Inappropriate screening was broader and lasted longer according to IRS

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by geauxgator1, Jun 24, 2013.

  1. DaveFla

    DaveFla Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    18,380
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The only "rant" being thrown here is yours, and it is no doubt your own "doh!" moment when realizing that this story really wasn't the smoking gun you hoped it would be.

    The link, if anything, proves that this targeting did, in fact, exist, contrary to Row's initial stance. Furthermore, it does absolutely nothing to dispel the claim that conservative groups' applications were handled differently than those submitted by liberal groups.

    So please... By ALL means, continue to wallow in your own ignorance. Don't let the truth stop you.
  2. JerseyGator01

    JerseyGator01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    15,119
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Just as I predicted. Game. Set. Match. Like I said, it's the oldest trick in the auditing book.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/351718/far-broader-bolo-list-eliana-johnson

    From the link:

    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 instructed to treat progressive groups differently from tea-party groups. Whereas they were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for progressive groups — 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from conducting any political activity — they were told to send applications from tea-party groups off to IRS higher-ups for further scrutiny.

    That means the applications of progressive organizations could be approved by line agents on the spot, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT” — Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive organizations were not.
  3. Row6

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Uh, I gave you the clue for free up thread and you still can't find it.
  4. Row6

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The article, like your national review link, can contain editorial comment and interpretation, but you now also have the actual lists linked above to go with the fact that conservative groups were approved proportionally to their applications. if you don't like that, perhaps you can write to Issa demanding he release all interview transcripts, instead of the cherry picked versions he prefers.

Share This Page