Obama interested in using executive action to roll back IRS tax breaks

[Fern]

Congress gave the executive branch the power to create and destroy these tax dodges. Checks and balances met.

That's factually incorrect.

Congress can give substantial leeway to the IRS in regulating tax law. Congress can pass a tax law that tasks the IRS with 'fleshing out' the statute to meet a desired goal. These Regulations are known in tax law as "Statutory Regulations" or "Legislative Regulations". In any case they can and will be challenged in court and must be found by the courts to uphold the intent of Congress.

BTW: Perhaps you were too 'casual' with your language, but the SCOTUS has previously determined that Congress cannot delegate its Constitutional responsibility to the Exec branch; thus no line item veto allowed. Moreover, such a delegation would not be a form of "checks and balances" it would merely be a 'delegation'.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

That's factually incorrect.

Congress can give substantial leeway to the IRS in regulating tax law. Congress can pass a tax law that tasks the IRS with 'fleshing out' the statute to meet a desired goal. These Regulations are known in tax law as "Statutory Regulations" or "Legislative Regulations". In any case they can and will be challenged in court and must be found by the courts to uphold the intent of Congress.

BTW: Perhaps you were too 'casual' with your language, but the SCOTUS has previously determined that Congress cannot delegate its Constitutional responsibility to the Exec branch; thus no line item veto allowed. Moreover, such a delegation would not be a form of "checks and balances" it would merely be a 'delegation'.

Fern

What Iron Wing offered & what you offer are not incompatible. Obviously, the IRS can invoke/alter any statutory regulation they see as reasonable. Those adversely affected can take it up in court, even at the level of litigation as sport if they can afford to play that game.

If Obama were the kind of fierce partisan he's painted to be then the IRS would have moved to shut down the shadowy pipeline of funding to 501(c)4 groups and other aspects of the right wing political money laundering machine through reinterpretation of the statutes. They could all fight it out in court rather than in Issa's kabuki theater.

 

[michal1980]

What Iron Wing offered & what you offer are not incompatible. Obviously, the IRS can invoke/alter any statutory regulation they see as reasonable. Those adversely affected can take it up in court, even at the level of litigation as sport if they can afford to play that game.

If Obama were the kind of fierce partisan he's painted to be then the IRS would have moved to shut down the shadowy pipeline of funding to 501(c)4 groups and other aspects of the right wing political money laundering machine through reinterpretation of the statutes. They could all fight it out in court rather than in Issa's kabuki theater.

Umm they effectively did shut down the formation of new groups by delaying their tax status.

 

[Jhhnn]

Umm they effectively did shut down the formation of new groups by delaying their tax status.

Ass backwards. They couldn't hook on to the big money tit in the sky until their donors were assured of anonymity. They can't cast the illusion of a grass roots movement w/o it. It's legalized payola for their operatives.

 

[Fern]

What Iron Wing offered & what you offer are not incompatible. Obviously, the IRS can invoke/alter any statutory regulation they see as reasonable. Those adversely affected can take it up in court, even at the level of litigation as sport if they can afford to play that game.
-snip-

Yes, they are incompatible.

You have understood nothing of what I wrote. I'll try to make it simpler:

The President does not change tax laws. The President does not interpret tax laws. I have asked for an example of a Presidential E.O. mandating the IRS to ignore its interpretation based upon a good faith understanding of Congressional intent and undertake an interpretation based upon the President's ideological bent. I do not believe anyone will be able to provide one.

If Obama were the kind of fierce partisan he's painted to be then the IRS would have moved to shut down the shadowy pipeline of funding to 501(c)4 groups

WTH? They did.

They could all fight it out in court rather than in Issa's kabuki theater.

What?

Issa has nothing whatsoever to do with this. (Aside from being a generic voting member of Congress.) And Congressional committees do not interpret tax law after enactment.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, they are incompatible.

You have understood nothing of what I wrote. I'll try to make it simpler:

The President does not change tax laws. The President does not interpret tax laws. I have asked for an example of a Presidential E.O. mandating the IRS to ignore its interpretation based upon a good faith understanding of Congressional intent and undertake an interpretation based upon the President's ideological bent. I do not believe anyone will be able to provide one.

Oh, please. That's a desperate dance. Obama could easily meet with the heads of the IRS & just ask them what they think they could do to accomplish whatever he wants, come back to him with their answers, see if it could be implemented- only with his blessing, of course. They'd be on it like fringewhacks on Benghazi. No EO required. You're merely right in splitting hairs over brycejones' terminology.

WTH? They did.

They just slowed the flow in a few places.

What?

Issa has nothing whatsoever to do with this. (Aside from being a generic voting member of Congress.) And Congressional committees do not interpret tax law after enactment.

Fern

More dancing. Had the whole IRS/ Teatard groups imbroglio come down from the top, it would have come down entirely differently. New Rules! Have your lawyers talk to the IRS lawyers if you have any problem with it, OK?

It was only the IRS going off the reservation that let Issa fluff it up.

 

[Fern]

Oh, please. That's a desperate dance. Obama could easily meet with the heads of the IRS & just ask them what they think they could do to accomplish whatever he wants, come back to him with their answers, see if it could be implemented- only with his blessing, of course. -snip-

Please.

Here's a brief on the process to create/implement IRS regulations: http://www.irs.gov/irm/part32/irm_32-001-001.html

Actually, you're imaginary musings on this are quite telling: You're perfectly content with the politicization of the IRS.

Fern

 

[ttown]

Think about it for a second. What exactly is a "loophole"? It's part of the tax code. For example, if I use the home mortgage interest deduction to reduce the amount of taxes I owe, is that a "loophole"? Closing loopholes sounds nice, but it's essentially just politi-speak for "do away with certain features of the tax code I don't like or that benefit people I don't like, thus raising their taxes".

Exactly. "Closing loopholes" is a tax increase. Thanks King Obama -- but I prefer actual representatives of the people to do the tax increasing.

 

[Jhhnn]

Please.

Here's a brief on the process to create/implement IRS regulations: http://www.irs.gov/irm/part32/irm_32-001-001.html

Actually, you're imaginary musings on this are quite telling: You're perfectly content with the politicization of the IRS.

Fern

Which contradicts what i offered not in the slightest. Any attempt from the Whitehouse to change administrative tax decisions would proceed in just that framework, pro forma.

Politicization of the IRS? Cracking down on a variety of political money laundering scams is only political if you're running the scam. Then you're the victim, obviously. It would apply to all parties equally, meaning that nobody gets to run that particular con game.

 

[Jhhnn]

Exactly. "Closing loopholes" is a tax increase. Thanks King Obama -- but I prefer actual representatives of the people to do the tax increasing.

Clearly, Congress intended for the IRS to have some leeway or it wouldn't be the way it is.

I prefer Congress putting their name on fat cat tax cuts as well, rather than the IRS doing it for them. Why should favoritism shown them in the past go on forever?

 

[Zorkorist]

Exactly. "Closing loopholes" is a tax increase. Thanks King Obama -- but I prefer actual representatives of the people to do the tax increasing.

Ignore Jhhnn, he gets high and posts.

-John

 

[brycejones]

Ignore Jhhnn, he gets high and posts.

-John

Another night of drinking for you then?