"It is absolutely not illegal" says former IRS head

2seaoat wrote: told Congress he did not believe it was illegal for the agency to create targeted lists of individual citizens and groups who would be singled out for special scrutiny, during a Friday hearing.

Complete agreement with that statement. However, the question is was the criteria to give special scrutiny to a political group using political criteria a violation of the 5th and 14th amendment? If a political connection was used, it would fail the rational basis test of the due process clause and it would be a violation of the law. Now if you are arguing the evidence, that is another matter from the standard of proof. The evidence in the hearing which I watched all morning was totally inadequate to show a political connection by the low level people. Zero evidence of an improper violation of the law under the equal protection clause. Now in regard to a criminal investigation, it was my understanding that the auditor general's office did not see political involvement, but that the final decision if a crime has happened is up to the Attorney General's office to complete their investigation.

So to answer your question.......the civil lawsuits by those organizations which were singled out will determine if the law was broken and they were subject to a violation of the due process clause. The IRS acting commissioner does not make that conclusion of law.......a judge will make that determination. So the acting commissioner of the IRS may in fact be a lawyer, but your total lack of knowledge as to how illegality will be determined is as always amusing. My personal belief after listening to the testimony is that they have zero evidence of an improper political input into the selection criteria for auditing, and unless some other evidence is presented this entire hearing has been more about the failure of the House Ways and means committee not dealing with the Citizens United case and creating clear guidelines for the IRS lower staff members to follow. The hearing members need a mirror to find the culprit.

Dreamsglore wrote:No,Seaoat.You're not twisting it around w/ your bullshit. I said it was not illegal.Chrissy said it was. You came on w/ your long tirade of insults of "legally blonde" and lack of understanding crap and said she was "dead cinch correct" and I should apologize to her. Oh ,let's not forget your borderline accusations. Now you're still trying to circumvent the issue by throwing in red herrings w/ your equal protections clause crap. You were wrong and if you had any integrity you would apologize to me. My bet is you really don't have any.

Chrissy wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:No,Seaoat.You're not twisting it around w/ your bullshit. I said it was not illegal.Chrissy said it was. You came on w/ your long tirade of insults of "legally blonde" and lack of understanding crap and said she was "dead cinch correct" and I should apologize to her. Oh ,let's not forget your borderline accusations. Now you're still trying to circumvent the issue by throwing in red herrings w/ your equal protections clause crap. You were wrong and if you had any integrity you would apologize to me. My bet is you really don't have any.

discrimination in this instance is illegal. it ill be determined. however im sure it will be passed over by this admin. now had this happened to liberal groups you would be agreeing.

the IRS is supposed to be a non bias organization.

were targeted, and now heads the IRS’s Obamacare office which oversees implementation.

The letter, sent by Webster, Chamberlain & Bean, LLP, is available here: www.teapartypatriots.org/irs-letter/

“It is clear the IRS discriminated against citizens of this country and violated their basic Constitutional rights as corroborated by the Inspector General Report. Sarah Hall Ingram allowed and possibly encouraged the outrageous and discriminatory tactics toward Tea Party Patriots based on political ideology, clearly violating her supposedly unbiased office,” said Jenny Beth Martin, Co-Founder and National Coordinator of Tea Party Patriots. “We do not trust the IRS to implement the Affordable Care Act in a fair and equal manner and further do not trust anyone who was involved in targeting tea party groups to administer the Affordable Health Care Act in a fair and equal manner. Discrimination while making those decisions would not only impact Constitutional rights but could very well impact life and death decisions for all Americans

Im not sure how you can defend this action but im not surprised. your integrity is that of a maggot on a jackasses ass. because you really don't think, you just base every answer on the simple mentality of "protect the (D)'s at any cost.http://www.teapartypatriots.org/2013/05/tpp-demands-tax-exempt-official-be-terminated-all-documents-emails-be-preserved/

I think we will find out.

2seaoat wrote: told Congress he did not believe it was illegal for the agency to create targeted lists of individual citizens and groups who would be singled out for special scrutiny, during a Friday hearing.

Complete agreement with that statement. However, the question is was the criteria to give special scrutiny to a political group using political criteria a violation of the 5th and 14th amendment? If a political connection was used, it would fail the rational basis test of the due process clause and it would be a violation of the law. Now if you are arguing the evidence, that is another matter from the standard of proof. The evidence in the hearing which I watched all morning was totally inadequate to show a political connection by the low level people. Zero evidence of an improper violation of the law under the equal protection clause. Now in regard to a criminal investigation, it was my understanding that the auditor general's office did not see political involvement, but that the final decision if a crime has happened is up to the Attorney General's office to complete their investigation.

So to answer your question.......the civil lawsuits by those organizations which were singled out will determine if the law was broken and they were subject to a violation of the due process clause. The IRS acting commissioner does not make that conclusion of law.......a judge will make that determination. So the acting commissioner of the IRS may in fact be a lawyer, but your total lack of knowledge as to how illegality will be determined is as always amusing. My personal belief after listening to the testimony is that they have zero evidence of an improper political input into the selection criteria for auditing, and unless some other evidence is presented this entire hearing has been more about the failure of the House Ways and means committee not dealing with the Citizens United case and creating clear guidelines for the IRS lower staff members to follow. The hearing members need a mirror to find the culprit.

Floridatexan wrote:

Complete and TOTAL BS...there was no partisanship. There was a concerted effort to gain tax-exempt status and nondisclosure by these entities, of which a large number were associated with the Tea Party and the GOP...this was a method...nothing more...to weed out the non-profits from the political tax dodgers...the IRS doing its job.

Audit them all.

othershoe1030 wrote:Mitch McConnell et al are grasping for straws AGAIN so intent are they to come up with distracting "news" items, preferably of a scandalous nature...anything to slow down or completely stifle any accomplishments of this administration. So now comes the horrible IRS "scandal".

BTW on a side note I saw poll results today that the president's approval rating has not been negatively effected by this avalanche of negative "news" stories, guess that crying wolf has lost its appeal. Meaning, the GOP has gone ballistic over every breathe Obama has taken and it is getting to be a bit old to say the least, lost its luster as it were. At any rate, I thought this information from the IRS site would be interesting. Note that no one has to ask permission to become a 501 c 4. Approval seems to be optional. Maybe these groups were just trying to gum up the works by creating more for the bureaucracy to process?



Questions and Answers on 501(c) Organizations
May 15, 2013
The IRS has received a variety of questions related to the exempt organization issues recently raised. Here are some basics on the issue.
1. What are the issues raised in the recent Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (“TIGTA”) report?
The issues relate to the application process for organizations seeking tax-exempt status. Part of the IRS’s responsibility is to review applications of organizations seeking tax-exempt status. Section 501(c)(3) organizations are required to get IRS approval. Others, including section 501(c)(4) organizations, are not required to get IRS approval, but often seek it.
2. Do the issues raised in the recent report relate to audits/ examinations?
No, the issues relate to the approval process of organizations that applied to the IRS for recognition of tax-exempt status.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Questions-and-Answers-on-501(c)-Organizations

Dreamsglore wrote:http://freebeacon.com/making-a-list-checking-it-twice/


And he's a lawyer. Seaoat is not. LOL!

nochain wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:http://freebeacon.com/making-a-list-checking-it-twice/


And he's a lawyer. Seaoat is not. LOL!

What a farce. To claim these actions were not "partisan" is simply ignorant. What about this:

"Once an organization applies to the IRS for non-profit status, they are allowed to list themselves as a non-profit and act accordingly for up to 27 months. After that time, they can no longer claim to be a non-profit until the IRS has approved their application.
So what about an organization that started in December 2008 that claimed to be a non-profit, but never filed an application for tax exempt status with the IRS until May 2011. That means the organization operated as a non-profit for 28 months prior to even submitting an application with the IRS. They said the process was too complicated and that they did not have the expertise to apply for the tax-exempt status.

This organization submitted their 990 filings for 2008 and 2009 on May 30, 2011. They submitted their 990 filings for 2010 and on May 23, 2011. Their application for non-profit status was signed by Lois Lerner, the senior IRS agent who seems to be the target of the scandal, on June 26, 2011, only 34 days after submitting the first part of their paperwork. Not only was the application approved in record time, but Lerner post-dated it back to Dec. 2008.
The referenced organization is the Barack H. Obama Foundation established and run by the president’s half-brother Abon’go ‘Roy’ Malik Obama. For 28 months, Obama’s brother operated an illegal non-profit because he had never applied for the status with the IRS until the end of May 2011. But nothing is being done concerning his illegal operation or the expedited time for his approval."

BIAS ALERT......

nochain wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:http://freebeacon.com/making-a-list-checking-it-twice/


And he's a lawyer. Seaoat is not. LOL!

What a farce. To claim these actions were not "partisan" is simply ignorant. What about this:

"[color=red]Once an organization applies to the IRS for non-profit status, they are allowed to list themselves as a non-profit and act accordingly for up to 27 months. After that time, they can no longer claim to be a non-profit until the IRS has approved their application.[/color]
So what about an organization that started in December 2008 that claimed to be a non-profit, but never filed an application for tax exempt status with the IRS until May 2011. That means the organization operated as a non-profit for 28 months prior to even submitting an application with the IRS. They said the process was too complicated and that they did not have the expertise to apply for the tax-exempt status.

This organization submitted their 990 filings for 2008 and 2009 on May 30, 2011. They submitted their 990 filings for 2010 and on May 23, 2011. Their application for non-profit status was signed by Lois Lerner, the senior IRS agent who seems to be the target of the scandal, on June 26, 2011, only 34 days after submitting the first part of their paperwork. Not only was the application approved in record time, but Lerner post-dated it back to Dec. 2008.
The referenced organization is the Barack H. Obama Foundation established and run by the president’s half-brother Abon’go ‘Roy’ Malik Obama. For 28 months, Obama’s brother operated an illegal non-profit because he had never applied for the status with the IRS until the end of May 2011. But nothing is being done concerning his illegal operation or the expedited time for his approval."

BIAS ALERT......

othershoe1030 wrote:

nochain wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:http://freebeacon.com/making-a-list-checking-it-twice/


And he's a lawyer. Seaoat is not. LOL!

What a farce. To claim these actions were not "partisan" is simply ignorant. What about this:

"[color=red]Once an organization applies to the IRS for non-profit status, they are allowed to list themselves as a non-profit and act accordingly for up to 27 months. After that time, they can no longer claim to be a non-profit until the IRS has approved their application.[/color]
So what about an organization that started in December 2008 that claimed to be a non-profit, but never filed an application for tax exempt status with the IRS until May 2011. That means the organization operated as a non-profit for 28 months prior to even submitting an application with the IRS. They said the process was too complicated and that they did not have the expertise to apply for the tax-exempt status.

This organization submitted their 990 filings for 2008 and 2009 on May 30, 2011. They submitted their 990 filings for 2010 and on May 23, 2011. Their application for non-profit status was signed by Lois Lerner, the senior IRS agent who seems to be the target of the scandal, on June 26, 2011, only 34 days after submitting the first part of their paperwork. Not only was the application approved in record time, but Lerner post-dated it back to Dec. 2008.
The referenced organization is the Barack H. Obama Foundation established and run by the president’s half-brother Abon’go ‘Roy’ Malik Obama. For 28 months, Obama’s brother operated an illegal non-profit because he had never applied for the status with the IRS until the end of May 2011. But nothing is being done concerning his illegal operation or the expedited time for his approval."

BIAS ALERT......

Where did this information come from? Curious because I see no mention of a time limit or requirement to ask permission from the IRS to be classified as a 501 C 4. (http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Questions-and-Answers-on-501(c)-Organizations)

Chrissy wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Mitch McConnell et al are grasping for straws AGAIN so intent are they to come up with distracting "news" items, preferably of a scandalous nature...anything to slow down or completely stifle any accomplishments of this administration. So now comes the horrible IRS "scandal".

BTW on a side note I saw poll results today that the president's approval rating has not been negatively effected by this avalanche of negative "news" stories, guess that crying wolf has lost its appeal. Meaning, the GOP has gone ballistic over every breathe Obama has taken and it is getting to be a bit old to say the least, lost its luster as it were. At any rate, I thought this information from the IRS site would be interesting. Note that no one has to ask permission to become a 501 c 4. Approval seems to be optional. Maybe these groups were just trying to gum up the works by creating more for the bureaucracy to process?



Questions and Answers on 501(c) Organizations
May 15, 2013
The IRS has received a variety of questions related to the exempt organization issues recently raised. Here are some basics on the issue.
1. What are the issues raised in the recent Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (“TIGTA”) report?
The issues relate to the application process for organizations seeking tax-exempt status. Part of the IRS’s responsibility is to review applications of organizations seeking tax-exempt status. Section 501(c)(3) organizations are required to get IRS approval. Others, including section 501(c)(4) organizations, are not required to get IRS approval, but often seek it.
2. Do the issues raised in the recent report relate to audits/ examinations?
No, the issues relate to the approval process of organizations that applied to the IRS for recognition of tax-exempt status.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Questions-and-Answers-on-501(c)-Organizations

To things about your post OS. 1. who gives a shit about poll ratings right now? I think they are and have been manipulated anyway, there is no more democracy. 2. I could care less if no body got the tax exemption. im more apt to say none of them should.

BUT NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS MATTER> WHAT MATTERS IS THE IRS IS SUPPOSED TO BE UNBIASED. THE IRS IS THE LONG ARM OF THE GOV THAT REACHES INTO YOUR POCKET. THE IRS IS NOW IN CHARGE OF ENFORCING OBAMACARE. matter of a fact the person who is a obama donor got promoted to over see Obama care after this.

These people or more aptly the office of the tax exempt division, lead by sarah hall ingrim who should be fired, discriminated against a group of individuals. .This simply can not be allowed. This is the IRS, why don't you people get that?

newswatcher wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

nochain wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:http://freebeacon.com/making-a-list-checking-it-twice/


And he's a lawyer. Seaoat is not. LOL!

What a farce. To claim these actions were not "partisan" is simply ignorant. What about this:

"[color=red]Once an organization applies to the IRS for non-profit status, they are allowed to list themselves as a non-profit and act accordingly for up to 27 months. After that time, they can no longer claim to be a non-profit until the IRS has approved their application.[/color]
So what about an organization that started in December 2008 that claimed to be a non-profit, but never filed an application for tax exempt status with the IRS until May 2011. That means the organization operated as a non-profit for 28 months prior to even submitting an application with the IRS. They said the process was too complicated and that they did not have the expertise to apply for the tax-exempt status.

This organization submitted their 990 filings for 2008 and 2009 on May 30, 2011. They submitted their 990 filings for 2010 and on May 23, 2011. Their application for non-profit status was signed by Lois Lerner, the senior IRS agent who seems to be the target of the scandal, on June 26, 2011, only 34 days after submitting the first part of their paperwork. Not only was the application approved in record time, but Lerner post-dated it back to Dec. 2008.
The referenced organization is the Barack H. Obama Foundation established and run by the president’s half-brother Abon’go ‘Roy’ Malik Obama. For 28 months, Obama’s brother operated an illegal non-profit because he had never applied for the status with the IRS until the end of May 2011. But nothing is being done concerning his illegal operation or the expedited time for his approval."

BIAS ALERT......

Where did this information come from? Curious because I see no mention of a time limit or requirement to ask permission from the IRS to be classified as a 501 C 4. (http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Questions-and-Answers-on-501(c)-Organizations)

IF all was on the up and up from the actions of the IRS.....then why the apology?...

othershoe1030 wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Mitch McConnell et al are grasping for straws AGAIN so intent are they to come up with distracting "news" items, preferably of a scandalous nature...anything to slow down or completely stifle any accomplishments of this administration. So now comes the horrible IRS "scandal".

BTW on a side note I saw poll results today that the president's approval rating has not been negatively effected by this avalanche of negative "news" stories, guess that crying wolf has lost its appeal. Meaning, the GOP has gone ballistic over every breathe Obama has taken and it is getting to be a bit old to say the least, lost its luster as it were. At any rate, I thought this information from the IRS site would be interesting. Note that no one has to ask permission to become a 501 c 4. Approval seems to be optional. Maybe these groups were just trying to gum up the works by creating more for the bureaucracy to process?



Questions and Answers on 501(c) Organizations
May 15, 2013
The IRS has received a variety of questions related to the exempt organization issues recently raised. Here are some basics on the issue.
1. What are the issues raised in the recent Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (“TIGTA”) report?
The issues relate to the application process for organizations seeking tax-exempt status. Part of the IRS’s responsibility is to review applications of organizations seeking tax-exempt status. Section 501(c)(3) organizations are required to get IRS approval. Others, including section 501(c)(4) organizations, are not required to get IRS approval, but often seek it.
2. Do the issues raised in the recent report relate to audits/ examinations?
No, the issues relate to the approval process of organizations that applied to the IRS for recognition of tax-exempt status.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Questions-and-Answers-on-501(c)-Organizations

To things about your post OS. 1. who gives a shit about poll ratings right now? I think they are and have been manipulated anyway, there is no more democracy. 2. I could care less if no body got the tax exemption. im more apt to say none of them should.

BUT NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS MATTER> WHAT MATTERS IS THE IRS IS SUPPOSED TO BE UNBIASED. THE IRS IS THE LONG ARM OF THE GOV THAT REACHES INTO YOUR POCKET. THE IRS IS NOW IN CHARGE OF ENFORCING OBAMACARE. matter of a fact the person who is a obama donor got promoted to over see Obama care after this.

These people or more aptly the office of the tax exempt division, lead by sarah hall ingrim who should be fired, discriminated against a group of individuals. .This simply can not be allowed. This is the IRS, why don't you people get that?

Is it a tax exemption these groups [501 C 4] get that is the real prize or is it the fact that they don't have to disclose their donors? You are right about there being no more democracy. After the Supremes decision about Citizens United the flood gates of money were thrown open. That's what created the attractiveness of this sort of tax status...tons of secret money, possibly from foreign corporations effecting our political system. What could possibly go wrong? The puppeteers are pulling the strings and even they are wearing masks. What a set up!

Chrissy wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Mitch McConnell et al are grasping for straws AGAIN so intent are they to come up with distracting "news" items, preferably of a scandalous nature...anything to slow down or completely stifle any accomplishments of this administration. So now comes the horrible IRS "scandal".

BTW on a side note I saw poll results today that the president's approval rating has not been negatively effected by this avalanche of negative "news" stories, guess that crying wolf has lost its appeal. Meaning, the GOP has gone ballistic over every breathe Obama has taken and it is getting to be a bit old to say the least, lost its luster as it were. At any rate, I thought this information from the IRS site would be interesting. Note that no one has to ask permission to become a 501 c 4. Approval seems to be optional. Maybe these groups were just trying to gum up the works by creating more for the bureaucracy to process?



Questions and Answers on 501(c) Organizations
May 15, 2013
The IRS has received a variety of questions related to the exempt organization issues recently raised. Here are some basics on the issue.
1. What are the issues raised in the recent Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (“TIGTA”) report?
The issues relate to the application process for organizations seeking tax-exempt status. Part of the IRS’s responsibility is to review applications of organizations seeking tax-exempt status. Section 501(c)(3) organizations are required to get IRS approval. Others, including section 501(c)(4) organizations, are not required to get IRS approval, but often seek it.
2. Do the issues raised in the recent report relate to audits/ examinations?
No, the issues relate to the approval process of organizations that applied to the IRS for recognition of tax-exempt status.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Questions-and-Answers-on-501(c)-Organizations

To things about your post OS. 1. who gives a shit about poll ratings right now? I think they are and have been manipulated anyway, there is no more democracy. 2. I could care less if no body got the tax exemption. im more apt to say none of them should.

BUT NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS MATTER> WHAT MATTERS IS THE IRS IS SUPPOSED TO BE UNBIASED. THE IRS IS THE LONG ARM OF THE GOV THAT REACHES INTO YOUR POCKET. THE IRS IS NOW IN CHARGE OF ENFORCING OBAMACARE. matter of a fact the person who is a obama donor got promoted to over see Obama care after this.

These people or more aptly the office of the tax exempt division, lead by sarah hall ingrim who should be fired, discriminated against a group of individuals. .This simply can not be allowed. This is the IRS, why don't you people get that?

Is it a tax exemption these groups [501 C 4] get that is the real prize or is it the fact that they don't have to disclose their donors? You are right about there being no more democracy. After the Supremes decision about Citizens United the flood gates of money were thrown open. That's what created the attractiveness of this sort of tax status...tons of secret money, possibly from foreign corporations effecting our political system. What could possibly go wrong? The puppeteers are pulling the strings and even they are wearing masks. What a set up!

stop trying to storm front with the citizens united shit. im not buying and you know its weak.

this was a out to get targeted plan, and it was occurring during a election year btw. before actually, leading up to it. hateful little spiteful people willing to break laws, discriminate and use the most powerful feared agency in the country to help achieve its goal and agenda.

The country has become so divided it is ridiculous. The IRS is supposed to be non partisan. The IRS is not politics or it shouldn't be. this is dangerous territory.

me now, you next alligator.

btw

im eating a Klondike bar

2seaoat wrote:You're a dumbass. It's not a protected class so therefore not illegal.

No actually folks can violate the equal protection clause, and the victims can in fact not be in a protected class. However, conceptually it would require a great deal more reading and understanding for me even to try to correct you again. So calling Chrissy a dumbasz may make you feel good, but you are simply without the educational background to understand how wrong your post is...........now five minutes of how Seaoat is full of BS.....hell any sophomore in a college government class understands how the equal protection clause is applied, and it does not only apply to protected classes.

Here is a simple primer which might allow you to learn how it works. It is plain written and without a great deal of legalese. You will see after reading this and comprehending how equality of law is achieved, that it is not limited to protected groups.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection

2seaoat wrote:I hope that was helpful and you are willing to learn. It is often confusing for people to understand the complexities of concepts which take generations of court decisions to define and quantify. When I correct you, I am simply seeking the truth, yet you take each correction as a personal attack, and you fail to learn.