Monday, October 09, 2017


by Neil H. Buchanan























Normally, I would love to make a sarcastic comment about that kind of bizarre understatement, but there is no improving on Steven Benen's take on The Post's "quite generous" choice of words: "If 'could undermine' is synonymous with 'completely discredits,' then sure."



In that column, I noted a term coined by Paul Waldman, "the audacity gap," which he says "makes Republicans the party of 'Yes we can,' while Democrats are the party of 'Maybe we shouldn’t.'"  That Republicans are still audaciously claiming that there was an IRS scandal under Obama is one of only many examples.








Joe said...

Saw something a few weeks ago where true believers thought this:

warranted firing Sessions. Sessions ... TINO (Trump In Name Only)?

A true believer type online that I and someone else here regularly engage with felt this was a real scandal, though he wasn't surprised since it fit his narrative of "the left" in government. I was always doubtful but thought it might be possible that in some fashion, at least in the lower tier of enforcement, there might have been some problematic disparate impact problem. Not that it something conservatives generally think should be deemed illegal generally speaking.

I'm usually wary about just assuming there is nothing there -- often that isn't really necessary to swat away alleged problems. But, these days self-created scandals really should be carefully addressed. Give an inch, a mile will be taken.

Shag from Brookline said...

The Republican Party has long challenged the IRS in support of its "donor class" that engages in the tax audit lottery by decreasing IRS funding. Trump's tax "plan" would continue this. As I understand it, while 501(c)(4) organizations are tax-exempt, contributions to such an organization would not entitle the contributor for a tax deduction, including a charitable deduction. With the identities of contributors hidden, IRS cannot readily check if a contributor has taken such a deduction. Also, many in the "donor class" might make a contribution in the form of appreciated property, e.g., corporate stock, which the organization, because of tax-exempt status, would not have a taxable event on the sale of such appreciated property. I understand the IRS due to this non-scandal scandal has laid off implementing gift tax provisions. Such contributions can serve as subsidized estate planning for some in the Republicans' "donor class." (That could be mooted by the Trump "plan" to eliminate the estate tax.)

That Republican "donor class" includes mostly 1%ers, who, if Trump's tax "plan" were to be enacted, might be expected to politically tithe from their tax savings therefrom, augmenting the benefits already provided to the Republicans' "donor class" courtesy of SCOTUS' Citizens United. Apparently the Republicans' sense of equality is its access to campaign funds from the 1%ers aka American Oligarchs.

John Barron said...

That's silly, shag. IRS maintains a list of 501(c)(3)s, and if an entity isn't on the list, your CPA won't take the deduction.

Anyone who has read the statute (a peculiar originalist flaw) knows that none of the political entities qualified. The Revenue Ruling contradicted the statute, but as no one tried to abuse the status before, it never got corrected. When entities with obvious political purposes began invoking it, the Service began scrutinizing them, as they should have. And as most were RW, they got most of the scrutiny.

The only real scandal is that the RR hasn't been withdrawn.

Shag from Brookline said...

Not everyone uses a "CPA" or a tax lawyer to prepare returns. With a self-reporting system some taxpayers play the tax audit lottery because of the money at stake. The IRS doesn't have the personnel to thoroughly audit the situation I described or other situations in playing the tax audit lottery. How might a Roy Cohn have advised a wealthy client? John, perhaps its silly in the sense of a TV reality show, but significant tax revenues are lost because of the lack of funding for the IRS to perform enough audits that would lessen playing the tax audit lottery and providing more revenues.

That said, John, I am in accord with your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs except the report referenced in Neil's post rejected the claim you make:

"And as most were RW, they got most of the scrutiny."

John, I note you did not challenge my comments about the Republicans' "donor class," other than in your 1st paragraph on taking a charitable deduction for a contribution to a 501(c)(4) organization, which of course would not be proper. Is that silence tacit agreement?

Shag from Brookline said...

By the way, the tax audit lottery might also benefit CPAs and other preparers of tax returns who might be a tad aggressive. Perhaps there are IRS statistics concerning decreases in tax audits and decreases in IRS actions against errant tax return preparers resulting from audits. I'll try to check later.

Jonny Scrum-half said...

I "get" why Republicans (and any politician, really) lies about stuff like this, especially when the voters reward them for such lies. What I don't understand are people like Paul Caron (Pepperdine Law's Dean) or Glenn Reynolds (law professor at Tennessee), who push this BS despite, I'm guessing, not being paid for doing so. What reason do they have for ignoring the truth and spreading propaganda?

John Barron said...

shag: "Not everyone uses a "CPA" or a tax lawyer to prepare returns"

Anyone who matters to this discussion does. Along w/ my J.D., I'm a C.P.A. with an M.S. in taxation (as you seem to care about the periods, l added them). In the real world, I told my clients that I can either be a brain surgeon or a coroner--it all depends on when I get to the body. Wealthy clients know how to use the skills.

Roy Cohn wouldn't advise a client to cheat; for the right people, the income tax system is more-or-less voluntary, even today.

Our oligarchs are equal-opportunity buyers. Cory Booker and Cory Gardner got plenty of cash from Big Pharma, amd they voted accordingly.

Shag from Brookline said...

John's silence on the Republican "donor class" continues, with diversions such as:

"Wealthy clients know how to use the skills."

" ...for the right people, the income tax system is more-or-less voluntary, even today."

"Our oligarchs are equal-opportunity buyers."

It's not clear that John knows much about Roy Cohn.

Surely such a credentialed tax person is aware of the tax audit lottery.