> The emails are striking for what they lack: no counterproposals or efforts by IRS officials to push for a better deal.
This alone should be grounds enough to fire everyone involved for incompetence, even if corruption can't be proven.
This alone should be grounds enough to fire everyone involved for incompetence, even if corruption can't be proven.
People want to eat yummy sausages, but they don't want to know how sausages are made.
This is how sausages are made if you define 'sausages' as 'market regulation'.
But this particular sausage isn't yummy. It's gross, and the packaging is deceptively labeled, and it steals from veterans.
If I was being handed a yummy sausage, I might not want to ask many questions. But this one smells funky; so now I want to know what's in it, and what went wrong cooking it, and I'm even thinking I might want to get my sausages made by someone else from now on.
People naively think the problems will be obvious. The issue at the heart of the analogy, though, is that those same people would find what they define as problems with the process for making the yummy ones. Thus, the "problems" are not as obvious as they think.
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-irs-was-gutted
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/taxes/turbotax-h-r-block-sp...
I don't think anyone is directly paying the IRS officials or corrupting them, they're paying lobbyists and donating to political campaigns. Intuit spends a LOT on lobbying, 6.6 million just in 1 year or something like that.
If we fire everyone involved in the IRS, the new folks who go against the same political diktats will be fired by the President.
This phenomenon was much more common among Tea Party groups and libertarians (many of whom fundamentally dispute the legitimacy of the tax code) than among paleoconservatives, neoconservatives, or any brand of liberal or progressive. See generally Jᴀɴᴇ Mᴀʏᴇʀ, Dᴀʀᴋ Mᴏɴᴇʏ: Tʜᴇ Hɪᴅᴅᴇɴ Hɪsᴛᴏʀʏ ᴏғ ᴛʜᴇ Bɪʟʟɪᴏɴᴀɪʀᴇs Bᴇʜɪɴᴅ ᴛʜᴇ Rɪsᴇ ᴏғ ᴛʜᴇ Rᴀᴅɪᴄᴀʟ Rɪɢʜᴛ (2016).
Having a 501(c)(4) with a political term like "Tea Party" in the name is per se probable cause for an investigation. The ability to spin that into some kind of partisan witch hunt was a major propaganda victory. This was conduct by principally one side of the political spectrum, and the IRS had no more an obligation to treat the parties equally than the ATF does when investigating Second Amendment fringe groups or the DEA does when investigating head shops or the FBI does when investigating eco-terrorism.
TLDR: If you don't want to be investigated for unlawfully using your non-profit for political purposes, maybe don't put political terms in the name of your non-profit.
It is perhaps reasonable suspicion (at most) but I can’t see how it’s per-se probable cause.
Imagine a cause that you support instead. Would you want Alabama to be able to treat any charity with “Family Planning” or “Pride” in it standing alone to be probable cause for the authorities?
https://www.amazon.com/Set-Mini-Porcelain-Basket-Pink-Design...
Probable cause is a moderately high standard in law. One’s name alone should not make for probable cause.
Oooh, that's a bingo!
That’s the issue. Choosing which names are “political” is a political action in itself. How often were names investigated that mentioned “environment”, “social”, etc?
The Sierra club is extremely political and the name indicates nothing.
Unless these investigations were all equally applied to orgs regardless of name, your argument holds no water.