make sure money for the 501c3 isn’t mixed with the 501c4?

               Everybody is still dodging the question – what groups were denied

               I provided a link, and your response below was “whiny whimps”, which is pretty much how I viewed your demand for evidence.

            3. “Media Matters doesn’t advocate for specific political candidates, nor do they lobby anybody.”

               “Internal Department of Justice emails obtained by The Daily Caller show Attorney General Eric Holder’s communications staff has collaborated with the left-wing advocacy group Media Matters for America in an attempt to quell news stories about scandals plaguing Holder and America’s top law enforcement agency.”

               http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/18/emails-reveal-justice-dept-regularly-enlists-media-matters-to-spin-press/

               Seems pretty political to me.

      2. They were, and are, clearly political groups, and just like Organizing for America, should be held to a higher level of scrutiny.

         What higher level of scrutiny was that?

         An announcement is expected Friday that the President’s powerful organizing and networking platform, Organizing for America, will – in short order – change its name to Organizing for Action, split off from the Obama political apparatus (and thus, the Democratic Party), and file for nonprofit status.

         President is pretty high level, is that the scrutiny you think should happen?

         Questions: was any Tea Party group actually denied 501c4 status?
         Yes.

      3. Donations to 501c4s are not tax-deductible, and a non-profit would, by definition, not have much profit to be taxed.

         Indeed, but it is the formal recognition of a non-profit that’s key, and IRS recognition of it means you can continue to operate as a business without making a profit. Companies that are created and never make a profit are typically scrutinized by the IRS, because businesses are not typically created to not make money. Certain organizations are created to not make gain, and those companies are routinely recognized as non-profit; thus nobody is alarmed when they don’t make a profit.

      4. “Questions: was any Tea Party group actually denied 501c4 status?”

         Have any of them been approved? TP and other conservative groups have been held in limbo for years receiving neither approval or denial. During that time, they have had to answer reams of illegal questions that have nothing to do with their tax status, like what is the content of their prayers and to provide membership rolls of their churches.

         If the targeted political persecution by the Obama administration and the IRS really ended, these groups would have received a ruling by now one way or the other and they haven’t

         Compare that treatment with what ProPublica considers a government stonewall, http://www.propublica.org/article/nsa-says-it-cant-search-own-emails

         “I filed a request last week for emails between NSA employees and employees of the National Geographic Channel over a specific time period.”

         “A few days after filing the request, Blacker called”

         Upset about days and weeks not years.

   6. Gee Chris, if nothing the IRS was doing was hampering the groups, why was the IRS doing it, and only doing it to groups opposed to Obama? Why were they holding top level meetings about hampering the groups? Why did they try to blame local staffers are remote field offices? Why were they invoking the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination for their completely benign and innocent actions?

      1. Why was the IRS doing it? – Per the Inspector General’s report, they were deluged with new apps and trying to simplify screening.

         You have zero evidence of high-level meetings (the IRS meeting in the original post was 13 people for one hour, subject unknown).

         Individuals in the IRS are exercising the same constitutional rights as granted in the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

         I answered your questions. How about you answering mine?

         1. You have zero evidence of high-level meetings (the IRS meeting in the original post was 13 people for one hour, subject unknown).

            You had zero evidence that Zimmerman lied about his injuries, but you still demanded he be dragged into court. There’s more evidence here, such as the logs showing meetings, and all that is happening is an investigation. So far, the investigation has already found a lie that the issue was constrained to a few rogue personnel in Cleveland. And we have Lois Lerner pleading the 5th (well attempting to claim it), thus suggesting even she thinks a crime may have been committed. And before I hear “but pleading 5th can’t be used against her”, you may want to look at recent SCOTUS rulings.

      2. only doing it to groups opposed to Obama

         No, they also scrutinized liberal groups, and they rejected one liberal group (vs. no tea party groups).

         1. “No, they also scrutinized liberal groups,”

            They did not receive the same level of scrutiny. There have been zero Democrat groups to come forward with examples of the abuses that conservative groups faced. Conservative groups were flagged for persecution and liberal groups were flagged for preferential treatment.

4. So Chris, you actually believe that they only targeted conservative groups completely by accident, despite all the testimony that they did, in fact, only mean to target conservative groups. To the rest of society, that means a branch of the federal government, almost certainly on Obama’s orders, rigged the election to make sure it came out in his favor. That is worse than anything Nixon ever did, and merits impeachment, removal from office, and a long stay in prison for anyone involved.

   1. You keep dodging my questions. How many groups were denied tax-exempt status and how did the delay of this status prevent or hinder their work?

      I suspect you are dodging these questions because the answers are “zero” and “no hindrance.”

      How can you “threaten the integrity of American democracy” if the groups that were so “threatened” weren’t actually prevented from doing what they set out to do?

      1. “how did the delay of this status prevent or hinder their work?”

         Millions and millions of dollars in actual currency and man hours was spent on IRS compliance. Money is one thing but for small mom and pop groups that were target by the IRS, the man hours spent dealing with the IRS was devastating.

   2. Chris, many groups are still waiting for their tax exempt status so they can effectively take part in the 2012 election. The people involved write at length about what a hinderance it was. But in your world, none of that actually exists. How about this. We remove Obama from office and jail his croanies, and you pretend it doesn’t happen. Then we’ll all be happy.

      1. many groups are still waiting for their tax exempt status so they can effectively take part in the 2012 election.

         Ha! 501c4 tax status is contingent on a group not being primarily involved in elections, and your complaint is that the time they spent on IRS paperwork kept them from being more involved in elections. You might as well complain that an extra-long tax audit leaves the subject less free time to hide income.

         1. “Ha! 501c4 tax status is contingent on a group not being primarily involved in elections, ”

            The presidential election only happens every fours years. That leaves plenty of time for other activities. But why should Democrat groups get to be active in campaigns and groups associated with other parties be denied?

            The rules should apply the same to all groups and everyone should be able to engage in the same activities as Democrats.

      2. Names of groups? Links to where they complain?

         1. Link

            1. I followed that link, Leland. Here’s my thought:

               What a bunch of whiny wimps! “Our members were scared to share their Facebook pages.” Really?!?!? (The San Antonio dude.)

               Becky Gerritson’s application was approved! While the IRS sat on it for a year, she and her group did their thing. Then, when she was asked to provide the sort of information any political group should have to do (my political donations are a matter of public record) she literally cries to Congress!

               The Tea Party claims to be the heirs to the people that fought the American Revolution, dodging real bullets, and they cry over a damn form? A form that they ended up not having to fill out anyway?

               Whiny wimps.

               Of course, what would I expect from a one-name-wonder on the Internet?

            2. LOL, so judging by your ridiculous rant; I guess you didn’t expect anyone to call you on your stupidity and ignorance.

               The issue is about 501c4 status, not 501c3.

               There has been plenty of testimony about who has been denied their status.

               Drop ad hominems to try and bolster your argument, but in the end; you’ve shown yourself to be across the board ignorant of the whole issue, and a fool willing to jump into the discussion despite being ignorant.

            3. ““Our members were scared to share their Facebook pages.” Really?!?!?”

               Why does the IRS need access to FB pages as was requested in some cases? Why did the IRS need administrator privileges to group’s websites?

               After seeing their groups being persecuted by the government, why wouldn’t people think that the government would go after their members and donors as well? The questions asked by the IRS would certainly lead someone to believe they could be targeted as well because they asked in-depth questions about both groups.

            4. whiny wimps

               Chris, you do realize that the IRS is the most feared organization of the US government? I think someone would have to be a fool to not consider that such intrusive questioning could be a prelude to actual reprisal against the members of the group.

               And I must echo Leland’s lack of surprise when you transitioned from asking questions that you thought wouldn’t be answered to dumb ad hominem attacks. Your rhetorical incompetence is embarrassing.

5. I can see a reason, why the IRS GC would meet with the president for 8 hours. The Obamacare tax regs for large employers are significantly behind schedule, and failing to get the regs implemented on time, raises issues on the administration of the law. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Art 2 of the constitution.

   As the IRS is seriously behind schedule, and this is the President’s flagship program, I could imagine the POTUS wanted a serious briefing on the legal implications of this failure.

   However, maybe the House could issue a bill of impeachment.

   1. So in your opinion, what role does the IRS General Counsel play in the Project Management of Obamacare? And if you believe that the role is critical to project delays in implementing Obamacare, then why the did the IRS GC spend the next two days writing a guidance document on how to scrutinize 501c4’s?

Comments are closed.