Skip to footer

IRS 101: Seven questions about the tea party scandal

How the tables have turned: The Internal Revenue Service is the one under the microscope now, as revelations emerged Friday that the agency wrongly targeted conservative groups seeking nonprofit status. The revelations quickly amounted to a scandal that has taken a partisan turn, threatening to derail bipartisan efforts on guns, immigration reform, and the federal budget.

Here’s an accounting of what has happened, along with the ramifications.

Al Behrman/AP
The John Weld Peck Federal Building, in Cincinnati, houses the main offices for the Internal Revenue Service in the city. The IRS apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was "inappropriate" targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see whether they were violating their tax-exempt status

1. Why is the IRS under fire?

  • By Husna Haq Correspondent

The agency acknowledged Friday that it gave extra scrutiny to conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status during the 2012 election cycle.

To deal with a flood of applications from so-called social welfare groups, employees at the IRS’s Cincinnati branch and possibly two California branches began flagging groups with the words “tea party” and “patriot” in their names for additional review, as well as those that sought to “criticize how the country is run” or educate the public on how to “make America a better place to live,” according to Lois Lerner, IRS director of exempt organizations.

IRS officials in Washington also participated in the process, The Washington Post reports.

Moreover, the agency was looking for “applications involving political sounding names” like “We the People” or “Take Back the Country,” according to an audit by the Treasury inspector general for tax administration.

In all, some 75 applications for 501(c)(4) status, almost all from conservative and tea party groups, were set aside for detailed review. The groups were asked to provide additional information that the IRS doesn’t typically require, such as donor lists.

1 of 7
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.