Talk:IRS targeting controversy

IRS admitted targeting in court, Lois Lerner blamed Wed., OCt 25, 2017
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/25/trump-apologizes-irs-tea-party-targeting-faults-lo/

OK, it's time to finally have the truth told in this article.Phmoreno (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Much of this is old news, at least as stated in the Consent Order issued by the Court this week in the Linchpin case. Most of the admissions listed in the Consent Order are admissions of what was found in the investigations by the Treasury Inspector General and the Senate Finance Committee. Maybe more will come out in the NorCal Tea Party case.


 * So far, the only source I have found mentioning the $3.5 million settlement is The Washington Times. The actual court documents and the Justice Department release quoting Jeff Sessions don't seem to mention that dollar figure (unless I missed it). Famspear (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the Justice Department was under the direction of Jeff Sessions at the time, makes this "admission of Wrongdoing" highly suspect. Sessions not only is a racist, but his virulent prejudices in favor of all things conservative make his judgement highly suspect. In researching this so called scandal, I have only found that the IRS was doing it's job in a proper way. Their job in this case was to catch organizations that were fraudulently posing a "charitable" organizations in order to cheat on their taxes. The IRS investigated both liberal and conservative groups. There has never been any bias against the conservatives. The whole brouhaha was simply a way for conservatives to play the victim, while trying to discredit Obama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.207.28 (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

To the above poster - all of that is just your opinion. Just like i or others could say that Eric Holder came across as racist, it is just opinion and has no place on Wikipedia. There is sourcing that Lois Lerner was largely behind discriminating conservative groups by the IRS, whether you like it or not it does belong. 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:44CF:FAB6:E1AC:755A (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Title
The title of this article should read "Obama Administration IRS Targeting Scandal", to make it clear that this occurred under Obama, and to distiguish it from any other IRS scandals. Also - the word "controversies" downplays the seriousness of the issue - "scandal" is a more apt and descriptive term. Vinny Gambino (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Don't you know the rules on Wikipedia? When it's a Republican, it's a "scandal".  When it's a Democrat, it's a "controversy". 2604:2D80:4080:9500:7DCA:E0AB:7218:5DF2 (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

NPOV issues in lead; missing effects on 2012 election
Two issues with the article: Look forward to more input—thanks in advance! Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Along the lines of the above concern regarding the title, there is an issue in the lead with consistently describing the executive branch during Trump's presidency as the "Trump administration" or the "Trump Justice Department" (the latter of which, bizarrely, links to Trump's individual page)—but not treating executive agencies (IRS, DOJ, FBI, Treasury Department) in the same way during the Obama administration. This seems an obvious violation of NPOV. I would take out the president's name when identifying agencies in the lead—obviously the alternative would be to identify the "Obama Internal Revenue Service", the "Obama Department of Justice", etc. I'm also not sure whether the decision not to reopen an investigation and bring charges following Trump's election is worth including in the lead.
 * 2) There is nothing about how the targeting may have affected the 2012 election, despite this being a significant issue. Some scholars and journalists have asserted that the neutering of hundreds of conservative organizations tipped the balance of votes in Obama's favor—whether or not this is true is of course speculative, but seems important to include.
 * , I'm not sure which other pages you're referring to, but I think that generally, on *this page*, Obama is mentioned about as much as WP:DUE guidelines would suggest he should be. The underlying facts support that this practice began before Obama's time in office, so although it was revealed during his administration, this was not an Obama policy or initiative or something that he was personally involved in except in reaction, like the rest of Washington.
 * Regarding your second point, if there are sources discussing this "neutering", why don't you share share them here so we can talk about their reliability together, and discuss what would be worth including in the article? Ganesha811 (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply! First, while there was of course scrutiny of tax-exempt groups before, the specific targeting of Tea Party and other political groups working against Obama's reelection that began under his administration in 2010 was different, both quantitatively and qualitatively—that's laid out clearly in the reports on the scandal and not seriously disputed. The fact that the Obama IRS targeted his political enemies is of course why there was a scandal at all—just as it was under Nixon—and no one, as far as I'm aware, has contended that the IRS under Clinton, either Bush, or Trump did the same. This is of course why the IRS settled lawsuits with hundreds of conservative groups, paid out millions of dollars, and admitted wrongdoing. Second, for an example of people who've questioned the degree to which the targeting helped Obama, and whether it even may have tipped the election in his favor—see here and here. Look forward to your thoughts! Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply! First, while there was of course scrutiny of tax-exempt groups before, the specific targeting of Tea Party and other political groups working against Obama's reelection that began under his administration in 2010 was different, both quantitatively and qualitatively—that's laid out clearly in the reports on the scandal and not seriously disputed. The fact that the Obama IRS targeted his political enemies is of course why there was a scandal at all—just as it was under Nixon—and no one, as far as I'm aware, has contended that the IRS under Clinton, either Bush, or Trump did the same. This is of course why the IRS settled lawsuits with hundreds of conservative groups, paid out millions of dollars, and admitted wrongdoing. Second, for an example of people who've questioned the degree to which the targeting helped Obama, and whether it even may have tipped the election in his favor—see here and here. Look forward to your thoughts! Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * First, it's just not accurate that the claim that "the Obama IRS targeted his political enemies" is undisputed, as the article clearly reflects. It's certainly true that some political actors advanced (and continue to advance) that view, but it's not the broad, cross-partisan consensus you seem to be suggesting it is, particularly when the IRS undisputedly targeted left-leaning groups as well.  You conclude that the IRS's admission of wrongdoing somehow proves political targeting, but the substance of the admission is a far cry from that: "The IRS admits that its treatment of Plaintiffs during the tax-exempt determinations process, including screening their applications based on their names or policy positions, subjecting those applications to heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays, and demanding of some Plaintiffs’ information that TIGTA determined was unnecessary to the agency’s determination of their tax-exempt status, was wrong."  Second, your sources for the targeting allegedly affecting the election are both opinion sources, and not particularly high quality ones either.  I'm not sure why it would be WP:DUE to devote any space at all to what appears to be a fringe theory. Dyrnych (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I didn't initially address this in my comment above, but it hardly violates WP:NPOV to point out (as reliable sources do) when events related to the controversy occurred after a change in administration. It would be misleading not to include that context.  Is there a similar contextual reason to refer to the Obama administration, or would it just be to assign blame to Obama? Dyrnych (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No. 1. Clarifying that it was the Trump DOJ is absolutely pertinent, given that the agencies were politicized and weaponized by Trump and his cronies. 2. I'm not aware of any "scholars" of note who claim that conservative groups were hindered from organizing prior to the 2012 election. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect Flynnwasframed (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)