|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 10, 2013 15:50:50 GMT
IF these top IRS officials are discussion with top White House officials specific taxpayers.....and these emails prove it is so.....and especially in regards to a lawsuit they are fighting regarding Obamacare..... they are breaking the law. BOTH. The White House for abuse of power....and the IRS officials for defying 6103 which legally prohibits them from doing so. For those of you who thought this IRS thing is over; nothing is further from the truth.
"Top Internal Revenue Service Obamacare official Sarah Hall Ingram discussed confidential taxpayer information with senior Obama White House officials, according to 2012 emails obtained by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and provided to The Daily Caller.
Lois Lerner, then head of the IRS Tax Exempt Organizations division, also received an email alongside White House officials that contained confidential information.
Ingram attempted to counsel the White House on a lawsuit from religious organizations opposing Obamacare’s contraception mandate. Email exchanges involving Ingram and White House officials — including White House health policy advisor Ellen Montz and deputy assistant to the president for health policy Jeanne Lambrew — contained confidential taxpayer information, according to Oversight."
The emails provided to Oversight investigators by the IRS had numerous redactions with the signifier “6103.”
Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code forbids a federal employee from “disclos[ing] any return or return information obtained by him in any manner in connection with his service as such an officer or an employee.”
Federal employees who illegally disclose confidential taxpayer information could face five years in prison.
“Thanks, David. Thanks for the information on [6103],” White House official Lambrew wrote to IRS official David Fish in a July 20, 2012 exchange. “I am still hoping to understand whether the 50 percent rule is moot if the organization does not offer goods and services for sale to the general public. Do we assume that organizations like [6103] do offer goods and services for sale?”
Another email from Montz to Ingram and others refers to the “[6103] memo” and the “[6103] letter” while discussing organizations that are not required to file 990′s.
Read more: dailycaller.com/2013/10/09/white-house-irs-exchanged-confidential-taxpayer-info/#ixzz2hKiV6iVy
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 12, 2013 11:22:40 GMT
What a second. If the IRS is defending against a lawsuit against provisions of the Affordable Care Act then they're being represented by the Attorney General's office. Certainly the Office of the President would also be concerned and possibly involved in defending the laws of the United States and in this capacity is legally entitled to any information on the case. The "tax records" of the plaintiffs would certainly fall within the scope of discovery by the IRS and review of these documents was certainly legal related to the case.
So the IRS and the DOJ has legal cause to review the tax records of those involved in the lawsuit against the (tax) laws (provisions in the ACA that the IRS enforces) of the United States. The Office of the President also had this authority as the President is over both the IRS and the DOJ.
So what is "illegal" or even improper about the possible transfer of information. It would be different if there was a nefarious use of the information but that isn't apparent. There was apparently no illegal disclosure to any private entities involved as all of this situation and all that were involved had a legal right to know the information that was shared.
Are we seeing the boogieman under the bushes again?
|
|
|
|
Post by niff on Oct 12, 2013 12:49:30 GMT
If as you claim nobody did anything "illegal" please explain why some one put '6103s' all over the emails? Apparently some one a bit more 'in the loop' than you was concerned enough to try to redact names and keep the information under the redactions from the Hearing. Right?
Why do you feel the need to make excuses for everything the Administration screws up? Try a little 'fair and balanced' for a change.
Obama could stand in the Rose Garden and bite the head off a live puppy and you'd find some way of defending him.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 13, 2013 10:10:24 GMT
If as you claim nobody did anything "illegal" please explain why some one put '6103s' all over the emails? Apparently some one a bit more 'in the loop' than you was concerned enough to try to redact names and keep the information under the redactions from the Hearing. Right? Why do you feel the need to make excuses for everything the Administration screws up? Try a little 'fair and balanced' for a change. Obama could stand in the Rose Garden and bite the head off a live puppy and you'd find some way of defending him.
In addressing the 6103 redactions the news story also addresses whey this is probably necessary in presenting information before a congressional hearing.
Because virtually any information given to Congress is going to be spread all over the news by House Republicans the releasing of names would violate the IRS codes. The taxpayer has a Right to Privacy under the law that the IRS must comply with. If the House Republicans, like Rep. Issa, believes they have a right to know this information they can seek a federal court order to obtain it.
Once again I don't see any impropriety with information being shared between the IRS, that is being subjected to a lawsuit, the DOJ mandated to defend the law, and the White House that is in charge of both the IRS and the DOJ so long as the "6103" information is not shared and that includes sharing it with Congress that has no responsibilities related to defense of the laws of the United States.
BTW a 990 organization refers to a tax exempt organization as that is the form used for filing the tax return for those organizations. I believe that the Catholic Church was the plaintiff in the lawsuit mentioned which is a tax exempt organization.
On a personal note I don't believe that the Catholic Church should have received any exemptions for birth control considering that "The Church" discriminates based upon gender (e.g. women cannot become priests) and a study found that 95% of Catholic women used birth control at some point in their lives. If "religion" is that relationship between a "person and their god" as established in Reynolds v United States in 1878 then the Catholic woman's religion determines if she should or should not use birth control and not the Pope or a bunch of male cardinals and priests that run the church.
|
|
