A Treasury Department inspector general says the Internal Revenue Service screened only a few progressive groups seeking tax-exempt status for possible political activity, as a clash escalated between that investigator and congressional Democrats who called his probe of the agency misleading.
In a letter to lawmakers released Thursday, J. Russell George said his investigation found “progressives” was not among the inappropriate terms IRS screeners used to decide if groups merited close scrutiny for political work. Too much political activity can disqualify an applicant for a tax-exempt designation.
Nonetheless, George wrote that “additional research” by his investigators found that of 298 applicants for tax-exempt status that the IRS flagged for possible political involvement between 2010 and 2012, six had “progress” or “progressive” in their names. Another 14 cases with “progress” or “progressive” in the group’s name were not sidetracked for additional examination, he wrote.
Thirty percent of such groups got special attention because of possible political work, George wrote.
“In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots or 9/12 in their names were processed” for potential political activity, he wrote.
That did not satisfy Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.
The term “progressives” did appear on some lists, released earlier this week by Levin, that also included “Tea Party” and that IRS workers used to watch for groups that might merit tough screening. But George’s letter noted that “Progressives” appeared on a different part of that list, and said that such groups were sent to different screeners than the ones who processed tea party applications.
Levin criticized George for not revealing the involvement of progressive groups or the second set of screeners until now. He said George’s report should have explored those avenues.
“The failure of the IG’s audit to acknowledge these facts is a fundamental flaw in the foundation of the investigation and the public’s perception of this issue,” said Levin, using the abbreviation for inspector general.
Democrats have complained that George’s investigation was one-sided. George’s report, released in May, detailed IRS mistreatment of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status and was released days after the IRS acknowledged and apologized for those activities.
Levin and other Democrats have argued the public has been presented with an unbalanced view of the IRS’ activities, with a narrative about mistreatment of conservatives that some Republicans have used, without foundation, to suggest direction from the Obama administration.
At a Ways and Means committee hearing Thursday, Levin said he wanted that panel to have George answer questions at a future session.
Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., Ways and Means chairman, said that “no taxpayer, regardless of political affiliation, should be unfairly targeted.” But he said that indications are that conservatives had been treated worse.
“So far, the evidence only shows conservatives being systematically targeted by the IRS, not just flagged” on agency lists, Camp said.
In his letter, George said his investigators have “multiple sources of information corroborating” that tea party groups’ applications were set aside for close examinations, including interviews with IRS employees, emails and other documents.
But George added, “We found no indication in any of these other materials that ‘progressives’ was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention.”
Support real journalism. Support local journalism. Subscribe to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution today. See offers.
Your subscription to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution funds in-depth reporting and investigations that keep you informed. Thank you for supporting real journalism.
Download the new AJC app. More local news, more breaking news and in-depth journalism. AJC.com. Atlanta. News. Now.
Download the new AJC app. More local news, more breaking news and in-depth journalism.