The IRS’s Selective Investigations and Non-Investigations

So as is usually the case when the Obama Administration does something truly awful, the news came out Friday... that the IRS admitted to selective scrutiny of various conservative and Tea Party groups.  One weak justification offered for this kind of conduct in various news accounts is the precedent in Bob Jones University v. U.S. (1983).

In that case, Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status because it was at the time a racist university.  They claim today they have reformed, but bluntly I’d be reluctant to attend if I needed to attend college.  Redemption is always possible, but organizations that racist don’t change their stripes overnight.  But whatever you think of their claims of reform, there was no question at all they were racist back then, going as far as to ban interracial relationships.

Now a school is one of the categories of presumptively charitable activities listed in the U.S. Code, so ordinarily a private school is considered a charitable institution with very little effort, if they choose to be a non-profit.  So normally BJU would find obtaining charitable non-profit status to be a cakewalk, but the IRS denied it to them specifically because they practiced racial discrimination.  And this policy was challenged all the way to the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court put its stamp of approval on the policy saying: “a declaration that a given institution is not ‘charitable’ should be made only where there can be no doubt that the activity involved is contrary to a fundamental public policy.”

Now first, it is extremely doubtful that the Supreme Court was saying that the IRS could discriminate based on viewpoint.  The language of the opinion is not expansive.  Instead, I believe the best reading of the case is that it the IRS could only discriminate based on behavior—in this case, the act of discriminating according to race.  That behavior might have been driven by a certain viewpoint, but it is the behavior that matters.

Further, even when a policy is truly fundamental, the Supreme Court also said that the policy the IRS can enforce must also be “settled public policy.”  So a private boys’ school or girls’ school would be more likely to be considered “charitable” because many would feel it is not settled that gender segregation in education is an anathema the way racial discrimination is.  After all, one can easily cite feminist authors for the idea that women benefit from gender segregation, such as A Room of One’s Own, by Virginia Woolfe.  And the existence of all-girls schools naturally invites us to create all-boys schools.  That’s not to say Woolfe is necessarily right, only that the subject doesn’t seem very “settled” to me.

So I don’t believe Bob Jones applies to the content of a charity’s speech at all, with the limitation that it cannot cross the line into electoral politics.  Further, it only seems to apply to “settled” and “fundamental” policies.  But the key thing to understand is that if the IRS wants to claim Bob Jones as a precedent justifying this behavior—and I don't believe it can be cited as justification—it has interesting implications for their conduct.

So first we got this story:

IRS admits targeting conservatives for tax scrutiny in 2012 election

The Internal Revenue Service on Friday apologized for targeting groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names, confirming long-standing accusations by some conservatives that their applications for tax-exempt status were being improperly delayed and scrutinized.

First, one has to be faintly amused by the fact that apparently in the minds of the IRS and the writers of the Washington Post (and the media in general) it is conceded that the term “patriot” is more likely to involve a conservative cause.  And let’s all remember how whiney Michael Dukakis got when he perceived that George H.W. Bush was questioning his patriotism:

Well, I hope this is the first and last time I have to say this. Of course the vice president is questioning my patriotism. I don't think there is any question about that. And I resent it. I resent it.

Second, the Tea Party is devoted to lower taxes, slashing spending even further and at the very least agreeing to disagree on social issues, if not actually embracing libertarianism.  Even pretending that the IRS can go after an organization for its views rather than just its conduct does the Obama administration consider high taxes, high spending to be both fundamental and settled?

Indeed, does the Obama administration consider patriotism contrary to settled and fundamental policy?

But of course things get even worse from there.  Next we found out that Jewish groups were apparently being targeted, specifically being asked if they supported the existence of Israel.  One has to wonder what is the correct answer in their mind.

And next we find out that they were targeting groups that were involved in educating people about the Constitution.  So in other words, if you run an organization that teaches that the First Amendment forbids the IRS from selectively investigating organizations based on viewpoint, you will be selected for investigation for having that viewpoint.  I suppose this is against a fundamental and settled policy, in the minds of the IRS?

But at least that criterion has the virtue of being kind of neutral.  I mean all joking aside many liberal groups as well as conservative groups claim the Constitution is on their side.  The ACLU, the NRA and Planned Parenthood all claim to be, at least in part, about educating people about their Constitutional rights.  So it sounds semi-ideologically neutral.

Except in practice it is not.  How do we know this?  Because Brett Kimberlin’s organizations, Justice Through Music Project and Velvet Revolution, have never been subjected to any scrutiny.  This is despite the fact that their paperwork has a number of irregularities.  Indeed, so many irregularities have been found in his organizations’ taxes it is worth taking a moment to review.

First, Kimberlin is himself an admitted tax cheat.  Back when he was a big time drug dealer, he learned to lie to Uncle Sam and claim just enough income to match his present, proven expenses (including the resultant tax bill).  Fast-forwarding to today, Robert Stacy McCain was the first to notice something fishy in his organizations’ taxes when he realized they claimed that Kimberlin worked full time for both organizations (in other words, 80 hours a week), and for only about $19,500 a year.  Given that he has a family of four, he is claiming he is technically below the poverty line.  I am sure it is because he is just such a giving man.

Oh and by the way, after McCain exposed this, Kimberlin’s behavior toward McCain became so threatening that McCain and his family fled their Maryland home to a location unknown.  I am sure this is because McCain’s suggestion of financial impropriety was utterly false and Kimberlin had nothing to hide, right?

Further, despite claiming only a $19,500 income a year, he was also able to loan to Velvet Revolution $4,500 on short notice in 2010.  Are there a lot of people who make below the poverty level who can suddenly loan that much money on short notice?

This was not the only time Kimberlin came up with a huge amount of money (compared to his claimed income) on short notice.  On October 25, 2012, John Hoge noticed that the Kimberlin family had about $4K in outstanding medical bills at a time when his organizations purported to put out a million dollar reward (more on that shortly).  Six days later, those bills were paid in full, apparently in response to Mr. Hoge drawing attention to it.  So once again, he apparently had over $4,000 just laying around in a liquid state.  Doesn’t this give rise to a concern that Kimberlin might have been raiding the till for personal expenses?  Shouldn’t the IRS look into his bank accounts and trace his exact income?

In addition to that:

1.         his forms lied about the year this organization was formed,

2.         his website claims to sell DVD’s but Kimberlin claimed no income from such sales, even after claiming that at least one DVD was “sold out,”

3.         he claims to rent out his mother’s basement for Justice Through Music for over $80K a year,

4.         he claims to rent out the same space to Velvet Revolution for oddly much less,

5.         despite previously having to borrow money from Kimberlin to pay its bills, his charities offered a million dollar reward for any information about voter fraud making one wonder if this was a genuine offer at all,

6.         his organizations paid an oddly high amount of money for utilities for this space (see also here),

7.         in 2011, Velvet Revolution didn’t even list Kimberlin as an employee, even though he testified under oath that he was a director at the time (and had the same curious omission in relation to another director, Kevin Zeese, Esq.), and

8.         when asked for information about his organizations’ finances in a civil, he pled the Fifth claiming that such documents would tend to incriminate him.

So his organization had all of these red flags and no further scrutiny.  Kimberlin has stated under oath that Velvet Revolution is dedicated to teaching kids about the right to vote, so that organization exactly fits the stated criteria that triggers closer analysis and yet no such closer analysis has occurred.  So, it appears that there is an additional element that must be present to trigger scrutiny: support for conservative causes.  Kimberlin’s organizations, after all, are decidedly to the left.

And are we supposed to believe that the Federal Government noticed absolutely none of these signs that something was wrong?  Or do we think it might be the case that just as they were politically selective in choosing whom to scrutinize further, they were equally selective in choosing whom to ignore?

Every day the revelations have been pouring out in this IRS scandal.  We have learned that the selective investigations reached back further than they disclosed on Friday and that knowledge of this conduct went higher than disclosed.  This suggests that even their apology was not truthful and strongly suggests that even more revelations are in the offing.

---------------------------------------

My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right.  And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

---------------------------------------

Disclaimer:

I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.