Now, it also appears that the IRS targeted families who adopted children, requesting additional personal information from over 90% and auditing almost 70% of them.
from National Review:
In 2012, the IRS requested additional information from 90 percent of returns claiming the adoption tax credit and went on to actually audit 69 percent. More details from the Taxpayer Advocate Service:
During the 2012 filing season, 90 percent of returns claiming the refundable adoption credit were subject to additional review to determine if an examination was necessary. The most common reasons were income and a lack of documentation.
■ Sixty-nine percent of all adoption credit claims during the 2012 filing season were selected for audit.
■ Of the completed adoption tax credit audits, over 55 percent ended with no change in the tax owed or refund due in fiscal year 2012. The median refund amount involved in these audits is over $15,000 and the median adjusted gross income (AGI) of the taxpayers involved is about 64,000. The average adoption credit correspondence audit currently takes 126 days, causing a lengthy delay for taxpayers waiting for refunds.
While many returns had missing or incomplete information (more on that in a moment), what was the outcome of this massive audit campaign? Not much:
Despite Congress’ express intent to target the credit to low and middle income families, the IRS created income-based rules that were responsible for over one-third of all additional reviews in FY2012.
■ Of the $668.1 million in adoption credit claims in tax year (TY) 2011 as a result of adoption credit audits, the IRS only disallowed $11 million — or one and one-half percent — in adoption credit claims. However, the IRS has also had to pay out $2.1 million in interest in TY 2011 to taxpayers whose refunds were held past the 45-day period allowed by law.
So Congress implemented a tax credit to facilitate adoption – a process that is so extraordinarily expensive that it is out of reach for many middle-class families — and the IRS responded by implementing an audit campaign that delayed much-needed tax refunds to the very families that needed them the most. Oh, and the return on its investment in this harassment? Slightly more than 1 percent.
So, not only did the IRS harass adopting parents, they got nothing in return for it other than to discourage adoption in the US, which is exactly the opposite of Congress’s intention in passing a adoption tax credit.
But if you want to run a national chain of abortion factories, that’s just fine with the IRS. They’ll even do their level best to make sure nobody pickets outside your facilities.
This is unbelievable. No, it’s not unbelievable that a mainstream media outlet would be biased, we see that every day. But it is surprising at how tone deaf they’re being by not covering it. They didn’t even put in the effort to spin the story to make conservatives somehow look bad. They just covered their eyes and ears and hoped for the best.
ABC’s blackout of the gruesome charges against abortionist Kermit Gosnell continued on Tuesday, 43 days after the trial began.
This came one day after a Media Research Center study found that the network’s Good Morning America has devoted 109 minuted and 41 stories to other shocking criminal trials. Apparently, ABC’s disinterest extends only to cases that might put the pro-abortion agenda in a negative light.
Instead of covering the Gosnell trial, which went to the jury on Monday, GMA offered a full report on the Michael Jackson wrongful death case, another story on the case of a Utah doctor charged with murdering his wife and a third segment on the Amanda Knox retrial. This amounted to another eight minutes and 20 seconds of focusing on high profile court stories not involving an abortionist accused of murdering babies.
ABC’s new total is 117 minutes and 46 seconds. NBC and CBS on Monday and Tuesday avoided the story. Both networks have only allowed minor coverage of the Gosnell case.
However, skimpy coverage is still better than ABC’s total silence. The network will find time, however, to devote a full hour to Amanda Knox on Tuesday night.
What’s more, even the coverage that many news outlets have given the story has been about how the media isn’t covering it. I’ve never really seen a story that everyone knows about and is supremely interested in that the media just will not cover.
In spite of a week of shaming by social media users, bloggers and a (small) handful of columnists, much of the media we consider “mainstream” has yet to touch the Gosnell story. Take Politico for instance. Despite the fact that 8 of the top 10 Politico search terms were Kermit Gosnell related on Saturday, they have yet to do a story on him or the trial. A search of “Kermit Gosnell” on Politico’s web site yields 2 results, neither of which are stories about him. Rather, they are quotations from other journalists about how the media is ignoring him. How’s that for irony?
Meanwhile, there isn’t one mention of the Gosnell or the trial on CNN’s front web page currently:
Or Fox News’:
Or the New York Times’:
Or the Los Angeles Times’:
I could go on and on. This case should be in the headlines of news outlets across the country for weeks to come but instead, it’s still being ignored by most of the media. So while some are claiming that the media is finally coming around to coverage after the public outcry, I can find no evidence of it. They are still choosing to ignore it in hopes that the public isn’t confronted with the realities of an abortion culture.
I encourage you to contact your local newspapers and news stations as well as national news outlets and request that they stop ignoring the Gosnell trial. Remember to be courteous. Also, post about this on your social media outlets. This story can change the abortion debate in America only if people know about it.
The North Dakota state senate has just passed a bill that would ban the practice of selective abortion based on birth defects and gender preference.
From the AP via USA Today:
The North Dakota Senate has passed a measure would make the state the first to ban abortions based on genetic defects such as Down syndrome.
The Senate passed the bill Friday, sending it to Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple.
The measure would also ban abortion based on gender selection. The Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion laws throughout the country, says Pennsylvania, Arizona and Oklahoma already have such laws.
Fargo Republican Rep. Bette Grande is the prime sponsor of the bill. She says abortions based on gender or genetic abnormalities have “no place in civilized society.”
Grande says sex-selection abortions usually target female fetuses because of preference for a baby boy. Grande says she also has two children with “genetic disabilities.”
The logistics of enforcing a law like this (determining motive) will certainly be tricky. That’s to be expected. And while I look forward to the day when we can challenge Roe vs. Wade directly, this is yet another positive step for those looking to protect innocent life.
The battle isn’t over yet, but it’s a small victory for religious liberty. A Federal judge granted a court order to Tom Monaghan, founder of Dominos Pizza, to block the HHS abortion coverage mandate in Obamacare.
from Life News:
The founder of Dominos Pizza won his bid for a court order to prevent enforcement of the mandate while the lawsuit it filed against the Obama administration over the HHS mandate that forces religious employers to purchase drugs that may cause abortions for their employees continues.
Tom Monaghan calls requiring businesses, schools and other religious places to pay for such drugs a “gravely immoral” practice and filed suit earlier this month in federal court for Domino’s Farms, a business development complex he owns.
Monaghan says he currently offers his employees health insurance that does not pay for abortions or birth control drugs that may cause early abortions and he has asked a judge to strike down the mandate, saying it violates his First Amendment religious rights.
Today, the Thomas More Law Center, a pro-life legal group, informed LifeNews that Federal District Court Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff of the Eastern District of Michigan granted a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction against enforcement of the HHS Mandate it filed for Monaghan and his property management company, Domino’s Farm Corporation.
A local Independent Councilor in Great Britain was recently quoted as saying that disabled children are costly and should be “put down.” And while he later apologized for the outrageous statement, public pressure forced him to resign his post as councilor.
From Life Site News:
Disabled children place too great a burden on the country’s nationalized health care and other services and ought to be “put down” to save money, an independent councillor for Wadebridge East in North Cornwall has said. The comments, made to a member of the Disability Cornwall charity at County Hall in Truro in 2011, have cost Collin Brewer his position. He announced yesterday that he will resign.
At an event organized to help councillors meet and speak with various charities, Brewer approached a stall run by Disability Cornwall. When told about the work of the charity, he responded, “Disabled children cost the council too much money and should be put down.”
I could give you a long diatribe filled with righteous indignation regarding this unbelievably offensive statement but I’d rather leave you with this thought:
Morality aside, as I ponder his horrific statement, it is clear to me that his opinion is truly dangerous because, in his country, those responsible for governing are also responsible for the health care of the people and the costs associated with it. In other words, in a free society where every individual has God-given rights, including that of life, these types of atrocities can’t happen (not legally anyway). However, in a place where the government is god, where individual rights come from the state and where health care is distributed per the discretion of bureaucrats, anything is possible. And this man’s vote counts as much as a mother with a boy who has Down syndrome. That, to me, is why his opinion is that much more tragic.