The Out-Of-Control IRS

[Shady]

Does it even give you pause that after all the investigations by Republican committees there has yet to be unearthed anything which suggests there were political motives involved in looking into the questionable charitable status of right wing money laundering groups?

That just isn't true. The IRS has already apologized. Does one apologize for not doing anything wrong?

IRS admits targeting conservatives for tax scrutiny in 2012 election

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/irs-admits-targeting-conservatives-for-tax-scrutiny-in-2012-election/2013/05/10/3b6a0ada-b987-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html

Regardless, it's kind of hard to unearth said evidence, when said evidence has been destroyed by the IRS. Why do you think the former IRS commissioner pleaded the 5th?

Anyways, I'm sure you'd be offering the same excuses and defences for some corporation that had it's CEO plead the 5th and have similar hard drive "troubles",

[GostHacked]

It sounds to me like none of you have ever worked for a large institution. Hard drives do break, and generally, data is not saved beyond six months. I can tell you from when I worked for CRA there were often computer problems, and backup often didn't work, especially with regard to laptops which had high security software installed.

I would question the quality of people you have working at CRA.

There were apparently 7 hard drives in question that all mysteriously "failed". The odds of 7 separate specific hard drives to fail in a given year have been estimated as one in several billion (each one has a few % chance to fail in a given year).

I have seen it where a batch of laptops over a course of six months all had the same type of hard drive issue. Turned out it was a bad batch of drives. And I had seen drives fail on a regular basis, simply due to the regular high use. So it's more common than you would think.

[Bonam]

I have seen it where a batch of laptops over a course of six months all had the same type of hard drive issue. Turned out it was a bad batch of drives. And I had seen drives fail on a regular basis, simply due to the regular high use. So it's more common than you would think.

I've worked with enough hard drives to maintain my opinion that the 7 failing is incredibly unlikely. That said, Argus raises a valid question, I am not certain how many hard drives were requested. If it was indeed 7000 requested and 7 failing that would seem more plausible. But I haven't heard anything about data recovered from any other drives. How many drives were requested?

[Shady]

I've worked with enough hard drives to maintain my opinion that the 7 failing is incredibly unlikely. That said, Argus raises a valid question, I am not certain how many hard drives were requested. If it was indeed 7000 requested and 7 failing that would seem more plausible. But I haven't heard anything about data recovered from any other drives. How many drives were requested?

No, 7000 hard drives weren't requested.

[Shady]

In law we call that spoliation of evidence. The presumption is that the information that was destroyed would have been harmful to the destroyer.

That came up at Monday's hearing. It didn't go well for the IRS commissioner. He was completely and utterly destroyed during these few minutes. If it was a prize fight, the towel would've been thrown in almost immediately.

[Bonam]

No, 7000 hard drives weren't requested.

I suspect not, that being said, it would be good to have a cite showing how many were requested. I haven't looked around too hard but haven't seen this number anywhere so far.

[dre]

I think it makes a lot of sense for the IRS to target some of these tea-partish conservative groups. A lot of them are vocal opponents of most kinds of taxation.

Is it really that suprising that the government would be keeping an eye on libertarians that want to shut most of the government down?

If you had the choice to do a tax audit on one of two people... and one of those people had spent the last year jumping up and down screaming "I DONT WANT TO PAY TAXES", who would you pick?

Edited June 27, 2014 by dre

[Bonam]

That all makes sense dre... what doesn't make as much sense is all the coverup. I tended to dismiss this whole "scandal" as much ado about nothing until the obvious lies, coverups, pretend ignorance, and destruction of data started.

[dre]

That all makes sense dre... what doesn't make as much sense is all the coverup. I tended to dismiss this whole "scandal" as much ado about nothing until the obvious lies, coverups, pretend ignorance, and destruction of data started.

Yeah I hear ya. And when someone destroys data in what seems like such a blatantly obvious manner, it really makes you wonder if there wasnt something much much worse they were trying to hide... maybe totally unrelated to the scandal in question.

Edited June 27, 2014 by dre

[Bob Macadoo]

Yeah I hear ya. And when someone destroys data in what seems like such a blatantly obvious manner, it really makes you wonder if there wasnt something much much worse they were trying to hide... maybe totally unrelated to the scandal in question.

I'm not a tinfoil hat type but I'm thinking the same......this buffoonery is covering something else possibly just as benign maybe like "how" they gathered info on teapartiers.

[Argus]

That just isn't true. The IRS has already apologized. Does one apologize for not doing anything wrong?

IRS admits targeting conservatives for tax scrutiny in 2012 election

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/irs-admits-targeting-conservatives-for-tax-scrutiny-in-2012-election/2013/05/10/3b6a0ada-b987-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html

Regardless, it's kind of hard to unearth said evidence, when said evidence has been destroyed by the IRS. Why do you think the former IRS commissioner pleaded the 5th?

Anyways, I'm sure you'd be offering the same excuses and defences for some corporation that had it's CEO plead the 5th and have similar hard drive "troubles",

From your own cite:

Lois G. Lerner, the IRS official who oversees tax-exempt groups, said the “absolutely inappropriate” actions by “front-line people” were not driven by partisan motives. Rather, Lerner said, they were a misguided effort to come up with an efficient means of dealing with a flood of applications from organizations seeking ­tax-exempt status between 2010 and 2012.

The tax workers were finding commonalities (improper applications, improper documentation) in a flood of requests from groups which funnel money into the pockets of political anti-tax crusaders -- which is hardly surprising given the nature of the people involved. Not surprising all these groups wanted charitable status, but ironic given it meant the taxpayer would have to reimburse a big chunk of the 'donations'. So these workers sought out key word matches to pull them out and examine them. That means they were simply doing their job.

And yes, government agencies will apologize for anything their political masters reckon might ease pressure on them.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

That came up at Monday's hearing. It didn't go well for the IRS commissioner. He was completely and utterly destroyed during these few minutes. If it was a prize fight, the towel would've been thrown in almost immediately.

Yes, that happens when you have a bunch of politicians on one side playing for the cameras, and a public servant on the other who isn't allowed to talk back.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

I think it makes a lot of sense for the IRS to target some of these tea-partish conservative groups. A lot of them are vocal opponents of most kinds of taxation.

Is it really that suprising that the government would be keeping an eye on libertarians that want to shut most of the government down?

If you had the choice to do a tax audit on one of two people... and one of those people had spent the last year jumping up and down screaming "I DONT WANT TO PAY TAXES", who would you pick?

And how many of these people have been caught before trying to pay less tax than they are supposed to? Given the nature of their beliefs I don't think I'm out of line in suggesting 'quite a few'. Anyone who'se been caught with unreported income or in various other tax avoidance efforts in the past will be targeted for special attention in the following years.

[Bonam]

And how many of these people have been caught before trying to pay less tax than they are supposed to? Given the nature of their beliefs I don't think I'm out of line in suggesting 'quite a few'.

I don't think that's a valid assumption at all unless you have evidence to give it up. Many people oppose government tax policy, spending, budgets, etc, and yet are law abiding citizens and pay their taxes as they are required to, though they may resent it.

[Argus]

I don't think that's a valid assumption at all unless you have evidence to give it up. Many people oppose government tax policy, spending, budgets, etc, and yet are law abiding citizens and pay their taxes as they are required to, though they may resent it.

I'm quite sure you're correct, however, if you split the population into three groups, one being a group which pays taxes without complaint, the second being a group which whines and bitches about paying their taxes, and a third which not only whines and bitches about paying taxes but goes so far as to organizes lobby and political groups in order to fight taxation, would you not suspect that tax defaulters would be highest in the latter group?

Example. at CRA, we started to get a pile of applications for tax deducations from clergy. Now we've always had a certain number of applications, but suddenly there's a veritable flood of these things. WTH, say the clerks? WTH, say the program officers. Turns out a tax avoidance group had put out flyers advising people to declare themselves clergy, and some uh 'religious' group had figured out they could declare every single member of their group as being 'clergy' in order for them to get tax deductions too.

Time for major audits and much, much closer scrutiny of all applications, especially those from certain groups whose names kept coming up... It wasn't religious discrimination, but simple observation of repeated patterns of illegality.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Argus

[dre]

I'm quite sure you're correct, however, if you split the population into three groups, one being a group which pays taxes without complaint, the second being a group which whines and bitches about paying their taxes, and a third which not only whines and bitches about paying taxes but goes so far as to organizes lobby and political groups in order to fight taxation, would you not suspect that tax defaulters would be highest in the latter group?

I would.

And not only that, far right ideology represents a threat. I remember the Bush administration took heat for focusing on right-wing "canned goods, duct tape, and firearms" horders, and "end-of-daysers".

[Bonam]

I'm quite sure you're correct, however, if you split the population into three groups, one being a group which pays taxes without complaint, the second being a group which whines and bitches about paying their taxes, and a third which not only whines and bitches about paying taxes but goes so far as to organizes lobby and political groups in order to fight taxation, would you not suspect that tax defaulters would be highest in the latter group?

Yes I'm sure there's a good chance that there's a correlation there. That being said, like I mentioned before, it wasn't so much the alleged targeting of these groups that caught my attention, but the lies, coverups, and destruction of data that started as soon as the issue started to be investigated. If it was all a matter of valid investigation of some groups based on trends like you state, then it would have been far wiser for them to simply state that. Instead, we see destroyed hard drives and emails, officials pretending to be complete morons in front of congressional panels, etc. So what gives?

[dre]

Yes I'm sure there's a good chance that there's a correlation there. That being said, like I mentioned before, it wasn't so much the alleged targeting of these groups that caught my attention, but the lies, coverups, and destruction of data that started as soon as the issue started to be investigated. If it was all a matter of valid investigation of some groups based on trends like you state, then it would have been far wiser for them to simply state that. Instead, we see destroyed hard drives and emails, officials pretending to be complete morons in front of congressional panels, etc. So what gives?

Well, I think the IRS is mandated to now allow politics to be a factor at all in who they audit. So they probably had that to hide at least.

But the other thing to consider, is that this is the US government. They are into ALL KINDS of dirty things, and have all kinds of things to hide, so its possible that those drives were destroyed not just because of data on them about this particular scandal, but data concerning something else totally unrelated.

[Bonam]

But the other thing to consider, is that this is the US government. They are into ALL KINDS of dirty things, and have all kinds of things to hide, so its possible that those drives were destroyed not just because of data on them about this particular scandal, but data concerning something else totally unrelated.

Absolutely, and I am sure that is likely, and that makes it all the more scandalous, and all the more worthy of pursuing with all available legal means.

[Argus]

Yes I'm sure there's a good chance that there's a correlation there. That being said, like I mentioned before, it wasn't so much the alleged targeting of these groups that caught my attention, but the lies, coverups, and destruction of data that started as soon as the issue started to be investigated.?

If there's one thing I learned while working for the government it was to not ascribe to mallice what could be readily explained by incompetence and stupidity.

The Republicans cut the budget at the IRS in retailation for the agency seeking to investigate their bribe money, so they have shed thousands of jobs. A third of all phone calls to the IRS by taxpayers now go unanswered. Where there aren't enough staff, isn't enough money, you get lots more issues like confusion, missing data and broken computers.

[Bonam]

If there's one thing I learned while working for the government it was to not ascribe to mallice what could be readily explained by incompetence and stupidity.

I too agree with the notion of not ascribing to malice what can be explained by stupidity. However, in this case, I simply don't think stupidity can explain it, it takes deliberate intent and purpose to get rid of data so thoroughly. I am open to being presented with evidence that that is not the case, however. How many hard drives were requested?

[monty16]

I too agree with the notion of not ascribing to malice what can be explained by stupidity. However, in this case, I simply don't think stupidity can explain it, it takes deliberate intent and purpose to get rid of data so thoroughly. I am open to being presented with evidence that that is not the case, however. How many hard drives were requested?

What is it that you are ascribing to stupidity. Or that is it? Make up your mind. If you don't know yourself then how can you make others understand?

[Argus]

I too agree with the notion of not ascribing to malice what can be explained by stupidity. However, in this case, I simply don't think stupidity can explain it, it takes deliberate intent and purpose to get rid of data so thoroughly. I am open to being presented with evidence that that is not the case, however. How many hard drives were requested?

That's the question, isn't it? As I said, this Republican Congress, in the abscence of producing any legislation (aside from 40 separate votes to kill obamacare) has occupied itself with multiple 'investigations' into anything and everything the administration does. Aren't they currently holding the ninth set of hearings into Benghazi? Their modus operendi seems to be to keep demanding information on every topic under the sun, even though it doesn't show anything. Then, the moment information isn't produced start screaming about the administration hiding evidence. Color me unimpressed.

[jbg]

That's the question, isn't it? As I said, this Republican Congress, in the abscence of producing any legislation (aside from 40 separate votes to kill obamacare) has occupied itself with multiple 'investigations' into anything and everything the administration does. Aren't they currently holding the ninth set of hearings into Benghazi? Their modus operendi seems to be to keep demanding information on every topic under the sun, even though it doesn't show anything. Then, the moment information isn't produced start screaming about the administration hiding evidence. Color me unimpressed.

The Democrats did the same thing under Eisenhower. Stuart Symington was constantly investigating lack of military preparation, until he suddenly turned dovish when political fashions change. The fault of the Repulblicans now is trying to govern from one house of Congress. Your system allows that; ours does not.

[Shady]

I think it makes a lot of sense for the IRS to target some of these tea-partish conservative groups. A lot of them are vocal opponents of most kinds of taxation.

No, they're not opponents of most kinds of taxation, and no it actually doesn't make sense at all. What you're advocating is soft tyranny, and that's a pretty deplorable idea. You want the apparatus of the state to weight political speech, and that speech that's deemed to not be in the interest of said state, be hindered with extra processes. Where as speech that is weighed to be in the interest of the state, be made easier to engage in the overall poltical process. That's a frighteningly bad idea. But I'm glad you're being honest about your beliefs.