Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

CORE IRS Issue Distilled in Black and White


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> CORE IRS Issue Distilled in Black and White Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
CORE IRS Issue Distilled in Black and White - 5/17/2013 7:54:17 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline 		One of the bigger ironies about the I.R.S. imbroglio is that it had nothing to do with taxes. These newly formed entities didn’t seek 501(c)(4) status to avoid taxes — these groups don’t earn profits and therefore don’t pay any taxes, regardless of their status. The important benefit that came from achieving 501(c)(4) status was freedom from having to disclose the names of any of their donors.

That’s right, what the I.R.S. was really deciding in these cases is which organizations have to disclose their funders and which don’t. And what it was trying to do — however dumbly it went about it — was to reduce the abuse of the campaign-finance rules, not the tax laws.

---------

Is the average American really for secret donations to fund political campaigns? Is Joe Iowa or Ned Nebraska really uninterested that some candidate in their district is being funded by New York Hedge Fund Managers or Islamic Extremists, or do those salt-of-the-earth Americans want to know these facts?

Part of me wonders if the Tea Party faithful even understand what's going on. Have they any inkling that they are simply providing a secret front to outside money interests?



< Message edited by cloudboy -- 5/17/2013 7:57:22 PM >
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: CORE IRS Issue Distilled in Black and White - 5/17/2013 10:18:23 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
One of the bigger ironies about the I.R.S. imbroglio is that it had nothing to do with taxes. These newly formed entities didn’t seek 501(c)(4) status to avoid taxes — these groups don’t earn profits and therefore don’t pay any taxes, regardless of their status. The important benefit that came from achieving 501(c)(4) status was freedom from having to disclose the names of any of their donors.
That’s right, what the I.R.S. was really deciding in these cases is which organizations have to disclose their funders and which don’t. And what it was trying to do — however dumbly it went about it — was to reduce the abuse of the campaign-finance rules, not the tax laws.
---------
Is the average American really for secret donations to fund political campaigns? Is Joe Iowa or Ned Nebraska really uninterested that some candidate in their district is being funded by New York Hedge Fund Managers or Islamic Extremists, or do those salt-of-the-earth Americans want to know these facts?
Part of me wonders if the Tea Party faithful even understand what's going on. Have they any inkling that they are simply providing a secret front to outside money interests?


You would be amazed at how many of the Tea Party faithful understand exactly what is going on. You most likely wouldn't accept that, either.

Regardless of why the 501(c)# status was being pursued, they were singled out. Why? Blah blah this, or blah blah that. They admit they were wrong. Find out how high it went and start excising. Just so I'm not accused of more bullshit, I don't know if it even left the IRS. I don't believe the President is at any risk of personal shame for wrongdoing. A member, or some members of his administration might, but I'm going to guess that this is more an IRS issue.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: CORE IRS Issue Distilled in Black and White - 5/17/2013 10:33:38 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline 		If an organization has been singled out, then go meet your burden of proof. Why would all these organizations rush to register as social welfare organizations in an election year? If they are truly social welfare organizations, then all they need to do is conduct their business while the applications are pending.

Am I missing something here? If my clients get singled out by the USCIS, then I go ahead and meet my burden of proof. I just did this for a small business that the immigration regulators suspected of fraud. I didn't like the proctology exam, but we passed it because the facts were on our side. It added 90 days to the processing time of our case. Now, its water under the bridge.

I don't really understand why political organizations would even try to be registering as 501(c)(4) non profit corporations. Such organizations are not social welfare organizations, and it it patently looks like such groups are trying to subvert campaign finance laws.

< Message edited by cloudboy -- 5/17/2013 10:38:12 PM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: CORE IRS Issue Distilled in Black and White - 5/18/2013 4:24:32 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
If an organization has been singled out, then go meet your burden of proof. Why would all these organizations rush to register as social welfare organizations in an election year? If they are truly social welfare organizations, then all they need to do is conduct their business while the applications are pending.
Am I missing something here? If my clients get singled out by the USCIS, then I go ahead and meet my burden of proof. I just did this for a small business that the immigration regulators suspected of fraud. I didn't like the proctology exam, but we passed it because the facts were on our side. It added 90 days to the processing time of our case. Now, its water under the bridge.
I don't really understand why political organizations would even try to be registering as 501(c)(4) non profit corporations. Such organizations are not social welfare organizations, and it it patently looks like such groups are trying to subvert campaign finance laws.


Yes, you are missing something here. It wasn't a normal "burden of proof" that was being demanded. Not only were extra burdens placed on certain groups, but there were also delays in processing those applications.

TITGA report

The big flags of misconduct findings:
    quote:

    • The Determinations Unit Used Inappropriate Criteria to Identify Potential Political Cases
    • Potential Political Cases Experienced Significant Processing Delays
    • The Determinations Unit Requested Unnecessary Information for Many Potential Political Cases


Additionally, the TITGA report timeline shows that this all started in early 2010, so it's not like it hadn't been ongoing.

501(c)(4)
    quote:

    IRC 501(c)(4) provides for exemption of:
    • Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.
    • Local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.


    The statutory terms disclose that IRC 501(c)(4) embraces two general classifications:

      a. Social welfare organizations, and
      b. Local associations of employees.


I'm not surprised at all. 501(c)(4)'s also do not have tax exempt donations like 501(c)(3)'s.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: CORE IRS Issue Distilled in Black and White - 5/18/2013 8:23:55 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

IRC 501(c)(4) provides for exemption of:
Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.

NONE of these political organizations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare. The IRS opened the door to this with a 1995 Reg that defined exclusively as 'primarily' and so the IRS inspectors were required to examine each application, when in fact the Reg contradicted the Law.

"Reg.  1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(i) provides that an organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the people of the community, i.e., primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterment and social improvements. Whether an organization is "primarily" engaged in promoting social welfare is a "facts and circumstances" test." Reg. 1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(i)

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: CORE IRS Issue Distilled in Black and White - 5/18/2013 10:28:09 AM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
Funny how when you analyze the issue, no one's interested. People only get excited about political red meat. Conservatives are uncomfortable looking at the issue b/c they don't want to admit that their goal behind the 501(c)(4) is to circumvent it. They also don't want to admit that they're the drivers of secret campaign finance donations. Heaven forbid the voters realize that Joe the Plummer is a front for the Koch Brothers or other such wealthy magnate.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: CORE IRS Issue Distilled in Black and White - 5/18/2013 12:13:21 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Funny how when you analyze the issue, no one's interested. People only get excited about political red meat. Conservatives are uncomfortable looking at the issue b/c they don't want to admit that their goal behind the 501(c)(4) is to circumvent it. They also don't want to admit that they're the drivers of secret campaign finance donations. Heaven forbid the voters realize that Joe the Plummer is a front for the Koch Brothers or other such wealthy magnate.


seems to me the irs is incorporated in puerto rico. maybe I am thinking of the federal reserve, then again maybe they both are, have not thought about it in a while.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: CORE IRS Issue Distilled in Black and White - 5/18/2013 8:00:49 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
Funny how when you analyze the issue, no one's interested. People only get excited about political red meat. Conservatives are uncomfortable looking at the issue b/c they don't want to admit that their goal behind the 501(c)(4) is to circumvent it. They also don't want to admit that they're the drivers of secret campaign finance donations. Heaven forbid the voters realize that Joe the Plummer is a front for the Koch Brothers or other such wealthy magnate.


I don't see you showing anything about how the report I linked was incorrect. Apparently, it's only something of interest to you when it supports your side.

What you and Vince may not define the way the IRS does, is social welfare. There may be the entire reasoning behind why you can't accept that Conservative groups have gained 501(c)(4) status. Your definition may be limited to provider of welfare benefits, charity, etc. That may not be the case with the IRS, though.

    quote:

    • The Determinations Unit Used Inappropriate Criteria to Identify Potential Political Cases
    • Potential Political Cases Experienced Significant Processing Delays
    • The Determinations Unit Requested Unnecessary Information for Many Potential Political Cases


Accept the IRS did wrong, and let's move on from there. I heard a Republican legislator today say that he hasn't seen anything that linked the President to the scandal. He also said that he hasn't seen indications that anyone outside the IRS was to blame. The IRS fucked up. Some heads should roll. Dust off your coat, and get back to stepping. Real simple, no?

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: CORE IRS Issue Distilled in Black and White - 5/19/2013 10:11:28 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline 		NYT had a good article about the CIN IRS office.

the Exempt Organizations Division — concentrated in Cincinnati with fewer than 200 workers, according to I.R.S. officials — is staffed mostly with accountants, clerks and civil servants. Working for one of only three I.R.S. divisions not charged with collecting tax revenue, specialists in the Determinations Unit in Cincinnati primarily review and process roughly 70,000 applications for exemptions each year, relatively few from groups engaged in election activity.

The most memorable quote from it was: "nobody wants to be a determination agent."

I can't wait to see how Fox News will try to gin this up into something sinister that threatens everyone's freedom.

< Message edited by cloudboy -- 5/19/2013 10:15:26 PM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: CORE IRS Issue Distilled in Black and White - 5/19/2013 10:13:38 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline 		Looking at this building in CIN, it's pretty clear that an IRS job here is not a glamorous position.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by cloudboy -- 5/19/2013 10:15:54 PM >

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: CORE IRS Issue Distilled in Black and White - 5/20/2013 12:49:01 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There may be the entire reasoning behind why you can't accept that Conservative groups have gained 501(c)(4) status.


It seems more likely to me that he's uncomfortable with a system set up to be so incredibly abusable that John Stewart and Stephen Colbert did so on national television with impunity.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: CORE IRS Issue Distilled in Black and White - 5/20/2013 7:29:46 AM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Accept the IRS did wrong, and let's move on from there.


I would like to know how the IRS with a staff of 200 can make reasonable exempt determinations over 70,000 applications a year. That's 350 rulings per worker, per year.

On the one hand this issue is about "flagging" suspicious applications and on the other it is about how do you do that fairly.

The Tea Party does not want to fund government, but then they get upset when it does not work efficiently. The organization has been running with an interim head for more than five years b/c he was appointed by the Bush Adm. Why can't the executive appoint agency heads?

< Message edited by cloudboy -- 5/20/2013 7:31:08 AM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: CORE IRS Issue Distilled in Black and White - 5/20/2013 7:38:05 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Because those self same howlers are holding up appointments.  Obama is working with temps cuz these guys got it planted in their mind that they are gonna be in there and administrating.  Which shows how far off from reality they toddle.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: CORE IRS Issue Distilled in Black and White - 5/20/2013 7:52:14 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
quote:

Accept the IRS did wrong, and let's move on from there.

I would like to know how the IRS with a staff of 200 can make reasonable exempt determinations over 70,000 applications a year. That's 350 rulings per worker, per year.
On the one hand this issue is about "flagging" suspicious applications and on the other it is about how do you do that fairly.
The Tea Party does not want to fund government, but then they get upset when it does not work efficiently. The organization has been running with an interim head for more than five years b/c he was appointed by the Bush Adm. Why can't the executive appoint agency heads?


Terms of service are 5 years. Who is the "executive" you are referring to? If you are referring to the President, well, the President does appoint the agency head.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: CORE IRS Issue Distilled in Black and White - 5/20/2013 10:26:35 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		well, the President does appoint the agency head.
 
This assumes facts not in evidence, appointment is not quite the thing.    It requires advise and consent of congress, and the constitution did not contemplate the obstructionism of today, where the president is sticking temp workers from temps R us in these positions cuz he cant get the obstructionists to do more than name post offices. (and nearly all of them after Reagan, I expect).  




_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: CORE IRS Issue Distilled in Black and White - 5/20/2013 1:45:37 PM   
Kana


Posts: 6676
Joined: 10/24/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

Accept the IRS did wrong, and let's move on from there.

I would like to know how the IRS with a staff of 200 can make reasonable exempt determinations over 70,000 applications a year. That's 350 rulings per worker, per year.

They can't.
You pull selective samples and extrapolate the results to the whole.
There's two ways auditors generally pick samples-judgmental or statistical.

Statistical is pretty straightforward-a computer random generates a certain amount of applications using a predetermined algorithm to select a number of applications to be audited. These algorithms tend to have sub-programs that ensure that a reasonable number are taken from each class to derive a good idea of how things are going with the entirety of the sampling universe.
This is what the IRS should have done. They have the computers. They have the programs. Hell, they've kicked out billions to develop these freaking things. It's the 2nd best way to cover your ass. The best way is simply to select 51% or more of the applications-then you can say you tested a majority of the universe and that the confidence ratio on the audit opinion is reduced to a minimal error rate on which the auditor can make a sound opinion backed with fact.

Judgmental is exactly what it sounds like. The auditor uses some sort of sorting technique to select samples. This is usually stratified-take X amount of applications from all stratas,(Think organization size, funding, location etc...), then audit them. Otherwise, the auditor uses some sort of sampling methodology to make their selections.

But, and this is the mammoth but here...

When an auditor does judgmental sampling, the auditor has to justify their sampling selection technique in the audit working papers. As in, has to. It's Generally Accepted Accounting Principles required, Generally Accepted Government Accounting Standards required, and thus, it's FREAKING FEDERAL LAW!
And they can't just throw out some wing nut justification-it's gotta be good. As in good enough to stand in a court of law.
These agencies know they get audited (Again, it's GAGAS-all audit agencies themselves have to be regularity audited or they aren't GAGAS compliant)by the IG, the supervisors know, the regional managers know-it goes all the way up the line. And when audits are written up, they are done with at least 1/2 an eye towards passing the future IG audit that's sure to come.In addition, IRS standards tend to be even more scrupulous than many other Fed agencies because they end up being litigated so frequently.
So, as common practice, these people should have been covering their ass ten ways to a hundred when they wrote up their sampling techniques. especially on a topic which was certain to be a political football.

Which is where we get to the critical point-no government audit is a one man show. They go throw multiple layers of review, starting with the working auditors on the audit team, then the team lead,a peer review, then the Supervisory Auditor, then the branch manager, a quality control person and most likely a Regional person is gonna look it over too.
So this wasn't a one man thing. It certainly wasn't a few out of control low level employees. It had supervision coming down from on high from the get go.
How can I be sure?
Because the first stage of an audit is where one decides how much needs to be sampled and the criteria for such. Nothing happens until that's done. no benchmarking, no timelines, and thus, no budget. And those things, they get supervisor approved.
As in always.
So let me repeat-an audit can't even begin until at least one layer of supervisors approved of the selection criteria.
Just saying.



< Message edited by Kana -- 5/20/2013 1:48:12 PM >

_____________________________

"One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die. "
HST

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: CORE IRS Issue Distilled in Black and White - 5/20/2013 7:14:01 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline 		That's quite a post. The thing here is no one was being audited. Applicants were being screened for tax exemption status.

Next, there was rightfully a suspicion of I-503(c)(4) fraud and so the net should have been broadly thrown over political organizations as a whole petitioning for the status. One thing I have gleamed is that you don't want to choose words that raise suspicion or trigger flags from the regulators.

If you read the NYT article, the CIN staffers asked WSH wigs for guidance, but they didn't get it. I can only imagine how that paperwork began to pile up. Applicants filed applications and heard nothing back for 20+ months at a time.

(in reply to Kana)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: CORE IRS Issue Distilled in Black and White - 5/21/2013 12:55:46 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline 		The problem is obvious and you all just dance around the issue.

Groups use para. 4 organizations to hide the identity of their donors, pure and simple. Why hide their identity ? Because the money is really meant for political activities instead of social welfare, thus...violating the tax exempt status it would otherwise enjoy as a social welfare org.

Typically, the right wants it both ways. It wants tax exempt political organizations to which they can contribute millions and explicitly for political purposes yet use the tax exempt status of supposedly being a social welfare designation while using para. 4...to remain anonymous.

I have a solution...do away with para. 4 tax exempt status.



< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 5/21/2013 12:56:25 AM >

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: CORE IRS Issue Distilled in Black and White - 5/21/2013 2:29:06 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

and let's move on from there.


Knowing what we know now would it be appropriate now for the irs to screen more closely those sorts of applications?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: CORE IRS Issue Distilled in Black and White - 5/21/2013 8:08:18 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
It would help to create some bright line legislation on this matter, but thankfully big money did not exactly control the outcome of the last election.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> CORE IRS Issue Distilled in Black and White Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109