[Amelia]

Speaking of the point of the thread, where in the article does it say that the IRS is interested in the names of all the donors to JW?

I would think that the reason they're interested in the political affiliations of the directors is to see if JW is actually pursuing a partisan as opposed to ideological agenda.

But I still can't figure out when JW is going to decide that any audit is not "politically motivated" -- all they have to do to claim that is launch an "investigation" into whatever administration is in power, and they can claim that forever.

[deport]

I don't have the time to look for it now but the IRS submitted a request to the 'ethical Washington Watchdog' for a list of the donors among other things. He has it posted on one of his releases on his web site, in a pdf file I think.

[Iwo Jima]

You're right. That information is not in this "article" (actually, JW press release), but if you go to JW's website, click on "An Urgent Message," then click on "attachment," you will see the actual summons which asks for that information.

I am wondering if a request for the names of all donros, addresses, and amounts donated for five years is standard operating procedure in cases like this or if it is an indication of something the IRS is on to in this particular case.

In any event, it seems to me that the IRS could get the information it needs to conduct whatever inquiry it is making with a substantially more limited request.