Other Voices | Wednesdays Wars : Watching Fox and Believing There is an IRS Scandal

Published on Feb 12, 2014

If you are capable of believing National Football League teams wrongfully discriminate against weak people who run slow and weigh less than 150 lbs and that they wrongfully favor strong people who run fast and weigh over 250 lbs, then you are capable of believing FOX and thinking there actually is an IRS scandal.

Let’s examine the law that FOX claims has been scandalously administered by the Internal Revenue Service. And, let’s take a look at the parties FOX claims have been wronged and those FOX claims have unfairly benefited from IRS actions.

What does the law say?

This whole sham controversy revolves around how the Internal Revenue Service has administered section 501c 4 of the Internal Revenue Code, which allows tax-exempt status “… for organizations not organized for profit, but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare …” Webster defines the term “social welfare” as “services for the assistance of disadvantaged groups.”

Those discriminated against according to FOX

FOX claims TEA Party groups have been unlawfully discriminated against by the IRS in the administration of the law.

Continue Reading………..

9 thoughts on “Other Voices | Wednesdays Wars : Watching Fox and Believing There is an IRS Scandal”

  1. One needs to look no further then the bio of the author of Wednesday Wars, Tom Callaghan, posted on his liberal website to understand why he believes there is no IRS scandal. No doubt he also believes that the Obama administration also did not misrepresent the incident at Benghazi for political election purposes . He probably also believes in all the secrecy and BS statistics emerging on the numbers of people registered and which have also paid for said Obamacare policies.

    Some quick questions for Tom would be if there was no IRS scandal then why did the female IRS agent take the fifth before Congress and also explain why some Tea Party members’ businesses were raided by IRS, WTF , EPA and other governmental agencies when same said businesses had never been investigated before by any of those agencies.

    And finally Tom, how about explaining when after the conservative Afro-American pediatric neurosurgeon , Ben Carson, spoke at a political conference ( which Obama also attended), voiced his opposing conservative views at said meeting and later appeared several times on FOX , he was audited for the first time by the IRS ?

  2. If there was no scandal, the irs would not have planted the question which blew all this up, in order to get ahead of a damning inspetector general’s report that was soon to be released.

    ” The fateful question came from a tax lawyer, in a room filled with dozens of them. It came at the end of a Friday morning panel, on the second day of the American Bar Association tax section

  3. I’ve read and appreciate the two comments above. I’ve watched FOX deal with the IRS “scandal” and have never tell their viewers what the text of the law states nor have I heard them suggest that TEA Party conservatives have any great passion for “social welfare” programs to help “disadvantaged groups”.

    Liberals are about helping the poor. Conservatives are about letting the free enterprise system sort out the winners and losers. TEA Party groups getting IRS approval under 501c 4 would make as much sense as Jane Fonda and Rachel Maddow getting approved for special recognition under criteria requiring advocacy of a “strong preemptively striking military”.

  4. Lets see what the IRS website says about 501c 4 organizations instead of taking your word for it Tom. “Social welfare” has more than one meaning. True “social welfare” can mean programs to help “disadvantaged groups.” However that is not the type of social welfare which is described in the regulation of 501c 4 organizations. Mainly that,

    “An organization is considered to be operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the community”

    This has to do with social welfare in the context of the common good of the community, NOT relating to

    “help

  5. Tom is completely dishonest, he says “Let’s examine the law that FOX claims has been scandalously administered by the Internal Revenue Service. ” and then he does NOT cite the law or the law’s definition of “social welfare”, so i will

    1. In response to Ross, who claims that I did not cite the law so he will.

      Actually, Ross has it backwards. I cited the law and he cited the regulation. There is a difference…congress passes laws and government agencies promulgate regulations.

      Conservatives should be outraged when unelected bureaucrats do not follow the clear wording of the law and promulgate regulations that are at variance with what their elected representatives enacted.

      The law is clear. Under 501c 4 one is entitled to tax exempt status if they engage “exclusively in social welfare”. If the law and a regulation promulgated under the law are at variance the law prevails.

      Conservatives who snicker at the whole concept of “social welfare” can contribute to other tax exempt organizations under 501 like chambers of commerce. The only logical reason they would try to come in under the “social welfare” provisions of 501c 4 is to try and get the benefit of a charitable tax deduction when it is clear they have no charitable intent. Now that would be a scandal.

  6. “Actually, Ross has it backwards. I cited the law and he cited the regulation. There is a difference…congress passes laws and government agencies promulgate regulations.”

    Well first, you didnt cite the law, you cited webster’s dictionary. Second, the IRS through regulation allows conservative groups to do the exactly what they were doing. If you or the IRS believes the regulations should be changed, then change them. Don’t say on one hand “you are allowed to do this,” then on the other hand institute gestapo tactics and investigate and stall the applications of people and groups that were following the regulations.

    1. Ross, even that is treating the mere symptom of the disease.

      One has a rather suspect ethical makeup if one believes that thre should be an entity which has a legitimated monopoly on the use of force to engage in extortion. Such a true believer is traditionally one who wants the entity to engage in the robbery and distribute some of the proceeds to the true believer, the true believer being too cowardly to steal from the victim of the extortion directly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *