In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
I know a tax lawyer who goes to my church and I'm friends with. They are basically the source of all evil for the 1%. They are modern wizards practicing the dark art of tax law.
On May 17 2013 04:28 Sermokala wrote: I know a tax lawyer who goes to my church and I'm friends with. They are basically the source of all evil for the 1%. They are modern wizards practicing the dark art of tax law.
Tax attorneys are the masters of pushing the envelope against the prohibition of letting clients use an attorney's skills to assist in the commission of crimes or fraud.
For all the talk of scandal regarding the IRS targeting groups named “Tea Party” or “Patriot,” it’s not hard to draw an additional lesson from the facts of the case — a pattern that follows the well-worn model of the modern political age: Benefits flow to the rich and the well-connected, with pain for the rest.
The Cincinnati incident, which has already cost the job of Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller (who was not the commissioner when the scandal occurred – this would be like the State Department reacting to the tragedy at the Libyan consulate by firing a low-level bureaucrat coincidentally named Ben Ghazi), is definitely scandalous in its own right. As the Treasury Inspector General report details, it’s completely inappropriate for the IRS to burden any subset with invasive information requests based merely on keywords or policy positions.
But let’s consider how this played out. The New York Times’ Nick Confessore reported this week that the groups applying for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status and singled out for inspection were primarily small, local conservative (and a few liberal) organizations, who barely spent any money on elections. Meanwhile, groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and the liberal Obama-supporting Priorities USA, who did the lion’s share of campaign spending among these types of organizations, not only faced no such examination, but survived multiple efforts by campaign finance reform advocates to get the IRS to revoke their tax-exempt status because of their voluminous political activities.
Why would this be the case? First of all, a 501(c)(4) group need not apply with the IRS to prove its tax-exempt status; it can simply self-declare, avoiding an initial review process. The IRS encourages groups to file applications, but those with the resources to hire a smart tax lawyer know they aren’t required to go through the trouble. Needless to say, most local Tea Party groups didn’t have that kind of professional expertise. So generally speaking, the small fish revealed themselves to the IRS initially, and since Congress requires reviews of every application for tax-exempt status, these groups become the low-hanging fruit, prone to investigation.
Furthermore, Tea Party groups did themselves no favors by filling out the applications in an amateurish manner, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning former reporter for the New York Times and columnist at TaxAnalysts.com David Cay Johnston. “It’s like applying for a mortgage,” Johnston told Salon. “If you write it out wrong, you’re going to get flagged. And there are examples of these groups saying they’re not political and then saying their goal is to influence legislation.”
Crossroads GPS apparently did file an application for tax-exempt status, but it had very smart tax form preparers who knew how to exploit the ambiguites in the 501(c)(4) statute. The tax code says these groups must “exclusively” engage in the vague-sounding “social welfare activity,” which suggests a ban on political spending. But the IRS subsequently interpreted this to mean that groups fall within the rule as long as they don’t “primarily engage” in political activities. Since the Citizens United ruling, which heralded the growth of the 501(c)(4) sector because corporations could donate to these tax-exempt groups without disclosing their donations, savvier groups have simply worked to stay a hair under 50 percent with their campaign spending, putting them in the clear. David Cay Johnston cited this as a major problem with how the IRS defines social welfare organizations. He said, “Is there any married person in America who doesn’t understand exclusivity? 49.9 percent is not exclusive.”
For all the talk of scandal regarding the IRS targeting groups named “Tea Party” or “Patriot,” it’s not hard to draw an additional lesson from the facts of the case — a pattern that follows the well-worn model of the modern political age: Benefits flow to the rich and the well-connected, with pain for the rest.
The Cincinnati incident, which has already cost the job of Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller (who was not the commissioner when the scandal occurred – this would be like the State Department reacting to the tragedy at the Libyan consulate by firing a low-level bureaucrat coincidentally named Ben Ghazi), is definitely scandalous in its own right. As the Treasury Inspector General report details, it’s completely inappropriate for the IRS to burden any subset with invasive information requests based merely on keywords or policy positions.
But let’s consider how this played out. The New York Times’ Nick Confessore reported this week that the groups applying for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status and singled out for inspection were primarily small, local conservative (and a few liberal) organizations, who barely spent any money on elections. Meanwhile, groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and the liberal Obama-supporting Priorities USA, who did the lion’s share of campaign spending among these types of organizations, not only faced no such examination, but survived multiple efforts by campaign finance reform advocates to get the IRS to revoke their tax-exempt status because of their voluminous political activities.
Why would this be the case? First of all, a 501(c)(4) group need not apply with the IRS to prove its tax-exempt status; it can simply self-declare, avoiding an initial review process. The IRS encourages groups to file applications, but those with the resources to hire a smart tax lawyer know they aren’t required to go through the trouble. Needless to say, most local Tea Party groups didn’t have that kind of professional expertise. So generally speaking, the small fish revealed themselves to the IRS initially, and since Congress requires reviews of every application for tax-exempt status, these groups become the low-hanging fruit, prone to investigation.
Furthermore, Tea Party groups did themselves no favors by filling out the applications in an amateurish manner, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning former reporter for the New York Times and columnist at TaxAnalysts.com David Cay Johnston. “It’s like applying for a mortgage,” Johnston told Salon. “If you write it out wrong, you’re going to get flagged. And there are examples of these groups saying they’re not political and then saying their goal is to influence legislation.”
Crossroads GPS apparently did file an application for tax-exempt status, but it had very smart tax form preparers who knew how to exploit the ambiguites in the 501(c)(4) statute. The tax code says these groups must “exclusively” engage in the vague-sounding “social welfare activity,” which suggests a ban on political spending. But the IRS subsequently interpreted this to mean that groups fall within the rule as long as they don’t “primarily engage” in political activities. Since the Citizens United ruling, which heralded the growth of the 501(c)(4) sector because corporations could donate to these tax-exempt groups without disclosing their donations, savvier groups have simply worked to stay a hair under 50 percent with their campaign spending, putting them in the clear. David Cay Johnston cited this as a major problem with how the IRS defines social welfare organizations. He said, “Is there any married person in America who doesn’t understand exclusivity? 49.9 percent is not exclusive.”
This has precedent within other parts of the IRS. According to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, IRS audits of the largest and richest corporations have steadily declined since 2005, down 22 percent in the ensuing four years and even more from 2011-2013. In the same period, the agency accelerated its scrutiny of small and midsize corporations. Since 2000, the IRS has been more likely to audit the working poor, individuals and families making under $25,000 a year, than those making over $100,000 annually. The middle class received disproportionately more audits throughout the past decade as well. An IRS unit formed in 2009 called the Global High Wealth Industry Group, designed to give special attention to tax compliance of high-wealth individuals, performed exactly two audits in 2010 and 11 in 2011.
For all the talk of scandal regarding the IRS targeting groups named “Tea Party” or “Patriot,” it’s not hard to draw an additional lesson from the facts of the case — a pattern that follows the well-worn model of the modern political age: Benefits flow to the rich and the well-connected, with pain for the rest.
The Cincinnati incident, which has already cost the job of Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller (who was not the commissioner when the scandal occurred – this would be like the State Department reacting to the tragedy at the Libyan consulate by firing a low-level bureaucrat coincidentally named Ben Ghazi), is definitely scandalous in its own right. As the Treasury Inspector General report details, it’s completely inappropriate for the IRS to burden any subset with invasive information requests based merely on keywords or policy positions.
But let’s consider how this played out. The New York Times’ Nick Confessore reported this week that the groups applying for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status and singled out for inspection were primarily small, local conservative (and a few liberal) organizations, who barely spent any money on elections. Meanwhile, groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and the liberal Obama-supporting Priorities USA, who did the lion’s share of campaign spending among these types of organizations, not only faced no such examination, but survived multiple efforts by campaign finance reform advocates to get the IRS to revoke their tax-exempt status because of their voluminous political activities.
Why would this be the case? First of all, a 501(c)(4) group need not apply with the IRS to prove its tax-exempt status; it can simply self-declare, avoiding an initial review process. The IRS encourages groups to file applications, but those with the resources to hire a smart tax lawyer know they aren’t required to go through the trouble. Needless to say, most local Tea Party groups didn’t have that kind of professional expertise. So generally speaking, the small fish revealed themselves to the IRS initially, and since Congress requires reviews of every application for tax-exempt status, these groups become the low-hanging fruit, prone to investigation.
Furthermore, Tea Party groups did themselves no favors by filling out the applications in an amateurish manner, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning former reporter for the New York Times and columnist at TaxAnalysts.com David Cay Johnston. “It’s like applying for a mortgage,” Johnston told Salon. “If you write it out wrong, you’re going to get flagged. And there are examples of these groups saying they’re not political and then saying their goal is to influence legislation.”
Crossroads GPS apparently did file an application for tax-exempt status, but it had very smart tax form preparers who knew how to exploit the ambiguites in the 501(c)(4) statute. The tax code says these groups must “exclusively” engage in the vague-sounding “social welfare activity,” which suggests a ban on political spending. But the IRS subsequently interpreted this to mean that groups fall within the rule as long as they don’t “primarily engage” in political activities. Since the Citizens United ruling, which heralded the growth of the 501(c)(4) sector because corporations could donate to these tax-exempt groups without disclosing their donations, savvier groups have simply worked to stay a hair under 50 percent with their campaign spending, putting them in the clear. David Cay Johnston cited this as a major problem with how the IRS defines social welfare organizations. He said, “Is there any married person in America who doesn’t understand exclusivity? 49.9 percent is not exclusive.”
This has precedent within other parts of the IRS. According to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, IRS audits of the largest and richest corporations have steadily declined since 2005, down 22 percent in the ensuing four years and even more from 2011-2013. In the same period, the agency accelerated its scrutiny of small and midsize corporations. Since 2000, the IRS has been more likely to audit the working poor, individuals and families making under $25,000 a year, than those making over $100,000 annually. The middle class received disproportionately more audits throughout the past decade as well. An IRS unit formed in 2009 called the Global High Wealth Industry Group, designed to give special attention to tax compliance of high-wealth individuals, performed exactly two audits in 2010 and 11 in 2011.
Yeah, that's why I posted the table. The article is a bit deceptive - more emphasis has been placed on smaller corps and poorer individuals since 2005, but so what? Wealthy people and businesses are still disproportionally audited. So if there's any favoritism it is to the poor, middle class and SME's.
For all the talk of scandal regarding the IRS targeting groups named “Tea Party” or “Patriot,” it’s not hard to draw an additional lesson from the facts of the case — a pattern that follows the well-worn model of the modern political age: Benefits flow to the rich and the well-connected, with pain for the rest.
The Cincinnati incident, which has already cost the job of Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller (who was not the commissioner when the scandal occurred – this would be like the State Department reacting to the tragedy at the Libyan consulate by firing a low-level bureaucrat coincidentally named Ben Ghazi), is definitely scandalous in its own right. As the Treasury Inspector General report details, it’s completely inappropriate for the IRS to burden any subset with invasive information requests based merely on keywords or policy positions.
But let’s consider how this played out. The New York Times’ Nick Confessore reported this week that the groups applying for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status and singled out for inspection were primarily small, local conservative (and a few liberal) organizations, who barely spent any money on elections. Meanwhile, groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and the liberal Obama-supporting Priorities USA, who did the lion’s share of campaign spending among these types of organizations, not only faced no such examination, but survived multiple efforts by campaign finance reform advocates to get the IRS to revoke their tax-exempt status because of their voluminous political activities.
Why would this be the case? First of all, a 501(c)(4) group need not apply with the IRS to prove its tax-exempt status; it can simply self-declare, avoiding an initial review process. The IRS encourages groups to file applications, but those with the resources to hire a smart tax lawyer know they aren’t required to go through the trouble. Needless to say, most local Tea Party groups didn’t have that kind of professional expertise. So generally speaking, the small fish revealed themselves to the IRS initially, and since Congress requires reviews of every application for tax-exempt status, these groups become the low-hanging fruit, prone to investigation.
Furthermore, Tea Party groups did themselves no favors by filling out the applications in an amateurish manner, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning former reporter for the New York Times and columnist at TaxAnalysts.com David Cay Johnston. “It’s like applying for a mortgage,” Johnston told Salon. “If you write it out wrong, you’re going to get flagged. And there are examples of these groups saying they’re not political and then saying their goal is to influence legislation.”
Crossroads GPS apparently did file an application for tax-exempt status, but it had very smart tax form preparers who knew how to exploit the ambiguites in the 501(c)(4) statute. The tax code says these groups must “exclusively” engage in the vague-sounding “social welfare activity,” which suggests a ban on political spending. But the IRS subsequently interpreted this to mean that groups fall within the rule as long as they don’t “primarily engage” in political activities. Since the Citizens United ruling, which heralded the growth of the 501(c)(4) sector because corporations could donate to these tax-exempt groups without disclosing their donations, savvier groups have simply worked to stay a hair under 50 percent with their campaign spending, putting them in the clear. David Cay Johnston cited this as a major problem with how the IRS defines social welfare organizations. He said, “Is there any married person in America who doesn’t understand exclusivity? 49.9 percent is not exclusive.”
This has precedent within other parts of the IRS. According to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, IRS audits of the largest and richest corporations have steadily declined since 2005, down 22 percent in the ensuing four years and even more from 2011-2013. In the same period, the agency accelerated its scrutiny of small and midsize corporations. Since 2000, the IRS has been more likely to audit the working poor, individuals and families making under $25,000 a year, than those making over $100,000 annually. The middle class received disproportionately more audits throughout the past decade as well. An IRS unit formed in 2009 called the Global High Wealth Industry Group, designed to give special attention to tax compliance of high-wealth individuals, performed exactly two audits in 2010 and 11 in 2011.
Yeah, that's why I posted the table. The article is a bit deceptive - more emphasis has been placed on smaller corps and poorer individuals since 2005, but so what? Wealthy people and businesses are still disproportionally audited. So if there's any favoritism it is to the poor, middle class and SME's.
You mean that's why you posted an outdated table that is directly contradicted by the more up to date information cited in the article? Ok, I guess.
Here is an interesting piece of information I found while digging that further corroborates the targeting of the very poor. Damn those Earned Income Tax Credits! Furthermore, if we were to apply those tax audit rates to the total of wealth held by the top income brackets, the higher percentages still significantly pale in comparison to the actual amount of wealth held. There are fewer rich people, and they have a higher chance of being audited, but the vast majority of the wealth at the top still slips through IRS sans audit.
For all the talk of scandal regarding the IRS targeting groups named “Tea Party” or “Patriot,” it’s not hard to draw an additional lesson from the facts of the case — a pattern that follows the well-worn model of the modern political age: Benefits flow to the rich and the well-connected, with pain for the rest.
The Cincinnati incident, which has already cost the job of Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller (who was not the commissioner when the scandal occurred – this would be like the State Department reacting to the tragedy at the Libyan consulate by firing a low-level bureaucrat coincidentally named Ben Ghazi), is definitely scandalous in its own right. As the Treasury Inspector General report details, it’s completely inappropriate for the IRS to burden any subset with invasive information requests based merely on keywords or policy positions.
But let’s consider how this played out. The New York Times’ Nick Confessore reported this week that the groups applying for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status and singled out for inspection were primarily small, local conservative (and a few liberal) organizations, who barely spent any money on elections. Meanwhile, groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and the liberal Obama-supporting Priorities USA, who did the lion’s share of campaign spending among these types of organizations, not only faced no such examination, but survived multiple efforts by campaign finance reform advocates to get the IRS to revoke their tax-exempt status because of their voluminous political activities.
Why would this be the case? First of all, a 501(c)(4) group need not apply with the IRS to prove its tax-exempt status; it can simply self-declare, avoiding an initial review process. The IRS encourages groups to file applications, but those with the resources to hire a smart tax lawyer know they aren’t required to go through the trouble. Needless to say, most local Tea Party groups didn’t have that kind of professional expertise. So generally speaking, the small fish revealed themselves to the IRS initially, and since Congress requires reviews of every application for tax-exempt status, these groups become the low-hanging fruit, prone to investigation.
Furthermore, Tea Party groups did themselves no favors by filling out the applications in an amateurish manner, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning former reporter for the New York Times and columnist at TaxAnalysts.com David Cay Johnston. “It’s like applying for a mortgage,” Johnston told Salon. “If you write it out wrong, you’re going to get flagged. And there are examples of these groups saying they’re not political and then saying their goal is to influence legislation.”
Crossroads GPS apparently did file an application for tax-exempt status, but it had very smart tax form preparers who knew how to exploit the ambiguites in the 501(c)(4) statute. The tax code says these groups must “exclusively” engage in the vague-sounding “social welfare activity,” which suggests a ban on political spending. But the IRS subsequently interpreted this to mean that groups fall within the rule as long as they don’t “primarily engage” in political activities. Since the Citizens United ruling, which heralded the growth of the 501(c)(4) sector because corporations could donate to these tax-exempt groups without disclosing their donations, savvier groups have simply worked to stay a hair under 50 percent with their campaign spending, putting them in the clear. David Cay Johnston cited this as a major problem with how the IRS defines social welfare organizations. He said, “Is there any married person in America who doesn’t understand exclusivity? 49.9 percent is not exclusive.”
This has precedent within other parts of the IRS. According to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, IRS audits of the largest and richest corporations have steadily declined since 2005, down 22 percent in the ensuing four years and even more from 2011-2013. In the same period, the agency accelerated its scrutiny of small and midsize corporations. Since 2000, the IRS has been more likely to audit the working poor, individuals and families making under $25,000 a year, than those making over $100,000 annually. The middle class received disproportionately more audits throughout the past decade as well. An IRS unit formed in 2009 called the Global High Wealth Industry Group, designed to give special attention to tax compliance of high-wealth individuals, performed exactly two audits in 2010 and 11 in 2011.
Yeah, that's why I posted the table. The article is a bit deceptive - more emphasis has been placed on smaller corps and poorer individuals since 2005, but so what? Wealthy people and businesses are still disproportionally audited. So if there's any favoritism it is to the poor, middle class and SME's.
You mean that's why you posted an outdated table that is directly contradicted by the more up to date information cited in the article? Ok, I guess.
For all the talk of scandal regarding the IRS targeting groups named “Tea Party” or “Patriot,” it’s not hard to draw an additional lesson from the facts of the case — a pattern that follows the well-worn model of the modern political age: Benefits flow to the rich and the well-connected, with pain for the rest.
The Cincinnati incident, which has already cost the job of Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller (who was not the commissioner when the scandal occurred – this would be like the State Department reacting to the tragedy at the Libyan consulate by firing a low-level bureaucrat coincidentally named Ben Ghazi), is definitely scandalous in its own right. As the Treasury Inspector General report details, it’s completely inappropriate for the IRS to burden any subset with invasive information requests based merely on keywords or policy positions.
But let’s consider how this played out. The New York Times’ Nick Confessore reported this week that the groups applying for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status and singled out for inspection were primarily small, local conservative (and a few liberal) organizations, who barely spent any money on elections. Meanwhile, groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and the liberal Obama-supporting Priorities USA, who did the lion’s share of campaign spending among these types of organizations, not only faced no such examination, but survived multiple efforts by campaign finance reform advocates to get the IRS to revoke their tax-exempt status because of their voluminous political activities.
Why would this be the case? First of all, a 501(c)(4) group need not apply with the IRS to prove its tax-exempt status; it can simply self-declare, avoiding an initial review process. The IRS encourages groups to file applications, but those with the resources to hire a smart tax lawyer know they aren’t required to go through the trouble. Needless to say, most local Tea Party groups didn’t have that kind of professional expertise. So generally speaking, the small fish revealed themselves to the IRS initially, and since Congress requires reviews of every application for tax-exempt status, these groups become the low-hanging fruit, prone to investigation.
Furthermore, Tea Party groups did themselves no favors by filling out the applications in an amateurish manner, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning former reporter for the New York Times and columnist at TaxAnalysts.com David Cay Johnston. “It’s like applying for a mortgage,” Johnston told Salon. “If you write it out wrong, you’re going to get flagged. And there are examples of these groups saying they’re not political and then saying their goal is to influence legislation.”
Crossroads GPS apparently did file an application for tax-exempt status, but it had very smart tax form preparers who knew how to exploit the ambiguites in the 501(c)(4) statute. The tax code says these groups must “exclusively” engage in the vague-sounding “social welfare activity,” which suggests a ban on political spending. But the IRS subsequently interpreted this to mean that groups fall within the rule as long as they don’t “primarily engage” in political activities. Since the Citizens United ruling, which heralded the growth of the 501(c)(4) sector because corporations could donate to these tax-exempt groups without disclosing their donations, savvier groups have simply worked to stay a hair under 50 percent with their campaign spending, putting them in the clear. David Cay Johnston cited this as a major problem with how the IRS defines social welfare organizations. He said, “Is there any married person in America who doesn’t understand exclusivity? 49.9 percent is not exclusive.”
This has precedent within other parts of the IRS. According to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, IRS audits of the largest and richest corporations have steadily declined since 2005, down 22 percent in the ensuing four years and even more from 2011-2013. In the same period, the agency accelerated its scrutiny of small and midsize corporations. Since 2000, the IRS has been more likely to audit the working poor, individuals and families making under $25,000 a year, than those making over $100,000 annually. The middle class received disproportionately more audits throughout the past decade as well. An IRS unit formed in 2009 called the Global High Wealth Industry Group, designed to give special attention to tax compliance of high-wealth individuals, performed exactly two audits in 2010 and 11 in 2011.
Yeah, that's why I posted the table. The article is a bit deceptive - more emphasis has been placed on smaller corps and poorer individuals since 2005, but so what? Wealthy people and businesses are still disproportionally audited. So if there's any favoritism it is to the poor, middle class and SME's.
You mean that's why you posted an outdated table that is directly contradicted by the more up to date information cited in the article? Ok, I guess.
Like I already said above in my edit, the rates are higher because there are significantly fewer rich people. The audit rate per total wealth held at each bracket is going to look significantly different.
For all the talk of scandal regarding the IRS targeting groups named “Tea Party” or “Patriot,” it’s not hard to draw an additional lesson from the facts of the case — a pattern that follows the well-worn model of the modern political age: Benefits flow to the rich and the well-connected, with pain for the rest.
The Cincinnati incident, which has already cost the job of Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller (who was not the commissioner when the scandal occurred – this would be like the State Department reacting to the tragedy at the Libyan consulate by firing a low-level bureaucrat coincidentally named Ben Ghazi), is definitely scandalous in its own right. As the Treasury Inspector General report details, it’s completely inappropriate for the IRS to burden any subset with invasive information requests based merely on keywords or policy positions.
But let’s consider how this played out. The New York Times’ Nick Confessore reported this week that the groups applying for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status and singled out for inspection were primarily small, local conservative (and a few liberal) organizations, who barely spent any money on elections. Meanwhile, groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and the liberal Obama-supporting Priorities USA, who did the lion’s share of campaign spending among these types of organizations, not only faced no such examination, but survived multiple efforts by campaign finance reform advocates to get the IRS to revoke their tax-exempt status because of their voluminous political activities.
Why would this be the case? First of all, a 501(c)(4) group need not apply with the IRS to prove its tax-exempt status; it can simply self-declare, avoiding an initial review process. The IRS encourages groups to file applications, but those with the resources to hire a smart tax lawyer know they aren’t required to go through the trouble. Needless to say, most local Tea Party groups didn’t have that kind of professional expertise. So generally speaking, the small fish revealed themselves to the IRS initially, and since Congress requires reviews of every application for tax-exempt status, these groups become the low-hanging fruit, prone to investigation.
Furthermore, Tea Party groups did themselves no favors by filling out the applications in an amateurish manner, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning former reporter for the New York Times and columnist at TaxAnalysts.com David Cay Johnston. “It’s like applying for a mortgage,” Johnston told Salon. “If you write it out wrong, you’re going to get flagged. And there are examples of these groups saying they’re not political and then saying their goal is to influence legislation.”
Crossroads GPS apparently did file an application for tax-exempt status, but it had very smart tax form preparers who knew how to exploit the ambiguites in the 501(c)(4) statute. The tax code says these groups must “exclusively” engage in the vague-sounding “social welfare activity,” which suggests a ban on political spending. But the IRS subsequently interpreted this to mean that groups fall within the rule as long as they don’t “primarily engage” in political activities. Since the Citizens United ruling, which heralded the growth of the 501(c)(4) sector because corporations could donate to these tax-exempt groups without disclosing their donations, savvier groups have simply worked to stay a hair under 50 percent with their campaign spending, putting them in the clear. David Cay Johnston cited this as a major problem with how the IRS defines social welfare organizations. He said, “Is there any married person in America who doesn’t understand exclusivity? 49.9 percent is not exclusive.”
This has precedent within other parts of the IRS. According to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, IRS audits of the largest and richest corporations have steadily declined since 2005, down 22 percent in the ensuing four years and even more from 2011-2013. In the same period, the agency accelerated its scrutiny of small and midsize corporations. Since 2000, the IRS has been more likely to audit the working poor, individuals and families making under $25,000 a year, than those making over $100,000 annually. The middle class received disproportionately more audits throughout the past decade as well. An IRS unit formed in 2009 called the Global High Wealth Industry Group, designed to give special attention to tax compliance of high-wealth individuals, performed exactly two audits in 2010 and 11 in 2011.
Yeah, that's why I posted the table. The article is a bit deceptive - more emphasis has been placed on smaller corps and poorer individuals since 2005, but so what? Wealthy people and businesses are still disproportionally audited. So if there's any favoritism it is to the poor, middle class and SME's.
You mean that's why you posted an outdated table that is directly contradicted by the more up to date information cited in the article? Ok, I guess.
Like I already said above in my edit, the rates are higher because there are significantly fewer rich people. The audit rate per total wealth held at each bracket is going to look significantly different.
I don't understand why audit rates would be higher or lower based on the number of people in the group.
I'm sure an audit rate per dollar of wealth would look different, but I don't see the purpose of such a statistic. The purpose of the audit is to ensure honest income and tax reporting, not see how many dollars the IRS can count.
For all the talk of scandal regarding the IRS targeting groups named “Tea Party” or “Patriot,” it’s not hard to draw an additional lesson from the facts of the case — a pattern that follows the well-worn model of the modern political age: Benefits flow to the rich and the well-connected, with pain for the rest.
The Cincinnati incident, which has already cost the job of Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller (who was not the commissioner when the scandal occurred – this would be like the State Department reacting to the tragedy at the Libyan consulate by firing a low-level bureaucrat coincidentally named Ben Ghazi), is definitely scandalous in its own right. As the Treasury Inspector General report details, it’s completely inappropriate for the IRS to burden any subset with invasive information requests based merely on keywords or policy positions.
But let’s consider how this played out. The New York Times’ Nick Confessore reported this week that the groups applying for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status and singled out for inspection were primarily small, local conservative (and a few liberal) organizations, who barely spent any money on elections. Meanwhile, groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and the liberal Obama-supporting Priorities USA, who did the lion’s share of campaign spending among these types of organizations, not only faced no such examination, but survived multiple efforts by campaign finance reform advocates to get the IRS to revoke their tax-exempt status because of their voluminous political activities.
Why would this be the case? First of all, a 501(c)(4) group need not apply with the IRS to prove its tax-exempt status; it can simply self-declare, avoiding an initial review process. The IRS encourages groups to file applications, but those with the resources to hire a smart tax lawyer know they aren’t required to go through the trouble. Needless to say, most local Tea Party groups didn’t have that kind of professional expertise. So generally speaking, the small fish revealed themselves to the IRS initially, and since Congress requires reviews of every application for tax-exempt status, these groups become the low-hanging fruit, prone to investigation.
Furthermore, Tea Party groups did themselves no favors by filling out the applications in an amateurish manner, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning former reporter for the New York Times and columnist at TaxAnalysts.com David Cay Johnston. “It’s like applying for a mortgage,” Johnston told Salon. “If you write it out wrong, you’re going to get flagged. And there are examples of these groups saying they’re not political and then saying their goal is to influence legislation.”
Crossroads GPS apparently did file an application for tax-exempt status, but it had very smart tax form preparers who knew how to exploit the ambiguites in the 501(c)(4) statute. The tax code says these groups must “exclusively” engage in the vague-sounding “social welfare activity,” which suggests a ban on political spending. But the IRS subsequently interpreted this to mean that groups fall within the rule as long as they don’t “primarily engage” in political activities. Since the Citizens United ruling, which heralded the growth of the 501(c)(4) sector because corporations could donate to these tax-exempt groups without disclosing their donations, savvier groups have simply worked to stay a hair under 50 percent with their campaign spending, putting them in the clear. David Cay Johnston cited this as a major problem with how the IRS defines social welfare organizations. He said, “Is there any married person in America who doesn’t understand exclusivity? 49.9 percent is not exclusive.”
This has precedent within other parts of the IRS. According to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, IRS audits of the largest and richest corporations have steadily declined since 2005, down 22 percent in the ensuing four years and even more from 2011-2013. In the same period, the agency accelerated its scrutiny of small and midsize corporations. Since 2000, the IRS has been more likely to audit the working poor, individuals and families making under $25,000 a year, than those making over $100,000 annually. The middle class received disproportionately more audits throughout the past decade as well. An IRS unit formed in 2009 called the Global High Wealth Industry Group, designed to give special attention to tax compliance of high-wealth individuals, performed exactly two audits in 2010 and 11 in 2011.
Yeah, that's why I posted the table. The article is a bit deceptive - more emphasis has been placed on smaller corps and poorer individuals since 2005, but so what? Wealthy people and businesses are still disproportionally audited. So if there's any favoritism it is to the poor, middle class and SME's.
You mean that's why you posted an outdated table that is directly contradicted by the more up to date information cited in the article? Ok, I guess.
Like I already said above in my edit, the rates are higher because there are significantly fewer rich people. The audit rate per total wealth held at each bracket is going to look significantly different.
I don't understand why audit rates would be higher or lower based on the number of people in the group.
I'm sure an audit rate per dollar of wealth would look different, but I don't see the purpose of such a statistic. The purpose of the audit is to ensure honest income and tax reporting, not see how many dollars the IRS can count.
The purpose is to get money, it makes sense to make sure you're not being cheated out of large amounts of money before you check you're not being cheated out of small amounts.
For all the talk of scandal regarding the IRS targeting groups named “Tea Party” or “Patriot,” it’s not hard to draw an additional lesson from the facts of the case — a pattern that follows the well-worn model of the modern political age: Benefits flow to the rich and the well-connected, with pain for the rest.
The Cincinnati incident, which has already cost the job of Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller (who was not the commissioner when the scandal occurred – this would be like the State Department reacting to the tragedy at the Libyan consulate by firing a low-level bureaucrat coincidentally named Ben Ghazi), is definitely scandalous in its own right. As the Treasury Inspector General report details, it’s completely inappropriate for the IRS to burden any subset with invasive information requests based merely on keywords or policy positions.
But let’s consider how this played out. The New York Times’ Nick Confessore reported this week that the groups applying for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status and singled out for inspection were primarily small, local conservative (and a few liberal) organizations, who barely spent any money on elections. Meanwhile, groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and the liberal Obama-supporting Priorities USA, who did the lion’s share of campaign spending among these types of organizations, not only faced no such examination, but survived multiple efforts by campaign finance reform advocates to get the IRS to revoke their tax-exempt status because of their voluminous political activities.
Why would this be the case? First of all, a 501(c)(4) group need not apply with the IRS to prove its tax-exempt status; it can simply self-declare, avoiding an initial review process. The IRS encourages groups to file applications, but those with the resources to hire a smart tax lawyer know they aren’t required to go through the trouble. Needless to say, most local Tea Party groups didn’t have that kind of professional expertise. So generally speaking, the small fish revealed themselves to the IRS initially, and since Congress requires reviews of every application for tax-exempt status, these groups become the low-hanging fruit, prone to investigation.
Furthermore, Tea Party groups did themselves no favors by filling out the applications in an amateurish manner, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning former reporter for the New York Times and columnist at TaxAnalysts.com David Cay Johnston. “It’s like applying for a mortgage,” Johnston told Salon. “If you write it out wrong, you’re going to get flagged. And there are examples of these groups saying they’re not political and then saying their goal is to influence legislation.”
Crossroads GPS apparently did file an application for tax-exempt status, but it had very smart tax form preparers who knew how to exploit the ambiguites in the 501(c)(4) statute. The tax code says these groups must “exclusively” engage in the vague-sounding “social welfare activity,” which suggests a ban on political spending. But the IRS subsequently interpreted this to mean that groups fall within the rule as long as they don’t “primarily engage” in political activities. Since the Citizens United ruling, which heralded the growth of the 501(c)(4) sector because corporations could donate to these tax-exempt groups without disclosing their donations, savvier groups have simply worked to stay a hair under 50 percent with their campaign spending, putting them in the clear. David Cay Johnston cited this as a major problem with how the IRS defines social welfare organizations. He said, “Is there any married person in America who doesn’t understand exclusivity? 49.9 percent is not exclusive.”
This has precedent within other parts of the IRS. According to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, IRS audits of the largest and richest corporations have steadily declined since 2005, down 22 percent in the ensuing four years and even more from 2011-2013. In the same period, the agency accelerated its scrutiny of small and midsize corporations. Since 2000, the IRS has been more likely to audit the working poor, individuals and families making under $25,000 a year, than those making over $100,000 annually. The middle class received disproportionately more audits throughout the past decade as well. An IRS unit formed in 2009 called the Global High Wealth Industry Group, designed to give special attention to tax compliance of high-wealth individuals, performed exactly two audits in 2010 and 11 in 2011.
Yeah, that's why I posted the table. The article is a bit deceptive - more emphasis has been placed on smaller corps and poorer individuals since 2005, but so what? Wealthy people and businesses are still disproportionally audited. So if there's any favoritism it is to the poor, middle class and SME's.
You mean that's why you posted an outdated table that is directly contradicted by the more up to date information cited in the article? Ok, I guess.
Like I already said above in my edit, the rates are higher because there are significantly fewer rich people. The audit rate per total wealth held at each bracket is going to look significantly different.
I don't understand why audit rates would be higher or lower based on the number of people in the group.
I'm sure an audit rate per dollar of wealth would look different, but I don't see the purpose of such a statistic. The purpose of the audit is to ensure honest income and tax reporting, not see how many dollars the IRS can count.
The purpose is to get money, it makes sense to make sure you're not being cheated out of large amounts of money before you check you're not being cheated out of small amounts.
You could also claim that the higher the income, the more likely, there will be several sources of income and thus a far higher chance that a higher income bracket might have a number that looks suspicious.
For all the talk of scandal regarding the IRS targeting groups named “Tea Party” or “Patriot,” it’s not hard to draw an additional lesson from the facts of the case — a pattern that follows the well-worn model of the modern political age: Benefits flow to the rich and the well-connected, with pain for the rest.
The Cincinnati incident, which has already cost the job of Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller (who was not the commissioner when the scandal occurred – this would be like the State Department reacting to the tragedy at the Libyan consulate by firing a low-level bureaucrat coincidentally named Ben Ghazi), is definitely scandalous in its own right. As the Treasury Inspector General report details, it’s completely inappropriate for the IRS to burden any subset with invasive information requests based merely on keywords or policy positions.
But let’s consider how this played out. The New York Times’ Nick Confessore reported this week that the groups applying for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status and singled out for inspection were primarily small, local conservative (and a few liberal) organizations, who barely spent any money on elections. Meanwhile, groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and the liberal Obama-supporting Priorities USA, who did the lion’s share of campaign spending among these types of organizations, not only faced no such examination, but survived multiple efforts by campaign finance reform advocates to get the IRS to revoke their tax-exempt status because of their voluminous political activities.
Why would this be the case? First of all, a 501(c)(4) group need not apply with the IRS to prove its tax-exempt status; it can simply self-declare, avoiding an initial review process. The IRS encourages groups to file applications, but those with the resources to hire a smart tax lawyer know they aren’t required to go through the trouble. Needless to say, most local Tea Party groups didn’t have that kind of professional expertise. So generally speaking, the small fish revealed themselves to the IRS initially, and since Congress requires reviews of every application for tax-exempt status, these groups become the low-hanging fruit, prone to investigation.
Furthermore, Tea Party groups did themselves no favors by filling out the applications in an amateurish manner, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning former reporter for the New York Times and columnist at TaxAnalysts.com David Cay Johnston. “It’s like applying for a mortgage,” Johnston told Salon. “If you write it out wrong, you’re going to get flagged. And there are examples of these groups saying they’re not political and then saying their goal is to influence legislation.”
Crossroads GPS apparently did file an application for tax-exempt status, but it had very smart tax form preparers who knew how to exploit the ambiguites in the 501(c)(4) statute. The tax code says these groups must “exclusively” engage in the vague-sounding “social welfare activity,” which suggests a ban on political spending. But the IRS subsequently interpreted this to mean that groups fall within the rule as long as they don’t “primarily engage” in political activities. Since the Citizens United ruling, which heralded the growth of the 501(c)(4) sector because corporations could donate to these tax-exempt groups without disclosing their donations, savvier groups have simply worked to stay a hair under 50 percent with their campaign spending, putting them in the clear. David Cay Johnston cited this as a major problem with how the IRS defines social welfare organizations. He said, “Is there any married person in America who doesn’t understand exclusivity? 49.9 percent is not exclusive.”
This has precedent within other parts of the IRS. According to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, IRS audits of the largest and richest corporations have steadily declined since 2005, down 22 percent in the ensuing four years and even more from 2011-2013. In the same period, the agency accelerated its scrutiny of small and midsize corporations. Since 2000, the IRS has been more likely to audit the working poor, individuals and families making under $25,000 a year, than those making over $100,000 annually. The middle class received disproportionately more audits throughout the past decade as well. An IRS unit formed in 2009 called the Global High Wealth Industry Group, designed to give special attention to tax compliance of high-wealth individuals, performed exactly two audits in 2010 and 11 in 2011.
Yeah, that's why I posted the table. The article is a bit deceptive - more emphasis has been placed on smaller corps and poorer individuals since 2005, but so what? Wealthy people and businesses are still disproportionally audited. So if there's any favoritism it is to the poor, middle class and SME's.
You mean that's why you posted an outdated table that is directly contradicted by the more up to date information cited in the article? Ok, I guess.
Like I already said above in my edit, the rates are higher because there are significantly fewer rich people. The audit rate per total wealth held at each bracket is going to look significantly different.
I don't understand why audit rates would be higher or lower based on the number of people in the group.
I'm sure an audit rate per dollar of wealth would look different, but I don't see the purpose of such a statistic. The purpose of the audit is to ensure honest income and tax reporting, not see how many dollars the IRS can count.
The primary purpose is to get money. The IRS deliberately tries to maximize the amount of money they get for how much they spend reviewing tax filings.
The reason why poor people get so many audits then proportionately they should receive is because they don't know how to file their taxes correctly.
I wish this was bullshit but my tax attorney friend told me that some people figured out that if you don't make whole numbers on your statements ($4999 instead of $5000) you get a lot less audits.
On May 17 2013 06:56 Sermokala wrote: The reason why poor people get so many audits then proportionately they should receive is because they don't know how to file their taxes correctly.
I wish this was bullshit but my tax attorney friend told me that some people figured out that if you don't make whole numbers on your statements ($4999 instead of $5000) you get a lot less audits.
Don't forget how many "poor people" are college students who first of all don't give 2 shits about taxes and just wanna get it over with, and second, don't know wtf they're doing. My girlfriend got audited because she filled stuff in wrong. Just kinda simple as that.
FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. — The manager of the sexual harassment and assault response program at Fort Campbell, Ky., was arrested in a domestic dispute and relieved of his post, authorities said Thursday.
Lt. Col. Darin Haas (HAHZ') turned himself in to police in Clarksville, Tenn., late Wednesday on charges of violating an order of protection, and stalking, authorities said Thursday.
Master Sgt. Pete Mayes, a spokesman for the massive Army post on the Tennessee-Kentucky line, said Haas was immediately removed as manager of a program meant to prevent sexual harassment and assault and encourage equal opportunity.
Haas, 42, and his ex-wife have orders of protection against each other, Mayes said. The two are involved in a child custody fight, Clarksville Police Sgt. Chuck Gill said.
Haas was held for a required 12 hours and released.
His ex-wife told police he repeatedly contacted her Wednesday night despite the protective order, Gill said.
"The ongoing investigation is to determine whether or not he violated the actual provisions of the Order of Protection that applies to him," Mayes said in a news release. But based on the allegations, the release continued, Haas was removed from his post as program manager.
One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a report has surfaced alleging that Republicans released a set with altered text.
CBS News reported Thursday that leaked versions sent out by the GOP last Friday had visible differences than Wednesday's official batch. Two correspondences that were singled out in the report came from National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.
The GOP version of Rhodes' comment, according to CBS News: "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."
The White House email: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."
The GOP version of Nuland's comment, according to CBS News: The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."
The White House email: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."
The news parallels a Tuesday CNN report which initially introduced the contradiction between what was revealed in a White House Benghazi email version, versus what was reported in media outlets. On Monday, Mother Jones noted that the Republicans' interim report included the correct version of the emails, signaling that more malice and less incompetence may have been at play with the alleged alterations.
One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a report has surfaced alleging that Republicans released a set with altered text.
CBS News reported Thursday that leaked versions sent out by the GOP last Friday had visible differences than Wednesday's official batch. Two correspondences that were singled out in the report came from National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.
The GOP version of Rhodes' comment, according to CBS News: "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."
The White House email: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."
The GOP version of Nuland's comment, according to CBS News: The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."
The White House email: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."
The news parallels a Tuesday CNN report which initially introduced the contradiction between what was revealed in a White House Benghazi email version, versus what was reported in media outlets. On Monday, Mother Jones noted that the Republicans' interim report included the correct version of the emails, signaling that more malice and less incompetence may have been at play with the alleged alterations.
EPT![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/IRS%20audits.PNG)
![[image loading]](http://www.bnncpa.com/assets/uploads/general/audit_chart.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/IRS%202012%20%28640x238%29.jpg)
