Tweet This
As promised, here is my report on UnFair: Exposing the IRS . I am reacting to both the film and the companion book, which pretty much cover the same ground in the same order. The bottom line is that Craig Bergman's argument does not make a lot of sense.
He discusses IRS abuses in the last several years and proposes that we repeal the income tax, abolish the IRS and enact the Fair Tax. A lmost all the abuses he discusses concern the qualification of organizations for exempt status. It turns out that the same issues exist under the Fair Tax.
The filmmaker I brought along did not think that it was much of a documentary. His biggest issue was that he was expecting an expose` and instead experienced a reiteration of a political and cultural platform. If this review is any indication, he is not alone in his judgement.
That's the executive summary. Here's the long story.
Not A Big Turnout In Boston
Perhaps not surprisingly the showing of UnFair: Exposing the IRS at the Regal Cinema in Boston, barely a hop, skip and jump from Fenway Park did not draw a very big crowd. As I promised I brought my friend Jonathan Schwartz of Interlock Media. I had asked Jonathan to critique the film from an artistic viewpoint as a documentary. Jonathan ended up playing another role. He has not been following the scandal as closely as I have been, so he was more sensitive to some of the blanks that the film was not filling in. If you have been following the interminable scandal, much of UnFair is same old, same old presented in a one-sided manner.
The screening went through Fathom Events, which specializes in one time theater events. Often they are plays. The manager told us they tend to often do quite well and other times not so much. Jonathan pointed out that Columbus Day Weekend (or Indigenous People's weekend as I prefer it) is a very big travel weekend and a lot of people might have still been unpacking. Throw in that October 14th is the day before the extended due date of Form 1040 and the light turnout, at least in Boston is understandable.
As Jonathan and I entered the screening room the only person there was Patrick Humphries, who was wearing an Unfair T-shirt, which sadly were not for sale. Mr. Humphries is the President of the Greater Boston Tea Party, but was serving as theater captain for the night. He gave us a form to fill out which he promised would never go on a database connected to the internet. In addition to name address type of information, it had a place to recount our own IRS horror stories. We stood around and chatted for a few minutes while more people drifted in. By the time the film started there were about 20. I know, I'm an accountant, I should have done a careful count that I double checked, but I had other things to worry about.
I've decided that the easiest way to discuss this is to give you my comments followed by a summation of what Jonathan, the documentary professional had to say.
The Tax Geek Speaks
The experience of UnFair reminds me just a bit of my experience with Shane Salerno's Salinger. In each case the documentary had a companion book. Book and film track quite closely. In the end after seeing the film once and reading the book twice, it can be a little difficult for me to be sure what I got from one or the other. Since it is meant to be a unified message and argument, I don't know that that is a problem. I did learn last night that bad as my handwriting usually is, it is even worse when I can't see, so I am really glad to have the book to refer to as I write this.
The Basic Structure
Here is the basis structure of the argument.
1. The income tax is fundamentally immoral for a number of reasons, not least of which that it was thought up by Karl Marx. The United States got through most of its history and built a great country without having an income tax, which we have only had for a hundred years. They got by with taxing sales, trade and tariffs. (Mr. Bergman forgot to mention the sale of public lands, which was a big deal in the 19th Century). The philosophical argument that the income tax is immoral is much better worked out in the book. It did not translate that well to film. So, if you want to follow the whole thing, you probably should get the book, also.
2. The bulk of the film is about the awful things that the IRS has been up to in the last few years with some historic context thrown in here and there.
3. The solution to all the suffering created by the IRS and its threat to freedom, etc., etc is to abolish the income tax and enact the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax is a national sales tax. You get to abolish the IRS, because collection would be delegated to the states.
4. Call to action.
Step 2 is the heart of the film, so I'll discuss that at some length. In principle, you don't really need step 2. If the income tax is fundamentally immoral, it should be repealed and replaced withe something else regardless of how well or poorly it is being executed. The discussion of how the Fair Tax works in both the book and the film is on the skimpy side. Nowhere did there seem to be any indication that the proposed revenue neutral rate is 30% (or you could say 23% to have an apples to apples comparison to income tax).
The Evil IRS
It is not an exaggeration to say that the film is seeking to make the case that the IRS is a criminal organization . The tip off is the clip of 1930s gangsters with guns. A significant portion of time is spent on Teapartygate. We get brief clips from news programs hearing from George Will, Governor Mike Huckabee, Congressman John Linder, and Bill O'Reilly among others. Craig Bergman, the narrator, then tells us that he put together a crew of talented filmakers to travel across America to talk one-on-one with those affected by the abuses. Craig starts at the Tea Party "Audit The IRS" rally, has an extensive treatment of Lois Lerner including her campaign against the Christian Coalition while working for the Federal Election Commission and moves on to an interview with Jim Jess of the Georgia Tea Party. There is a lot of network footage, most of it from Fox News. There is r eally nothing new in this part if you have been following the scandal. The treatment is entirely one sided.
An Apparent Shift
There is then an apparent shift as Craig goes to Texas to interview Adryana Boynes, an Hispanic woman, who was trying to get two organizations named Voces going, one a 501(c)(3) and the other a 501(c)(4) and just like the Tea Party people met with extensive questions from the IRS. What you don't pick up from either the film or the book is that Adryana Boynes appears to be a major player in the Republican party in Texas. She was the head of Hispanics for Huckabee. Mike Huckabee kept popping up in the film and was something of a chair in the post film discussion.
Veterans
Staying in Texas but finally moving beyond Teapartygate, we came to what was the most moving part of the film when Craig interviews Russell Montgomery of American Legion Post 447 in Round Rock, Texas. In the film it is not entirely clear why they were visited by the IRS. Once again it is framed as the IRS targeting veterans. You can get a little more background by checking out this story about a resolution by the American Legion in the wake of the audit.
The Internal Revenue Code "targets" veterans by allowing a special category of exempt organizations 501(c)(19). A subset of 501(c)(19) organizations qualify to receive deductible charitable contributions. The problem is that veterans organizations have to have members who are, you know, veterans, which means they have to be able to establish that they have enough veteran members (either 75% or 90%). The "targeting" of veterans group is auditing them to make sure they are actually veterans groups. The dispute is exactly what form the records have to take. Sadly it seems that for Post 447, it was one GD thing after another. The latest news from Round Rock is that a theft of $200,000 from the Post is being investigated.
History Kind Of
Before going on with further abuses, there is a shift to a history discussion including Mike Huckabee, Grover Norquist and historian Dave Barton among others. I'm going to pass on going into that part except to note that David Barton, the only historian in the history discussion, has people questioning whether he is actually an historian.
Barton holds no formal credentials in history or law, and scholars dispute the accuracy and integrity of his assertions about history, accusing him of practicing misleading historical revisionism, "pseudoscholarship" and spreading "outright falsehoods". According to the New York Times, "many professional historians dismiss Mr. Barton, whose academic degree is in Christian Education from Oral Roberts University, as a biased amateur who cherry-picks quotes from history and the Bible."
Back To Teapartygate
We then shift back to Teapartygate and an interview with Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots Inc and other Tea Party activists. Regardless of what is going on with the rest of the movement, I have a hard time seeing Ms. Martin's group as not being political. It now has a companion PAC. When I get e-mails from Ms. Martin, I always have to look closely to tell whether it is from Inc or the PAC. Don't get me started.
The Holocaust Card Takes Its First Trick
Craig then wants to show that little people with non for profits involved in conservative causes are being targeted with an interview with Ania Joseph of Pro-Life Revolution. For whatever it is worth, according to guidestar PLR did get exempt status in 2013. The focus of her interview relative to the IRS was a particularly difficult phone conversation she had with an agent working her case. In terms of moving the story along, she was able to bring in the themes of Communist and Nazi persecution.
Most people don't realize that the term "pro-choice" is a Nazi-coined phrase. ....... This whole abortion industry is nothing more but a continuation of the eugenics of Nazi propaganda, ideology. So, when I got a phone call from the IRS telling me I have to be neutral about the issue of abortion, and that I cannot force my pro-life views on people, I got really scared.
The Only 1040 Incident
Craig would play the holocaust card again to make his point, but first he moved to the only story that came from getting audited on a 1040. The interview was with Steve and Michel Madison and their daughter Madison. Madison, being a toddler and all, did not have a lot to say, but she looked awful cute. This interview competes with Post 447 as the most moving interlude in the film.
Steve and Michel were audited about the adoption credit they claimed. The high point of the interview is a discussion of a confrontation that Steve had with an IRS clerk. Oddly the confrontation ended up with the IRS investigating and apologizing. Of course, I was hoping to find out how the audit was resolved, but there was no answer in either the film or the book. It appears from this Tax Court stipulation that the Madisons ended up conceding the deficiency. This was the only instance in the film of an interaction between regular taxpayers doing their annual filing and being audited as opposed to not-for-profits arguing about their exempt status, so it would have been nice to have it be a little less ambiguous.
The Holocaust Again
I'm going to pass over the National Organization for Marriage discussion. Their issue was that their donor list was made public. You can read about how that case was resolved here. Craig Bergman seems to go way over the top in his interview with Lori Lowenthal Marcus of Z Street. Z Street is a Zionist organization and is concerned about special attention being given to applications of pro-Israel organizations. The litigation is ongoing and you can read about some of it here. Craig's conclusion struck me as somewhat over the top.
Are we going to become a fascist state where certain ideologies are not longer permitted?
In the film Ms. Marcus talked about the next boxcar being for you and the chapter heading in the book is "First they came for the Jews". Remember, this is about exempt applications being held up.
The Dog That Didn't Bark
The final discussion about the IRS threat to liberty ended up being just a little odd. The issue is that churches as 501(c)(3) organizations are not supposed to be engaging in political activity. Pastor Cary Gordon brags about proudly defying that rule. And the IRS has done nothing. That frustrates Pastor Gordon.
In essence, I need the IRS to attack me, so I can finally do what I've been wanting to do for years, which is to attack and defeat them.
You Don't Get There From Here. And Who Is Targeting Veterans Now?
As I noted the solution proposed to all the bad things the IRS has been doing is the enactment of the Fair Tax. You can read the text of the Fair Tax legislation here. Remember almost everything that is discussed in the film concerns a pretty narrow area of the Internal Revenue Code - the qualification of organizations under one or more of the 29 subsections of Section 501(c). Section 706 of the Fair Tax bill discusses the not for profits that are exempt from the Fair Tax. 706(c) reads:
Qualification Certificates.--Upon application in a form prescribed by the Secretary, the sales tax administering authority shall provide qualification certificates to qualified not-for-profit organizations.
The list of organizations that qualify under 706 is a pared down list of the 29 under 501(c). Veterans organizations are not included.
Regardless, we elect Mike Huckabee in 2016 in a landslide and the Fair Tax passes. In 2020 we elect Hillary Clinton and she appoints Lois Lerner to the "sales tax administering authority" and we're back to 2010 again at least as far as everything that was scandalous
And From The Filmmaker
Jonathan Schwartz did not think that UnFair cut it as a documentary. He did not even think that it was very effective propaganda. It was more of a rally the troops type of piece that would only work on those who were already convinced of the viewpoints expressed. After discussing it for a while, we sat at his kitchen table and he fed me some one-liners, several of which I thought really nailed it.
UnFair was motivational entertainment. Devoid of any journalistic intent. More like a endangered animals cooking show than a documentary. And replete with propagandist imagery worthy of the most tawdry Stalinist filmmakers.
The only opposing viewpoint offered was 20 seconds of testimony from the IRS commissioner who was allowed to appear in the film because he was showing mawkish rage.
The producer and presenter seemed to be walking us through a film class in leading questions and using the interview format as a springboard to soap boxing.
On the positive side there were some poignant moments when a set of adoptive parents and the managers of an American Legion Post exhibited true exhaustion and bewilderment from their dealing with the IRS.
Every other character was either pulled off Fox New video clips, spoke to us in a church setting or was a spokesperson who recited a 501(c) application process that was burdensome or intrusive.
The soundtrack consisted of a relentless symphonic score. There were some truly defining moments. One opposing spokesperson is allowed to stammer than the television set is smashed with a sledge hammer. Three times we see fire or dark skies engulf fields of crosses.
Obama's cohorts a juxtaposed with 1930s gangsters from film noire. There is even a piece of stock footage that depicts a prisoner in the hole reaching for a shaft of sunlight with mud-stained shackled hands.
I was genuinely interested in the topic and hoped that in the 90 minutes I spent watching the film and the panel discussion afterwards that this documentary would have disgorged some credible factual information or leave me with new insights. Regretfully that did not happen
One got a sense that these frustrated heads of non-profit organizations that claimed persecution as right wing victims had no interest in expediting the fulfillment of their application status but rather sucking as much publicity as they could from what they claim to have been a sluggish response from the IRS.
Hardly a glowing review from either of us, but I still recommend that you view the film and read the book. Let me know what you think.
