TaxProf Blog

Paul L. Caron
Dean





Saturday, November 15, 2014

The IRS Scandal, Day 555

IRS Logo 2Yahoo! Finance:  Politicization of the IRS: Full Disclosure Network Special Video Report:

Watch this 8 minute FDN Video where it is revealed that Obama Administration officials were directing the IRS campaign against political groups critical of the President's policies according to the documents obtained by Paul Orfanedes, Director of Litigation for the public interest law firm Judicial Watch. Orfanedes reveals the tactics used by IRS Director Lois Lerner that deceived the media by where public documents had been withheld from Freedom of Information Act Requests (FOIA) filed by Judicial Watch. He also explains why Judicial Watch is determined to find all the missing Lois Lerner emails and how the IRS was able to shut down Patriot and Tea Party organizations by denying them Tax Exempt Status. 

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2014/11/the-irs-scandal-5.html

IRS News, IRS Scandal, Tax | Permalink

Comments

Webmaster: Several points. First, IF my comment had been directed at the equal protection issue potentially presented in the IRS “scandal”–my comment was not directed to that potential issue, of which there are many, including but not limited to equal protection–the provision of the U.S. Constitution that would be implicated would not be the 14th Amendment. As you may or may not know, the IRS is a federal agency, not a state agency. Therefore, it would be the 5th Amendment’s equal protection clause that would be applicable to the IRS, not that of the 14th Amendment, which applies to the states. Second, the IRS controversy also includes an allegation that the IRS singled out progressive organizations for excess or unnecessary scrutiny of exempt-status applications. Third, the controversy does not extend to “denial” of tax-exempt status of conservative organizations. No tax exempt recognition has been denied to conservative orgs, only to progressive orgs. The actual allegations have to do with delay and excess or special scrutiny of applications of conservative orgs and a small number of progressive orgs. Last, a large number of conservative and right-wing writers, commentators, and talking heads have alleged that the 2012 election was stolen because the IRS, through its 501(c)(4) Cincinnati BOLO operation, impeded the formation, funding, and growth of Tea Party and other right-wing groups that opposed the president’s reelection. BTW, in your initial comment you indicate that it would be interesting to know if my comment was from a student or a lawyer. I would be interested to know why you would like to know? For the record, it was written by a practicing lawyer of over 36 years experience in litigation, including tax and constitutional litigation in both federal and state courts.

Posted by: Publius Novus | Nov 19, 2014 6:51:25 AM

The issue is the violation of the constitutional equal protection clause (The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.) The controversy is the allegation that the IRS singled out conservative organizations for denial of tax free status while permitting it to liberal organizations. Stealing or not stealing elections has nothing to do with that

Posted by: Webmaster | Nov 17, 2014 3:43:13 PM

Not at all. I challenge the article's assertion--oft repeated by the right-wing--that the IRS shut down Patriot and Tea Party organizations by denying them tax exempt status. Very simply, no Patriot or Tea Party organizations (or progressive orgs) were shut down due to denial of recognition of tax exempt status by the IRS. It follows that since no right-wing organizations were "shut down" by the IRS' alleged improprieties, the right-wing allegation that the 2012 election was "stolen" on the aforesaid basis is baloney.

Posted by: Publius Novus | Nov 17, 2014 7:00:17 AM

The comment is interesting. I wonder if is from a student, or a lawyer? The writers attitude seems to imply "no harm, no foul." I wonder if he would agree that using that logic, Richard Nixon was innocent and should not have been threatened with impeachment and forced to resign. After all, nothing was taken from the break-in and there is no evidence that harm was done to the Democratic party.

Posted by: Webmaster | Nov 16, 2014 3:40:16 PM

Okay, let's have a truther moment here. I would like someone to list for us readers all of the "Patriot and Tea Party organizations" "the IRS was able to shut down" "by denying them Tax Exempt Status." Woody? Wodun? Prof.?

Posted by: Publius Novus | Nov 15, 2014 1:08:01 PM