Kathianne
05-18-2013, 12:38 AM
So it wasn't only 'tea parties' and 'better government' and such that were singled out, so were pro-life groups. Color me befuddled how this even was brought up by IRS:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/17/irs-commissioner-stonewalls-on-prying-into-pro-life-groups-prayers/
IRS commissioner stonewalls on prying into pro-life group’s prayers
4:05 PM 05/17/2013
Testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee Friday, acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller was unable to answer whether it was appropriate for the IRS to inquire about the prayers of an organization seeking 501(c)(3) status.
Illinois Republican Rep. Aaron Schock pushed Miller for answers about some of the pro-life organizations the IRS reportedly targeted when the groups sought tax-exempt status. The Thomas More Society law firm has alleged (http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/16/claim-the-irs-targeted-pro-life-groups-too/) that the federal tax collector pressed these organizations to reveal the content of their prayers.
“Mr. Chairman, I have with me a 150-page document given to me by the Thomas More Society detailing a number of pro-life organizations throughout the country which in application for 501(c)(3) status were given horrible instances of IRS abuse of power, political and religious bias, and a repression of their Constitutional rights,” Schock said, submitting the documents to the IG for Tax Administration.
Schock went on to ask about some of the alleged IRS abuses against the pro-life groups.
“A letter from the IRS office of exempt organization specialist in El Monte, California, specifically the Pacific Coast Division — I would note this is not in the Cincinnati division — to the Christian Voices for Life of Fort Bend County in Sugarland, Texas dated March 31, 2011, that I have here with me today. They were asked specifically, again this is a pro-life group, ‘In your educational program do you do education on both sides of the issues in your programs?’ Mr. Miller, your knowledge of the 501(c)(3) application, is that an appropriate question to ask?” Shock asked.
“Sir, I’m going to be honest and I’m not going to be able to speak to a specific development letter in a specific case I don’t know that I can do that under 6103,” Miller responded.
“Okay, let me ask you about another letter that was received by a pro-life group, this one in Iowa. Their question specifically asks from the IRS to the Coalition for Life of Iowa, ‘Please detail the content of the members of your organization’s prayers.’ Would that be an appropriate question to a 501(c)(3) applicant? The content of one’s prayers?” Schock asked.
“It pains me to say I can’t speak to that one either. But that’s an —” Miller said, “You don’t know whether or not that would be an appropriate question to ask an applicant?” Schock interrupted Miller.
“Speaking outside of this case, which I don’t know anything about, it would surprise me that that question was asked,” Miller said.
Schock followed it up with another question.
“And finally during another applicant’s conversation or back and forth they were asked specifically, ‘Please detail certain signs that may or may not be held up outside of a Planned Parenthood facility.’ Would that be an appropriate follow up to an applicant for 501(c)(3) application?”
Miller responded that he did not know the context but that it did not “sound like the usual question.”
Here we see pro-life groups being rejected based on advocacy of Planned Parenthood by the IRS:
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/16/irs-to-pro-life-group-send-letter-pledging-not-to-protest-planned-parenthood-to-get-your-tax-exemption/
IRS to pro-life group: Send letter pledging not to protest Planned Parenthood to get your tax exemption
posted at 10:41 am on May 16, 2013 by Ed Morrissey
The Inspector General of the Treasury reported this week that the IRS began applying extra scrutiny and conducting harassment of Obama administration opponents as early as March 2010. However, for at least two pro-life groups, that scrutiny appears to have started a year earlier. Joel Gehrke reports (http://washingtonexaminer.com/report-irs-denied-tax-exempt-status-to-pro-lifers-on-behalf-of-planned-parenthood/article/2529750) that one group was told its tax-exempt application depended not on promising to stay out of electoral politics, but on pledging not to protest Planned Parenthood — a prominent supporter of Barack Obama:
IRS officials refused to grant tax exempt status two pro-life organizations because of their position on the abortion issue, according to a non-profit law firm, which said that one group was pressured not to protest a pro-choice organization that endorsed President Obama during the last election.
“In one case, the IRS withheld approval of an application for tax exempt status for Coalition for Life of Iowa. In a phone call to Coalition for Life of Iowa leaders on June 6, 2009, the IRS agent ‘Ms. Richards’ told the group to send a letter to the IRS with the entire board’s signatures stating that, under perjury of the law, they do not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood,” the Thomas More Society announced today (https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/2013/05/15/broadening-irs-victims-include-pro-life-advocates-as-congress-investigates/). “Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved.”
Most have assumed that the obstructionism on the application from conservative groups came because the IRS assumed that they would get involved in politics, but the laws on 501(c)4s don’t prohibit that, as Mary Katharine explained (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/15/the-new-republic-hey-didnt-tea-parties-kinda-bring-this-on-themselves-by-trying-really-hard-to-follow-the-law/) yesterday. Their purpose and work has to be primarily for “social welfare,” but that can take on any number of forms.
In this case, though, there wasn’t even a pretense of suspicion about electioneering. If this is true, then the IRS was actively attempting to intimidate a pro-life group into curtailing its perfectly legal activism. In fact, protests against Planned Parenthood by this group would be exactly the kind of “social welfare” protected by an exemption. This not only infringed on the group’s free-speech rights, but also its religious liberty, at least indirectly.
According to the Thomas More Society, the same is true in another case:
In another similar case, the IRS withheld approval of an application for charitable tax-exempt recognition of Christian Voices for Life, questioning the group’s involvement with “40 Days for Life” and “Life Chain” events. The Fort Bend County, Texas, organization was subjected to repeated and lengthy unconstitutional requests for information about the viewpoint and content of its educational communications, volunteer prayer vigils, and other protected activities.
“The application of Christian Voices for Life clearly indicated that the organization qualified as a charitable organization under section 501(c)(3),” stated Sally Wagenmaker. She added, “The IRS seemed to be intent on denying or delaying tax-exempt status based upon the organization’s pro-life message, rather than any legitimate exemption concern, through its exhaustive, cumbersome questioning. The implication that Christian Voices for Life somehow intended to engage in illegal activity was insulting.”
Insulting? That’s the least of it.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/17/irs-commissioner-stonewalls-on-prying-into-pro-life-groups-prayers/
IRS commissioner stonewalls on prying into pro-life group’s prayers
4:05 PM 05/17/2013
Testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee Friday, acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller was unable to answer whether it was appropriate for the IRS to inquire about the prayers of an organization seeking 501(c)(3) status.
Illinois Republican Rep. Aaron Schock pushed Miller for answers about some of the pro-life organizations the IRS reportedly targeted when the groups sought tax-exempt status. The Thomas More Society law firm has alleged (http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/16/claim-the-irs-targeted-pro-life-groups-too/) that the federal tax collector pressed these organizations to reveal the content of their prayers.
“Mr. Chairman, I have with me a 150-page document given to me by the Thomas More Society detailing a number of pro-life organizations throughout the country which in application for 501(c)(3) status were given horrible instances of IRS abuse of power, political and religious bias, and a repression of their Constitutional rights,” Schock said, submitting the documents to the IG for Tax Administration.
Schock went on to ask about some of the alleged IRS abuses against the pro-life groups.
“A letter from the IRS office of exempt organization specialist in El Monte, California, specifically the Pacific Coast Division — I would note this is not in the Cincinnati division — to the Christian Voices for Life of Fort Bend County in Sugarland, Texas dated March 31, 2011, that I have here with me today. They were asked specifically, again this is a pro-life group, ‘In your educational program do you do education on both sides of the issues in your programs?’ Mr. Miller, your knowledge of the 501(c)(3) application, is that an appropriate question to ask?” Shock asked.
“Sir, I’m going to be honest and I’m not going to be able to speak to a specific development letter in a specific case I don’t know that I can do that under 6103,” Miller responded.
“Okay, let me ask you about another letter that was received by a pro-life group, this one in Iowa. Their question specifically asks from the IRS to the Coalition for Life of Iowa, ‘Please detail the content of the members of your organization’s prayers.’ Would that be an appropriate question to a 501(c)(3) applicant? The content of one’s prayers?” Schock asked.
“It pains me to say I can’t speak to that one either. But that’s an —” Miller said, “You don’t know whether or not that would be an appropriate question to ask an applicant?” Schock interrupted Miller.
“Speaking outside of this case, which I don’t know anything about, it would surprise me that that question was asked,” Miller said.
Schock followed it up with another question.
“And finally during another applicant’s conversation or back and forth they were asked specifically, ‘Please detail certain signs that may or may not be held up outside of a Planned Parenthood facility.’ Would that be an appropriate follow up to an applicant for 501(c)(3) application?”
Miller responded that he did not know the context but that it did not “sound like the usual question.”
Here we see pro-life groups being rejected based on advocacy of Planned Parenthood by the IRS:
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/16/irs-to-pro-life-group-send-letter-pledging-not-to-protest-planned-parenthood-to-get-your-tax-exemption/
IRS to pro-life group: Send letter pledging not to protest Planned Parenthood to get your tax exemption
posted at 10:41 am on May 16, 2013 by Ed Morrissey
The Inspector General of the Treasury reported this week that the IRS began applying extra scrutiny and conducting harassment of Obama administration opponents as early as March 2010. However, for at least two pro-life groups, that scrutiny appears to have started a year earlier. Joel Gehrke reports (http://washingtonexaminer.com/report-irs-denied-tax-exempt-status-to-pro-lifers-on-behalf-of-planned-parenthood/article/2529750) that one group was told its tax-exempt application depended not on promising to stay out of electoral politics, but on pledging not to protest Planned Parenthood — a prominent supporter of Barack Obama:
IRS officials refused to grant tax exempt status two pro-life organizations because of their position on the abortion issue, according to a non-profit law firm, which said that one group was pressured not to protest a pro-choice organization that endorsed President Obama during the last election.
“In one case, the IRS withheld approval of an application for tax exempt status for Coalition for Life of Iowa. In a phone call to Coalition for Life of Iowa leaders on June 6, 2009, the IRS agent ‘Ms. Richards’ told the group to send a letter to the IRS with the entire board’s signatures stating that, under perjury of the law, they do not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood,” the Thomas More Society announced today (https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/2013/05/15/broadening-irs-victims-include-pro-life-advocates-as-congress-investigates/). “Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved.”
Most have assumed that the obstructionism on the application from conservative groups came because the IRS assumed that they would get involved in politics, but the laws on 501(c)4s don’t prohibit that, as Mary Katharine explained (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/15/the-new-republic-hey-didnt-tea-parties-kinda-bring-this-on-themselves-by-trying-really-hard-to-follow-the-law/) yesterday. Their purpose and work has to be primarily for “social welfare,” but that can take on any number of forms.
In this case, though, there wasn’t even a pretense of suspicion about electioneering. If this is true, then the IRS was actively attempting to intimidate a pro-life group into curtailing its perfectly legal activism. In fact, protests against Planned Parenthood by this group would be exactly the kind of “social welfare” protected by an exemption. This not only infringed on the group’s free-speech rights, but also its religious liberty, at least indirectly.
According to the Thomas More Society, the same is true in another case:
In another similar case, the IRS withheld approval of an application for charitable tax-exempt recognition of Christian Voices for Life, questioning the group’s involvement with “40 Days for Life” and “Life Chain” events. The Fort Bend County, Texas, organization was subjected to repeated and lengthy unconstitutional requests for information about the viewpoint and content of its educational communications, volunteer prayer vigils, and other protected activities.
“The application of Christian Voices for Life clearly indicated that the organization qualified as a charitable organization under section 501(c)(3),” stated Sally Wagenmaker. She added, “The IRS seemed to be intent on denying or delaying tax-exempt status based upon the organization’s pro-life message, rather than any legitimate exemption concern, through its exhaustive, cumbersome questioning. The implication that Christian Voices for Life somehow intended to engage in illegal activity was insulting.”
Insulting? That’s the least of it.