May 13, 2013

IRS singled out groups critical of government

Staffers in the Cincinnati field office made high-level decisions on how to evaluate nonprofit groups.

By JULIET EILPERIN The Washington Post

WASHINGTON - Over the past two years, Internal Revenue Service officials singled out for scrutiny not only groups with "tea party" or "patriot" in their name but also nonprofit groups that criticized the government and sought to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution, according to documents in an audit conducted by the agency's inspector general.

The documents, obtained by The Washington Post from a congressional aide with knowledge of the findings, show that the IRS field office in charge of evaluating applications for tax-exempt status decided to focus on groups making statements that "criticize how the country is being run" and those that were involved in educating Americans "on the Constitution and Bill of Rights."

The staffers in the Cincinnati field office were making high-level decisions on how to evaluate the groups because a decade ago the IRS assigned all applications to that unit. The IRS also eliminated an automatic after-the-fact review process Washington used to conduct such determinations.

Marcus Owens, who oversaw tax-exempt groups at the IRS between 1990 and 1999, said that delegation "carries with it a risk" because the Cincinnati office "isn't as plugged into what's (politically) sensitive as Washington."

Owens, who is now a member of the law firm Caplin & Drysdale, said that before the agency's most recent reorganization, it had a series of "tripwires in place" that could catch unfair targeting of groups, including the fact that the IRS identified its criteria for special scrutiny in a public manual.

"There's no longer that safety valve, and as a result, the IRS has been rolling the dice ever since," said Owens, who worked at the agency for nearly a quarter-century and now represents some organizations seeking tax-exempt status.

The IRS came under withering attack from GOP lawmakers Sunday.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a moderate Republican, described the practice as "absolutely chilling" and called on President Obama to condemn the effort.

"This is truly outrageous," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union," adding that even though White House spokesman Jay Carney has said the matter deserves an investigation, "the president needs to make crystal clear that this is totally unacceptable in America."

In March 2012, then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, told Congress that the agency was not targeting conservative groups. On Sunday, the agency declined to answer questions about whether senior officials asked IRS exempt organizations division chief Lois Lerner and her staff in Cincinnati about this heightened scrutiny before testifying it did not take place.

"There has to be accountability for the people who did it," House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"And, quite frankly, up until a few days ago, there's got to be accountability for people who were telling lies about it being done," Issa said.

The appendix of the inspector general's report -- which was requested by the committee and has yet to be publicly released -- chronicles the extent to which the IRS's exempt organizations division kept redefining what sort of "social welfare" groups it should single out for extra attention ever since the 2010 Supreme Court ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That decision allowed corporations and labor unions to raise and spend unlimited sums on elections as well as register for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, as long as their "primary purpose" did not consist of targeting electoral candidates.

The number of political groups applying for tax-exempt status more than doubled in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case, forcing agency officials to make a slew of determinations despite uncertainty about the category's ambiguous definition.

(Continued on page 2)

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors




Further Discussion

Here at PressHerald.com we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)