You break news on Friday when you want to bury it. And that’s what the Department of Justice did when it told Congress that it would not prosecute Lois Lerner, or anybody else in IRS, as a result of the Tea Party Scandal.
Not that anybody would expect otherwise. The Justice Department continues to act as the Administration’s scandal goalie. The fix was in once the President changed his tune from “this is terrible” to “not even a smidgen of corruption.”
Throughout the investigation, not a single IRS employee reported any allegation, concern, or suspicion that the handling of tax-exempt applications — or any other IRS function — was motivated by political bias, discriminatory intent, or corruption. Among these witnesses were several IRS employees who were critical of Ms. Lerner’s and other officials’ leadership, as well as others who volunteered to us that they are politically conservative. Moreover, both TIGTA and the IRS’s Whistleblower Office confirmed that neither has received internal complaints from IRS employees alleging that officials’ handling of tax-exempt applications was motivated by political or other discriminatory bias.
The Investors Business Daily gets this right:
This is absurd. Lerner was caught red-handed targeting Tea Party and other conservative groups, wrote partisan emails to prove it, then engaged in a massive cover-up effort — with a suspiciously crashed server, an oddly missing BlackBerry and plenty of excuses.
She evaded even more accountability by shielding herself with the Fifth Amendment in Congress.
It was only Tea Party groups that had to wait years for approval. Considering the destroyed emails, “lost” backups, and Ms. Lerner’s peculiar interest in communication methods that could not be traced, there’s too much smoke and ash to believe there was no fire.
Robert Wood, Obama Administration Learned From Lois, Dodging IRS Scandal. “Deny, stonewall, deny.”
Jana Luttenegger Weiler, IRS Releases Inflation Adjustments for 2016 (Davis Brown Tax Law Blog).
Robert D. Flach, WHO MUST FILE A 2016, or 2015, TAX RETURN? “FYI, based on the new inflation adjustments recently announced by the Internal Revenue Service, you do not have to file a 2016 Form 1040, or 1040A, unless your “gross income” is at least…” Visit Robert to find the numbers.
Hank Stern, Easy come, easy go:
That’s out of over $5 billion in “loans” sent to states, most of which went for state-based Exchanges (which, per SCOTUS, don’t actually exist).
That must be the “affordable” part of the Affordable Care Act.”
Joseph Thorndike, Mexico Is Having Second Thoughts About the Soda Tax – And So Should Everyone Else (Tax Analysts Blog). “If a big tax dissuades people from drinking Mountain Dew, maybe they will lose weight. But maybe they will continue to scarf down their Twinkies with a cupful of untaxed water – and keep packing on the pounds.”
Scott Greenberg, Reviewing Paul Ryan’s Short Term as Chairman of Ways and Means (Tax Policy Blog). “In the last 10 months, the Ways and Means Committee has brought 52 bills to the House floor, tied for most with the Energy and Commerce Committee. Out of these bills, 15 were passed into law, the most out of any committee.”
Howard Gleckman, Little Difference Between the Cadillac Tax and a Cap on the Tax Exclusion for Employer Health Plans (TaxVox).
Caleb Newquist, Accountant Won’t Be Taking a Walk in the Woods Anytime Soon. “James Hammes, who spent 6 years on the lam walking the Appalachian Trail, pleaded guilty earlier today to wire fraud.”
David Brunori discusses ($link) a tax break proposed by Iowa graduate students for… themselves.
The idea is that if you graduate from any college or university in Iowa and stay in the state, you would get a 50 percent tax break for five years. If you move to a rural part of the state, you get a 75 percent tax reduction. As an Easterner, I learned everything I know about Iowa from Joe Kristan’s blog. But I could have sworn most of the state is rural.
In any event, kids, this is a terrible tax policy idea. It will solve no brain-drain problem — although employers may pay less since these graduates won’t be paying taxes. Here is just one problem: If you’re not paying taxes, someone else is. That someone else is probably a poor guy or gal who didn’t graduate from college and is making a lot less than you. I thought college kids would be more empathetic than that.
While most of the state is rural, but most of the jobs for college graduates aren’t.
David gets the policy exactly right. It’s tough to justify a special deal for a young prosperous couple with accounting or law degrees while the people building their suburban house and watching their kids pay full fare.