Federal taxes are payroll deducted. For the large majority of filers, there’s no opportunity to stop paying taxes, or at least more than a small portion thereof if you end up owing more than what was deducted.
“A couple” IRS employees were able to prevent any of the targeted organizations from being approved for 27 months?
While I think the OP’s theory is loony, I don’t really have a problem with that part. If the applications are sitting in a pigeonhole on someone’s desk, how are they going to be acted on?
I’ve never worked for the federal government, so perhaps their methods are quite different from my employer’s, but if there was no tracking of all filings being done, complete with a goal for turnaround time and auditing for filings that had been languishing, that’s a competency problem.
If it were possible for “a couple” employees to pull off this neglecting of a whole class of filings, that’s worrying.
I’m sure there’s a system that tracks filings and so on, but those systems are generally designed to prevent stuff slipping through the cracks, not from being deliberately concealed.
That’s what I’m getting at, though, the filings weren’t being concealed, at least per the reports I’ve read. A “Be On The Look Out” list had been created and circulated, and letters and requests for information and such were being sent out. If the filings had just never been responded to, I suppose that could be achieved by whoever’s supposed to enter the filing data just failing to do so, or otherwise keeping them out of the normal processing chain. But, that’s not what was going on here.
27 months? Heck, it can take 27 months for a bureaucrat to return a phone call, no overarching multilevel conspiracy needed.
But, other organizations received approval much faster than that, so it’s not simply a case of general sluggishness. (Note: I’m not alleging a multi-level conspiracy as such, but clearly more than “a couple” low-level employees were involved).
You must lead a rich inner life.
At what point does it cease to be a conspiracy, and begin to be majority rule?
This is all kind of entertaining in a sort of trip to Bedlam way, but are you ever going to come up with any evidence of the imaginative flights of yours? Because it is a bit worrisome to watch you blame Beck or whoever for bizarre conspiracy theories, and then go off spinning them on your own.
Regards,
Shodan
And why shouldn’t rich guys be able to anonymously support political organizations? Its their country, after all, we just live here.
You only need to claim a higher number of personal exemptions.
Just saying, the GOP leadership may end up regretting driving this so hard as an Obama scandal and a new excuse to rid the nation of what they are now calling An IRS run Federal take-over of health care.
No.
You call that a tax revolt? Why, in my day, a tax revolt involved tarring and feathering, and some gunplay.
There doesn’t appear to have been a “huge surge of work.” The targeting apparently began in 2010, but 501(c) applications went down between 2009 and 2010.
And you don’t “fuck up” by targeting right-wing organizations. Some people seem to have taken the President’s explanation, which BTW is also a jump to a conclusion before a full investigation, as the final say in the matter and are ignoring evidence that’s been trickling out since. Much of that evidence has trickled out from the administration, who already knew it and has only been revealing information as the media discovers it. Why not come clean fully?
As I said above, I’m not aware of evidence to support your theory that there was a “huge influx of political groups” that brought about this IRS policy. Can you please provide a cite?
And just to make sure I understand, your theory is that people within the IRS are trying to get people to violate tax laws? You almost have to admire their dedication to the ruse, choosing to work for the government organization in charge of enforcing tax laws, and then spending hours every day enforcing the tax laws they actually oppose.
Sure. Because the federal government has proven time and again that they have no intention of arresting tax violators or seizing their property. What an ingenious plan!
People who work for the IRS probably know from personal experience how stupid that plan would be, and how it would hurt the tax cheats, not the IRS.
Gasp! Maybe it was done with the intention of hurting the right wing! The rare Double Reverse False Flag 
! George Smiley would be proud.
Here are the genuine scandals in this affair: Political organizations are being allowed to masquerade as charities to avoid taxes and keep their donors secret, and the IRS has allowed them to do this for years….Those weren’t the only groups whose applications were selected for extra scrutiny on the reasoning that they might be devoted to more than “social welfare.” According to an IRS Inspector General report made public this week, they represented only about a third of the 298 applications selected. That was certainly too coarse a screen, and by January 2012 the IRS had scrapped those definitions. It had substituted a screen designed to capture “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, [and] social economic reform/movement.”
Conservatives contend that this is still an anti-conservative screen. It sounds perfectly neutral to me, unless someone knows of a conservative organization devoted to “expanding government,” or unless right-wing groups are supposed to have a monopoly on “social economic reform.” In any case, the inspector general found that most of the 298 selected applications indeed showed indications of “significant” political activity that might have made them ineligible for the tax exemption.
The IRS says it doubled in recent years.
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Questions-and-Answers-on-501(c)-Organizations
Your cite does not support your proposition. Your cite – published in May 2013 – says only that “in recent years” the number of applications has doubled. That statement may be accurate, as the chart I cited shows that beginning in 2012, the number of 501(c) applications increased dramatically. However, the policies at issue apparently began in 2010, not 2012. As the chart I cited shows, the number of applications actually dropped in 2010.
So your cite does not support your theory that there was a “huge influx of political groups” that brought about this IRS policy. Do you have a cite that supports your theory?
What can be done to stop all this bs Right Wing Scandal Mongering?
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Questions-and-Answers-on-501(c)-Organizations
IRS employees had seen cases of organizations with the name Tea Party in which political activity was an issue that needed to be reviewed for compliance with legal requirements. Because of the increased inventory of applications, this inappropriate criterion was used as a shortcut to centralize similar cases.
Would organizations with Tea Party in the name have been centralized if only appropriate selection criteria had been used?
Yes, in most cases the organization would have been centralized based on the information included in the application. The IRS should have focused on this information instead of using a shortcut.
Were centralized cases worked differently depending on which selection criteria was used?
No, centralized cases were not worked differently depending on which selection criteria was used.
Did mistakes occur in working the centralized cases?
Yes. Applicants whose cases were centralized unfortunately experienced inappropriate delays and over-expansive information requests in some cases. This was caused by ineffective processes and not related to the selection criteria used for the centralization of a case.
Is there any evidence of political bias in selecting cases for centralization or in working those cases?
The TIGTA report included no findings of political bias. In addition, the IRS has found no indication of political bias.
How many centralized applications have been approved?
Since centralization, more than 175 applications have been approved to date. As with all applications for tax-exempt status that are approved, the names of organizations whose applications have been approved are publicly available.
It certainly does. The key words are in the question that was directed at the IRS official:
“potentially engaged in political activity?”
If those double it would certainly slow things down..