IRS

Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against IRS Over Targeting

Everything is fixed, there's nothing to see here...

|

WASHINGTON—A federal court dismissed two lawsuits against the Internal Revenue Service Thursday, ruling that the tax agency is no longer targeting conservative tax-exempt groups for greater scrutiny.

"Unless an actual, ongoing controversy exists in this case, this court is without power to decide it," U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton ruled, dismissing one lawsuit brought by True the Vote, a conservative vote-monitoring organization.

NEXT: Doctor Tested for Ebola in New York City

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. …”ruling that the tax agency is no longer targeting conservative tax-exempt groups for greater scrutiny.”…

    So if Sam isn’t killing someone right now, he gets a pass on the ones he’s already murdered?

    1. Yeah, I don’t get that either. Someone got a phone call, and that phone call said “you can write up an excuse on why the case can’t go forward, or you can write your own epitaph.”

      1. I have proof of IRS wrongdoing. It’s on one of these harddrives that just crashed. That’s good enough, right?

    2. “So if Sam isn’t killing someone right now, he gets a pass on the ones he’s already murdered?”

      Exactly. The IRS has quit hitting True The Vote in the face so True The Vote no longer has a beef against the IRS.

      They quit hitting them dammit.

      What part of quit don’t you understand?

    3. dafuq???

  2. Government protects government. It creates double standards for itself. One of the reasons given by the judge for not allowing personal liability is the ‘chilling’ effect it would have on tax collectors.

    Heaven forbid the tax collectors were scared of having to pay for their own screw-ups. I’m not a lawyer or expert on the law, but what exactly is the basis for arbitrary bits of information such as this that influence decisions? We aren’t allowed to make this ruling even if it makes sense because we think the results are scary or bad.

    That’s not law. I’m sure there’s some BS explanation that basically amounts to because the government says so, though.

    1. “One of the reasons given by the judge for not allowing personal liability is the ‘chilling’ effect it would have on tax collectors.”

      Tax collectors SHOULD be scared shitless day and night! They should quake in their boots that someone nearby finds out what they do! Not a one of them should get a good night’s sleep any day of the year and on 4/15, they should have to stand guard to make sure the populace doesn’t burn down their houses.

  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggie_Walton

    Reggie Barnett Walton (born February 8, 1949) is a federal judge on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He is the former presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

    Oh boy, former FISC and George W. Bush appointee, eh.

    1. I believe in this case, this actually DOES explain a lot.

      What a fuckhead this judge is.

  4. my co-worker’s mother makes $71 /hr on the laptop . She has been unemployed for 9 months but last month her payment was $17334 just working on the laptop for a few hours. published here

    http://shorx.com/onlineatm

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.