IRS Knowingly Paid Illegal Aliens $4.2 Billion in Tax Credits in 2010

[JohnH]

There is a big difference in the public profile of Ms. Cheney and Mrs. Hillary Rodham-Clinton a former first lady of a state and the country. Hoping to see her as the first female President of my country very soon!

Ok. Got it. Only someone who doesn't share your political views qualifies as a carpetbagger when they move in and prey on the gullibility of the brainwashed locals.

[Lion EA]

I'd love to see the first female president of our country in my lifetime! However, I think Hillary lacks honesty, so want someone OTHER than her in any office. But, Hillary has enough connections to mount a winning campaign, and I don't see any Republicans that could challenge her successfully.

[Guest Taxed]

If you are looking for a saint in a politician you will be deeply disappointed. I was disappointed when she lost the primary. She is smart and articulate.

As they say, sometimes it is wise to vote for the devil you know than the unknown!

[Guest Taxed]

Ok. Got it. Only someone who doesn't share your political views qualifies as a carpetbagger when they move in and prey on the gullibility of the brainwashed locals.

If the voters of WY elect her, more power to her. At the end it is the voters choice who they want to represent the state.

[JohnH]

So at least we agree that both Liz and Hillary are equally classified as carpetbaggers.

[Catherine]

As a MA voter I can tell you that Mr. Gomez would have lost if Mickey Mouse (D) was running against him. MA voters did not want to give Republicans another victory after kicking out Scott Brown! His disctrict could care less that he lives full time in MD as long as he pushes the Democrat positions.

And this stuff happens in all 50 states. Look at Liz Cheney moving to WY last year to run for the senate seat after living practically all her life outside WY? Carpetbagger maybe!

What you say about Mr. Gomez -- who was and is a supporter of Obama and Governor Patrick, ideologically and monetarily -- proves my point exactly. He ran as a Republican, but he is not one. But as long as he has the "R" next to his name, folks like you will vote against him, even against Mickey Mouse.

Gomez would have pushed all the D positions as well -- and at least have been a resident of the district. But he ran under R, not D, and was against an incumbent -- and that is more than enough for those who refuse to think.

[Guest Taxed]

What you say about Mr. Gomez -- who was and is a supporter of Obama and Governor Patrick, ideologically and monetarily -- proves my point exactly. He ran as a Republican, but he is not one. But as long as he has the "R" next to his name, folks like you will vote against him, even against Mickey Mouse.

Gomez would have pushed all the D positions as well -- and at least have been a resident of the district. But he ran under R, not D, and was against an incumbent -- and that is more than enough for those who refuse to think.

You and I both know the politics of MA. The Democrats did NOT want to give Mitch McConnell another Republican vote in the senate. Mr. Gomez has a very impressive resume. But as you correctly pointed out it was the ® that doomed him given Scott Brown's record in the senate. As long as we have a significant Republican majority in the house and a thin Democrat majority in the senate an ® will not win the election unless the (D) really screws up!

[joanmcq]

CNS News has clearly decided the IRS is wrong and is bending the facts to conform to its conclusion. I'm sure I'm not the only one on this board who remembers the controversy the year the CTC became refundable. Unlike the EITC, adoption credits, education credits, etc., there was NO requirement in the Code that the children have Social Security numbers. All of us looked it up, and looked it up again in disbelief, when the situation arose. Clarification from the IRS Chief Counsel or somewhere high up in the agency confirmed that the law, as written by Congress, did not require SS numbers. The IRS didn't just make "its own 'policy decision' to ’legalize’ illegal aliens.” It was merely following the law . To do otherwise would be breaking the law.

There have been so many scandals plaguing the agency of late that I think the media are sniffing in corners to be the first to break the next big reason to hate the IRS. Too bad reporters don't know how to read the IRC or understand that Congress makes the laws that the IRS is charged with upholding. I have read many a court decision where the judges admonished Congress to make clear their intent because neither the taxpayers nor the IRS in the case being decided could be faulted for their interpretations of the nebulous meaning of the law as passed.

The issue about overlooking possible fraud in approving ITIN applications is a bit different. Management clearly issued wrong directives. Still, I don't know what else the agency could have done in the face of budget cuts that reduced staffing and training at the same time the workload increased. (Remember that outside approval agents used to be able to review the paperwork before it got to the IRS but that practice ended so all the work ended up in the IRS's lap.) They probably should have followed the rules more carefully and just let the backlog of applications grow. When elected officials learned about the delays from constituents and complained, IRS managers could have made a good case for increased staffing.

I guess what I'm saying boils down to the fact that the uneducated public (including the media) thinks the IRS is responsible for the incomprehensible tax code and makes up the rules as it pleases. Those of us in the business know that tax law originates in Congress, and except in those instances where the law mandates that the Secretary of the Treasury flesh out the details, the IRS and Treasury are beholden to the law as written. The IRS could no more deny someone claiming the additional CTC without the child having a valid SS# than it could refuse to issue you a refund because it doesn't like your middle initial.

This. Congress says ITINs qualify for the CTC, you get the CTC. The best the IRS can do is put a checkbox at the top of the form that tax preparers will then scream about because they didn't read the revamped form.

[SCL]

<<<Maybe if the IRS spent less time auditing tea party and conservative groups, they could catch more unlawful use of of the U.S. tax code by foreigners?>>>

the irs was not auditing conservative/teabagging groups. it was bogged down, slow balling, and/or delaying the review of the large number of applications and validity (there is the rub) of these conservative tax exempt organizations.

[joanmcq]

They weren't targeting Tea Party & conservative groups either. These groups were simply part of a larger data mine of groups that possibly could be using the 501©(4) status for political lobbying, etc. Simply a few terms among many like 'progressive' and 'occupy'.

[Guest Taxed]

Looks like the Republicans are NOT getting the mileage they had hoped with this scandal. Proof: They are complaining that the main stream media is not pushing this story. Only Foxnews has dedicated to have full coverage everyday in one form or the other.

With the debt ceiling fights on its way this will be relegated to the back burner in a hurry!

[joanmcq]

Actually, when you think about it, it's not a scandal, it's an over hyped bit of nothing on cherry-picked data. Woe that the IRS should use modern data mining methods to select groups that might require more scrutiny?

[Guest Taxed]

Wonder where the lawsuit against IRS by the Teaparty people stand?