Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
thanks for pointing this out. Maybe now, more people will realize what we see on the net isn't always what is really happening. This still doesn't change the fact, what apparently IRS was beyond belief, but that has nothing to do with whether there is any action being taken at this time.
May I ask, what is it that you think happened at the IRS?
Because this is my understanding.
After the Supreme Court announced its decision on the Citizens United case, the campaign funding case, the number of applications for non-profit exemptions at the IRS essentially doubled. In light of the Citizens United Case, many of these non-profits were clearly politically motivated, and that's okay. Many non-profits involve themselves in politics, and even have a political bias. But they cannot be solely involved in politics, they have to document that the majority of their activities are non-political. This is because political organizations have to reveal their donors and essentially reveal the money trail, while non-profits do not. The IRS, in the deluge of applications, tried to identify which applications should receive more intense scrutiny, and they inappropriately chose to focus their scrutiny on organizations which used the word "tea party" or "patriot" or other topical words which were used mainly be conservative organizations. The organizations receiving the closer scrutiny were asked to provide information and detail that was out-of-the-norm (which would be in keeping with more intense scrutiny), and that the law actually didn't require to determine if they were non-profit or not. All in all, roughly 300 applicants received the additional scrutiny, a handful chose to withdraw their applications for non-profit status, about half of the reviews were completed, and none of the organizations receiving the additional scrutiny were denied their non-profit status.
So the IRS was out of line here, and that's why they've apologized. The criteria they used to determine who would receive additional scrutiny was clearly biased. The IRS was asking for information they shouldn't have been asking for. They are clearly in the wrong. But no one was denied the non-profit status based on that additional scrutiny, either.
Obama will probably pass a law that a black president can't be impeached.
Yes, I'm sure the president will be passing that law any day now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
