[EL] When it rains, it pours: TIGTA report on targeting leaked

[Lowenstein, Daniel]

       That point is made in a Wall Street Journal editorial worth reading for a reasoned Republican perspective.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324744104578474932153689410.html

             Best,

             Daniel H. Lowenstein
             Director, Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions (CLAFI)
             UCLA Law School
             405 Hilgard
             Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
             310-825-5148


________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of BZall at aol.com [BZall at aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 2:37 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: [EL] When it rains, it pours: TIGTA report on targeting leaked

Apparently (at least to the degree you can trust HuffPost to get anything right), there is already a year-long investigation of the IRS scrutiny, and it is about to be released (perhaps explaining why the "apology" came out on Friday:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/11/irs-tea-party_n_3260286.html

Associated Press story that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration draft report details "Advocacy Project" problems as early as June 2011.

Note this timeline:

Among the other revelations, on Aug. 4, 2011, staffers in the IRS' Rulings and Agreements office "held a meeting with chief counsel so that everyone would have the latest information on the issue."

On Jan, 25, 2012, the criteria for flagging suspect groups was changed to, "political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform/movement," the report says.

Pretty shocking on a number of levels: 1) that it took them so long to meet with Chief Counsel (the main IRS lawyers); 2) that Chief Counsel or other higher-ups didn't immediately stop this; 3) that it took from August to January to change the criteria; 4) that the criteria for added scrutiny covers educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights; and so on.

I was upset, but not really surprised at the earlier news; there has been so much detailed information on the targeting that there was no real way to deny it. But changing the criteria to cover the very thing that protects speech?

Virtually every academic on this list is probably within this description.

The report has apparently already gone to the Hill.


Barnaby Zall
Of Counsel
Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani, LLP
10411 Motor City Drive, Suite 500
Bethesda, MD 20817
301-231-6943 (direct dial)
bzall at aol.com
_____________________________________________________________
U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice

Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this communication (including
any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding U.S. federal tax-related penalties
or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
tax-related matter addressed herein.
_____________________________________________________________