Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:51, 16 May 2013

	Taxation (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation

United States: Government C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 May 2013. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Obama joke

This was recently added:

In 2009, President Obama joked about having the IRS audit Arizona State University, which had refused to grant him an honorary degree. The Wall Street Journal criticized him for this in an editorial, saying that "the President shouldn't even joke about abusing IRS power."

I think a fair minded neutral person would perceive this as an editor conflating an (in-poor-taste) joke with an actual scandal, and I think that the inclusion acts to discredit the article.

I'm tempted to remove it. Objections? TJIC (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

· Agreed. The joke here is interpreted as a threat or part of a pattern. There is no evidence of either. Just out of context. Remove it. Tgran (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm the one who added it. I think it's relevant. If you are an IRS employee, obviously something like that is going to look like a signal that this sort of thing will be tolerated. For an example of "background" information being added to an article about a partisan controversy, see , where the "background" is from 1972!William Jockusch (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see it's been removed. That a joke by the President of the United States is likely to be taken as a "signal", is, both in general and for this specific case, what Misplaced Pages calls "original research". And that's against the rules.

If a reliable source makes this connection, then it might be appropriate to include, but that's apparently not the case. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please reread the deleted text. The second sentence references a reliable source, the Wall Street Journal that made the inference. The text should go back in by your standard. TMLutas (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

split back to a separate article

The Political profiling at the Internal Revenue Service article is a good one, but IRS Tea Party investigation deserves to be its own article. I've split it back, and copied over all of the talk page. TJIC (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

edits by 193.239.220.249

I see a lot of edits by an anonymous user at IP address 193.239.220.249. Please login and create an account!

I've kept many of these edits but cleaned up or reverted several others.

Thoughts:

• please don't change "origins" back to "allegations". At this point the 2013 issue has been admitted to by the IRS and apologized for, so it's not merely an allegation. That would be a proper term if one side was claiming something that the other side was not agreeing to. If there are allegations in the future, then we should definitely introduce the "allegations" section

• Operation Leprechaun - From what I've been able to find, this is about a PERSONAL vendetta by three agents against one tax filer. It does not fit in the topic of this article. It also does not seem at all noteworthy.

• Political bias - I commend your efforts to show that IRS profiling happens under both parties. I'm sure you're right. However, we need less assertion that it's true and more documentation. We've got sections for FDR, Kennedy (thanks!) and the current adminsitration. A section about documented abuses under Nixon /Reagan / Bush etc would be great. Please dig up relevant material; it would be a great addition.

• I've removed the footnotes about the book "Scandal". The book seems off topic and is not being cited in support of any particular point. Political scandals have their own pages; let's keep this page about Political profiling at the Internal Revenue Service. TJIC (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

deletion

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 May 2013. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

The result was 10 keeps and 1 delete.

spreading rumors?

 Why? Is the IRS investigating Misplaced Pages? What have they found?
   Are you spreadinfg rumors or can you provide references? XOttawahitech (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I would venture that it's because no more than just, yet again, a made-up scandal. The best analysis of what IRS employees have to deal with in regards to dubious applications for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status is this Bloomberg piece. The overall news coverage of this supposed scandal has been wildly random and confused, and often leaving off any references to the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court Decision, which is the source of the IRS's contretemps here. -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't merely an allegation. The IRS admitted it in the case of Tea party organizations and scores of conservative groups. They wrote a letter admitting it. So that they targeted the Tea Party is not up for question, and it isn't an "allegation" or "made up." It is established. How far up the IRS or Dept. of Treasurer chain of command this originated is an open question. Carwon (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I just read the entire IG report that came out today. The IRS was stuck with dealing with both very vague guidelines, to quote, "the regulations do not define how to measure whether social welfare is an organization’s "primary activity" as well as multiple complaints about primarily political organizations getting 501(c)(4) status, apparently in regards to Tea Party groups, again to quote, "We also received numerous referrals from the public, media, watchdog groups, and members of Congress alleging the specific section 501(c)(4) organizations were engaged in political campaign activity to an impermissible extent."

I.E., yet another fake scandal/controversy. But I'm sure, given Misplaced Pages's history with this sort of thing, right wing trolls will do their darnedest here to make it all seem very serious and legitimate sounding. This UK newspaper report covers the issues here probably better than any of our American news outlets (what's up with that?) -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"Fake controversy?" "right wing trolls"? I don't understand those claims. Also the IG report has been severely debunked. Without ascribing motive for the widely reported false statements in the IG report, there is no doubt that its claims have been shown to be untrue in may respects. That is why the investigation has moved to the FBICarwon (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"The IG report has been severely debunked."? No, it hasn't. Which marks you as one of those right wing trolls I mentioned who will do his/her darnedest here to make it all seem very serious and legitimate sounding. The only thing the FBI can do is check to see if those Tea Party groups really were lying about their political activities to the degree the IRS had been tipped off about and suspected. Again, this is yet another fake scandal/controversy courtesy of right wing fruitcakes and their pandering, humoring Republican reps, no more, no less. -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. The IRS is famous as a tool for political targeting. This is a documented fact. The title of this needs to be changed, or the article needs to be re-written.

The IRS is famous as a tool for political targeting. That's one article. The Tea Party case is an allegation, yet unproven. That's another article. One is a subset of the other.

The U.S. administration can, and will attack individuals with any tool in its arsenal: financial is one of the favorites. It sounds like a red-herring, until it happens to you. 193.239.220.249 (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. I fixed it. Fair enough. This does exist. Lots of things exist that you don't realize happen, until they happen to you. 193.239.220.249 (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

References

1. Marion, Nancy (2010) The Politics of Disgrace: The Role of Political Scandal in American Politics
2. Andrew, John A., III (2002) Power to Destroy: The Political Uses of the IRS from Kennedy to Nixon

Tea Party targeting needs to be returned to separate article

I don't know why an editor moved the existing separate article over to here without discussion, talk or vote. Reading Wikipedias criteria, the previously existing separate article on the Tea Party IRS auditing objectively and fully met all the criteria for a separate article.Carwon (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I entirely agree. TJIC (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • done. TJIC (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Pro-Israel Group details?

There's now inclusion of additional groups targeted beyond just the Tea Party and Conservative groups. Pro-Israel groups being targeted is now listed in the article, which is causing some potential confusion (no references shown so far stated that Tea Party groups were being asked for pro- or anti-Israel leanings).

Should these be broken into a separate article? Or should wording be reworked to address potential confusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.42.34 (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Not only is it unrelated to audits of tea party groups, there is no evidence presented that groups were targeted that were pro-Israel. The article states that any organization related to Israel or other areas that deal with a lot of terrorism tends to be given extra scrutiny. If anything, the information presented in the article seems to imply that the IRS is looking for anti-Israel leanings, not the other way around. I'm going to remove that item. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 00:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

An alternative to making yet another article would be to rename the current one to be more generic to fit the multiple criteria that the IRS used for special handling of 501 tax exempt applications. As I understand matters this would be targeting tea parties, constitutionalists, pro-Israel groups, and groups that want to "make America better". All of these were subject to the same sort of intrusive run around and non-approval while more favored groups sailed through. I suggest as an alternative name Obama Administration IRS Abuse. This would also have the advantage of including the relevant issues of political audits. There's a lady, Dr. Anne Hendershott, who would fit into the wider article because of an audit that seems to have been politically motivated to shut her up but probably isn't properly included in the current narrow title because she was targeted for criticizing what she called fake catholic groups who went against Church teaching and gave cover for Obama. Also there's the whole pro publica issue of leaked applications that would benefit from a wider title. TMLutas (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

large change adding irrelevant c3 info

the adding of all the c3 information needs to come out. One is left with the impression that c3 limits, which are not the same as 501 c 4 are applicable in thee cases. they are not. When this article first appeared I linked to the c4 subsection. Now the link is to the c3 and we also have all kinds of text on c3 which is totally irrelevant.

c4 can be 100% engaged in political issues and public affairs. they are allowed to be. They are constrained (only limited not forbidden) in spending on addressing specific legislation before congress. But a c4 can in fact be completely about political issues and be fully compliant. the mixing in of c3 rules in this article is utterly irrelevant and a diversion. Whoever added a few hours ago is wrong. Carwon (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Article name

I think the title of the article "IRS Tea Party Investigation" is sub-optimal.

• not all organizations were tea-party affiliated
• the word "investigation" is ambiguous, and does not focus on the fact that the IRS is the entity that's the focus of the news.
• the problem was not merely investigations done by the IRS; foot-dragging is at least as big a deal.
• the problem also encompassed the illegal release of as-yet unapproved applications to third-party groups

I've looked at media coverage to see what terms are being used and in Misplaced Pages for similar articles. Typical suffixes are "-gate", "Affair" and "Scandal"

I note also the report has been released with the title

Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review

I propose the new title for this article of

2013 IRS Inappropriate Criteria for Conservative Charities Scandal

as in keeping with Misplaced Pages norms

Thoughts? TJIC (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"Charities" is not the appropriate term for c4. C4 are civic education not for profits orgs. "Charities" implies their issues education work is somehow outside a c4 purview, when in fact advocacy and education of civic issues can legally be 100% of their activities. "social welfare" can be 100% civics, ie advocacy of a point of view in the political sphere. A prior editor even when to the c4 section and incorrectly linked social welfare to the article on "welfare", which gives you a hint of the problem using the term "charities."

I would suggest "2013 Criminal Probe into conservative group targeting by the IRS"Carwon (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Also since a criminal probe was just launched by the FBI, "inappropriate" maybe too soft a word.Carwon (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with a rename, since it appears Liberal groups were targeted as well. What to change it to, I'm not sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest WP:COMMONNAME What are sources calling it? As for liberal groups, I have no doubt that some liberal groups were caught up in the dragnet, but that source, and no others that I have seen to this point, say that liberal groups were targeted. Arzel (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Good suggestion; I concur. A scan of Google news shows that most sources are calling it just "IRS Scandal". So, what do folks think? "2013 IRS Scandal" ?

Since the behavior seems to have started in 2010 and there are RS mentions of this that far back, perhaps the 2013 is a bit too optimistic. I'm fine for "Obama Administration IRS Scandal" or "Obama Administration IRS Abuse" TMLutas (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Current inclusion of The Treasury Inspector General For Tax Administration's Report

Events and disclosures have moved well beyond this report. We already know multiple offices were involved, including the Washington IRS office. We also know many more conservative organizations were targeted than stated in that report. We also know that the statement that the private data was destroyed is false. The report is actually part of the scandal or controversy. If it is going to sit in the article and cant be there uncritically without notation that a) the numbers have of conservative groups turns out to be higher b) private data was not destroyed before being leaked c) the targeting began a year earlier than asserted d) multiple offices were involvedCarwon (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Carwon, I agree with all of your points. I think you should go ahead and add those annotations, perhaps in a new section "problems with the report". TJIC (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Will you wingnuts actually include any real sources for your "interpretation" of things, or will it be business as usual in trying to massage yet another Misplaced Pages article about yet another fake "controversy" with delusional right wing garbage until it's as disinformational as possible? Inquiring minds already know the answer.... -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You have now made several disparaging remarks against other editors. I suggest you read up on WP:NPA. If your only purpose here is to attack others than I suggest you edit somewhere else. Arzel (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Should I point out that these editors I'm criticizing seem intent on only taking the right wing POV on this, including citing *no* reliable or balanced sources, and that I actually referenced a good, balanced and thoroughly researched source (from Bloomberg), as well as direct quotes from the IG report that contradicted them? Or did you not bother to look at my overall comments before deciding to make a completely offbase assertion/threat? But I'm well aware of how Misplaced Pages works when it comes to "controversial" articles, so I'll back off and let things drift into....whatever. -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Calling other editors "right wing trolls" "right wing fruitcakes" and "wingnuts" is unacceptable. Arzel (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"Will you wingnuts actually include any real sources" I've written 90% of this article and I've cited sources from across the media: CNN, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, NPR, White House press releases, etc. If you think that there's information that should be added to the article, please do so! TJIC (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you cherry-picked your sources and omitted key points in an obvious attempt to shape the article according to your politics. This renders the article worthless as an encyclopedic source. Specifically:

* There is no mention of the 2010 Citizen's United Supreme Court decision, which drove many if not most of these 501(c)(4) applications, as well as changed the rules for the IRS.

* There is no mention of how vague the rules were that the IRS was operating under to enforce 501(c)(4) compliance.

* There is no mention of how the IRS started giving right wing groups like the Tea Parties after receiving tips and complaints about how these groups were actually engaged in a far higher percentage of political activity than c(4) status allows, a point I had already made earlier, to quote from the IG report: "We also received numerous referrals from the public, media, watchdog groups, and members of Congress alleging the specific section 501(c)(4) organizations were engaged in political campaign activity to an impermissible extent."

* There is no mention of how right wing/conservative groups went after c(4) status much more aggressively than liberal organizations, even when they were obviously blatantly political organizations first and foremost.

* There isn't even a mention of how the Tea Party groups apparently were just plain inept at filling out the paperwork needed to obtain 501(c)(4) status, another point made by the IRS in the IG report: "Many applications included what appeared to be incomplete or inconsistent information. For example, a number of applications indicated that the organization did not plan to conduct political campaign activity, but elsewhere described activities that appeared in fact to be such activity. It was also clear that many organizations did not understand what activities would constitute political campaign intervention under the tax."

In short, like I said, yet another fake scandal/controversy. Now I'm really done here. -BC aka 68.236.126.150 (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Othering, it's what's for breakfast. TMLutas (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Context

on 16 May user User:NorthBySouthBaranof removed two major sections of the article:

• Background: Citizens United and National Politics
• Background: IRS culture

I note that I personally created the former section, and I did it in response to a critique on this talk page from user "-BC aka 68.236.126.150" who argues that Citizens United is key to understanding the situation. The inclusion of this section seems important to the left-of-center understanding of the situation, and while I personally don't dislike the Supreme Court ruling, it is fair and relevant to include the left-wing perspective. Please do not delete an important frame.

Re: the second one: if these numbers are real, then this section also seems quite important. There is no credible assertion that the scandal was directed from the White House (unlike, say, Nixon's IRS investigations). That being the case, the natural questions are "who?" and "why?". Background on the make up of the departments in question seems entirely relevant to me - if only to defeat countervailing arguments that "Obama is evil ; he directed this all".

Please either

• leave these sections alone
• add information to them
• argue here in the talk page about them

Please do NOT just delete large blocks of text that are well sourced and foot-noted. TJIC (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• C-Class United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
• C-Class United States Government articles
• Unknown-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles