Talk:IRS targeting controversy

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."[2][3]

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)

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

The result was 10 keeps and 1 delete.

spreading rumors?

 Why? Is the IRS investigating Wikipedia? 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 Wikipedia'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)

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)

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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 investigation 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)