Yet another insult, good job.
Two of those links are about just calling it Obama's IRS which would be correct. No mention that this leads to Obama and he is directly involved, nor is that the purpose of the investigations.
The Foxnews link, which is an AP story, merely talks about how Obama's language has influenced the behavior at the IRS while making one claim about House Republicans. Calling it Obama's IRS however, would appear to be correct seeing as he is the president. Its not like he has come out and shunned the behavior at the IRS, nor has he toned down any rhetoric regarding Tea Party groups. Of course, none of that is direct. The story just talks about influence, well, no duh. It is funny, however, that the story makes the claim about House Republicans yet fails to back it up relying on mere innuendo. The same innuendo that the left is relying on here.
However, none of those show a direct Obama involvement. Of course Obama's name is going to be all over it. He's the president and therefore its his IRS as this point in time. There's no surprise there considering its part of the executive branch. This is yet again, just some of the left's attempt to cast republican's in a bad light because those on the left want to make it look like the right is out to find the boogeyman so that they can question the whole investigation and label it an Obama witch hunt, which isn't the case. It's a sad example of politics today. What's more sad is some of the left's never ending defense of the IRS, especially in this case. It's really going to be curious to see what happens when the shoe is on the other foot and a bunch of people from the right are running the IRS if a precedent is allowed to be set regarding political behavior at the IRS.
I mean, do you even read what you post? Do you even know what your argument is at this point?
This is yet again, just some of the left's attempt to cast republican's in a bad light because those on the left want to make it look like the right is out to find the boogeyman so that they can question the whole investigation and label it an Obama witch hunt, which isn't the case. It's a sad example of politics today.
You are now the stupidest motherfucker on P&N! I showed you links of republicans trying to link the "IRS scandal" to Obama and all you say is that there is no link, yeah no shit! But that hasn't stopped republicans from making that claim.
Do you even know what the fuck you are arguing about?
No, you simply didn't. Learn to read. There is absolutely nothing to back up the claim in the Foxnews article other than the author making the statement. That doesn't make it all of a sudden valid. The other two don't even mention Obama other than to label the IRS as Obama's IRS.
Since you can do nothing but insult, welcome back to the ignore list. Maybe someday you'll learn to grow up, but I'm guessing that'll be about the time you learn to read.
Since Daily Caller did its usual inept job of pushing innuendo instead of fact, perhaps you can help. What is the effect of a union understating that specific expense line? Does it make their taxes lower, to NOT report that political expenditure, or to report it somewhere else on their return? What recourse does the IRS have in such cases? In other words, is there some financial incentive for unions to categorize such expenses incorrectly, and is there a tangible benefit for the IRS to pursue it?
-snip-
LOL Who could have predicted this? Oh, right - everyone.
I've never done a return for a union, so I'm not too familiar with them or the requirements that they are subject to.
However I do know that union dues are deductible, but I think any portion used for political purposes is not. If so, yes it's financially beneficial to union members if the amounts are 'fudged'.
Also, I believe some states prohibit unions from engaging in political spending even though the US tax code doesn't.
Also, it looks like union members can demand a refund for the portion of their dues that were used for political purposes. I.e., it's to the union's financial benefit to fudge the numbers. (See SCOTUS case Communications Workers of America v. Beck.)
Fern
What the IRS needs as an IT babysitter and full routine audits. They spend ludicrous amounts on IT and somehow pretend they don't use a mail server that keeps emails when a computer crashes. Every email in and out of there should be subject to records laws. Perhaps an archiving device needs to be installed FOR them.
Please. That's been covered at depth. IRS IT practices severely limited email storage on servers. There's no pretend.
Please. That's been covered at depth. IRS IT practices severely limited email storage on servers. There's no pretend.
Here's a more detailed article about this, from Politico: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/irs-emails-lost-110648.html
Can you say red herring?
Which is exactly why they need it imposed on them.
How so?
He asked for financial incentives, I gave him some.
Fern
Yeh, cutting their budget would probably work, huh?
Says the boy who's clearly never worked in an enterprise IT environment. Consumer PC drives (like you play with) are indeed inexpensive. Enterprise SAN is not cheap even today, and its price has dropped substantially since 2009 when this saga started. Mind you, I agree it was a poor place to cut corners, but don't kid yourself that it is a trivial expense.Completely plausible, especially in an era when massive amounts of storage costs next to nothing.
The introduction of Unions into the discussion is a red herring.
Interesting, thanks. Any clue why a union would want to report differently to the IRS vs. the Department of Labor?I've never done a return for a union, so I'm not too familiar with them or the requirements that they are subject to.
However I do know that union dues are deductible, but I think any portion used for political purposes is not. If so, yes it's financially beneficial to union members if the amounts are 'fudged'.
Also, I believe some states prohibit unions from engaging in political spending even though the US tax code doesn't.
Also, it looks like union members can demand a refund for the portion of their dues that were used for political purposes. I.e., it's to the union's financial benefit to fudge the numbers. (See SCOTUS case Communications Workers of America v. Beck.)
Fern
Completely plausible, especially in an era when massive amounts of storage costs next to nothing.
It is relevant to that piece of this story. It comes from the claim that Lerner didn't aggressively pursue unions who reported different political expenditures to the IRS vs. the DoL. This was reported a few days ago in this thread. I assume Fern just now saw my question and replied.The introduction of Unions into the discussion is a red herring.