Clinton-Gore IRS Abuses

From the Washington Times

“The woman who sharply questioned Vice President Al Gore at a town-hall meeting about Juanita Broaddrick’s rape accusation against President Clinton has become the subject of an inquiry by the Internal Revenue Service.”

I am very skeptical of all the claims of physical intimidation that some Clinton opponents have claimed. (Or at least, skeptical that they are being directed from senior levels). But these IRS audits seem too many to be true. The IRS does not audit a high percentage of people.

Is there an innocent explanation for all of this?

I just noticed that there is already a thread about this in GQ. Sorry.

Nixon was notorious for using the IRS as a weapon against his perceived enemies. And since Nixon was paranoid as all get-out, he perceived a lot of enemies. In my undergrad political science class, the prof. said that a list of names was discovered in Nixon’s desk after he left the White House. The people on this list were people that Nixon planned to sick the IRS upon. One of the names on the list was the guy who built the White House elevators, because Nixon had gotten stuck in the elevator once.

Didn’t it make you chuckle when the IRS replied:

“The IRS strictly adheres to a standard of reviewing cases only when there are questions involving tax law. No other factors enter into our procedures.”

How much you wanna bet that Carter, Bush, and Reagan all did it too. They were just smart enough to not get caught.

Well, thank goodness!

SouthernStyle wrote:

The sad thing is, the tax laws are complex enough – and the reporting procedures vague enough – that just about anybody’s tax return could raise “questions involving tax law.” I mean, how do we know that you really declared all your tip income? When you deducted $5 for that old pair of pants you donated to the Salvation Army, did you get the pants appraised first? And what about that dime you found in the street last September?

My biggest problem with Clinton’s IRS abuses is that he hasn’t ordered an audit of Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition for getting involved in politics instead of sticking to happy old tax-free religion.

I think that politics is a perfectly legal enterprise for a religious organization. Isn’t the lack of taxes also dependant upon the organization being nonprofit, rather than religious?

Either way, I think it is wrong to be upset that the evils of the government are not being perpretrated more fully upon your enemies. I would prefer that the game be played fairly than my side win through this sort of action.

Tracer is right about the sometimes vague and always complex tax law being a weapon. It’s one reason that you’ll never see a flat tax in this country – the current system gives the government a “power” that they aren’t willing to give up.

And waterj2 raises a good point about politics being a legitimate enterprise for religions. Every now and then you’ll see some splinter group (sect, cult, etc) lose their tax exempt status for the way they “invest” their monies. It seems odd that the government could strip the designation from a Constitutionally guaranteed “religious organization”, but leave labor unions basically unchecked.

tracer: Nixon FAILED to get the IRS to attack his enemies list. He did succed, to some extent, with the FBI.

Having been a tax expert for some years, and now working for the Gov’t, i can tell you it is impossible for the President to “order an audit”. The IRS are a bunch of Civil Servants, waiting for their 30 years so they can retire. They are NOT political appointees, nor can they be, in most cases. The thought of some functionary, who owes nada to the current admin, risking his career & pension, not to mention prison time, to “order up an audit” of the Administrations politcal
gadflies is laughable. Not to mention, if the Clinton admin had an 'enemies list", this woman would be SO far down on it, the IRS would be working overtime long before it got to her. Like say, Starr, and a few others, eg. Her ‘audit’ of her educational expenses, sound more like a Service center “corr audit” or “inquiry”, instead of a “real” audit, anyway. They do those things by the mass mailing.

Besides, folks who have small businesses are audited about 2>5% of the time, so it is surprizing that there are not MORE folks who have complained about the admni, who are under audit.

Jello: he can’t do that, tempting as it might seem.

water & southern: well, that is the Law, and it is because religous groups have special status, not “just” non-profit.

besides, as I pointed out in the other thread on this topic, according to the news account, the woman involved ** isn’t ** being audited, she’s being asked to re-submit papers relating to her current filing. this kind of thing happens all the time. You file your 1040 plus attending documents and other parts and so on, and part of it gets lost or mislaid, they ask you to resubmit.

So the Washington Times has overstated a report for the purpose of making the Democratic leadership look bad? And this surprises whom? If U.S. News and World Report or The Wall Street Journal had published this, I’d have been curious to see how it panned out. Seeing Moon’s twisted little rag publish it left me unimpressed even before the corrective information was posted by Danielinthewolvesden and wring.

Danielinthewolvesden wrote:

And can you imagine the social stigma they have to carry aroung with them?

Man in bar: Hey there, good lookin’, what’s your sign?
Woman in bar: I’m a pisces. So, what do you do for a living?
Man in bar: I work for the IRS.
Woman in bar: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! [runs rapidly for the nearest exit]