Talk:IRS targeting controversy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Emerge America

Is there an RS which states Emerge America was scrutinized based on keyword searches or any of the other controversial criteria in this article? Seems to me good IRS employees realized this 501(c)(4), (now 527), had been abusing their tax-exempt status since the '06 mid-terms by recruiting and training women to run for office only on the democratic ticket. I suggest either new placement with added detail, or outright removal.
Thoughts? †TE†Talk 17:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me like you don't have a shred of evidence for your assertion. The organization is mentioned in an unimpeachable WP:RS as having been targeted for heightened scrutiny in the same manner as some right-wing groups were. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No need for the attitude, bro. I'm just being friendly coming to the talkpage instead of taking care of this problem myself. I already knew we had a clear OR and SYN issue. But thanks for the wikilink on RS. I was totally talking about Rally Sports. Emerge America, and their newest chapter which was denied, leading to the revocation of tax-except status for all other Emerge America offshoots, was just plain rejected. No need for a controversial series of Q&A's and delays (they received none), no BOLO's, no inclusion in the TIGTA audit. Remember the IG report? Says something about "none denied". Care to reconsider? †TE†Talk 03:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that pretty much every organization that was targeted, regardless of specific ideology, was abusing tax exemption. By law, tax exempt organizations are not supposed to primarily engage in political activity. IRS rules, on the other hand, are a lot more vague and permissive. It seems plainly obvious that tea party groups and occupy groups, for example, are primarily political and should not be tax exempt to begin with. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 12:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an unimpeachable source. Everybody blows a call once in awhile. This is why we have talk pages, to discuss which sources to believe when they contradict. I think TIGTA is probably a bit more authoritative. Your personal opinion that Tea Party groups is not really relevant as that is WP:OR. TMLutas (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

When we're presented with a conflict between (1) an editor's OR involving a primary source and (2) a reliable secondary source interpreting that primary source, we're bound by Wikipedia guidelines to choose (2). Dyrnych (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Prohibited use of source in violation of WP:SYNTH

I have removed the section discussing the "Nixon White House" in the politicization section as a prohibited original synthesis. The article in question nowhere mentions any credible allegations that the IRS was being directed by the White House — and, in fact, argues the exact opposite: that because the IRS was so depoliticized after Nixon, there was not enough political oversight of the IRS. An article which states that the IRS was not being overseen and managed sufficiently by the administration cannot be twisted into an argument that the IRS was being politically-directed to investigate Tea Party groups. It is original synthesis to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting the point of the section, or maybe I wrote it badly (like that's never happened before). In any case, a synth violation is repairable so I want to keep the source and use it in a proper way. I'm not particularly interested in dying on the hill of this particular edit. The frequent meetings on PPACA itself are a dismantling of the post-Nixon isolation. If the White House is not legally allowed to contact the IRS, what is the head of the IRS doing on the White House visit list so frequently for any reason? This may be good public policy (or not) regarding health care but it certainly is undoing the post-Nixon isolation rules. Nobody is saying that Schulman wasn't on the regular contact list. Had Obama or whoever was in Treasury that should have been keeping an eye on that just laid out for the public that they were undoing that isolation and how they were ensuring that the goals of the post-Nixon reforms would be managed, it wouldn't be scandalous. They didn't do that. They just threw them out unilaterally because it was politically more convenient that way. The 2009 "joke" about auditing opponents could be interpreted as a dog whistle to the IRS and bringing up changes like this would have freaked out at least half the country, possibly more in an election cycle that was already not going well for the Democrats.

So you tell me, am I factually wrong that the meetings took place? Am I factually wrong that the White House is not supposed to have contact with the IRS except through Treasury? Am I factually wrong that this is in violation of the post-Nixon reforms? So how do we properly say all that in a way that is consistent with Wikipedia's rules? Because this violation of the gap between the IRS and the White House is precedent setting and we should cover it as part of the scandal. We are very likely to see more of this going forward so it is important to document it. TMLutas (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Follow on, I'm being charitable here as I've already said that I wasn't particularly happy with this section so I'm not unhappy with acquiring a partner to rework it. That being said, I think that WP:What SYNTH is not is relevant to your objection, particularly the "SYNTH is not just any synthesis", "SYNTH is not presumed", and "SYNTH is not explanation" sections. It's a type of original research, which this is not, but rather an explanation that the White House contacts were bad per se. The problem I see is that I didn't explain particularly well to my own standards. TMLutas (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact you are factually wrong, and given your predilection for unreliable sources despite criticism, I am not surprised. The IRS is an executive branch agency that ultimately answers to the president. Its head is appointed by the president and can be removed by him, and answers to another presidential appointee. Given that the job description of the IRS includes enforcing policies passed by politicians and implemented, in part, by other executive branch agencies, it would be managerial malpractice if they were forbidden from even talking to each other. This is common sense. The isolation you are talking about forbids the White House from interfering in IRS investigations and audits. That's it. It doesn't stop the IRS commissioner from talking to the White House to figure out the best way to implement a large new law, or from taking his kids to Easter celebrations. Here's some actual reliable sources.

Like I said, the whole thing about visits is a political attack like all the others over the years when an "undesirable" visits the White House. I'd also like to reiterate that one of the largest recent criticisms of the IRS is that it has become too isolated (largely due to culture rather than law), leading to a lack of accountability and oversight. All signs currently point to the opposite problem from the one you are trying to push. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 19:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I reject your characterization of my sourcing choices. I'm generally fairly easygoing about left vs right sourcing. I don't want to be a martinet about that sort of thing so I let the lefties prefer their own sources so long as the text is reasonably correct. If you want to use that tolerance of ideologically opposite sourcing as evidence to impeach my edits, I can change and stop ignoring the persistent removal of conservative reliable sources for liberal ones along with the false accusations that the conservative outlets aren't actually WP:RS.

If the IRS Commissioner is directly talking to the President, he's jumping past two superiors to do it. The NY Times source you link actually mentions that. You would normally see the Treasury Secretary have more appointments with the President than a subordinate two levels down. The reverse is the case with Schulman. That is, at best, organizationally weird, especially for the situation to persist like that over the course of multiple years. The IRS is tucked down the ToE like that so the White House doesn't have much direct contact with him. Also, from the NYT article you're quoting "Federal law does include special provisions to ban presidential meddling in the I.R.S." You want to change a word or some emphasis to more accurately relay the situation? I don't have a problem with that. But you want to take the whole issue off that table and that's just not accurate. TMLutas (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between too isolated from the people to understand that outside of the DC hothouse of the political class conservatives are recognized as deserving to get a fair shot at organizing too and not isolated enough within the DC political hothouse that they didn't ignore Obama's occasional dog whistles to them to go after the Tea Party. Both can be true at the same time. They do not contradict each other. TMLutas (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not about left vs right. It's about reliable vs not. You have a habit of using unreliable sources. Particularly op-eds for statements of fact, if memory serves. This is a clear violation of WP policies (see WP:RSOPINION for example). I don't know what "left" sources you are seeing, but I haven't seen a lot of op-eds here from left-wing columnists. Besides, you apparently believed that the White House talking to the IRS was illegal (violating post-Nixon reforms). I assume you read that somewhere, and I just proved that whatever source you got it from is unreliable, so at least in that sense you don't have much of an argument.

You are now moving the goalposts. You wanted to include information on post-Nixon reforms and White House visits because they violated those reforms. Now that I showed you they did not, you seem to want to include them because the visits are "organizationally weird."[citation needed] I could disprove that too, since implementation of the largest regulatory changes in years (via the PPACA) required those kinds of meetings. Besides, all the visits weren't even meetings. Taking your kids to an easter egg roll or taking a farewell tour have nothing to do with the organization at all. "Meddling" in one source refers to interfering in IRS audits, investigations, etc. It doesn't refer to talking about how to implement large new policies and regulations. The sources are clear that visiting the White House does not constitute wrong-doing.

Now you are just jumping on semantics and word choices rather than making a cogent argument. The isolation critics are talking about is from the political branches, not just "the people." – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 09:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You have a habit of calling reliable sources unreliable. I was willing to tolerate it for a time and to let you change sourcing because it wasn't worth fighting over and ultimately if National Review or Commentary are less used as RS in Wikipedia is no skin off my nose. I get no paycheck from them. But you've graduated to trying to impeach my edits based on sourcing choices. That's garbage. Opinion magazines in the political realm also break stories. Real reporting occasionally comes out in opinion columns. You might benefit from rereading WP:RS#Biased or opinionated sources and how they may be used.

There is no one group of isolation critics outside the imagination of the fever swamps on the left. This is not a left/right political kabuki match. I do not have to toe any party line, my opinions are my own and the people complaining about isolation, at least in my opinion, have not coalesced into one monolithic group. That you haven't encountered differing voices is not evidence that they do not exist. I've read them, mostly in opinion forums and it's my observation that opinions vary. Isolation from political interference is a good thing, and I haven't seen too many people objecting to it. Nobody wants to go back to the bad old days of FDR or Nixon explicitly targeting enemies via the IRS. A number of articles have been written about how the IRS tilts left, and that it is readily detectable in the donations figures to political campaigns. When you're in a left or right wing hothouse, people get funny ideas about what centrist and apolitical means. Here's a relevant google search so you understand what I mean about that. Here's another relevant google search talking about the other kind of abuse, the one that you think is the only concern. Both searches yield significant coverage which doesn't mean a great deal beyond my point, that both viewpoints exist and are significant at a level that should mean that both voices get included in the article. TMLutas (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding the policies you are referring to. "Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." In other words, an editorial by Glenn Beck is a reliable source to state "Glenn Beck, a conservative political commentator, claims x happened." This is not a reliable source to simply state "X happened" without attributing it to the biased author. In other words, quoting from the same page you linked to: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

You have apparently been using editorial pieces, etc. to make statements of fact in the article and on this talk page. For example, you made the following statements of fact here: "the White House is not supposed to have contact with the IRS except through Treasury" and "this is in violation of the post-Nixon reforms." What you should have said was "[Opinion piece author y] claims that the White House is not supposed to have contact with the IRS except through Treasury and that this is in violation of the post-Nixon reforms. However, [reliable sources a,b and c] show that this is not the case." Of course, when sources that are reliable for statements of fact directly contradict opinion pieces, like in this case, it's often best to avoid mentioning it at all because there are better things to put in the article. Also, you might want to check out WP:SOAP. You are acting as a political advocate instead of a neutral editor. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 19:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It may be an objectively-defined fact that IRS employees donate more money to Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. That fact does not in any way, shape or form allow you to draw from it an uncontested conclusion that "the IRS tilts left." That statement asserts that there is an actual political bias in the operation of the agency, which is a highly-contentious claim that must be attributed to its claimants and situated within context of who is making or rebutting the claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Examples of Questions from the IRS

Wanted to ask on Talk page before making any changes. Paragraph that begins "The Coalition for the Life of Iowa".. states

... While questioning then-Acting Commissioner of the IRS, Steven T. Miller, on May 17, 2013, Congressman Aaron Schock (R-IL), referring to a report by the conservative, non-profit law firm, the Thomas More Society, misquoted one of the questions asked of the coalition as "please detail the content of the members of your organization's prayers". Schock went on to ask, "Would that be an inappropriate question to a 501(c)3 applicant? The content of one’s prayers?” Miller replied, "It pains me to say I can’t speak to that one either". Upon further questioning by Schock, Miller stated that it would "surprise him" if that question were asked.[63] Schock's characterization of the question was included in news reports[62][63] and was repeated by conservative commentators.[64][65]

Read the articles associated with the citations and not seeing how Cong. Schock misquoted based on the citations/ documentation included in this section? There is a citation that claims the "actual wording" of one of the IRS questions, but it is a Yahoo News blog referring to questions asked by the iIRS of the Coalition of LIfe -- not Thomas More Society.

Excellerate (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I added cite for Thomas More Society's memo to Rep. Schock, which included the IRS questions at issue. Thomas More misquoted IRS, then Schock reworded Thomas More. Not sure how to express that in prose, but IMO, repeating a misquote is tantamount to originating the misquote yourself. Hope this resolves any unclear citations. --Chaswmsday (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Further investigations

People, don't forget the Christine odonnell tax leak, national org for marriage leak, illegal leaks of info and not prosecuted or investigated. By my count, there are 3 executive branch investigations ongoing

• 1. TIGTA
• 2. IRS internal investigation
• 3. FBI

There are 2 legislative branch investigations

• 1. House Oversight
• 2. House Ways and Means

Then there's the wonderful world of the judiciary, where there are lawsuits filed (needs to be fleshed out)

That's 6 things to talk about, a clear minority of which are Congressional. It's just not factual to assert that further investigations in any way is a synonym for congressional investigations yet that is what this section keeps getting renamed to while its content is getting butchered. We may have very little info at present on the IRS internal and the FBI investigation. That does not make them legislative. So if we could please cut out the repeated slow motion edit warring, I would prefer not to have to bring the administrators into this. TMLutas (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: In terms of private investigations, I do wonder if the Goolsbee/Koch stuff is appropriate for here. A Glomar response seems odd at first viewing but I am not an expert. TMLutas (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the Goolsbee incident and investigation does belong here. The Glomar response is the easy lift to keep the Koch Industries attorneys at bay. I doubt it will stand, ultimately. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a page for every IRS scandal ever. If this even is a scandal, why would it be a part of the 2013 IRS scandal page, which is explicitly about tax-exempt status? It's not a "private investigation" of the conduct that is the subject of this page. Dyrnych (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

1. We have noted the ORIGINAL TIGTA investigation at length; there's a whole section about it. The only evidence that there's a SUBSEQUENT TIGTA investigation comes from an opinion source citing an anonymous IRS employee for the proposition that there MIGHT be a subsequent investigation. Until and unless there is actually a reliable source that indicates a second investigation, no, we should not cover this.

2. There is nothing to report on the IRS internal investigation.

3. There is nothing to report on the FBI investigation.

And who knows? Maybe when there's something to report on either 2 or 3, it'll be worthy of its own section. But there's no reason not to limit the section that we have now to the congressional investigation, given that what we actually have (1) reliable sources for and (2) actual noteworthy information about is the congressional investigation. If you want to talk about lawsuits (and actually have some reliable source that provides relevant information about the lawsuits), why not start a new section? Because a lawsuit is absolutely not an investigation. Dyrnych (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that there is such an investigation is worth a stub. That's what stubs are for. There is coverage on, for instance, the claims that the FBI hasn't bothered to get in touch with any of the Tea Party groups involved. This could go in to that section if people didn't keep knocking it down. How is the well reported fact that two executive departments are investigating it not worth mentioning under further investigations at least at the level of a stub? TMLutas (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no point in having a stub in an article, for all of the reasons that I stated above. There are no space limitations that would require you to reserve space in the article. And there's no reason why you can't add information if there is information to be added. I have no idea why it would make sense to add a section for every thing that you think might possibly be newsworthy in the future when there's nothing to report on now given the lack of space limitations. Dyrnych (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Illegal release of IRS information to illegitimate FEC staff investigation

The Wall Street Journal has an article about an investigation of American Issues Project, undertaken by FEC staff in advance of an FEC commission vote to authorize an investigation. The IRS' Lois Lerner apparently released tax information on the request of her former colleagues at the FEC. So, is this part of the IRS scandal or a new FEC scandal? I'm inclined to stick it here for the moment. What's the opinion of everybody else? TMLutas (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless I missed it, there's no allegation in the story that there was an illegal release of information. Indeed, the word "illegal" does not appear in the story. The story is written in such a vague way that the author can hedge her bets. The closest she gets to it is where she says "This matters because FEC staff didn't have permission from the Commission to conduct this inquiry. It matters because the IRS is prohibited from sharing confidential information, even with the FEC." And the next sentence is the clincher. She says: "What the IRS divulged is unclear." Unclear? Unclear? She means she doesn't know. That's her weasel way of saying "we don't know." In other words, she might have no actual evidence that anything illegal occurred.

The general rule (notice that I said the GENERAL rule) is that it is a criminal offense (a felony) for an "officer or employee of the United States" to willfully disclose information that is covered under Internal Revenue Code section 6103 (specifically, "returns" or "return information" -- specially defined terms). See Internal Revenue Code sections 6103 and 7213. Section 6103 is probably the longest section in the entire Internal Revenue Code -- if you download it from the Cornell University Law School web site (the Legal Information Institute) and print it on a standard printer with regular 8.5 inch by 11 inch paper, it comes to something like forty pages. That's just ONE code section. The reason that section 6103 is so long is that it includes an astonishing number of exceptions. Indeed, the text is MOSTLY exceptions.

I guess my initial reaction on this one would be just wait and see if something actually develops.

A large chunk of this "IRS scandal" story is hot air, and it remains to be seen what's going to come of it. Meanwhile, there are real problems at the IRS that go untouched. (I know whereof I speak; I deal with the IRS on almost a weekly basis.) Famspear (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's the legal definition of a "return" as used in section 6103:

...."any tax or information return, declaration of estimated tax, or claim for refund required by, or provided for or permitted under, the provisions of this title which is filed with the Secretary by, on behalf of, or with respect to any person, and any amendment or supplement thereto, including supporting schedules, attachments, or lists which are supplemental to, or part of, the return so filed."

Here's the legal definition of "return information." It actually covers a lot:

...."(A) a taxpayer’s identity, the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, deficiencies, overassessments, or tax payments, whether the taxpayer’s return was, is being, or will be examined or subject to other investigation or processing, or any other data, received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary [of the Treasury or his delegate] with respect to a return or with respect to the determination of the existence, or possible existence, of liability (or the amount thereof) of any person under this title for any tax, penalty, interest, fine, forfeiture, or other imposition, or offense,

"(B)any part of any written determination or any background file document relating to such written determination (as such terms are defined in section 6110(b)) which is not open to public inspection under section 6110,

"(C)any advance pricing agreement entered into by a taxpayer and the Secretary and any background information related to such agreement or any application for an advance pricing agreement, and

"(D)any agreement under section 7121, and any similar agreement, and any background information related to such an agreement or request for such an agreement,

"but such term does not include data in a form which cannot be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer."

--from Internal Revenue Code section 6103(b). Famspear (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I love these lines from the Wall Street Journal story: "The broader AIP case is, in fact, beyond improper. It's fishy."

Ooooooh. "Fishy." Wow. Now, there's some really incisive journalistic terminology! So, let's see.... if something is "improper", that's bad enough, but you can go "beyond" that -- it can get even worse, and then we might call it so bad it's "fishy." Wow.

Give me a break. Famspear (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I apologize for drifting away from the purpose of this talk page, which is of course to discuss ways to improve the article. It's Friday night and I'm grumpy 'cause I have to wait until Monday to go back to work and have fun dealing with federal tax matters.....

....It's what I live for..... Famspear (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Famspear. There's no there there. Maybe someday there will be, but at the moment "Illegal release of IRS information to illegitimate FEC staff investigation" is a lot to hang on an OPINION piece as vague as this. While the piece's author (and presumably TMLutas) might hold the opinion that the AIP investigation was illegitimate, reasonable minds can (and do) differ on this point. Including this "scandal" in WP without clearly identifying it as an allegation made by the piece's author would be like treating a civil complaint as fact before the resolution of the case. And as riddled with caveats and vagueness as the allegations are, I can't even imagine a rationale for inclusion even with that identification. Dyrnych (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with TMLucas and am somewhat dismayed by Famspear's attitude regarding this issue. Lew has been subpoenaed and I suspect we will learn more about this in the coming weeks, regardless of how slow the Dems wish to walk this issue. Arzel (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion in Wikipedia isn't--and shouldn't be--an issue of politics. Neither Famspear nor I have opposed this based on politics. "I suspect we will learn more about this" isn't "this happened and we should report it." And it absolutely violates WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, and WP:IRS to include as scandal the BARE POSSIBILITY of illegal conduct based on an OPINION PIECE that itself cannot say that the conduct is illegal. This isn't a forum to collect every accusation leveled by a right-wing source. Dyrnych (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Arzel: What do you mean, you are "dismayed" by my "attitude"? What "issue" are you talking about? What "attitude"? Famspear (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 July 2013

This article appears to be out of date and has a few omissions I might be able to help with.

Most important is the letter from Rep Elijah Cummings to Chair Issa (7/12/2013) . This is much new information in it. It has been picked up by most major media outlets, but none cover the full content of the letter & some editorialize about it.

Lesser Points

It is inaccurate to say in the first paragraph that liberal groups were scrutinized "at a much lower rate." The articles don't refer to rate, but to overall numbers: the denominator is not now known. What is known is that a large number of Tea Party-type organizations were formed in 2010. Suppose 100% of 1000 Tea Party groups were scrutinized & 100% of 10 Occupy groups were scrutinized, the rate is the same. OccupyDemocrats (Jun): ‘Scandal’ Falls Flat: #IRS Approved Twice as Many Conservative Groups as Liberal Groups . A small study showed 17 out of 21 groups that applied were conservative: Cincinnati: More conservative groups sought #IRS exemptions .

Several outlets have, looking case by case, found that liberal groups that were "targeted" were also asked to jump through elaborate hoops and wait for a year or more. Atlantic: The #IRS Didn't Target Just Conservatives ; NPR: Liberal groups had to endure delays, produce extensive documentation, answer dozens of questions ; AP: IRS Delayed Action on Progressive Groups, Too . One group waited 7 years.

Here is a source for "Goolsbeegate": MotherJones (2010): GoolsbeeGate: The GOP's Latest Obama "Scandal"

Does this article really "just" refer to 401(c) processing? In the public mind, the "IRS Scandal" seems to also cover "Goolsbee-gate," improper release of information (first to ProPublica, more recently, publishing of Social Security Numbers: ThinkProgress: Why The IRS Posted Thousands Of SSNs Online ) and whether individuals or their businesses were targeted for audit due to their political leanings (as was asserted in the hearings, on Fox, and on CNBC). There's also "bonus-gate," I suppose: Politico: #IRS chief Daniel Werfel pushes to kill bonuses .

Acting Director Werfel has offered to fast track applications that have been held up if the groups are willing to state that no more than 40% of their activities are "political" (tied to direct endorsement of candidates): . This is a more conservative bar than the usual 49% standard. You may also wish to mention that 501(c)(4)s have long been able to "self-certify."

I appreciate your consideration of these suggestions. Auriandra 19:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Auriandra Auriandra 19:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, some of the currently-cited reliable sources indicate that Tea Party and progressive groups were subject to different levels of scrutiny (i.e. Tea Party groups were passed up to higher levels w/i the IRS.) But I totally take your point on the use of the word "rate". Misuse of mathematical terminology is a sloppy, slippery slope! --Chaswmsday (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be something of a difficulty in establishing what ordinary scrutiny levels were. You would expect that a certain number of applications are going to be bad in any given year and trigger additional scrutiny. The TIGTA letter to Cummings talks about how 100% of the names with 9/12, patriot, and tea party in their names were sent for additional scrutiny, while 30% with identifiable liberal terms in their names were forwarded for processing. 100% is pretty clearly out of normal practice, thus the original apology by Lerner, but is 30% also elevated? That seems to be the assertion by the liberal groups but I haven't seen any documentation establishing that it was above normal, and thus evidence of targeting.

Yes, this article just refers to this particular aspect, which I think is a travesty but consensus was not my friend during that debate. I just roll with it. If you want to climb that hill and see if consensus has shifted, be my guest. I'll be happy to renew my objection to the over narrow focus, but I am not optimistic of success. TMLutas (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

References

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Rivertorch (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 July 2013

Bloomberg: Review of 5,500 IRS E-Mails Found No Political Targeting based on new docs released by Rep Elijah Cummings on July 12, 2013. Auriandra 23:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Auriandra

Please follow the edit request format so that we can see exactly what you want the requested edit to consist of. Thanks. Dyrnych (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. In other words, what's the exact wording you want inserted, and where? Rivertorch (talk) 05:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

donor lists illegitimately requested and given have not been destroyed as promised

National Review is claiming that donor lists have not been destroyed as the IRS promised they would. This would have slotted in nicely into the Ways and Means investigation but apparently that section doesn't exist anymore. So where's a good spot for this? TMLutas (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

On your blog? — goethean 17:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Targeted because ...

... higher chance of these TEA-(Taxed Enough Already) groups to commit tax fraud. Why isn't this mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.85.234 (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Because there's no reliable source that makes this claim that I'm aware of. Dyrnych (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is stuff like this. -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the New York Times article linked by the user at IP 209.6.92.99 does not claim that a group mentioned in that article committed tax fraud. Indeed, the article doesn't even mention tax fraud. The words "fraud" or "crime" or "illegal" aren't even found in the article. Famspear (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

??? Let me quote from the article: The Wetumpka Tea Party, from Alabama, sponsored training for a get-out-the-vote initiative dedicated to the “defeat of President Barack Obama” while the I.R.S. was weighing its application. And the head of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, whose application languished with the I.R.S. for more than two years, sent out e-mails to members about Mitt Romney campaign events and organized members to distribute Mr. Romney’s presidential campaign literature.

What are you not understanding? -- the article is clearly describing explicitly primarily political groups pretending to be social-welfare non-profits. That The words "fraud" or "crime" or "illegal" aren't even found in the article has diddly, squat and nada to do with what the Times piece actually said since the newspaper is not judge and jury. Jeez, Louise.... -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It's one thing to come to your own conclusion about whether the actions described in the article are bad, illegal, or indicative of "primarily political groups pretending to be social-welfare non-profits." You're free to do that on your own, and I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that these are in fact political groups. But the role of a WP editor is not to draw that conclusion on behalf of the reader. And the IP editor above was claiming something a lot more: that there is "a higher chance of these TEA-(Taxed Enough Already) groups to commit tax fraud." There is no evidence for that in any source that I'm aware of, much less a reliable source. Dyrnych (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are just being deliberately obtuse and argumentative here. You might want to read up on the Duck Test. -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to believe that, go ahead. I notice you didn't refute any of my points and, in fact, advocated that we use inductive reasoning to--wait for it--draw a conclusion for readers. But feel free to edit the article instead of referring me to the policy on disruptive editing, which (1) relates to consensus, which has absolutely not been achieved here, and (2) has no application to a talk page in any case. Dyrnych (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The gist of the article is not that certain groups were targeted because there was a "higher chance" (higher than what?) that such groups commit "tax fraud." The gist of the article is that certain groups were targeted because they were engaging in (or might be engaging in) certain kinds of political activity, at a certain level. Engaging in political activity, as a general proposition, is not "tax fraud." The whole point is that if a group is engaging in political activity, it is legal and appropriate for the Internal Revenue Service to investigate that group's political activity when the group applies for 501(c)(4) status before the IRS recognizes the exemption that the organization wants to claim. By applying for that status, the group is asking to be exempt from federal income tax. This is not rocket science.

To qualify, the organization must be "operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare." And here is the U.S. Treasury regulation:

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. An organization embraced within this section is one which is operated primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterments and social improvements.....

--from 26 C.F.R. § 1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(i) (emphasis added).

And:

The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.....

--from 26 C.F.R. § 1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(ii).

Under the law, if the organization is (or might be) primarily engaged in "direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office," that organization does not qualify for the exemption under 501(c)(4). Period. So, trying to argue that, by merely investigating such an organization's political activity when the organization applies for the exemption, the IRS is somehow targeting the organization because the organization is more likely to commit "tax fraud" is nonsensical. Famspear (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

As some commentators have noted, the problem in administering this regulation, from the view point of IRS personnel, has been that the regulation does seem to allow the exempt organization to engage in political activity -- as long as the political activity is not the primary activity. In other words, if 49% of an organization's activity were political and 51% were true "social welfare", it would seem that the organization would qualify for the exemption. That puts IRS personnel in the position of having to figure out how much activity you have to have before that activity becomes "primary" for that organization. Famspear (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2014

Please remove the following sentence as it is not (or no longer) accurate:

"However, former NOM chairwoman Maggie Gallagher stated on May 10, 2013 that an IRS employee had been duped into releasing the documents by someone who fraudulently claimed to work for NOM.[69]"

The link provided (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/347948/irs-targets-conservatives-will-anyone-get-fired) contains a further statement from Ms. Gallagher stating "For the record, this happened after I stepped down from NOM and I don’t have inside information about what happened. My theory that it was a former employee who requested the data is only a theory. We need someone with subpoena power to find out what really happened."

 Done

This is a tough one. I would have liked to see more input from others concerning this. However, you do have a point, and as no one has objected to your request after two weeks, I have made the change. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I restored it, with the later statement appended. Let people decide whether they believe her first words or her later words. "Clarifications" can be an attempt to cover up a Kinsley gaffe. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, not moved (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

---

2013 IRS scandal → 2013 IRS profiling controversy – It is arguable as to whether the IRS's actions were a deliberate attempt to stifle conservative groups directed from the top or a case of low-level employees misguidedly using particular keywords to target groups for additional scrutiny. Wikipedia should not lend support to either side of the argument in the title of this article. WP:NDESC seems on point, with its admonishment to "[a]void judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title." Indeed, WP:POVNAME specifically cites the Teapot Dome scandal as a non-neutral name, leading to the conclusion that "scandal" (when not the common name for that thing) is presumptively non-neutral. Given that relatively few sources actually refer to the "2013 IRS scandal," it is not the case that "the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." To preserve Wikipedia neutrality on whether the IRS's actions in fact constitute a "scandal," the page should be moved. Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Dyrnych (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed form is equally non-neutral, less informative, and far less common in the RS. Just the fact that Lerner took the fifth is a scandal right there. If the people in charge of executing policy refuse to tell Congress what they are doing, that's not democracy. Maria de la Fuego (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"Just the fact that Lerner took the fifth is a scandal right there." The exercise of constitutional rights is not a "scandal". Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Fifth Amendment was intended to prevent forced confessions. It says, no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." It wasn't supposed to grant IRS officials immunity from oversight. Maria de la Fuego (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

That's your subjective opinion, Maria de la Fuego, and reasonable people can (and do) differ from that opinion. More importantly, the article is primarily about the IRS's conduct in profiling groups, not Lois Lerner's arguably scandalous invoking of her Fifth Amendment rights. And those reasons are precisely why the Lois Lerner argument does not support the title remaining "2013 IRS scandal." Dyrnych (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how "controversy" is equally non-neutral as "scandal" or how referencing "profiling" makes it less informative. Thoughts? Dyrnych (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

2013 IRS profiling investigation? Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Does any RS call it either a "profiling controversy" or a "profiling investigation"? Maria de la Fuego (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Numerous and diverse RSs refer to it as a controversy rather than a scandal. For example, Bloomberg, NPR, Fox Business, and The New York Times all refer to the matter as a "controversy." Keep in mind that when you're talking about a non-neutral term coming into use common enough to warrant inclusion in the title of an article, you need to demonstrate that it's become a proper noun on the order of the Boston Massacre. That criterion is certainly lacking here. Dyrnych (talk) 14:05, 22 Marc]h 2014 (UTC)

Here's another on Politico today that refers to the "controversy" in the lede. Dyrnych (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Per common name. This proposal will not help ordinary readers find the information. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, googling "IRS scandal" show the first 11 pages of links are about this. (Thats all I checked) Many are standard RS links. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

IRS Scandal

• Huffington Post [1]
• CBS [2]
• Real Clear Politics [3]
• Wall Street Journal [4]
• Washington Post [5]
• New York Times [6]
• Reuters [7]
• New York Magazine [8]
• Washington Examiner [9]
• CNN [10]
• Salon [11]

The refs and links to this title are massive, the proposed new name not so much. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Googling "2013 IRS profiling controversy"--shockingly--turns up the same results. And it's noteworthy that many of the links that result from searching for "IRS scandal" are from the earliest days of the "scandal," when the consensus was that the allegations, if true, would be a scandal. Pretty obviously we've diverged from that point. Dyrnych (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"Controversy" and "investigation" are both more appropriate. Wikipedia has an article on the Watergate Scandal, but that was a lot more of a scandal. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

And, importantly, the country isn't approximately evenly divided over whether the events of Watergate constitute a scandal. Dyrnych (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - IMO Scandal and Controversy, as they are used here, are effectively interchangeable (CBS uses controversy, Huffington uses scandal). I don't think we should argue too harshly about that here, AFAICT no one here is trying to delete the article or bury its contents; nor does the name change impact content covered within the article. My support for the measure is based on this: There were a number of IRS scandals/controveries that occurred in 2013 or throughout. The Lois Lerner/5013c scandal was the most well covered by newspapers and White House press briefings; given time Wikipedia's coverage will extend beyond this one issue. Remember that while newspapers churn and forget, Wikipedia, like the bathroom rug, eternally absorbs all that touch it. Frankly I would be just as happy if it were renamed 2013 IRS Scandal #1, or if we created a disambiguation page. Here are some other controversies/scandals in 2013 Im thinking of: National Organization for Marriage's lawsuit against the IRS, the IRS' acquisition of new powers under Obamacare, the IRS approval of delayed Obamacare responsibilities for businesses. The point is - IRS is a controversial organization. Many feel that its mere existence is a scandal, however it has a long history of being used as a weapon for political reasons (google "nixon" and "audit", or "martin luther king irs audit"). We should change the name to make it easier to disambiguate content covering those issues in 2013 (disclaimer: I have not voted in a US election in ~ 13 years.)Jay Dubya (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support "profiling" but with "scandal" instead of "controversy". Red Slash 04:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

2013 IRS INVESTIGATION

2602:30A:2EAB:90F0:462A:60FF:FEDB:61D3 (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

POV issues

Among other things, the very name of this article is problematic. Calling it a "scandal" is extremely POV. And the claims that liberal groups didn't receive the same level of scrutiny is false. 75.76.213.161 (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Even the President acknowledged that incorrect actions were taken. The degree to which it is a scandal may be a valid discussion, but few would argue that it was not scandalous. As late two days ago, the President acknowledged missteps at the IRS in regard to this situation. The leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties have both acknowledged the bad acts, and thus is it generally accepted to be a "scandal". 98.244.19.83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME would apply. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Few would argue that it was not scandalous? Really? The "scandal" has been comprehensively debunked. And President Obama was right about incorrect actions being taken, but he was mistaken about what those incorrect actions were. The mistake was that political groups ("Tea Party" or otherwise) ended up having their 501(c)(4) status approved even though the letter of the law says they're ineligible. 75.76.213.161 (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• If this is not a scandal, and only the most willfully blinded would suggest such a thing, then why is Lois Lerner again pleading the 5th. Public officials, constitutional right notwithstanding, typically plead the 5th when they have something to hide or are covering for their bosses. Most news sources are couching their wording, now as opposed to last year, as Lerner refusing to answer questions, not that she is invoking her constitutional rights, a major distinction. We won't know the answers until well after the next mid-term elections. 10stone5 (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Depends on how you define "scandal." Scandal has been defined as "An act or circumstance that brings about disgrace or offends the morality of the social community...." American Heritage Dictionary, p. 1095, Houghton Mifflin Co. (2nd Coll. Ed. 1985); "loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety...." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 1030, G. & C. Merriam Co. (8th ed. 1976). Under those standard definitions -- especially the second one with its use of the word "apparent" -- the IRS "scandal" could arguably be properly characterized as a "scandal."

But, if by "scandal" one means a circumstance in which criminal conduct has been proven in a court of law (that's a definition I made up myself, for purposes of discussion), then obviously the IRS "scandal" does not qualify, and may well never qualify (the FBI has already indicated that it's unlikely anyone will be charged, at least at the federal level -- but the investigation isn't over yet).

It is certainly true that where someone pleads the Fifth Amendment, he or she often (but not always) does so because he or she is aware that he or she has committed a crime. However, perfectly innocent people also plead the Fifth Amendment for very important reasons, and there is certainly no way to know whether Lois Lerner, for example, has committed any crime. If I were Lois Lerner and I were completely innocent of any crime, I would most certainly do exactly what she has done in pleading the Fifth Amendment. As any competent lawyer knows, perfectly innocent people who tell nothing but the truth can still be incriminated by their own statements.

How can that be? Read on.

Because -- and this is something that many Americans probably do not understand -- to incriminate oneself (in terms of making statements) means only to say something that increases the likelihood that the person will be ACCUSED, CHARGED OR PROSECUTED -- even FALSELY, for a crime one has not committed. Contrary to what many non-lawyers think, to "incriminate" oneself does NOT necessarily mean to provide evidence of GUILT.

Even some lawyers and judges (who really should know better) are confused by the concepts underlying the Fifth Amendment. In the famous decision of Ohio v. Reiner in 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court -- in a unanimous decision -- had to reverse a decision of the Ohio Supreme Court because the members of the Ohio court made a fundamental mistake about some of the basic legal tenets I have just explained.

My advice to my client -- even if she were perfectly innocent -- would be (if she were in the same situation as Lois Lerner) plead the Fifth Amendment and not answer any questions before a congressional committee without a grant of immunity.

I'm not convinced that Ms. Lerner or anyone else at the IRS, or the White House, or anywhere else, has violated any criminal statutes -- we'll just have to see what evidence eventually develops. But I suspect that the title of the article -- including the word "scandal" -- is probably OK simply because the public and the media treat this as a scandal, and because it may fit the Webster's dictionary definition quoted above. Famspear (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

PS: As has been reported in the news media, Lois Lerner did "muddy her waters," though, by making that introductory statement in her first appearance before the congressional committee last year. Some experts are arguing that she waived the privilege against self-incrimination by making that opening statement, and others say no. I would like to see that question litigated (and I'm not sure which way the ultimate court ruling would go). Famspear (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I've previously defended the title of this page, but I'm not sure that at this point it shouldn't be downgraded to "2013 IRS profiling controversy" or something similar. I'm mindful of Famspear's point that the situation arguably fits a dictionary definition of scandal, but that's just the point I think: it's arguable. If there were broad consensus that the actions at issue fit that definition, I would be much more inclined to accept its use. To the contrary, though, one side views it as a legitimate scandal in which the IRS targeted conservative groups in order to stifle them and the other side views it as a giant nothingburger. Calling it a "controversy" captures the notion that the moral nature of the actions involved (which necessarily impact whether it is a scandal or not) is the subject of dispute. Dyrnych (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, change the title to "2013 IRS profiling controversy." Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd support the name change as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Just realize that the mid-terms are months away. If congress turns as predicted, the DOJ and IRS won't have the protection of the Senate. They'll be less ability to stonewall on the part of IRS officials. But if the consensus is for a change, that's fine 10stone5 (talk) 05:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What "protection of the Senate"? The Senate has no ability to impede House committee hearings. And there hasn't been any "stonewalling". 75.76.213.161 (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Changed "targeted" to "selected" for further scrutiny - for NNPOV reason. Mydogtrouble (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC) "The focus, widely characterized as 'targeting'..." is about the only NPOV way to say this. Mydogtrouble (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)