Turns out IRS did not single out Tea Party types

Since our self professed "high information" value poster failed to bring forth the relevant recent facts, it turns out that the IRS did not single out "tea party" groups for review to determine if they qualified as non partisan social welfare groups for tax exempt status, but also used such terms as "progressive", "occupy" and "medical marijuana" for similar scrutiny. Funny how Issa and the rest of his Republican cronies failed to raise this information during their kabuki theater hearings. Interesting that our local "high value" information posters here do not find this as outrageous as targeting of tea party groups.


"The Inspector General seriously erred in not making clear in both the audit report and his testimony on this matter that 'Tea Party' and 'Progressives' were included" in the lists IRS workers used to screen applications, Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., wrote Monday in a memo his aides distributed. Levin is the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.

That Treasury investigator, J. Russell George, released a report in May detailing "inappropriate criteria" the IRS used to single out conservative groups for intensified treatment, and has testified to congressional committees several times. He never affirmed that progressive groups were sought out as well, although he cautioned lawmakers that he recently had found lists that raised concerns about other "political factors" he did not specify.Werfel did not specify what terms were on the lists. But later Monday, Levin's Democratic staff released 15 lists that IRS screeners used to find groups that merited close attention, and lists from April 2013 included the terms "Paying National Debt" and "Green Energy Organizations."

Those lists, which changed over time and were dated between August 2010 and April 2013, also included the terms "Progressive" and "Tea Party" as well as "Medical Marijuana," "Occupied Territory Advocacy," "Healthcare legislation," "Newspaper Entities" and "Paying National Debt." The lists ranged from 11 pages to 17 pages and were heavily blacked out to protect sensitive taxpayer information.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =195423059

The November 2010 IRS document, released by Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, shows an entry titled "progressive" and advises agents that such groups' activities "appear to lean toward a new political party" and may not be eligible for tax-exempt status.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... l/2452935/

And the details that USAtoday left out...

A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were in fact instructed to treat “progressive” groups differently from “tea party” groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for applications containing the word ”progressive” – 501(c)(3) groups are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off ”to Group 7822″ for further scrutiny.

That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT,” which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not. [/b][/i]

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/20 ... y-thought/
http://nationalreview.com/corner/351930 ... na-johnson

Don't thank me.

True, progressive groups were also investigated, but not as many or not as deeply.
Even NPR was admitting this last night.

FredHayek wrote: True, progressive groups were also investigated, but not as many or not as deeply.
Even NPR was admitting this last night.

No NPR did not admit that. But what do you expect from Fred?

Walter L Newton wrote: And the details that USAtoday left out...

A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were in fact instructed to treat “progressive” groups differently from “tea party” groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for applications containing the word ”progressive” – 501(c)(3) groups are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off ”to Group 7822″ for further scrutiny.

That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT,” which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not. [/b][/i]

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/20 ... y-thought/
http://nationalreview.com/corner/351930 ... na-johnson

Don't thank me.

No one will since you have shown that you are only bringing out partisan info on one side while refusing to provide highly relevant information that disputes your allegations. So you found a right wing blog that claims that a minor technical difference in the way the progessives vs. tea partiers groups may have approved, with no evidence that any such minor technical differences were applied disparately is significant. Really, the "hotair" as a credible news source?

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Walter L Newton wrote: And the details that USAtoday left out...

A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were in fact instructed to treat “progressive” groups differently from “tea party” groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for applications containing the word ”progressive” – 501(c)(3) groups are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off ”to Group 7822″ for further scrutiny.

That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT,” which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not. [/b][/i]

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/20 ... y-thought/
http://nationalreview.com/corner/351930 ... na-johnson

Don't thank me.

No one will since you have shown that you are only bringing out partisan info on one side while refusing to provide highly relevant information that disputes your allegations. So you found a right wing blog that claims that a minor technical difference in the way the progessives vs. tea partiers groups may have approved, with no evidence that any such minor technical differences were applied disparately is significant. Really, the "hotair" as a credible news source?

Sorry... it's the truth... and why wasn't this ever mentioned in the TIGTA report? And I don't think you even read the articles.

Walter L Newton wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Walter L Newton wrote: And the details that USAtoday left out...

A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were in fact instructed to treat “progressive” groups differently from “tea party” groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for applications containing the word ”progressive” – 501(c)(3) groups are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off ”to Group 7822″ for further scrutiny.

That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT,” which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not. [/b][/i]

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/20 ... y-thought/
http://nationalreview.com/corner/351930 ... na-johnson

Don't thank me.

No one will since you have shown that you are only bringing out partisan info on one side while refusing to provide highly relevant information that disputes your allegations. So you found a right wing blog that claims that a minor technical difference in the way the progessives vs. tea partiers groups may have approved, with no evidence that any such minor technical differences were applied disparately is significant. Really, the "hotair" as a credible news source?

Sorry... it's the truth... and why wasn't this ever mentioned in the TIGTA report? And I don't think you even read the articles.

I don't read hyperpartisan right wing blogs as informational sources. And of course you have no answer for the failure of your "high information" value politicians from bringing this information forth during your favorite kabuki theater. Have you any evidence that the 200 or so other groups were in actuality treated preferentially over your poor victimized tea party groups? Did not think so. So much for your "high information" posts.

So the Dog doesn't trust partisan right wing sources but expects us to trust lefty media like NPR? tongue:

FredHayek wrote: So the Dog doesn't trust partisan right wing sources but expects us to trust lefty media like NPR? tongue:

So since you claim to use NPR as a source for your "facts", tell us, who would you seek information from, hotair.com or NPR?

Personally, I use at least three sources before I post. Three independent sources, not three blogs who repeat the same "facts" verbatim from one another.

I read a lot of different sources and sift through the bias on both sides.

It seems too often certain facts don't make it into news stories, one reason I still listen to NPR. They will feed the lefty line 90% of the piece and then give 10% airtime to right wing concerns.