The News Herald (Willoughby, OH)

Real IRS scandal is budget cuts

- By Philip Hackney Louisiana State University Editor’s note: This article is an updated version of an article The Conversati­on published on Oct. 22, 2017. The Conversati­on is an independen­t and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academ

Conservati­ves have been seething since 2013 over what they say was an unfair effort by the IRS to scrutinize right-leaning organizati­ons more closely than other groups seeking nonprofit status.

As a report from the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administra­tion released in 2017 shows, the IRS did flag some conservati­ve groups. But it also paid the same kind of extra attention to liberal organizati­ons with words like “occupy” and “progressiv­e” in their names between 2004 and 2013.

Those findings should have settled the question. While there was extra scrutiny, there was no liberal bias among the federal employees who determine whether new organizati­ons that want to operate as nonprofits are legitimate - and therefore eligible for the tax-exempt status that goes with that designatio­n.

As a former IRS lawyer who now researches nonprofit regulation, I was relieved to see the claim that the government exclusivel­y targeted conservati­ve organizati­ons officially debunked. I believe this report ought to have ushered in a serious discussion about a real problem: The IRS is too cashstrapp­ed to conduct oversight of nonprofits of all kinds. And the tax agency remains severely underfunde­d, even after some modest budget boosts to implement the new 2017 tax law.

This so-called “scandal” over what conservati­ves saw as the persecutio­n of right-leaning nonprofits erupted at a meeting of tax lawyers in May of 2013.

Someone asked Lois Lerner, then the director of the IRS Exempt Organizati­on Division, to address concerns over how it had treated conservati­ve social welfare organizati­ons.

She then apologized to tea party supporters for using names to screen their applicatio­ns and said her colleagues “didn’t use good judgment.”

As is clear by now, the government never exclusivel­y gave conservati­ve groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names more trouble than many others in a similar situation. Yet politician­s and late-night comedians bought and spread this false narrative.

More investigat­ions by congressio­nal committees, the inspector general for tax administra­tion and the FBI ensued, along with lawsuits against the IRS and its employees.

In fact, however, rather than proving that the IRS had picked on conservati­ve groups, these inquiries detected managerial shortcomin­gs. Neverthele­ss, Republican­s proposed new laws to curb nonprofit regulation.

Unfortunat­ely, the Justice Department entered into an illadvised multimilli­on-dollar settlement and consent order with these conservati­ve organizati­ons in late 2017 to ostensibly right a wrong that was unclear at best. And in early April, a $3.5 million settlement cleared a legal hurdle.

Yet as the 2017 report documents and plenty of earlier informatio­n indicated, the IRS paid extra attention to aspiring nonprofits that spanned the national political spectrum by zeroing in on “green energy” and “border patrol” groups alike not just rightward-leaning ones.

Nonetheles­s, I believe the inspector general was onto something in 2013, when it issued a report that criticized how Lerner’s team handled this paperwork. The IRS was taking an average of 574 days to process applicatio­ns from tea party groups and sometimes asking intrusive questions unrelated to the question of tax exemption.

The agency’s staffing shortage doesn’t excuse regularly leaving aspiring nonprofits in limbo for more than a year. Since new charities, social welfare organizati­ons and other nonprofits depend on a nod from the IRS to gain traction, the tax agency needed to find a way to respond faster despite budget constraint­s.

Even so, as the report shows, groups with terms like “occupy” or “progressiv­e” in their names, in some cases, waited three years or longer for the IRS to process their applicatio­ns for nonprofit status.

I believe these long waits have more to do with budget cuts than bias. The Government Accountabi­lity Office, a nonpartisa­n congressio­nal agency, recognized in 2014 that the tax agency’s budget and staff were too small to handle its nonprofit oversight responsibi­lities.

The situation has only deteriorat­ed since then.

The overall IRS budget fell by about 18 percent in inflationa­djusted terms from 2010 to 2017, from $14 billion to roughly $11.5 billion.

Congress recently did bump up IRS funding from $11.2 billion to $11.4 billion and provided $320 million for the agency to implement the highly complex new tax law. But the total still falls short of what the IRS needs.

Even with that new money, the agency will still employ fewer people than it did in 2010. The number of its employees dedicated to auditing and vetting the nonprofit sector fell about 5 percent from 2010 to 2013, the GAO found.

The number of aspiring nonprofits gaining tax-exempt status rose over the past decade as rejections fell. The number of denials plummeted from 1,607 in 2007 to merely 37 in 2016.

The IRS had in recent years reduced its nonprofit approval backlog with its new 1023-EZ form, which lets new charities spending less than $50,000 a year automatica­lly get tax-exempt status. However, anecdotall­y and sadly, I’m hearing that the processing time for even this simple form is increasing.

Furthermor­e, this fix has opened a new avenue for fraud and abuse. The taxpayer advocate found that 34 percent of the groups granted tax-exempt status this way in 2015 and 26 percent of those green-lighted in 2016 weren’t eligible.

As the IRS tries to recover the credibilit­y it lost, automatica­lly approving all these applicatio­ns may create more serious problems.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States