| | | actually, you've once again failed to read or simply don't comprehend what you posted...if anything, the new audit confirms IRS bias.
from your link:
Gregory Kutz, the assistant inspector general who led the latest audit, declined to weigh in on the comments from Democrats, saying the watchdog had tried to avoid making judgments on potential political motivations in its 2013 report as well.
But Kutz also told reporters there were several key differences between that report and the follow-up more than four years later.
“Due to the unique nature of the 17 criteria, it is difficult to compare the criteria to each other, or to compare in aggregate to the criteria reviewed in the 2013 audit,” the inspector general pointed out in a statement.
Around 70 percent of the groups from the 2013 audit tagged for extra scrutiny were seeking 501(c)(4) status, which currently allows organizations to weigh in on political matters as long as that’s not the majority of their work. Most of the 146 groups discussed in the new report were applying for 501(c)(3) status, which does not allow for intervention in political campaigns.
The new report covered far fewer groups than the original 2013 audit, which examined close to 300 organizations seeking tax-exempt status.
And while some of the groups discussed in the new report faced extensive delays on their applications, most of the organizations had their applications processed in less than a year. Groups cited under the “progressive” criteria were even more likely to see their application move quickly, with 53 of 61 getting processed in under a year.
By contrast, Kutz said about five out of six groups discussed in the 2013 report saw delays lasting longer than a year. |
|
