Talk:IRS targeting controversy/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Subsequent reactions

Within about a month, reactions from Democratic officials and liberal commentators shifted noticeably from a desire to get to the bottom of the IRS's conduct to a sense that the bottom had been reached and that the controversial aspects of the IRS's conduct did not amount to political targeting. I have a number of sources that represent this shift (which you can see in my reverted edit) and can easily find more statements from elected officials. I think that it's an inaccurate representation of the controversy to include reactions from immediately after the conduct was revealed (when information was relatively low and the extent of the controversy's reach wasn't known) and not note this shift. We should certainly also note that continued polling (which has been rather sparse) remains suspicious of the Obama administration (something that I also noted in my reverted edit but left for others to expound upon). Dyrnych (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You need a source noting this shift. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The sources I cited note the shift within their respective publications. Here's another noting no credible evidence of White House involvement and no evidence of targeting conservative groups exclusively in the context of media coverage of the controversy. Here's another referring to the controversy as "manufactured." Here's another. Here's a report from the Oversight Committee's Democrats (who should absolutely be cited as the source) noting no evidence of political motives. Here's another that states the author's view that there was no inappropriate targeting. I can find more if you'd like. The current article gives the impression that reactions to the controversy have remained static. This is not the case, and it should be noted. We can categorize it as "some liberal publications and Democratic politicians" or something like that, which certainly encompasses the sources that I've cited. Dyrnych (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, it may be interesting to note that public opinion has been at odds with the evidence in the controversy. Dyrnych (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Partisan efforts to quash the investigation and downplay the scandal are certainly noteworthy. There have been a few interesting articles about the current WH playbook in attempting to work the press and mitigate the public damage to the admin. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

And if those articles amount to "Republicans believe that the White House is concealing information and spinning things," we already know that from the article itself. What isn't apparent from the article is the genuine belief among many liberals that this is a non-scandal that has gone far afield from the original allegations and now seems to be a constantly-evolving search for things that arguably look bad but prove nothing (as many of the sources cited above note, the original allegations of WH involvement have been pretty much abandoned even by scandal-proponents in favor of going after Lois Lerner). That is a view that's not represented in the article, and I think it deserves to be noted in NPOV fashion (i.e., making sure that readers know that that view is the commentators' and not Wikipedia's). If you think that we should note that Republicans continue to believe that the administration is being dishonest and that it really is a scandal, we can certainly note that that belief continues. I'm not sure that it needs to be sourced, though; it's absolutely verifiable. Dyrnych (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Please immediately post sources demonstrating such a viewpoint or delete your comments above per NOTFORUM. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I will not be deleting my comments, as NOTFORUM is wholly inapplicable. I'm not advocating any particular viewpoint; I'm noting that a viewpoint exists, that sources (which I have cited at length in response to your initial comment) support the existence of that viewpoint, and arguing that the article should note the existence of that viewpoint. This is especially true since the viewpoint is that of the minority party on the Oversight Committee (again, sourced above) and is notable for that if nothing else. I've linked to sources that "demonstrat[e] such a viewpoint." You've apparently read neither the sources nor the actual content of my comments. If you believe that it is a violation of NOTFORUM to advocate for the inclusion of an acknowledgement that a particular viewpoint exists, I would encourage you to explain how this is the case. Alternatively (or additionally), you could explain why you believe that the proposed content doesn't belong in the article or how the content could be incorporated into the article in a way that would satisfy any concerns that you have. Dyrnych (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

As an addendum to this, this source, cited (and, in fact, plagiarized) heavily in the article itself for all of its damning quotes about the controversy contains this: "At a campaign-style event in late June, Obama shifted from insisting that the revelations regarding the targeting of conservatives made him 'angry' to dismissing them as just one in a series of 'phony scandals.' By this point, the media largely agreed with the president. But that had not previously been the case. When the scandal first broke, the political press was incensed by the damning implications surrounding the IRS’s actions. [...] But the passion with which the press had originally approached the IRS story ebbed. Less than a week after the scandal broke, the new exculpatory notion that the IRS had merely been confused by the new rules in the already suspect Citizens United decision began to take hold in left-leaning press outlets. MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, who on May 14 scolded the administration for being unable to see 'how wrong the government has been,' suddenly insisted on May 15 that 'the IRS agents in this case did nothing wrong.' [...] Pressed, Obama insisted that there was 'not even a smidgen of corruption' at the IRS. The president was merely echoing a sentiment that had become gospel among left-of-center journalists in the intervening months: The targeting of conservative groups, they argued, had been neither irresponsible nor unusual." Although the article is critical of the shift, this is precisely what I'm talking about. Dyrnych (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on the sources above, I think that it's appropriate to include subsequent reactions in the article. Thus far, I've seen objections only from FCAYS, and those objections have basically consisted of reiterating the mistaken notion that there are no sources to cite for those subsequent reactions. Any objections that take the sources I've posted into account? Dyrnych (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's been over a year since I posted this and no one objected. Also, frankly, I forgot about it. I'm going to re-add the subsequent reactions section. Dyrnych (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

RE "Please immediately post sources demonstrating such a viewpoint" apparently in reference to, "this is a non-scandal that has gone far afield from the original allegations and now seems to be a constantly-evolving search for things that arguably look bad but prove nothing".

From the Washington Post: "(An IRS interview transcript provides) "a detailed first-hand account of how these practices first originated, and it debunks conspiracy theories about how the IRS first started reviewing these cases." "(Democratic Congressman Elijah) Cummings had previously insisted Issa release the full transcript himself, arguing it would show that the Republican chairman’s claims of White House involvement are false, and that Issa’s own selective release of testimony was misleading the public. Issa refused, insisting that releasing full transcripts would damage the investigation. Cummings then asked Issa to detail what specifically in the transcript would do this, and demanded an answer by yesterday. According to Cummings’ letter, Issa has yet to reply"[1]

From Talking Points Memo: "Cummings went on to say that, over the past year, the committee has obtained hundreds of thousands of pages of documents and interviewed dozens of witnesses, that the IRS had spent millions of dollars, and that "we have found no evidence to support allegations of a political conspiracy against conservative groups.""[2]

So, to summarize Congressman Issa's actions so far. Learning of the IRS actions in May, 2013 he secretly asked the inspector general to conduct a skewed investigation. He then used the results of that investigation, along with excerpts from interviews with IRS agents that he refused to release publicly, to make demonstrably false statements about what the IRS was and was not doing, then made additional false accusations against the White House based on those false statements. That's pretty much your "scandal" right there. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Joegoodfriend: Regarding this verbiage:

"So, to summarize Congressman Issa's actions so far. Learning of the IRS actions in May, 2013 he secretly asked the inspector general to conduct a skewed investigation. [ . . . ]"

I'm not sure that this makes any sense. The Treasury Inspector General's investigation was conducted from June 2012 to February 2013. The resulting report, entitled "Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review," was dated May 14, 2013. That is essentially when the report was released. Obviously, by May 2013, neither Issa nor anyone else could have ordered anyone to conduct an investigation that had begun in 2012, the final report for which was issued in the very same month of May 2013. So, exactly which investigation by the Treasury Inspector General are you talking about? Famspear (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Glad you asked. In May, 2013 the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration released an audit report confirming that the IRS used inappropriate criteria to identify potential political cases in applications for tax-exempt status, including organizations with "Tea Party" in their names. It would subsequently be revealed that this audit was flawed and inaccurate, as it falsely stated that, "the IRS did not use inappropriate criteria to scrutinize groups with "progressives" in their name seeking tax-exempt status." Further investigation revealed that certain terms and themes in the applications of liberal-leaning groups and the Occupy movement had also triggered additional scrutiny. When this additional information came to light, Democratic Congressman Sandy Levin of Michigan noted that, "the Inspector General’s report left out critical information that skewed the audit’s findings."[3] In July, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George attempted to explain the discrepancy by claiming that the fact that progressive groups were also targeted had been unknown to him when he had written his report in May. It turns out there was a very good reason George was unaware that progressive groups had also been targeted.

George would later say this was because the documents that showed IRS workers also were told to look for liberal-themed labels, "were not provided during our audit." And why was George not provided with those documents? From Bernie Becker of the Hill [thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/307813-irs-ig-says-audit-limited-to-tea-party-groups], "The Treasury inspector general (IG) whose report helped drive the IRS targeting controversy says it limited its examination to conservative groups because of a request from House Republicans." (my emphasis) "A spokesman for Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, said they were asked by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) "to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations.""

In other words, here's what happened. The IRS had originally revealed giving extra scrutiny to certain groups. Instead of asking for a comprehensive investigation, Congressman Issa asked the IG to focus his examination exclusively on the 501(c)(4) applications of Tea Party and conservative groups. Having received the expected response that yes, it's been confirmed that Tea Party groups were targeted, and no, there's no indication that progressive groups were targeted, Issa was then able to argue convincingly, at least to some people, that persons high up in the Obama administration had either ordered the targeting or had at least been aware of it and used it to their advantage. Issa of course didn't reveal that he'd asked the IG to look exclusively at conservative groups. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Joegoodfriend: You haven't addressed the question. How could Issa have "learned" of the "IRS actions" in May 2013 and then -- in May of 2013 -- supposedly asked the inspector general to conduct a "skewed investigation" -- an investigation that had begun in June 2012 and that had already been completed in February 2013? That is a logical impossibility. So, unless you are talking about a second investigation that began in May 2013, the earlier explanation makes no sense. Famspear (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

All please note: the Talk page is not a place to discuss your own novel theories or analysis, nor to describe your own efforts at original research.

Please also note, that simply finding a source that, with the right interpretive mindset, could be somewhat understood to possibly lend indirect support to a claim or view, is not sufficient to support that claim or view in a WP article, much less use WP's editorial voice to present that claim or view as authoritative or widely held.

Please also note, that simply finding a number of sources that don't disagree with a claim or view is also not sufficient to support that claim or view in a WP article, much less use WP's editorial voice to present that claim or view as authoritative or widely held. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

As a brief comment on this discussion, I'm not sure that it matters to the argument for including subsequent reactions in the article. The issue for me is that the viewpoint exists, not that we be able to advocate for or against it. I agree that the argument is somewhat different and more nuanced than Joegoodfriend makes it out to be, though. Dyrnych (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

While it's not clear exactly when House Republicans asked the IG to focus its audit on conservative groups, yes it's clear that they did so before May 2013. Thanks for the correction. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Initial reactions section quotes

As currently constituted, the "Initial reactions" section is a WP:QUOTEFARM in which some quotes aren't even presented in complete sentences. I recall that there was some controversy last year when I trimmed the quotes in the process of reorganizing the page, although I don't think that we ever specifically discussed whether or not to keep the quotes in their current form. They seem just as redundant and unnecessary now as they did then. Thoughts on reworking the section to make it less quotefarmy? Dyrnych (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd support such a rework. - Cwobeel (talk)

In order to get approval, the IRS required members of a pro-life organization to sign a promise to avoid protesting in front of Planned Parenthood

The article already mentions Coalition for Life of Iowa, but it does not mention this specific fact. This should be added to the article:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-irs-denied-tax-exempt-status-to-pro-lifers-on-behalf-of-planned-parenthood/article/2529750

“In one case, the IRS withheld approval of an application for tax exempt status for Coalition for Life of Iowa. In a phone call to Coalition for Life of Iowa leaders on June 6, 2009, the IRS agent ‘Ms. Richards’ told the group to send a letter to the IRS with the entire board’s signatures stating that, under perjury of the law, they do not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood,” the Thomas More Society announced today. “Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved.”

74.98.36.123 (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that the article includes a sufficient amount of information about the Coalition for Life of Iowa. Even if it were necessary to include this extra information (from a two year old article), note that it's a claim being made by the organization itself. I'm not OK with including that as a bare "fact" rather than an attributed claim. Dyrnych (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Senate Finance Committee report: "only one conservative political advocacy organization was granted tax-exempt status between February 2009 and May 2012"

The following quotes are from the Senate Finance Committee report. I am citing both a primary and secondary source. This information is extremely notable, and should be included in the introduction to this article:

"Due to the circuitous process implemented by Lerner, only one conservative political advocacy organization was granted tax-exempt status between February 2009 and May 2012. Lerner’s bias against these applicants unquestionably led to these delays, and is particularly evident when compared to the IRS’s treatment of other applications, discussed immediately below."

"The unfortunate consequence of imposing this highly rigid and unorthodox process on EO Determinations was that many Tea Party applications that could have been decided in 2010 were not. Rather, those Tea Party applications unnecessarily languished for several more years"

"Although applications from the Tea Party and conservative organizations languished at the IRS, this was not the case for all groups that applied. In cases where the IRS wanted to act quickly, it did – particularly for other high-profile applications that attracted political attention."

"The IRS’s treatment of these organizations was almost universally consistent with Lerner’s personal political views – this is, supporting Democratic candidates and opposing conservative tax-exempt organizations"

Primary source: http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=623c6b3c-27e8-4089-a3c9-5b7b2acc659f

Secondary source: https://www.atr.org/lois-lerner-s-irs-granted-only-one-conservative-group-non-profit-status-three-years

74.98.41.206 (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Also from the Senate Finance Committee report:

"Her influence led not only to indefinite delays in the processing of these groups’ applications for tax-exempt status, but also to audits. During that same time, the IRS generally responded quickly and favorably to nonprofit organizations that were affiliated with progressive causes or politicians."

Primary source: http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=11f4db1f-9986-4ecb-ba61-f3a8abeb2672

Secondary source: https://www.atr.org/senate-report-lois-lerner-s-political-views-resulted-disparate-treatment-conservative-groups

74.98.41.206 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Americans for Tax Reform is not a reliable source for factual claims.

2. The so-called "primary source" for these claims does not state those claims. This makes sense, because these claims are from the Republican report and not the bipartisan report. Dyrnych (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

To expand on what editor Dyrnych has noted, the Committee on Finance of the United States Senate, on August 5, 2015, ordered the printing of Senate Report 114-119, The Internal Revenue Service's Processing of 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) Applications for Tax-Exempt Status Submitted by "Political Advocacy" Organizations From 2010-2013.

The entire package, with all attachments, runs about 7,913 pages in PDF format.

The document consists of several parts.

The core of the document is the Bipartisan Investigative Report as Submitted by Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden. That document runs about 142 pages. That document is essentially the only portion of the entire package on which the Republican and Democratic members of the Finance Committee agree.

The package includes a separate document called Additional View of Senator Hatch Prepared by Republican Staff (running 127 pages). The package also includes a separate document called Additional View of Senator Wyden Prepared by Democratic Staff (running 52 pages).

There is yet another document in the package entitled Timeline of Significant Events, which runs 91 pages. The rest of the package, essentially the appendices, runs nearly 7,500 pages.

So, claiming that something is from the "Senate Finance Committee report" is not going to be helpful, unless we specify which document is being referenced. The only portion of the package that contains the conclusions about which both the Republicans and the Democrats agreed is the Bipartisan Investigative Report as Submitted by Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden.

If we are citing that portion of the package, a proper citation form might be something like this:

"Bipartisan Investigative Report as Submitted by Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden," page [fill in page number here], from Senate Report 114-119, The Internal Revenue Service's Processing of 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) Applications for Tax-Exempt Status Submitted by "Political Advocacy" Organizations From 2010-2013, Committee on Finance, United States Senate (August 2015).

Yours, Famspear (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Final conclusion of the Senate Finance Committee, August 2015

For future reference, this is the full text of the final conclusion of the Senate Finance Committee report in August 2015 (verbatim, except for footnotes not reproduced):

This bipartisan report of the Committee concludes that between 2010 and 2013, the IRS failed to fulfill its obligation to administer the tax law with “integrity and fairness to all.”[footnote 704 not reproduced] The IRS functioned in a politicized atmosphere following the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which put pressure on the IRS to monitor political spending. Employees in the TE/GE Division, including Lois Lerner, were aware that the IRS had received an increasing number of applications from organizations that planned to engage in some level of political advocacy. Yet senior IRS executives, including Lerner, failed to properly manage political advocacy cases with the sensitivity and promptness that the applicants deserved. Other employees in the IRS failed to handle the cases with a proper level of urgency, which was symptomatic of the overall culture within the IRS where customer service was not prioritized.

As a result of these failings, a number of Tea Party and other political advocacy groups waited as long as five years to receive a decision from the IRS. These delays negatively affected applicants in many ways, including:

• Inability to gain tax-exempt status within their state until the IRS issued a determination letter;[footnote 705 not reproduced]

• Significant time and financial cost to respond to lengthy and burdensome IRS questions;

• Ineligibility for grants and other financial support that require IRS documentation of tax exempt status;

• Decreased donations; and

• Financial uncertainty about whether the organization will owe a tax liability if the IRS determines that it does not meet the criteria for tax-exemption.[footnote 706 not reproduced]

After experiencing these problems, numerous organizations withdrew their applications for tax exempt status and some organizations ceased to exist altogether.

The consequences of the IRS’s actions in singling out organizations based on their name and subjecting them to heightened scrutiny, substantial delays, and to burdensome and sometimes intrusive questions are far reaching and troubling. Undoubtedly, these events will erode public confidence and sow doubt about the impartiality of the IRS. The lack of candor by IRS management about the circumstances surrounding Lois Lerner’s missing emails may only serve to reinforce those doubts.

The IRS exercises an important and powerful role in the lives of every citizen in the country, and it is charged with the responsibility to exercise that power in a fair and impartial way. Sadly, this investigation has uncovered serious shortcomings in how the IRS exercised that authority when it processed applications for tax-exemption from organizations that were engaged in political advocacy – shortcomings that raise public doubt about whether the IRS is a neutral administrator of the tax laws. Immediate and meaningful changes, including increased accountability to Congress and strengthened internal controls, are necessary if diminished public confidence in the IRS is to be restored.

---from pp. 141-142, "Bipartisan Investigative Report as Submitted by Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden," from Senate Report 114-119, The Internal Revenue Service's Processing of 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) Applications for Tax-Exempt Status Submitted by "Political Advocacy" Organizations From 2010-2013, Committee on Finance, United States Senate (August 2015).

Yours, Famspear (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

June 2016 release of full list of targeted groups

Adjustments to the article should be made in light of the IRS' release of the "full-list" of targeted conservative groups.--Mrcolj (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Mrcolj - Your link goes to an article that talks about the list, but doesn't contain the list and neither do the links embedded within that article. I did a quick 'net search, but only found other articles talking about the list. Where did you find the list itself? Thank you for your help, Wordreader (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

citation needed

There doesn't appear to be a citation for the assertion that Schock "misquoted one of the questions":

"While questioning then-Acting Commissioner of the IRS, Steven T. Miller, on May 17, 2013, Congressman Aaron Schock (R-IL), referring to a report[56] 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.[57] Schock's characterization of the question was included in news reports[55][57] and was repeated by conservative commentators.[58][59]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.245.132 (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Destruction of evidence

The failure of the IRS to turn over the subpoenaed emails that they said the couldn't find, but nobody asked their IT department to look for, then were found and later erased needs to have it's own statement in the lede and a separate section.

Jason Chaffetz Calls out IRS Crimes Phmoreno (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

We're not going to base unattributed claims of fact on a motivated, partisan primary source. Dyrnych (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

What is going to happen is that I am going to use a transcript of the investigation as the source.Phmoreno (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A source for the claims you've listed above? How do you plan on doing that without original research or synthesis?

Based on the hearing transcript the entire tone of this article needs to change. Hearing on Internal Revenue Service Targeting Conservative Groups Phmoreno (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Citing Youtube videos of Republican politicians as sources is ridiculous.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite based on hearing testimony

Based on the hearing ranscript this article needs to be completely rewritten. Hearing on Internal Revenue Service Targeting Conservative Groups Phmoreno (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Opening testimony from the cited transcript:

Chairman Camp. The Committee on Ways and Means will come to order.

On May 10th, Lois Lerner, Director of Exempt Organizations for the Internal Revenue Service division that oversees tax exempt groups, finally acknowledged that the agency had been targeting conservative‑leaning political organizations. Four days later the Treasury Inspector General for Taxpayer Administration confirmed that “The IRS used inappropriate criteria to identify organizations applying for tax exempt status.” The report also confirmed that this abuse of power began as far back as 2010.

This revelation goes against the very principles of free speech and liberty upon which this country was founded. The blatant disregard with which the agency has treated Congress and the American taxpayer raises serious concerns about leadership at the IRS.

Let’s establish the facts that we do know. Based on the TIGTA report we know that for an 18‑month period beginning in spring 2010 IRS employees in the agency’s Determinations Unit employed key words such as “tea party,” “Patriot” and “9/12” to target applications for tax exempt status. These groups were then subjected to further IRS investigation and document requests. IRS employees later expanded their search to include groups concerned about government spending, debt, taxes, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or trying to “make America a better place to live.” Let me repeat that. People were targeted for trying to make America a better place to live.

These Americans had their applications delayed for nearly 3 years and at least 98 applicants were asked for improper and inappropriate information such as donor lists and whether family members planned to run for political office. During that delay and while applications of conservative groups sat untouched for more than a year, other applications with names like “progress” and “progressive” were approved in just a matter of months. The headline in USA Today from earlier this week really says it all. “IRS gave liberals a pass; Tea Party groups put on hold.”

See transcript for details.Phmoreno (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Republican talking points from four years ago? This is a primary source.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY is allowed, but WP:UNDUE is not—discuss. El_C 01:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we even have to get to WP:UNDUE. There is no way a partisan opening statement from a Congressional hearing—whether from a Republican or a Democrat—is a reliable source for a claim of fact, beyond that the speaker made the claim. Likewise, there's no justification from using an almost four-year-old statement with views already reflected in the article as a basis to rewrite the entire thing (or even part of it). What, is the theory that no one—not us, not secondary sources—was aware that hearings were conducted on this topic? Dyrnych (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've not looked at this closely, but it does sound according to what both of you are saying, that the issue is lack of a WP:RS first and foremost. El_C 04:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Title should change to IRS Targeting scandal

Based on the fact that the IRS admitted to targeting and paid a settlement to Tea Party groups it is time to give this article a more appropriate title.Phmoreno (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

2017 lawsuit settlement includes admission of "aggressive scrutiny of conservative groups"

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-aggressive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups

This is not a typical case of a monetary settlement in which no wrongdoing is accepted, but an explicit admission of political tax code enforcement bias. The summary of the article soft-pedals (indeed, omits) this outcome and instead focuses on the monetary settlement, and the fact that Trump administration declined to pursue criminal charges. The latter is more likely to be a result of the tort settlement than a lack of prosecutable offenses on the part of the IRS.

Atrobinson (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Per the NYT source in the article, "[i]n the agreement, the I.R.S. also admits to being wrong in demanding unnecessary information from the plaintiffs and screening groups based on name or policy affiliation." In other words, while the IRS admitted that the additional scrutiny was wrong, the source does not support your assertion that the motive for the wrongful conduct was "political tax code enforcement bias." The NPR source you cite is consistent with the NYT source. The WaPo source appears to be a mislinked Washington Times source, so I'll replace it with the NPR source. Dyrnych (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

So in fixing this I realized that the article was conflating two separate lawsuits. That's been fixed, and the admission of wrongdoing in the Linchpin suit has been added. However, the notion that the IRS admitted "political tax code enforcement bias" is still unsupported. Dyrnych (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Political Repression

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-aggressive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups

The IRS admitted it target conservatives because of their political views.

This matches Wikipedia's own definition of Political Repression and thus this page should mention that and link to the political repression page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_repression

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngoc Cens (talk • contribs) 04:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Even if it were, Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. Please provide a reliable, published source that reaches this conclusion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• This is an encyclopedia, so we don't use words lightly. Per political repression, this includes: ...human rights violations, surveillance abuse, police brutality, imprisonment, involuntary settlement, stripping of citizen's rights, lustration and violent action or terror such as the murder, summary executions, torture, forced disappearance and other extrajudicial punishment...

If we're going to connect the IRS to these things, we need a source which directly says this is "political repression". If Jeff Session had apologized for "political oppression" in his press release, we could quote him as having said that. Otherwise, we don't use original research to try and prove a point, even if we think we're correct. Grayfell (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Removing POV Template

The conditions for removal of Template:POV appear to have been met. If a POV issue remains, please add the template back and state a reason on this talk page for discussion. ~~ Gunahunda ^⋠Talk⋡ 16:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)