May 13, 2013 By: Juanita Jean Herownself Category: Uncategorized
Okay, customers, talk me down about being furious, angry, and really hacked off about the IRS targeting rightwing groups.
If the shoe was on the other foot, I would be foaming at the mouth.
Plus, the last damn thing we need to be doing is giving those idiots any evidence that people should be scared about being targeted by the government.
They view themselves are martyrs already, dammit.
Welcome to The World's Most Dangerous Beauty Salon, Inc.
My name is Susan DuQuesnay Bankston. I live in Richmond, Texas, in the heart of Tom DeLay's old district. It's nuttier than squirrel poop here.
I am honored and privileged to know Miss Juanita Jean Herownself, hairdresser extraordinary and political maven. Since she does not have time to fiddle with this internet stuff, I type her website for her and you can read it if you want to. If you don't, she truly does not give a big bear's butt.
A lot of what I post here has to do with local politics, but you probably have the same folks in your local government.
This ain't a blog. Blogs are way too trendy for me. This is a professional political organization.
Turns out the shoe WAS on the other foot during the Iraq War under Bush. There were letters threatening tax emept status sent to the NAACP when a preacher gave anti war sermons in a black church. It would also be interesting to delve into the Nixon-era abuses of that agency.
1Rachel Maddow alluded to some of this on her show. Don’t forget that the head of the IRS when this went on was a Bush appointee. All political groups applying for tax-exempt status should receive scrutiny. Let’s hope this turns out to be much less than it seems.
Well, it was happening while a Bush appointee was in charge.
2I think the focus should be on why all the Tea Party groups got the special status in the first place – almost everyone the ones getting special scrutiny got the status,, no problem, even though they are not the groups that should be allowed the status becuase they are clearly political. That said, the same standard should be applied to right, left and moderate groups, period.
However, why are taxpayers subsidixing what are clearly politcal orgniazaitons using their anonymous money to fund political attack ads? I don’t care which party is involvedd. We need to get rid of the status altogether or at the very least get rid of the dark money. We need to know who are3 are really subsidizing through these tax exemptions.
3Now don’t slap me upside the head, JJ, but the IRS might have good reasons to closely examine Sec. 501(c)(3) organizations… regardless whether or not they may be connected to Tea Party groups.
There has been a proliferation of tax-exempt orgs for the past 20 years, many of which are/were set up solely for the purpose of providing cover for money laundering & other such nefarious deeds such as getting charitable contributions solely to pay the organizer/founder a nice big fat salary. The IRS processes over 25,000 of such applications PER MONTH!!
Where there’s greed, there’s corruption and where there’s potential for corruption, there’s likely folks up to no good. The IRS is doing it’s job most likely – no more, no less.
4What? It’s just profiling!
5Lawrence O’Donnell is talking about this show tonight. There are other “red flags” the IRS has used for years and they should. Try deducting the cost of your “home office” year after year without showing a profit and see how quickly you get audited. One year my medical costs where through the roof, so I had a large deduction and was warned by the CPA/tax attorney I used that it was likely I would be audited. I wasn’t audited, but was not concerned because I had been audited many years ago and it wasn’t a big deal since I had all my records and was honest.
Down, Juanita Jean, down. Since when do Democrats have to give them reasons to scream, yell and hate the government. They just hate us, period, and stay worked up about something all the time, even if they have to make it up If they didn’t have anger and hate, they wouldn’t have any feelings at all.
I agree with maryelle, all these groups, Republican, Tea Party or Democratic, seeking tax-exempt status should be scrutinized. Furthermore they should be exclusively a “social service” organization, not just “primarily” one, a change made by the IRS (on its own some time ago).
During the period from 2009 through 2011, I understand the applications for tax-exempt status were about three times greater for Republican/Tea Party slanted groups than for Democratic leaning ones.
There are far too many tax-exempt groups involved in a lot of different matters, give little, if any, social services and are maintained to give some people cushy jobs and income.
6Seems to me the body politic might need to change the IRS Commissioner to longer appointments. Maybe not lifetime like Supremes but 11 years or 7 years. Something to de-politicize the appointment. This job needs to be above the fray.
7Theere will be lot more heat than light in the news reports and the blogs over the next several days, JJ. No question that Congress needs to have hearings, except that given the current toxic atmosphere in the committees, we’ll see a goodly amount of bombast from conservative extremists.
A lot of opinions will be voiced by people who don’t know shoe leather from Shinola. The link below is a very condensed heads-up on what this really is about:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/13/news/economy/irs-faq-tea-party/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
The key question to my mind is about parity among political groups. At the time this happened, was the IRS treating conservative and liberal groups equally? Stay tuned as Congress tries to find the answer.
8Maryelle and June pretty much nailed it. Political organizations like the tea party should be scrutinized, as should all other such organizations. Fraud has been rampant.
9Sorry, JJ, but you are way off on this one. As you might can tell from all the replies.
There is a very simple explanation for the reason that the IRS was targeting the “Tea Party” for scrutiny regarding their tax-exempt status — these were all new organizations applying for tax-exempt status. The Tea Party was invented by the Koch brothers and friends after the Bush disaster and their loss to Obama when they realized that the Republican brand was total sh*t (sorry momma). So they invested a few hundred million dollars and got all the crazies upset. And then “Tea Party” groups are springing up everywhere like mushrooms in cow patties after a heavy rain.
So when you suddenly have thousands of Tea Party groups applying for tax-exempt status, that is where the focus will be.
Nothing untoward about that.
10All the political organizations should be scrutinized, but especially the ones who bray the loudest about not wanting to pay taxes, don’t you think?
“There were letters threatening tax exempt status sent to the NAACP when a preacher gave anti war sermons in a black church.” But now preachers can openly tell their congregation that only voting GOP will get them into heaven, and nobody with the ability to yank their tax-exempt status gives a fig. (“I did not see why the schoolmaster should be taxed to support the priest, and not the priest the schoolmaster.” — Thoreau, Walden)
11I think there’s a fair chance they were just going after the low-hanging fruit. Tea partier types aren’t known for the high percentage of geniuses in their ranks. So if the auditors wanted to find the groups most likely to have either cheated or made really idiotic mistakes….
12It will probably turn out to be a butt load of bullshit. Blown all out of proportion like the reports of anti white bias by Shirley Sherrod or the crap O’keeffe and what’s her name’s daughter pulled on Acorn.
13The Repubs also had the IRA target the NAACP after the 2000 elections, as well as the church in the 2004 elections as mentioned above. And what about the hullabaloo concerning ACORN?
No, the Repubs are only screaming to high heaven because it was THEM.
The Tea Party and those other KOCH and ROVE secretly funded groups SHOULD be investigated…thank your CITIZENS UNITED and SCOTUS!!
14I’m too cynical to be angry. I expect the IRS to target people they distrust, and the Tea Party is not a trustworthy organization.
Nobody has yet asked, what did they find when they targeted the Tea Party groups? If they discovered that 75% were cheaters, maybe it was a reasonable decision to target them. After all, they target mafia groups and RICO suspects. Are the Tea Party Groups any less suspicious considering that many still believe that income taxes are unconstitutional?
I’m still not sure what is right and wrong here, but a case could be made for probable cause.
15And I’d like to add, Republicans have never been too sympathetic to the rights of defendants. They like to say “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.”
Of course, I see the flaw in that logic, but I don’t see why we can’t turn the tables on them. If they create bad logic, they will fall for bad logic.
16I’m with you JJ. We’ve had a good laugh about the Benghazi frenzy, but this is a real issue that needs to be addressed. And I want to get to the bottom of the AP phone records too. Looks to me like we finally managed to hand over two real live honest to goodness scandals to replace all the hyperventilating Issa has been doing. Damn and double damn.
17Novel organizations claiming novel tax exempt status should be audited, routinely. Why? Because the danger *to the organization* that it is incorrectly set up, incorrectly filing, and incorrectly withholding or avoiding taxes is quite high. In the instant case (as I understand it) the Cleveland Office which was run by Republicans was flooded with new filings and audited or took a closer look at 220 out of which 75 were “tea party” style. None of them were turned down for the tax exemption. In addition people get audited all the time–that isn’t a legal cause for action nor should it be. I’m sorry that the Administration didn’t defend the right of IRS workers to do their job unemcumbered by political hack attacks. Its hugely dangerous to be a government worker at this point with all the anti government rhetoric and pro gun rhetoric being thrown around.
18This is from the Washington Post.
Seems there is a pretty fine line between being a PAC, and being something else that qualifies for tax-exempt status.
What happened was simple. I think this is another thing we can thank the Supreme Court, and “Citizens United” for. Seems as if there was a virtual “flood” of folks who formed all kinds of “groups” and applied to the IRS for “tax-exempt” status.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/irs-official-lois-lerner-becomes-face-of-scandal-over-targeting-of-conservative-groups/2013/05/13/065e1d82-bc01-11e2-a31d-a41b2414d001_story.html
Naturally, they sent a woman out to try to explain it all.
Sounds like they were just doing the job the taxpayers pay them to do.
19Here’s the thing, too, JJ. That “Benghazi” scandal thing isn’t working out too well.
So, now we will have an “IRS” scandal thing in the headlines for several days. If that also flops. And, looks like it will. That will be followed by:
The “AP reporters phone records” scandal thing.
And, anything else the Republicans can dream up between now and 2016.
JMHO.
20What @Moms said:
21“The IRS processes over 25,000 of such applications PER MONTH!!”
I had occasion to check up on the tax-exempt status of a party to a complicated lawsuit (lawsuit itself had no tax issues) and discovered that a single auditor in upstate New York handled all investigations of 501(c)(3) entities in New England that reported income of less than $125K.
You could be running “Joe’s Bar and Grill” as a tax-exempt activity and probably get away with it unless/until someone turned you in.
I helped my organization file one of those applications for tax exempt status. We’re a club that sponsors a yearly rodeo, holds barrel racing and playdays at our town’s rodeo arena. Horses are us. Imagine my chagrin when the IRS classified us as 501(c)(4), the same as Crossroads, Americans for Prosperity, et al. We had to show we didn’t spend money on political activity or supporting candidates. Oh, the irony!
It took almost a year to get the application through the process. We were scrutinized! Of course we were. We’re asking to not have to pay taxes!
22JJ, please remember the Texas Highway Patrol Museum in San Antonio, which was closed down last year. It was supposed to be to help families of fallen Highway Patrol personnel, but less than 1% of the donations were given for that purpose. The Museum’s cat got more money than any family; no one visited the museum, and the people who ran it got all the other funds. Their paid solicitors called everyone at least once a month, begging for donations. After a while, I just got rude with them, but I can’t say what I told them as Mama may be reading.
23When the Repubs were in office, the National Education Association suddenly found itself with a bunch of IRS “auditors” camped out in their offices for the entire duration! It seems there were some very powerful Repubs who viewed the NEA as real, real bad!
Folks, the NEA is a bunch of school teachers! Ten to one the Repubs responsible for this “auditing” didn’t do very well in school and blamed it on their teachers and got into the payback game as soon as they could.
When the Repubs got voted out, the IRS “auditing office” suddenly disappeared.
24So a couple of guys at the IRS in Cincinnati decided to give extra scrutiny to conservative special interest groups filing for tax-exempt status because they thought that they were more likely to not be what they claim to be? More likely to game the system? More likely to provide secret conduits for pallets of political cash?
Why, that’s “profiling” and it’s just as wrong to flag people for being FWR (Fundraising while Republican) as DWB.
But the schadenfreude is DeeeeLICIOUS!
25Yo, @June: Isn’t that the museum that received $245,000 in “earmark” money in 2010? You know, the money McCain ignored when he sent his very first tweet about earmarks for bees in Texas? (Old John was confused – that $243,000 was actually in the USDA’s annual budget for bee research station tied to Texas A&M)
26The jury is still out on this one. The problem is twofold: it gives the appearance of singling out a specific group for scrutiny and as a result of that, it creates the perception that government is “tracking” a group of people that it is “out to get.” Perception friends is reality, particularly to a group of people that is disenfranchised, ill informed and predisposed to be anti-government to begin with.
This sort of thing makes it twice as difficult to pass important legislation such as gun control laws and to keep health care laws in place as it plays into the hands of people who wish to claim that Government (note the big G), will use information to target and track people.
I’m not ready to get the pitchfork yet but, they had darned well better be able to prove: they had a huge increase in 501c3 filings, there was a reason to scrutinize these filings, the scrutiny was extended to all organizations not just conservative groups in general and the tea party specifically, there was cause to look at the ones they selected.
If this was indeed “fruit from the low hanging tree” that the IRS workers plucked because it made their jobs easier that is not good even if it is understandable. But, if this was deliberate targeting of a group in an attempt to hinder or prevent freedom of political speech this has to be stopped. Period.
At best this was stupid at worst it is indefensible but the jury is still out and much as it pains me to say this, they (the do nothing, moronic Congress from Hades), probably needs to hold a hearing and they need to look into this and yes, people need to be held accountable.
27The best discussion of this I have encountered was Monday night on PBS News Hour where a tax law professor from Duke and a former IRS attorney (now representing some of the aggrieved 501(c)4 applicants) got down into the fine points. My summary:
1)The IRS had a reason to give extra scrutiny to the applications for 501(c)4 (a.k.a. “Social Welfare Group”) status to be sure that their primary purpose was not political — and their names implied political objectives.
2)The IRS asked questions that could be considered out-of-bounds for a Social Welfare Group (such as the ACLU or the NRA) but would not be out of bounds if the group was a PAC.
3)The law passed by Congress requires that all materials from the application be made public if the 501(c)4 status is granted. This would put the questions that 501(c)4 groups don’t have to answer in the public record — Catch 22!
My personal opinion is that the extra scrutiny was warranted because the terms “Tea Party” and “Patriot” are suggestive of political actions. I’m also a bit shocked to learn that the NRA spends more than half of its money on things that are not lobbying but since they are not allowed to do that, they must be spending it on Wayne’s salary.
28I’m not going to talk you down. I wrote on it this morning. It’s a very serious thing and they need to get to the bottom of it.
29Harold, well put!
By the way, here is a link to his comments:
30http://www.lettersfromtexas.com/2013/05/whos-driving-this-clown-car.html
Just because an organization doesn’t pay taxes does not mean they don’t have to file a return. I’d be interested to know what the track record is for these groups filing their 990 returns – bet it’s not great. Small special interest groups (of all kinds) run by volunteers are notorious for being pretty lax about {ahem} little technicalities like that.
The 990 has grown enormously more complex over the years, that being yet another way, along with the pain in the patoot process of requesting the exempt status to begin with, to discourage non-legitimate groups from pursuing 501’s altogether. Used to be they’d hand those statuses out like Halloween candy and any reasonably bright person could easily keep up with the minor filing requirements. Now? Oh, honey. Do yourself a favor, give up *now* and hire the CPA and pay ’em what they ask! It’s worth it. 🙂
31We used to refer to the last major ‘Tax Reform Act of 1986’ as the ‘Tax Accountant and Attorney Full Employment Act of 1986’… or TA&AFEA of ’86. I’m sure they welcome the ‘Citizens United’ generated business, too.
32Was it realy targeting or just so many applications for nut cases that it looks like targeting?
33As I read it, the targeting wasn’t of conservative groups but whoever got a “hit” on their system of profiling non-profit applications. For example, one of their profiles was having the name “patriot” in the name of the applicant. Didn’t matter what the politics were; just having the name got you tossed on what they call the BOLO (Be On the LookOut) list.
https://www.propublica.org/documents/item/700658-201310053fr-revised-redacted-12
34Teehee,
35As this has played out, with the President’s Outrage, Eric Holder Starting an investigation… you’d think the Administration was caught by surprise….But let’s take a step back…. Now that Justice Dept is involved, all those “Victims” better be squeaky clean, cause all their records are part of a federal Investigation, and let me tell you, that can be a hellalot more thorough than a couple of IRS Yahoo’s in Cinn.
The onion peels, and more will be revealed…..