[EL] Fwd: FW: IRS Enters Consent Decree with, Apologizes to, True the Vote [resent message for Jim Bopp]
Adam Bonin
adam at boninlaw.com
Fri Jan 26 08:57:23 PST 2018
I do want to challenge Jim's notion that it was only "recently revealed"
that progressive 501c4 applicants were being targeted; this was publicly
known at least early as 2014.
https://thinkprogress.org/new-records-irs-targeted-progressive-groups-more-extensively-than-tea-party-5912a5e16f7/
Adam C. Bonin
The Law Office of Adam C. Bonin
30 South 15th Street
15th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
(267) 242-5014 (c)
(215) 701-2321 (f)
adam at boninlaw.com
http://www.boninlaw.com
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> _____________________________
> From: jboppjr at aol.com
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 6:27 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: [EL] FW: IRS Enters Consent Decree with, Apologizes to,
> True the Vote [resent message for Jim Bopp]
> To: <brendan.fischer at gmail.com>, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> Cc: <law-election at uci.edu>
>
>
> In my view,
>
> (1) Yes, Congress stopped the IRS from rulingmaking, because of the
> legitimate concern that the IRS was planning on making things worse, not
> better. For many decades the IRS has refused, over and over again, to adopt
> bright line rules, so it is their fault. I certainly support adoption of
> bright line rules by either Congress or the IRS. It is possible that under
> the Trump administration the IRS might be trusted to do this, but we will
> see.
>
> (2) It is true that it was recently revealed that the IRS also targeted
> some liberal groups. But there is no question that the IRS's principal
> target was conservative groups and they were much more adversely affected.
>
> But I dont want anyone to misunderstand, I am opposed to viewpoint
> discrimination, regardless of which side is targeted. The result in the
> TTV case, and others, sought to protect everyone in the future, but that
> work is not yet completely done. Jim Bopp
>
> In a message dated 1/25/2018 10:17:14 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> brendan.fischer at gmail.com writes:
>
> It is not "wholly the IRS’s fault that they do not have clear guidance on
> generally what it takes to qualify as a 501(c)(4)." Congress has blocked
> the IRS from adopting*any* rules on precisely this issue. From Sec. 126
> of the FY 2017 appropriations bill:
>
> none of the funds made available in this or any other
> Act may be used by the Department of the Treasury, including the
> Internal Revenue Service, to issue, revise, or finalize any
> regulation, revenue ruling, or other guidance not limited to a
> particular taxpayer relating to the standard which is used to
> determine whether an organization is operated exclusively for
> the promotion of social welfare for purposes of section
> 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (including the
> proposed regulations published at 78 Fed. Reg. 71535 (November
> 29, 2013));
>
> Moreover, the claim that "the IRS explicitly targeted conservative groups
> for grossly adverse treatment during their application process" is not
> borne out by the Inspector General's report
> <https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2017reports/201710054fr.pdf>,
> which found that the IRS also targeted groups whose names included terms
> like “Progressive,” “Green Energy,” “Medical Marijuana,” or “Occupy,” or
> whose names had a perceived connection to ACORN, like "Communities for
> Change" or "Neighborhoods for Social Justice."
>
> The evidence shows that, in the absence of clear rules (see above), IRS
> employees were trying to take shortcuts--however misguided--to identify
> groups on the left and right that may have been engaging in political
> advocacy inconsistent with (c)(4) or (c)(3) status.
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 5:31 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>> Jim Bopp sent this message to the listserv a few hours ago. I understand
>> some people did not receive it. I am resending it here.
>>
>>
>>
>> (If you did *not* receive Jim’s earlier message, could you send me a
>> private message letting me know that from the email address you use for the
>> listserv? Trying to figure out the technical aspects of the problem here.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>> From: Jim <jboppjr at aol.com>
>> Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2018
>> Subject: RE: [EL] IRS Enters Consent Decree with, Apologizes to,True the
>> Vote
>> To: John Pomeranz <jpomeranz at harmoncurran.com>, Rick Hasen <
>> rhasen at law.uci.edu>, Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
>>
>> I represent True the Vote in this case against the IRS and agreed to the
>> Consent Decree.
>>
>>
>>
>> As one intimately involved in the litigation since last year, but not
>> from the beginning, I can provide some insight about this case and the 3
>> other cases that have also recently settled.
>>
>>
>>
>> First, when we became involved in 2017, there were no ongoing settlement
>> negotiations and we were reliably informed that no settlement negotiations
>> had ever taken place, at least in our case. Instead, the Obama IRS and DOJ
>> vigorously contested our case, as they did others. Theynever once
>> acknowledged any wrongdoing in court, until the Consent Decrees were filed.
>> And their litigation tactics were of the scorch earth variety.
>>
>>
>>
>> When Sessions became AG, we wrote him indicating that we believed that
>> the IRS cases were ones that should be settled and indicated our interest
>> in doing so. This letter was the trigger to settlement negotiations in our
>> case, and apparently others.
>>
>>
>>
>> Second, yes there were damages claims in these cases. Some damages
>> claims were dismissed, as they were in the True the Vote case. However, in
>> the NorCal Tea Party case, a class action of about 400 groups, a damage
>> claim was still being litigated when the case settled and the IRS agreed to
>> pay $3.5 million in damages to those groups. Thus, John is in error when
>> he said that the effort to seek damages was “entirely unsuccessful.”
>>
>>
>>
>> In addition, the litigations have resulted in declaratory judgements that
>> provide significant protection to groups in the future who may be targeted
>> for viewpoint discrimination. This alone has justified this litigation. It
>> has also shined sunlight on the IRS’s corrupt practices and, as we are
>> often reminded, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
>>
>>
>>
>> And, in our case, the IRS has expressly acknowledged that we may seek
>> attorneys fess from the IRS, which we will be filing shortly.
>>
>>
>>
>> Third and finally, it is wholly the IRS’s fault that they do not have
>> clear guidance on generally what it takes to qualify as a 501( c) (4) or (
>> c)(3) or specifically what is prohibited as “political intervention.” They
>> have consistently refused to adopt regulations that would set forth any
>> bright line standards for these determinations and they have enjoyed
>> employing their vague, ad hoc and ex post facto “facts and circumstances”
>> test. And the IRS’s proposed rulemaking on this during the Obama
>> administration, which Congress stopped, was headed down the same road.
>>
>>
>>
>> But the wrong at the heart of this litigation was not political
>> intervention, but the fact that the IRS explicitly targeted conservative
>> groups for grossly adverse treatment during their application process.
>> There is no doubt that this was wrong and the people at the IRS involved in
>> this did it knowingly and intentionally. They should have been punished
>> for this intentional wrongdoing, but, as we know, swamp creatures are
>> rarely held into account for their wrongdoing. They are just reassigned or
>> retire at full pay. Jim Bopp
>>
>>
>>
>> *James Bopp, Jr.*
>>
>> Attorney
>>
>> The Bopp Law Firm, PC | www.bopplaw.com
>>
>> The National Building | 1 South 6th Street | Terre Haute, IN 47807
>>
>> voice: (812) 232-2434, ext. 22 <(812)%20232-2434> | fax: (812) 235-3685
>> | cell: (812) 243-0825 | jboppjr at aol.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
>> Windows 10
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *John Pomeranz <jpomeranz at harmoncurran.com>
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, January 24, 2018 1:30 PM
>> *To: *Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>;Election Law Listserv
>> <law-election at uci.edu>
>> *Subject: *Re: [EL] IRS Enters Consent Decree with, Apologizes to,True
>> the Vote
>>
>>
>>
>> In answer to Rick’s question, yes, of course the Obama-era IRS would have
>> agreed to a consent order like this. Indeed, it essentially did so on the
>> day the IRS scandal first broke on May 10, 2013, when Lois Lerner
>> acknowledged that groups had been improperly targeted for heightened
>> scrutiny and inordinate delays in IRS review of the organizations’
>> tax-exemption applications, and thereafter when the IRS took steps to
>> address those problems in response to the first TIGTA report that quickly
>> followed that acknowledgement. (All of which is reported in the stipulated
>> facts in this consent decree.)
>>
>>
>>
>> However, people couldn’t take yes for an answer. True the Vote and other
>> the groups that were victims of this IRS misconduct decided to seek damages
>> from the IRS and from individual IRS employees, an effort that has been
>> entirely unsuccessful. And certain members of Congress spent an awful lot
>> of time and money seeking evidence of misconduct beyond what has been
>> revealed by the IRS and TIGTA, a mostly fruitless exercise.
>>
>>
>>
>> The most interesting thing in this consent decree concerns TIGTA’s call
>> for guidance on what organizations qualify for exemption under section
>> 501(c)(4), an effort that the IRS and Treasury undertook but that was then
>> blocked by congressional action. The consent decree’s stipulated facts
>> agreed to by the parties to this suit include this quote from TIGTA about
>> such guidance:
>>
>>
>>
>> "[u]ntil this guidance is finalized , the IRS does not have a clearly
>> defined test for determining whether an organization's request for
>> exemption as a social welfare organization should be approved. As a result,
>> for those applicants not choosing the optional expedited process, the IRS
>> continues to use a subjective facts and circumstances process."
>>
>>
>>
>> It is a mystery to me why those so quick to criticize the IRS for its
>> misconduct remain unwilling to allow the Treasury Department, with a
>> Trump-appointed Secretary, Assistant Secretary of Tax Policy, and (soon
>> apparently) IRS Commissioner, return to this guidance project so
>> desperately needed to prevent future abuse of applicants for tax-exempt
>> status.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> John Pomeranz
>> Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP
>>
>> 1725 DeSales Street, NW, Suite 500
>> Washington, DC 20036
>> p: 202.328.3500 <(202)%20328-3500>
>> f: 202.328.6918 <(202)%20328-6918>
>> e: jpomeranz at harmoncurran.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> IRS Enters Consent Decree with, Apologizes to, True the Vote for Lois
>> Lerner Controversy <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97077>
>>
>> Posted on January 24, 2018 7:40 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97077>
>> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> I wonder if the Obama-led IRS would have agreed to this.
>> <https://www.scribd.com/document/369806983/True-the-Vote-v-IRS-Consent-Order-Jan-21-2018>
>>
>> [image: Share]
>>
>> Posted in tax law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180126/b4e04978/attachment.html>
View list directory