More IRS Lawlessness

[Manonthestreet]

The Daily Signal has learned that, under a consent judgment today, the IRS agreed to pay $50,000 in damages to the National Organization for Marriage as a result of the unlawful release of the confidential information to a gay rights group, the Human Rights Campaign, that is NOM’s chief political rival. IRS to Pay $50,000 in Leaking of Marriage Group?s Tax Return, Donors

 

[natstew]

When Government Employees were allowed to Unionize it automatically turned them into democrat political weapons.

 

[Manonthestreet]

So someone in the IRS colluded with the Obama presidential campaign to illegally disclose confidential tax information. And that person still works at the IRS. Where he or she presumably continues to flout the law with impunity.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Eric Holder's Justice Department to open an investigation. Because Mr. Meisel's "conduit" serves Holder's (and Barack Obama's) interests. And that my friends is way more than a smidgen of corruption. WyBlog -- Why won't the IRS identify, and fire, the person who leaked NOM's tax returns?

 

[blastoff]

Government at its finest. Nobody gets canned and the IRS "pays" a fine. Hmmm...where does the IRS get its money again? They **** up and 50k of our tax dollars disappears in order to get them off the hook.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Government at its finest. Nobody gets canned and the IRS "pays" a fine. Hmmm...where does the IRS get its money again? They **** up and 50k of our tax dollars disappears in order to get them off the hook.

Not much deterrent is it..... really is no incentive it appears not to break the law

 

[paperview]

So someone in the IRS colluded with the Obama presidential campaign to illegally disclose confidential tax information. And that person still works at the IRS. Where he or she presumably continues to flout the law with impunity.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Eric Holder's Justice Department to open an investigation. Because Mr. Meisel's "conduit" serves Holder's (and Barack Obama's) interests. And that my friends is way more than a smidgen of corruption. WyBlog -- Why won't the IRS identify, and fire, the person who leaked NOM's tax returns?

Nobody colluded anything.

It was the result of a single low level clerk who forgot to redact the donors names -- and even the Reagan appointed judged who made the initial ruling a few weeks ago said as much.

 

[Katzndogz]

The IRS is the American version of the KGB.

 

[Manonthestreet]

You cant be reffing the same case since the guy hasnt given up the ID of who he got the info from

 

[paperview]

A federal district court judge, however, recently ruled that there was not enough evidence to demonstrate the disclosure was willful and that the record showed it was released “inadvertently as part of a single employee’s mistake.”

...
The dispute is not part of the ongoing controversy over agency scrutiny of tea party applications seeking tax-exempt status, though Republicans have often combined the matters to argue political motivations of some at the agency.


Shortly after the judge’s June 3 opinion, the IRS and NOM struck a deal to resolve NOM’s claims for actual damages and costs that resulted from the disclosure.


When responding to a request for a copy of the organization’s amended 2008 Form 990, the IRS said an employee forgot to redact the names and addresses of NOM’s donors before sending it out to an individual, who then forwarded a copy of NOM’s amended 2008 Form 990, Schedule B to the Human Rights Campaign, which published it.
...
Under federal law, the IRS is required to provide the public with certain tax information for 501(c)(4) organizations upon request — but personal identifying information of donors must be redacted by the agency.
...

Judge James Cacheris of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Reagan Appointee) said in a June 3 opinion that NOM offered no evidence that the information was willfully disclosed or the result of gross negligence, and thus the organization could not recover punitive damages.

Read more: IRS pays $50K to anti-gay marriage group - Mackenzie Weinger - POLITICO.com
​

 

[paperview]

Virginia Judge Tosses Most Of Marriage Group's Tax Suit

<snip>


&#8220;NOM has proffered no evidence that its unredacted tax information was willfully disclosed,&#8221; Judge Cacheris wrote in his opinion. &#8220;The record provides a specific timeline evidencing that NOM&#8217;s Schedule B was released inadvertently as part of a single employee&#8217;s mistake. NOM, therefore, is not entitled to recover punitive damages.&#8221;

Virginia Judge Tosses Most Of Marriage Group's Tax Suit - Law360

 

[paperview]

What they are getting is actual damages for the cost of the inadvertant release of the information that was supposed to be redacted by the boneheaded clerk. As should be.

The clerk, by law HAD to release the taxpayer 501c4 information on the group (just as you can look up public tax filings for these "social welfare" groups gathered by many watchdog orgs) -- but for c4's they are supposed to redact. That dork forgot.

There is no proof it was anything more than an accident.

"On June 3, U.S. District Court Judge James C. Cacheris - appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 ruled on the case - Read it yourself: NOM's allegations are "unconvincing" and "unpersuasive," --

they failed "to produce a shred of proof" their accusations had any merit. From the ruling:

"In essence, NOM asks the Court to infer that Peters lacked authority based on the absence of a complete audit trail regarding her actions and the specifics of Meisel's request. This argument is unpersuasive. No reasonable jury could find in NOM's favor based solely on this negative inference when the remaining evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Peters inspected the return while performing her official IRS duties. To find that NOM could prevail from this scintilla of evidence would require "the building of one inference upon another," which is not appropriate under Rule 56."




​

 

[Manonthestreet]

Of course they can't provide that because of stonewalling....why isn't that persons ID known.........

 

[paperview]

Of course they can't provide that because of stonewalling....why isn't that persons ID known.........

Wassamatter? Your Fox news spoon feeders aren't giving you the info?

Reach into the bucket and learn.

Wendy Peters.

It's in the record.

Part of the court file. Tough to actually read, I know, but, come on...

 

[Manonthestreet]

Didn't post a fox link.....isn't guy who received them claiming the fifth and refusing to answer who gave him the info ....

 

[paperview]

I know you didn't post a Fox link, but it's your CEC handlers shaping your narrative just the same.

Look at how your OP is crashing and burning.

All because you fell for what you were fed.

Be thankful I am helping you out with actual information from the actual case.

With ax-shoo-al names, an' everything!

 

[paperview]

By the way -- your OP source, it the Heritage Foundation.

Just another crotchety head on the RW echo monkey-see monkey-do totem pole.

 

[Manonthestreet]

You didnt answer the question.....is or isnt the person who received the info claiming the fifth.........

 

[paperview]

The Reagan appointed judge: "The Government contends that [Wendy] Peters forgot to redact the names and addresses of NOM&#8217;s donors before sending the amended 2008 Form 990 to Meisel.'

He found no other proof this was not the case.

To repeat:

"In essence, NOM asks the Court to infer that Peters lacked authority based on the absence of a complete audit trail regarding her actions and the specifics of Meisel's request. This argument is unpersuasive. No reasonable jury could find in NOM's favor based solely on this negative inference when the remaining evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Peters inspected the return while performing her official IRS duties. To find that NOM could prevail from this scintilla of evidence would require "the building of one inference upon another," which is not appropriate under Rule 56."

So we know the name of the person who provided the info, which you contend was not known -- and the person who received it.

And the guy who received it - apparently fell in a gray line in the law. He didn't actively seek those donors names. He merely sought the publicly available 990 information. It was the IRS employee who failed to redact.

Was it legal for him to pass it on to publish? Good legal question. He didn't do anything illegal to receive it.

He was within his rights considering the twist in the investigation to plead the Fifth.

And it appears the Congressional investigation itself may just provided him safe harbor in any event.

From last October, before the Court case:
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/poli...rotected-by-taxpayer-confidentiality-law.html

 

[Manonthestreet]

In a strange twist, the law designed to protect a taxpayer&#8217;s confidential information may prevent identification of the IRS employee who violated the law by leaking the taxpayer&#8217;s confidential information.


You just contradicted yourself

 

[Manonthestreet]

Guy is still claiming the fifth .....so how was said person who leaked the info ID'd......and why then does he still need to plead the fifth?