Thread the legal needle for me on the IRS scandal, please

[CHNOPS]

I think we can all agree that use of the IRS to attack, annoy, or derail political enemies of the party in power is a massive overreach and abuse of said power.

From the little I know of this scandal, I'm unclear that that was the case. Top-level, it certainly sounds that way, and makes sexier headlines. Digging down to second-level, it becomes muddier.

Can someone with more knowledge than I have clarify the legal issues involved in non-partisan terms?

My question is this:
1) If the issue is potential abuse of the tax-exempt classification, and
2) If an argument had been credibly advanced that Tea Party groups, because of their position on taxes, had been improperly taking advantage of the rules of tax exemption...

Then in the end, does it matter that the crackdown happened to include opponents of the party in power? As I understand it, they were only 15% of all groups examined under the tax-exempt scrutiny. Is there a larger issue of *ignoring* similar abuses by liberal-leaning organizations?

Your input--non-partisan, if possible--appreciated. "It's all politics" statements unhelpful, because it's ALL "all politics." I'm curious about the inside baseball of the legal issues at hand.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

My understanding is that in no instance are we talking about an allegation of abuse on the part of any organizations applying for the tax exempt status.

Of course, it would be up to the IRS to make certain applying organizations were compliant with all qualifying standards to ensure that such abuse did not occur.

The train left the tracks at precisely this point when the IRS engaged in far more penetrating qualifying investigations of those groups whose names or organizational objectives were readily identifiable with conservative ideology -- "Tea Party." "God Fearing, Communist Loathing Patriots of America Who Do Not Include Sonny." That sort of thing.

Some of the additional application questions and supplemental material were supposedly not even apparently relevant to what the application investigation should have been investigating, which lent credibility to the allegation of the IRS intentionally making the application process longer and tougher based only on political bias. This, they have since essentially admitted to.

It was simply a matter of all groups not being treated equally under the application process.

Kind of like in prehistoric Alabama when black people had to pass a civics test to vote for two white candidates running for mayor who had never graduated from fourth grade. What goes around....

 

[RobDownSouth]

NPR had an excellent timeline on this yesterday.

In 2010, the five judicial activists on the Supreme Court overturned precedent and enacted the doctrine of "one dollar, one vote" by judicial fiat, allowing unlimited campaign contribution donations.

This caused an enormous surge in applications to the IRS for various political organizations.

The IRS was quickly overwhelmed, and asked for more help to process the deluge of applications. Republicans in Congress naturally turned down their request.

So the IRS was forced to do some triage, and that's where it got interesting.

Section 527 was the "normal" means of funding causes, but donors stood the risk of being identified by name.

This risk was too much for most Rapepublicans, who want grandma to eat cat food in the name of "fiscal austerity".

So they sought "anonymous" status in Section 501(c)3 corporations, which are "100% issue advocation" groups.

Rapepublicans being rapepublicans, they read "100% issue advocation" as "some issue advocation and candidate endorsement". This was largely, though not exclusively, Teahadist groups misreading the law.

The IRS knew this, but in the absence of clear rules and regulations they left it up to low-level workers to decide who was abusing the rules.

And therein lies the problem: everyone "knew" the Teahadists were abusing the system to get tax-exempt status, but they didn't have formal "neutral" rules laying out the mechanism.

Because of this shortcut, the wingnuts have been whipped up to their usual spittle-flecked outrage and claimin' victimhood once again.

 

[landslider2000]

Sens Schumer and Durbin urged the IRS to scrutinize Tea Party.

Obama called the IRS approach "outrageous."

 

[RobDownSouth]

Sens Schumer and Durbin urged the IRS to scrutinize Tea Party.

Obama called the IRS approach "outrageous."

Shumer and Durbin urged the IRS to crack down on fraudulent groups claiming Section 501(c)(4) status.. They never once mentioned the words "Tea Party".

Thank you for indirectly agreeing with me that the Tea Party is a fraud.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So they sought "anonymous" status in Section 501(c)3 corporations, which are "100% issue advocation" groups.

Rapepublicans being rapepublicans, they read "100% issue advocation" as "some issue advocation and candidate endorsement". This was largely, though not exclusively, Teahadist groups misreading the law.

The IRS knew this, but in the absence of clear rules and regulations they left it up to low-level workers to decide who was abusing the rules.

And therein lies the problem: everyone "knew" the Teahadists were abusing the system to get tax-exempt status, but they didn't have formal "neutral" rules laying out the mechanism.

Even if the NPR timeline has this spot on (and I will admit that your flushing out of the additional details sounds more credible than my semi-blind generalization), using irrelevant supplemental surveys and audits as delaying tactics is a poor substitute for instituting appropriate rules in response to a Supreme Court opinion handed down two years ago.

I am assuming such rule making would not require separate enabling legislation.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Even if the NPR timeline has this spot on (and I will admit that your flushing out of the additional details sounds more credible than my semi-blind generalization), using irrelevant supplemental surveys and audits as delaying tactics is a poor substitute for instituting appropriate rules in response to a Supreme Court opinion handed down two years ago.

I am assuming such rule making would not require separate enabling legislation.

Agreed.