IRS audits 10% of Tea Party donors

American Thinker ^ | 05/08/2014 | Rick Moran

[SeekAndFind]

When the IRS was targeting conservative groups seeking tax exempt status for special scrutiny, they demanded the list of donors supporting those groups in 17 cases. Despite assurances from the agency that the lists had been destroyed, a search requested by Congress revealed that at least 3 lists had survived. And of the donors on those lists, fully 10% of the individuals had been audited.

The rate of audits for ordinary Americans is about 1%.

Now, the House Ways and Means Oversight Committee is demanding that the Government AccoIRS intimidation on a whole other level.untability Office investigate the IRS to see why so many Tea Party donors were audited.

Washington Times:

“The committee uncovered new information indicating that after groups provided the information to the IRS, nearly one in 10 donors were subject to audit,” Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr., Louisiana Republican and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee’s oversight panel, told IRS Commissioner John Koskinen at a hearing Wednesday.

“The abuse of discretion and audit selection must be identified and stopped,” he said.

[Democrat_media]

The IRS asked tea party groups for lists of donors . then they audit 10% of people on THOSE SPECIFIC lists. plus these are just grass roots groups . that is tyranny

[ladyjane]

Please try to remember this 10% refers to Tea Party DONORS not Tea Party MEMBERS.

I see you're from California. Are you what they call a conservative out there? LOL

[Democrat_media]

The IRS asked tea party groups for lists of donors . then the IRS audits 10% of people on THOSE SPECIFIC lists. plus these are just grass roots groups . that is tyranny

[Democrat_media]

They are not random tea party donors. the people audited are people on specif lists that the IRS obtained from grass roots tea party groups

The IRS asked tea party groups for lists of donors . then they audit 10% of people on THOSE SPECIFIC lists. plus these are just grass roots groups . that is tyranny

[MrB]

What would your normalizing criteria be, then?

Income bracket only?
Income bracket + political donation deductions?

[Vince Ferrer]

If think that is enough “disparate impact” for Eric Holder to take a look at.

[ladyjane]

the IRS is less likely to audit big income earners

Not true. Perhaps you're confusing income with assets.

The base rate for audits is about 1%. An audit rate of 10% for tea partiers is way out of line.

Million dollar income earners have an even higher audit rate.

http://www.kiplinger.com/article/taxes/T054-C000-S001-irs-audit-red-flags-the-dirty-dozen.html

[Black Agnes]

Just know what I was told from someone who worked for the IRS. They preferred to audit the middle income earners because they couldn’t afford to fund a long term fight. They usually just wrote the check and prayed they didn’t get audited again.

[albie]

Hell if I know. 10% is a huge number! If there are 1 million members, that 100,000. Inordinately high in any scenario!

[Democrat_media]

The IRS didn't obtain those names to audit randomly or by income . The IRS obtained those names to audit from people trying to form tea party groups.

the IRS asked people who were trying to form tea party group for lists of “donors” . then the IRS audited 10% of the people on THOSE specific lists. these were just grass roots groups trying to form.

he is trying to confuse the issue by making it seem as if the IRS picked these people to audit at random but no it was because they were on those lists.only if they were picked at random can you say oh it's because their incomes were so high or some other excuse but he doesn't know their incomes or anything. he's just trying to spin to cover for Obama

It's obvious to anyone with common sense that the IRS asked for those lists to audit and intimidate those people.

[MrB]

It is the “liberal’s” fondest desire to use the power of the State to punish (and eventually exterminate) those who would disagree with them.

They have no desire to “convince”, just to eliminate.

[Milton Miteybad]

Unlike some here, I see your point. But an audit rate of 10% of any given population is still pretty high.

[MrB]

They’re evil bastards then.

I’m encountering the same issue with property taxes.
They’re targeting folks in the middle income where they have “enough” money to squeeze more out, but not quite enough to fight them.

[Democrat_media]

what are the chances that 10% of the people on 3 small lists are audited. not much . this is tyranny

The IRS is supposed to RANDOMLY audit people after they completed their tax return. this was not random . the IRS audited those people because they were on the “donor” lists that the IRS asked tea party groups for. these were grass roots groups trying to form

[Milton Miteybad]

I agree that the percentage audited is far too high, given the known political affiliations of these donor/taxpayers. But some of them are going to be prime candidates for audit anyway, just because their AGI falls above a certain level. Many of these taxpayers will be successful self-employed professionals who might be inclined to gravitate toward the Tea Party.

Not every candidate for audit is "randomly" selected, and it is an error in judgment to believe otherwise.

[ladyjane]

How strange. I wonder why and IRS person would say something so untrue.

[Black Agnes]

Gosh I don’t know. She only worked for them for 30 years as an auditor. I’m sure she’s lied about lots of other stuff besides. I’ll have to pay more attention to her. She’s just been a neighbor for 10+ years now. I’m sure she’s up to something!

[fruser1]

“If think that is enough “disparate impact” for Eric Holder to take a look at.”

You got that right. If a corporation doesn’t have average race or sex statistics in their hiring practices, they can be subject to charges for discrimination - even if there’s no actual complaint.

[nitzy]

I think many people understand what you are saying and agree that if that is the case it is terrible. I think what they are also saying is that there is a chance that it might not be the case. The most important thing though is that it should be relatively easy to determine one way or the other. It is simply a matter of math.

There are certain generally accepted characteristics that make someone more likely to be audited. The exact percentages of how much more likely are statistics that can be known. We should look at them. If you were to learn that for people who claimed charitable deductions the audit rate went from X% to XX% and then you learned that tea party members were X% more likely to donate to charity then it might make more sense why the tea party donors where audited more. There are many other factors including income, dependents claimed, the type of form used, if filing as a small business, etc...I would assume that tea partiers are more likely to own a business, have children, have higher income and fall into other categories that could make them more likely to be audited. THE POINT IS THAT I DON'T KNOW BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW.

So often, there are those on our side who go off half cocked and look like idiots when the facts end up showing that they don't know what they are talking about.

Do I think Obama would do something like this? --Yes

Do I think that his administration abuses power nearly every chance it gets? -- Yes

Do I think that they did it in this case? -- Probably, but with a little more information we can be sure.

[Democrat_media]

bs the IRS is supposed to look at the whole population and then from that determine who to audit . and you say they did that . bs. then by sheer coincidence the audited end up on the same lists the IRS obtained from the tea party groups the IRS was already oppressing . no way that 10% audited from the general population end up on the same small lists of groups the IRS was ALREADY oppressing and harassing with books of questions. and you defend this tyranny. the IRS audited them because they were on those lists of tea party groups

these were 3 small lists . IRS audits 10% on those lists

The only common denominator was they were on those lists. what other criteria can you prove that caused them to be audited . you can't and are just defending tyranny