Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 65

Thread: Checks and Balances

  1. #1

    Default Checks and Balances

    <I'm not going to link an article....since that usually ends up with posters critiquing the article, author, news agency, or think tank, etc. instead of addressing the issue. >


    Regarding the kerfuffles of more than one federal agency:
    1. DoD/State Dept/CIA and Benghazi incident.
    2. The IRS singling out 'conservative groups' applying for tax-exempt status.
    3. The DoJ getting warrants to track AP phone records without their knowledge.

    Some will say this is proof that:
    1. The federal government is too big, too bureaucratic, and too powerful.
    2. This is typical of institutional dysfunction, with breakdowns in quality management and accountability.
    3. Political parties, partisanship, polarity, and politicking have replaced governance and leadership.

    Plus other reasons....like balancing powers between the legislative, judicial, and executive branches. Balancing national security (with a certain degree of 'secrecy') between a free and open press, and an informed public.

    Our system of "checks and balances" is never a simple or easy process. Especially when it becomes reactive instead of proactive. It's too complicated to boil it down to simplistic answers and solutions, but I gotta say....the recent congressional "outrage" seems to be part of the problem. Who's watching the watchmen?

    Thoughts and opinions?




    <And please, don't start by disagreeing with me or what I've written. >

  2. #2
    All of your examples are of the executive branch misbehaving, with the president being involved in some capacity in 2 out of the 3. I don't really see how the conflict between the presidency and any other branch is a major component here...Congress might be criticizing the president after the fact, but there is no dispute over the proper role of the executive branch (the executive lied in the first case, was incompetent in the second, and ignored the interests of the media in the third; none of the instances involve attempts to gain another branch's power).
    Hope is the denial of reality

  3. #3
    Loki, what are you doing? Didn't you see the note, you are not supposed to disagree with GGT or what she writes in her thread.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  4. #4
    I have to admit, I don't understand this thread. Thoughts and opinions on what??
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    I have to admit, I don't understand this thread. Thoughts and opinions on what??
    I imagine she wants to see us free-associate and share our streams of consciousness based on her open-ended prompt.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  6. #6
    I'm trying to figure out what the proactive version of checking and balancing would be like.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  7. #7
    GGT: don't take this the wrong way, but people like reading about a single well-developed point. They do not want to read about half a dozen poorly-articulated arguments, especially when those arguments are written in the space of a hundred words. Make a point and stick to it, at least for the first few posts. Otherwise, you just confuse everyone, yourself included.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  8. #8
    The NYTimes posted a long article desperately trying to sugarcoat this IRS scandal.

    I don't think this IRS thing is the biggest deal in the world, but this is pathetic from the NYTimes.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/us...the-rules.html

  9. #9
    Saw that earlier. It's a reverse hit piece.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  10. #10
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    The IRS thing is pretty complicated - if the rules for political groups recently changed it's not surprising they get more scrutiny, and groups shouldn't get a free pass just because they will complain if you ask more questions. Then again, it should be triaged based on the type of group, not their political colour.. though I'm not against selection based on previous experiences, e.g. if a higher number of tea party applications were ineligible, it makes sense to look better at those, but I'm sure someone would have given that excuse by now if that was the case.

    And from the entire story it seems the entire organization is run pretty poorly. Why do most of your organizations seem a failing bureaucratic mess, and often partisan? Our counterparts seem a lot better (I have good experiences with the tax agency, coincidentally on the subject of tax exemption).

    Also, isn't public outrage part of the checks and balances? And the congressional outrage and hearings? Though I must admit that everything is so partisan that when someone has legitimate outrage, it's easy to dismiss it as either overblown, or hypocritical because he didn't complain about similar situations in his camp. Makes it harder to see the actual problems. And makes you more cynical

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    And from the entire story it seems the entire organization is run pretty poorly. Why do most of your organizations seem a failing bureaucratic mess, and often partisan? Our counterparts seem a lot better (I have good experiences with the tax agency, coincidentally on the subject of tax exemption).
    Because government competence doesn't sell newspapers/broadcast bandwidth in US media markets.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    GGT: don't take this the wrong way, but people like reading about a single well-developed point. They do not want to read about half a dozen poorly-articulated arguments, especially when those arguments are written in the space of a hundred words. Make a point and stick to it, at least for the first few posts. Otherwise, you just confuse everyone, yourself included.
    Sorry, I tried too hard, and used too many words. I almost included the military's problem with rape/sexual assault, too!

    Checks and Balances (between government branches), the Free Press, and democratic Voting are like that three-legged stool: its tripod stability is supposed to make things more functional, not less. But anyone looking at the US landscape can see there are many dysfunctions, stalemates, quagmires.

    Are these problems foundational, organizational, procedural, all of the above? Who decides which leg is too big or small, and how? That led to the final question in the OP:

    Who watches the watchmen?



    Fuzzy, is that a better way to frame an open-ended conceptual question? Would your pedantic side have answered an even broader question like What the hell has gone wrong in our democratic, representative Union....and why does it look like a clown show with bumper cars?

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post


    Fuzzy, is that a better way to frame an open-ended conceptual question? Would your pedantic side have answered an even broader question like What the hell has gone wrong in our democratic, representative Union....and why does it look like a clown show with bumper cars?
    I loathed free-writing assignments in English class and I've got no more patience for them now. The difference is now people like you can't compel me to indulge in the pain-in-the-ass exercise.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    And from the entire story it seems the entire organization is run pretty poorly. Why do most of your organizations seem a failing bureaucratic mess, and often partisan? Our counterparts seem a lot better (I have good experiences with the tax agency, coincidentally on the subject of tax exemption).
    The story is incredibly selective in the "data" it uses, emphasizing elements of incompetence, while downplaying intentional wrong-doing. Some of the attempts to blame this on incompetence are transparent attempts by the NY Times to deflect the blame from the Obama administration.

    Also, isn't public outrage part of the checks and balances? And the congressional outrage and hearings? Though I must admit that everything is so partisan that when someone has legitimate outrage, it's easy to dismiss it as either overblown, or hypocritical because he didn't complain about similar situations in his camp. Makes it harder to see the actual problems. And makes you more cynical
    No, checks and balances refer to the ability of formal institutions to check each other.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    No, checks and balances refer to the ability of formal institutions to check each other.
    Eh, elections are deliberate and formal check in our systems, even if they aren't part of the classical formulation which only addresses the government institutions themselves. As such public outrage does represent an indirect check.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  16. #16
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    That is what I meant, and congressional hearings are part of it.

    Loki, i haven't followed this story at all, but are there strong indications this was sanctioned/ordered from higher up? It isn't unusual that the focus was on new political organizations shortly after the law is changed, since it's simply more likely that everything isn't in order, and call me naive but I would say it's unlikely that top officials would be stupid enough to outright target political opponents, considering the backlash you can expect. That would require a level of stupidity that I'd like to think makes it impossible to get that high up in a political job.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Loki, i haven't followed this story at all, but are there strong indications this was sanctioned/ordered from higher up? It isn't unusual that the focus was on new political organizations shortly after the law is changed, since it's simply more likely that everything isn't in order, and call me naive but I would say it's unlikely that top officials would be stupid enough to outright target political opponents, considering the backlash you can expect. That would require a level of stupidity that I'd like to think makes it impossible to get that high up in a political job.
    No, there are no indications as of yet that this was directed from the top. But there are strong indications that people at the bottom were intentionally going after Tea Party groups, their managers knew this, and they didn't stop it. Incompetence plays a role here, but not the dominant role as the NY Times would like us to believe.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  18. #18
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    No, there are no indications as of yet that this was directed from the top. But there are strong indications that people at the bottom were intentionally going after Tea Party groups, their managers knew this, and they didn't stop it. Incompetence plays a role here, but not the dominant role as the NY Times would like us to believe.
    So Obama administration is responsible in whatever your equivalent of ministerial responsibility is, fair enough. From the way you posted it it sounded like they were actively involved.

    Have been reading somewhat more on it now, seems their methods of extra scrutiny would be worrying even if it wasn't directed at only one political group Figured it would be looking closer at their money and activities, not what books they are reading or what's in their prayers.. And that extra scrutiny wouldn't mean 16 months of stalling an application without notice while other groups with different names getting it after three weeks.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    So Obama administration is responsible in whatever your equivalent of ministerial responsibility is, fair enough. From the way you posted it it sounded like they were actively involved.

    Have been reading somewhat more on it now, seems their methods of extra scrutiny would be worrying even if it wasn't directed at only one political group Figured it would be looking closer at their money and activities, not what books they are reading or what's in their prayers.. And that extra scrutiny wouldn't mean 16 months of stalling an application without notice while other groups with different names getting it after three weeks.
    Eh, I think Obama is responsible to the extent that he allowed useless people to lead the IRS. I'd be satisfied with all the people who knew what was going on losing their jobs, and the ones who lied to Congress about it spending a few months in jail.

    The extra stalling is what government bureaucrats do. It's not limited to the IRS; I saw marriage visas stalled for 10 years. Another reason to hate bureaucrats.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  20. #20
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Eh, I think Obama is responsible to the extent that he allowed useless people to lead the IRS. I'd be satisfied with all the people who knew what was going on losing their jobs, and the ones who lied to Congress about it spending a few months in jail.
    That is ministerial responsibility, right? Being responsible for your department even if you were not aware of the actions of those below you. Though it seems there are only two appointed positions at the IRS, and the head of the department was appointed by Bush, so it seems more like either ignorance or indifference about the apparent uselessness of the people leading it. And aren't those appointments subject to senate confirmation (which was unanimous) anyway? Plus, apparently Congressmen pressured the IRS to scrutinize exactly these groups, so it's not like they are blameless.
    The extra stalling is what government bureaucrats do. It's not limited to the IRS; I saw marriage visas stalled for 10 years. Another reason to hate bureaucrats.
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Because government competence doesn't sell newspapers/broadcast bandwidth in US media markets.
    So that view is created by the media, not reality?
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  21. #21
    The head of the IRS was there in a temporary capacity. He wasn't confirmed to that position during Obama's presidency.

    Incompetence is the norm. This story is not just about incompetence, and any attempts by left-wing publications to suggest otherwise are pretty obvious attempts at attempting to dismiss valid criticisms of the politicization of the lower ranks of the IRS (at least in the Cincinnati bureau).
    Hope is the denial of reality

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    So that view is created by the media, not reality?
    The perceived comparative difference in professional performance amongst first-world governments is more due to image than real differences in performance, yes.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  23. #23
    "Facing a surge in campaign groups formed during Mr Obama’s first years in the White House, and worried that many were too political to merit tax-exempt status, inspectors hit upon the shortcut of targeting groups with names containing “tea party” or “patriot”. Later, when that triggered complaints of bias, IRS officials switched to scrutinising groups that wanted to change the size of the government or even criticise it, firing off demands to know who led each group, what they were saying in newsletters or on the internet, and even what their members were reading.

    Though the government has a right to police overly political non-profit groups, liberal groups appear to have endured less harassment. "

    http://www.economist.com/news/united...rs-notes-three

    Does that sound like just incompetence to anyone but the NY Times?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  24. #24
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    The head of the IRS was there in a temporary capacity. He wasn't confirmed to that position during Obama's presidency.
    I meant the head that was actually heading the IRS during the time this occurred which seems more relevant, i.e. Shulman, who served for five years after being appointed by Bush. Unless you also mean him, but five years seems like a long temporary capacity. Plus Wikipedia mentions he was confirmed by the full senate.
    Incompetence is the norm. This story is not just about incompetence, and any attempts by left-wing publications to suggest otherwise are pretty obvious attempts at attempting to dismiss valid criticisms of the politicization of the lower ranks of the IRS (at least in the Cincinnati bureau).
    Can't really comment on that since I don't read that many US news sources, but for the record, I first heard about this on the Daily Show, which is very left-wing, and that show didn't blame incompetence, but the administration, and later specifically Obama's answers on a press conference. While making fun of the IRS, of course

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    "Facing a surge in campaign groups formed during Mr Obama’s first years in the White House, and worried that many were too political to merit tax-exempt status, inspectors hit upon the shortcut of targeting groups with names containing “tea party” or “patriot”. Later, when that triggered complaints of bias, IRS officials switched to scrutinising groups that wanted to change the size of the government or even criticise it, firing off demands to know who led each group, what they were saying in newsletters or on the internet, and even what their members were reading.

    Though the government has a right to police overly political non-profit groups, liberal groups appear to have endured less harassment. "

    http://www.economist.com/news/united...rs-notes-three

    Does that sound like just incompetence to anyone but the NY Times?
    Well, it's either sheer incompetence, or it was sheer incompetence in being political, since it's rather stupid to do something that can so easily be found out and result in such a backlash, so it's definitely incompetence
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I loathed free-writing assignments in English class and I've got no more patience for them now. The difference is now people like you can't compel me to indulge in the pain-in-the-ass exercise.
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    No, checks and balances refer to the ability of formal institutions to check each other.
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Eh, elections are deliberate and formal check in our systems, even if they aren't part of the classical formulation which only addresses the government institutions themselves. As such public outrage does represent an indirect check.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    That is what I meant, and congressional hearings are part of it.

    Loki, i haven't followed this story at all, but are there strong indications this was sanctioned/ordered from higher up? It isn't unusual that the focus was on new political organizations shortly after the law is changed, since it's simply more likely that everything isn't in order, and call me naive but I would say it's unlikely that top officials would be stupid enough to outright target political opponents, considering the backlash you can expect. That would require a level of stupidity that I'd like to think makes it impossible to get that high up in a political job.
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    The perceived comparative difference in professional performance amongst first-world governments is more due to image than real differences in performance, yes.
    Didn't take too long for the free-writing exercise to take some shape, did it?

    I don't know what others perceive about US professionalism or performance as a 1st world government, or having "Exceptional Nation" status.....or how much is related to an image largely shaped by the press or social media.

    But (to me), we look/act more like a clown show with bumper cars. <<Not meeting expectations of quality, excellence, or even common sense in any institutional system, public OR private. Running from crisis to crisis. Poor management, crappy cooperation/coordination, lack of accountability. Gridlock, dysfunction, mistrust, exasperation, apathy. >>

    So, I gave a few current examples in the OP to start it off, but this goes waaay back. It includes previous administrations, regardless of political party. It's at the state and local level as well as federal. All politicians run on platforms of "Hope and Change" or "Cleaning up Washington" (or City Hall)...but what we end up with is mostly in-fighting, fighting. Even "compromise" has become a dirty word.

    Soooo, this is not just a trend but something that appears to be entrenched in American Life. Seems to me our "Checks and Balances" aren't up to snuff, or have hit a wall--in modern times--that don't deal with Transitional Eras very well.




    Not to complicate this philosophical and contextual "exercise" even more, but the OK tornado disaster is another, yet different example. It boggles my mind that elementary schools in Tornado Alley are still using the same "Disaster Plan" used when I was a kid in Kansas (in the 60's!!!)---crouch in an internal hallway, away from windows, and cover your head.

    It's incomprehensible that entire neighborhoods and strip malls and schools were built along the same tornado path after several tornado disasters had blown them away.....and that updated building codes for tornado shelters was often "voluntary". Because the "calculated risks" just didn't justify massive expenditures up front. Plus, Okies don't like to be told what to do, by building "Fraidy Cat" structures. They want the "choice" to ride it out in their bathtubs...but then expect National Guard and FEMA assistance afterward?

    It's hypocritical of congress to treat Disasters differently, based on geology and geography....and political party power. That's when Who's Watching the Watchmen becomes the ultimate, open-ended question.

    Fuzzy, that's where you can compare/contrast high risk states (CA, FL, OK) with their political majorities, cultural ideologies, legislative processes and procedures....plus federal tax dollar funding that comes with regulations.

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Can't really comment on that since I don't read that many US news sources, but for the record, I first heard about this on the Daily Show, which is very left-wing, and that show didn't blame incompetence, but the administration, and later specifically Obama's answers on a press conference. While making fun of the IRS, of course
    Clearly the Daily Show has higher standards than the NY Times.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Didn't take too long for the free-writing exercise to take some shape, did it?
    Those are one-line replies to what other people say. I thought that wasn't what you were looking for, you always object to how I only reply and rebut what other people say and never offer up my own original thoughts *and never start my own threads* but just respond to other people.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Those are one-line replies to what other people say. I thought that wasn't what you were looking for, you always object to how I only reply and rebut what other people say and never offer up my own original thoughts *and never start my own threads* but just respond to other people.

    Well, that's why I started with a rather vague and open-ended question. I figured others would realize this isn't necessarily what "I" was looking for....other than a robust discussion among other posters, however it was interpreted, or where it led. There's been some really good "stuff" in the in-between, with questions about the role of congress as the Watchmen over the IRS....





    PS Flixy, you are one of my favorite posters, because you have a way of asking Americans to explain things, in order to understand complex interconnections in the world, while voicing your own views....that makes for really good discussions. You do that without being contentious or snarky. We need more people like you, everywhere.

  29. #29
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    He's young, give it time.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  30. #30
    See article below quote. This is public choice theory in action. I am reluctant to quote Peggy Noonan here, but I think she gets something very very right here:

    Quote Originally Posted by Peggy Noonan, professional talking head
    It is considered a bit of a faux pas to point this out, but what we are talking about in part is a Democratic president, a largely Democratic professional administrative class in Washington, and an IRS whose workers belong to a union whose political action committee gave roughly 95% of its political contributions last year to Democrats.

    Tim Carney had a remarkable piece in the Washington Examiner this week in which he looked for campaign contributions from the IRS Cincinnati office. "In the 2012 election, every donation traceable to this office went to President Obama or liberal Sen. Sherrod Brown." An IRS employee said in an email to Mr. Carney, "Do you think people willing to sacrifice lucrative private sector careers to work in tax administration . . . are genuinely going to support the party directed by Grover Norquist?" Mr. Carney noted that one of his IRS correspondents had an interesting detail on his social media profile. He belongs to a Facebook group called "Target the Shutdown at the Tea Party States." It advised the president, during the 2011 debt-ceiling fight: "For instance, shut down air traffic control at airports in Norfolk, Tampa, Nashville."

    Wow. I guess that was target practice.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...945731506.html

    ********


    Updated May 31, 2013, 10:14 p.m. ET

    Donors To GOP Group Drew IRS Scrutiny
    Audits Sought to Impose Gift Tax
    By JOHN D. MCKINNON and DIONNE SEARCEY

    At the same time the Internal Revenue Service was targeting tea-party groups, the tax agency took the unusual step of trying to impose gift taxes on donors to a prominent conservative advocacy group formed in 2007 to build support for President George W. Bush's Iraq troop surge.

    The probe of the group, Freedom's Watch, began in the unit led by Lois Lerner, the IRS official already under scrutiny for her role in the more recent targeting of conservative groups.

    While the IRS confirmed the existence of the gift-tax initiative in 2011, the identity of the group involved—as well as the affiliation of individual donors—remained a mystery.

    Former officials of Freedom's Watch say they believe all five of the IRS audits involved donors to their group, based on conversations with IRS agents and donors at the time of the audits in 2011.

    The IRS declined to comment, citing taxpayer confidentiality.

    The gift-tax probe, after it became public in 2011, prompted an outcry from Congress and was quickly halted.

    The now-defunct Freedom's Watch, which operated with a budget of about $56 million during its roughly two-year existence, spent about $10.7 million on issue ads in 2008, including television ads during special elections for House races in Louisiana and Mississippi.

    Such groups, which are organized under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, are allowed to engage in some political-campaign activity, as long as that isn't their primary focus. They also don't have to disclose their donors' identities.

    Critics say many groups abused their tax-exempt status by playing an outsize role in politics and that the IRS's scrutiny was appropriate.

    Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have decried the tactics used by the agency, in particular the targeting of groups by their political leanings and their often heavy-handed questioning of groups seeking tax-exempt status.

    In February 2010, the same month the tea-party targeting started, according to a recent inspector general's report, Freedom's Watch was subjected to an IRS audit that focused largely on its political activities, an uncommon but not unprecedented action, election lawyers say. The probe broadened into other areas, including executive compensation.

    About a year later, as many as five donors to Freedom's Watch were subjected to IRS audits of their contributions that sought to impose gift taxes on their donations to the group, according to lawyers and former officials of Freedom's Watch.

    Tax experts say that effort was highly unusual. The IRS generally hadn't sought to impose the gift tax on donations to tax-exempt groups such as Freedom's Watch in at least 20 years, perhaps longer, following an unfavorable court ruling and changes in the law by Congress, according to lawyers and IRS documents.

    The IRS action "was kind of like a nuclear bomb going off," said Rob Kelner, who heads the election-law practice at Covington & Burling LLP. "Although we always knew this was a possibility, it disrupted that long-standing understanding among election lawyers that this was an area where the IRS wasn't likely to go."

    The IRS efforts were made public after a lawyer brought up the audits at a tax conference in mid-2011. Republican lawmakers complained to the agency, saying the abrupt action was unfair and would chill constitutionally protected free speech.

    The gift tax was designed largely to prevent people from avoiding estate taxes by giving away their assets during their lifetimes. It is broadly worded and could be applied to many types of transfers. Legislation in the 1970s clarified that campaign contributions to parties, candidates and political action committees aren't subject to the gift tax.

    The legislation didn't exempt donations to 501(c)(4) groups such as Freedom's Watch, and for years the IRS has taken the position the gift tax still applies to donations to 501(c)(4)'s. But in recent years it hasn't enforced that position, lawyers say.

    "It's perfectly plain to see that Freedom's Watch's donors were singled out…in a complete break with decades of precedent and IRS procedure," said Ari Fleischer, a board member of the group and former White House press secretary for Mr. Bush, in an interview.

    In response to questions in 2011, the IRS confirmed it had sent the gift-tax audit letters to five taxpayers. The five letters resulted from "a single matter," then-IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman said in May 2011. In July, in response to the outcry on Capitol Hill, the IRS announced it was ending the audits and wouldn't conduct any more until after a review.

    Mr. Shulman and Ms. Lerner didn't respond to requests for comment.

    Last week Ms. Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at a congressional hearing.

    Ms. Lerner, who has denied wrongdoing in the agency's focus on tea-party groups, has been placed on administrative leave.

    The lawyer who represents Freedom's Watch, Jeff Altman, said his informal conversations with IRS agents indicated the five people who got the audit letters were all donors to Freedom's Watch.

    Private conversations with at least three of Freedom's Watch donors or their attorneys confirmed they received the letters, he said.

    The audit of Freedom's Watch was conducted by Ms. Lerner's exempt-organizations unit. The gift-tax audits were conducted by workers in the estate and gift-tax unit, housed in a separate division of the sprawling IRS.

    In a 2011 letter, GOP lawmakers asked whether the exempt-organizations unit played a role in the gift-tax audits. In a written response, a top IRS official implied the exempt-organizations unit referred the matter to the estate-and-gift tax unit.

    The official, Steven Miller, who was recently ousted as acting commissioner, said the gift tax unit didn't have access to the names of donors to 501(c)(4) groups. Instead, those names are directly available only to Ms. Lerner's unit.

    Referrals of tax-return information from one unit to another are appropriate when necessary and not unusual, Mr. Miller's letter said. Then-Commissioner Shulman's May 2011 letter also said the gift-tax audits were the result of an "internal referral."

    Freedom's Watch's two-year audit came after two complaint letters were sent to the IRS, one by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the party's House election arm, and another entity whose name is redacted in letters provided to Mr. Altman by the IRS.

    Mr. Altman said the IRS told him the audit was triggered by the letter from the entity that had its name redacted.

    The group ended up paying about $12,000 in owed taxes for discrepancies in deductions the group had taken, out of a budget of about $56 million.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...566848922.html

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •