Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Mass nervous breakdown over IRS review

No one could be surprised by the reaction of the Teadiots to the revelation that they were being asked, just like anyone else, to support their application for a tax exemption. The whining of the Teadiots is as much a part of summer as the whining of mosquitoes. That they think that being asked to perform the duties of ordinary citizens has "singled them out" just reinforces the obvious fact that Teadiocricy is all about me, me, me and my rights and nothing ever about us, us, us, Americans with duties to each other. But it is surprising, a little, that most of the reality-based community has bought into this nonsense. True, no one wants to be seen as a friend of the Infernal Revenue Service, except RtO. RtO thinks taxes and tax compliance made this country great. Teadiocrity made Greece Greece and Italy Italy, as least as regards the public fisc. So, regrettably, RtO cannot restate the obvious about the imaginary IRS scandal. It will have to state the position as if it were new, although it really isn't. The key points are: 1. The Teadiots and conservatives were not singled out. Other, evidently leftish groups, also had to demonstrate their fitness for the 501(c)4 exemption. For example, Progress Texas. The difference is, the leftists have not been caterwauling about it. 2. What the IRS did was completely ordinary and necessary. In 2010, there was an explosion in new groups, partly, probably, because of the egregious Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case. These groups had no history, no evidence of past activities to indicate what exactly they did. Of course the IRS demanded evidence in justification of awarding a valuable exemption. The fact that, on the face of it, the Tea Party was entirely political and was proudly and loudly claiming it was going to sweep its partisans into office at the coming election would have raised the suspicions of anyone that perhaps a Teadiot or related organization might not really be primarily an educational group. Let me restate this obvious fact: The Tea Party 502(c)4 applications were prima facie suspect of being fraudulent. There was before the public no evidence -- zero, nil, nada, not any -- that Tea Party groups were non-political. It is not true that more Teadiots were audited than other political groups, although even if this were true, it would hardly be surprising. Teahadism was something new, at least in a political organizational sense. Most other -isms had been around and organized long enough that they were not applying for exemptions de novo. Yet even so, Teahadis were a smallish minority of those chosen for close review. All the above is so obvious that it shouldn't need comment, though of course, it does. The next is speculative: It may be (though I doubt it) that not all the Teadiot applications were fraudulent. Some may have been the result of mere ignorance of the law. The fantasy levels of the Tea Partiers I was talking with at that time were at RED ALERT levels.

9 comments:

  1. Nice ad hominem. Is your argument really so weak that you have to resort to that?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Applications were decreasing, not increasing, at the time the heightened scrutiny was applied. http://reason.com/24-7/2013/05/15/data-doesnt-support-irs-explanation-for

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Tea Parties applied mainly as 501(c)(4) groups, not 502(c)(4). Further, the IRS disagrees with your claim about "prima facie" fraudulent. See Example (1) on page 4 of this IRS publication on precisely this subject.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just because I insulted the Teadiots, that does not create an ad hominem argument. My reasons are there (though not the paragraph breaks, not sure why they are not showing).

    Why in the world would it matter whether applications were increasing or decreasing? Only a tiny fraction were selected for audit or extended review.

    The reason for doing that with the Tea Party applications was obvious. Does anyone want to contend that Tea Party groups were not political?

    That would disappoint the Teadiots, who were claiming not only that they were political but that they would be the dominant political force going ahead. (The Occupy people were making a similar claim, with similar astuteness.)

    The idea that it took a long time to review the 501 (c) 4 claims is also spurious. It typically takes years to get a 501 (c) 3 application approved. It shouldn't take so long, but it does.

    4s, especially on-their-face fraudulent 4s, should take a long time, or else a large amount of authentication in a short time.

    If the Teadiot organizations were qualified, two points are relevant: 1) they should have been able to demonstrate that without difficulty; and 2) it would have been more profitable to have just done what every other group is required to do instead of wasting everybody's time claiming they were being persecuted.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Why in the world would it matter whether applications were increasing or decreasing?"

    It mattered enough for you to label it as one of your 2 major points - "2. What the IRS did was completely ordinary and necessary. In 2010, there was an explosion in new groups".

    "The idea that it took a long time to review the 501 (c) 4 claims is also spurious. It typically takes years to get a 501 (c) 3 application approved."

    Why does the time it takes for a 501(c)(3) application to be approved matter? Perhaps you could compare the average time for approval for 501(c)(4) applications before and after 2010 for politically conservative groups.

    "1) they should have been able to demonstrate that without difficulty"

    On what basis do you claim they didn't, but the IRS simply ignored their demonstration?

    "2) it would have been more profitable to have just done what every other group is required"

    On what basis do you claim they didn't, and the IRS treated them differently?

    Would you accept the same logic for poll tests, and tell those rejected they should be able to demonstrate their right to vote, and should have just done what everyone else did and not waste people's time claiming to be persecuted?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, there is the little matter that 1) applicants for 4s are not entitled to a presumption of qualification, or any other presumption; but 2) there was massive evidence that Teadiot groups were political pressure groups, all of it generated by them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So no basis at all for those claims, as expected.

    With regard to your little matters, (1) why does that matter? and (2) why does that matter? Especially for (2), I cited an IRS published document which explains why that does not matter. Are you claiming it would be reasonable for the IRS to violate its own regulations to consider that important?

    ReplyDelete
  8. The whining of the Teadiots is as much a part of summer as the whining of mosquitoes.

    That is obnoxious.

    And typical of progressives. Not only is your rant fact-free, but it presumes as true that which is manifestly not: progressive 501 (c4) groups were somehow not engaging in political activity.

    Even worse, as if that wasn't already bad enough, you completely fail to take on board how toxic it is that the IRS preferentially embargoed individualist (c4) groups, while giving collectivist groups a wave as they went by.

    You are clearly more well informed than I, so I'm sure you know exactly how long it took for some Obama related (c4) groups to get approved.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Another evisceration of the view that it is legitimate to put additional government and regulatory obstacles and intrusions in the way of people if the Democratic Party doesn't like their political views.

    ReplyDelete