DescentBB

....for what, for me, was the first time, I heard a good explanation of the whole matter around 501(c) organizations and tax status last night. It was sort of an eye-opener. The tax law in question dates to around 1911. It states(in section 501(c)) the following: Tax exemptions for 'social service' organizations are valid if those organizations are EXCLUSIVELY dedicated to social service and education. For some reason, during the Eisenhower administration, an administration lawyer changed the enforcement definition from 'exclusively' to 'primarily'. Now, anyone can see how determination of 'primarily' becomes a bit murky, and that(and only that) was the reason for the scrutiny given by the current IRS. This really hadn't been a major issue until the last decade or so, when political groups(of all types) started using section 501(c) as a shelter to avoid both taxes and the election laws around revealing donor IDs. Thus, flags started to go up around 'Tea Party', 'Progressive', 'Conservative' and other keywords in the organizational names. Yes, there are far more of these 501(c) groups that lean right, but that really isn't the reasoning. The fix proposed by many, including many in the administration, is simple and direct: return to the language of the law itself(EXCLUSIVELY), and no gray areas would exist.
Why the discussion came up last night was that in Congress yesterday, a Republican House member introduced a bill that would PREVENT the Obama administration from returning to the original wording of the law itself in deciding enforcement. Why, I ask, would the same folks who boo-hoo over deviations from enactment and intent(mind you, they seem unaware that Bush modified the intent on more legislation than any President in history, without GOP objection), suddenly NOT wish a law to be enforced AS IT WAS WRITTEN?

callmeslick wrote:....for what, for me, was the first time, I heard a good explanation of the whole matter around 501(c) organizations and tax status last night. It was sort of an eye-opener. The tax law in question dates to around 1911. It states(in section 501(c)) the following: Tax exemptions for 'social service' organizations are valid if those organizations are EXCLUSIVELY dedicated to social service and education. For some reason, during the Eisenhower administration, an administration lawyer changed the enforcement definition from 'exclusively' to 'primarily'. Now, anyone can see how determination of 'primarily' becomes a bit murky, and that(and only that) was the reason for the scrutiny given by the current IRS. This really hadn't been a major issue until the last decade or so, when political groups(of all types) started using section 501(c) as a shelter to avoid both taxes and the election laws around revealing donor IDs. Thus, flags started to go up around 'Tea Party', 'Progressive', 'Conservative' and other keywords in the organizational names. Yes, there are far more of these 501(c) groups that lean right, but that really isn't the reasoning. The fix proposed by many, including many in the administration, is simple and direct: return to the language of the law itself(EXCLUSIVELY), and no gray areas would exist.
Why the discussion came up last night was that in Congress yesterday, a Republican House member introduced a bill that would PREVENT the Obama administration from returning to the original wording of the law itself in deciding enforcement. Why, I ask, would the same folks who boo-hoo over deviations from enactment and intent(mind you, they seem unaware that Bush modified the intent on more legislation than any President in history, without GOP objection), suddenly NOT wish a law to be enforced AS IT WAS WRITTEN?

All well and good but where in the act does it mandate sending the FBI to investigate parties trying to set up a conservative 501 and not send them to a liberal party doing the same thing?

Yes, there are far more of these 501(c) groups that lean right, but that really isn't the reasoning.

That is complete bullcrap.

Of course who their actions effect are a consideration! Just look at the exemptions from their own policy they have always handed out to contributors and voting blocs etc.
You are really spinning a partisan hack story by trying to characterize it as them just doing their job. They seized an opportunity and what you describe as pure chance was a calculated tactic that has plausible deniability in it. With a willing media at their side they can't lose the debate.

Just like the way Obama keeps re-writing the ACA handing out exemptions to his sponsors or postpone the negative results that are looming. If the media wasn't there to allow it the congress would have to step up and insist he not ignore the law. With not enough media criticism there will be no repercussions at the ballot box so congressmen will play it safe.

As to why the repub wants to keep the law full of ambiguity...hell that should be obvious he's one of the politicians. He doesn't want to hurt his sponsors. None of them will volunteer to fix a bad law that is a tool for a politician to serve himself one day!
The primary objective of most politicians authoring legislation is to be sure there is enough ambiguity in everything they do so excuses like the one you just used sound plausible in their defense.

woodchip wrote:...

All well and good but where in the act does it mandate sending the FBI to investigate parties trying to set up a conservative 501 and not send them to a liberal party doing the same thing?

That's the beauty of having the media on your side. You can selectively apply the law to serve your political needs and worse case scenario you just call it a rogue operator...regardless of how systematic it really was. Without a real watchdog media on the loose cheating is easy.

Well, something needs to be changed, if you can use the same reasoning where voting laws can be considered discriminatory because they affect one group more than another.

woodchip wrote:All well and good but where in the act does it mandate sending the FBI to investigate parties trying to set up a conservative 501 and not send them to a liberal party doing the same thing?

FBI is mandated to investigate if requested. No evidence came forward that there was any difference in how various groups were handled, based upon similar response or lack thereof. Let's face it, this has been investigated to death and NO evidence of the sort you state ever was produced. Much to the dismay of some members in the House. That fact aside, though, can you address the question I had about how the law should be interpreted?

Spidey wrote:Well, something needs to be changed, if you can use the same reasoning where voting laws can be considered discriminatory because they affect one group more than another.

huh? How does that observation relate whatsoever?

HUH? I was kinda agreeing with you, that the law should be changed…Capt. kneejerk.

Spidey wrote:HUH? I was kinda agreeing with you, that the law should be changed…Capt. kneejerk.

not trying to pick a fight, either, Spidey. You just sort of lost me on the voting law matter, and how it was similar. I'll give you a pass on the Capt Kneejerk remark, as you HAVE to be close to winter burnout with more to come.

The basis for striking down voter laws, is they discriminate against one group or another more than others.

Is that not the case here.

Seemed to me that was what you were trying to say led to the problem.

Right like you didn't just call me a coward the other day.

Spidey wrote:The basis for striking down voter laws, is they discriminate against one group or another more than others.

Is that not the case here.

not really. This law merely defines who is eligible for tax-exempt status. The law WAS written clearly....it just got muddied thanks to some legal instruction circa 1959 from an administration lawyer. Doesn't seem to me that it discriminates against one group or another on any grounds other than the nature of the group. You can provide service and education to society about pretty much anything. You merely cannot participate in electioneering.

Right like you didn't just call me a coward the other day.

didn't mean to imply that, either. I suggested merely that your fears are overblown. Perfectly human. Cowardice would seem to rise above simple fear.
Apologies if you took it that harshly.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:All well and good but where in the act does it mandate sending the FBI to investigate parties trying to set up a conservative 501 and not send them to a liberal party doing the same thing?

FBI is mandated to investigate if requested. No evidence came forward that there was any difference in how various groups were handled, based upon similar response or lack thereof. Let's face it, this has been investigated to death and NO evidence of the sort you state ever was produced. Much to the dismay of some members in the House. That fact aside, though, can you address the question I had about how the law should be interpreted?

First off how many times can you find where the FBI was requested to investigate any IRA issue as, AFAIK, t6he IRS has it's own gun packing agents. But here is at least one instance where a conservative 501 applicant had the FBI knocking and calling:

"Catherine Engelbrecht’s tale has all the markings of a classic conspiracy theory: She says she thinks that because of her peaceful political activity, she and her family were targeted for scrutiny by hostile federal agencies."

"That winter, the Federal Bureau of Investigation came knocking with questions about a person who had attended a King Street Patriots event once. Based on sign-in sheets, the organization discovered that the individual in question had attended an event, but “it was a come-and-go thing,” and they had no further information on hand about him. Nevertheless, the FBI also made inquiries about the person to the office manager, who was a volunteer."

"As this was occurring, the FBI continued to phone King Street Patriots. In May 2011, agents phoned wondering “how they were doing.” The FBI made further inquiries in June, November, and December asking whether there was anything to report."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... y-melchior

This is just a example of of the FBI being used to intimidate her. You can read the link to see how OSHA and the ATF was thrown into the mix. Now show me slick, where some liberal 501 was put through the grinder like this lady was.

woodchip wrote:First off how many times can you find where the FBI was requested to investigate any IRA issue as, AFAIK, t6he IRS has it's own gun packing agents. But here is at least one instance where a conservative 501 applicant had the FBI knocking and calling:

the IRS agents don't so much investigate as confiscate, so far as I know.

"Catherine Engelbrecht’s tale has all the markings of a classic conspiracy theory: She says she thinks that because of her peaceful political activity, she and her family were targeted for scrutiny by hostile federal agencies."

well, if her political activities extended into her claimed tax-exempt 501(c) 'public service' entity, she had that much coming. And more, she should have been arrested for tax evasion. I'll admit, however, that the tale she tells SOUNDS intimidating, and given her politics was intended to sound that way. Sorry, but I have reservations about her version.

callmeslick wrote:
No evidence came forward that there was any difference in how various groups were handled, based upon similar response or lack thereof. Let's face it, this has been investigated to death and NO evidence of the sort you state ever was produced. Much to the dismay of some members in the House.

Would you like to reconsider your "no difference" comment?:

"IRS officials acknowledged last spring that agents had improperly targeted tea party and other conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status. The revelation prompted ongoing investigations by Congress and the Justice Department, and the replacement of several top IRS officials."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02 ... al-groups/

um, kind of an old report, Woody.....the followup investigation mentioned led to the discovery that groups with the names containing words like Progressive and Occupy got the same treatment. Perhaps fewer in the pool of 501C candidates.

callmeslick wrote:um, kind of an old report, Woody.....the followup investigation mentioned led to the discovery that groups with the names containing words like Progressive and Occupy got the same treatment. Perhaps fewer in the pool of 501C candidates.

Wrong. They found a couple of liberal groups (compared to the 100's of conservative groups), got a mild examination and it took them only a month to get approved.

not true.....were it not for the fact that I've got to head out and run errands and take Mrs. Slick out to dinner for Valentine's day(we've just gotten plowed out from the last storm this morning), I'd dig up a couple of 'liberal' group horror stories. The facts are, however, that there were around 50 conservative 501C applications for each liberal group, as this was a brainstorm from the conservative think-tanks.

callmeslick wrote:not true.....were it not for the fact that I've got to head out and run errands and take Mrs. Slick out to dinner for Valentine's day(we've just gotten plowed out from the last storm this morning), I'd dig up a couple of 'liberal' group horror stories. The facts are, however, that there were around 50 conservative 501C applications for each liberal group, as this was a brainstorm from the conservative think-tanks.

More up to date:

IRS agents testified before Congress that the agency’s political targeting did not apply to progressive groups as Democrats and the media have claimed, according to a bombshell new staff report prepared by the House Oversight Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa.

“Only seven applications in the IRS backlog contained the word ‘progressive,’ all of which were then approved by the IRS, while Tea Party groups received unprecedented review and experienced years-long delays. While some liberal-oriented groups were singled out for scrutiny, evidence shows it was due to non-political reasons,” according to the Oversight staff report, which was obtained by The Daily Caller.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/07/commi ... ed-by-irs/

Sorry for necro but this was a perfect fit.

callmeslick wrote:Why the discussion came up last night was that in Congress yesterday, a Republican House member introduced a bill that would PREVENT the Obama administration from returning to the original wording of the law itself in deciding enforcement. Why, I ask, would the same folks who boo-hoo over deviations from enactment and intent(mind you, they seem unaware that Bush modified the intent on more legislation than any President in history, without GOP objection), suddenly NOT wish a law to be enforced AS IT WAS WRITTEN?

Because they don't want to get caught.

Ferno wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Why the discussion came up last night was that in Congress yesterday, a Republican House member introduced a bill that would PREVENT the Obama administration from returning to the original wording of the law itself in deciding enforcement. Why, I ask, would the same folks who boo-hoo over deviations from enactment and intent(mind you, they seem unaware that Bush modified the intent on more legislation than any President in history, without GOP objection), suddenly NOT wish a law to be enforced AS IT WAS WRITTEN?

Because they don't want to get caught.

More like they are poised to benefit from the status quo so they don't want it to change and also because once they regain control over the a Executive branch it will be their turn to use all these departments against the lefties.....
Turnabout is fair play in politics!

Rut Roh

what Cummings did was right. The law is VERY specific about the matter. If True the Vote is involved AT ALL with politics, no tax exemption. That they claim one leaves them open to both IRS and Congressional scrutiny. Says loads that Congress and it's 'Oversight' committee, seems to overlook this aspect of the law. At least Cummings was doing his job, and to suggest 'corruption' is ludicrous.

callmeslick wrote:what Cummings did was right. The law is VERY specific about the matter. If True the Vote is involved AT ALL with politics, no tax exemption. That they claim one leaves them open to both IRS and Congressional scrutiny. Says loads that Congress and it's 'Oversight' committee, seems to overlook this aspect of the law. At least Cummings was doing his job, and to suggest 'corruption' is ludicrous.

Seems to me, if your interpretation is correct then the oversight is extremely, EXTREMELY, selectively partisan! But that's what happens when you trust the fox to guard the henhouse. In your case as long as the fox is the one on your team he can do no wrong.

Please slick, stop trying to defend the indefensible. That you had a sitting member of the Oversight and Reform Committee colluding with a senior member of the IRS to keep non-profits from being able to get tax exempt status is unacceptable. Perhaps this is why Cummings is quick to try and stop questioning of witnesses and why Lerner refuses to testify. It will be interesting to see if the DOJ trys to protect Lerner by not prosecuting her as requested by congress or if congress uses the "inherent contempt" rule to put Lerner in jail. I suspect if Lerner faces actual jail time she may decide to tell all.:


"The communication between Lerner and Cummings and his staff shows that the IRS and Cummings made numerous requests for virtually identical information from True the Vote, the Houston-based group dedicated to improving election integrity and rooting out election fraud. That Cummings and the IRS sought nearly identical information raises the strong probability of collusion between the government agency and the Democrats on the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee."

Among those tools is the House's “inherent contempt” authority under the Constitution, which was initially exercised in 1795 during the First Congress and on multiple occasions thereafter. Lerner could be held until January 2015 when a new Congress is seated, which could issue another subpoena and throw her in the clink again if she still balks at testifying

Looks like even the AG and the President wont be able to keep her out of jail


HRM wonder if they can do the same to Holder since they have already held him in contempt of Congress?????????

Looks like Lerner has joined Holder with congress holding her in contempt.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04 ... al-lerner/

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:what Cummings did was right. The law is VERY specific about the matter. If True the Vote is involved AT ALL with politics, no tax exemption. That they claim one leaves them open to both IRS and Congressional scrutiny. Says loads that Congress and it's 'Oversight' committee, seems to overlook this aspect of the law. At least Cummings was doing his job, and to suggest 'corruption' is ludicrous.

Seems to me, if your interpretation is correct then the oversight is extremely, EXTREMELY, selectively partisan! But that's what happens when you trust the fox to guard the henhouse. In your case as long as the fox is the one on your team he can do no wrong.

it always is, to some extent, in House investigations. Not to say that is right, but it has always been so. What you need is to allow BOTH partisan sides to be allowed to openly air(have public hearings, in other words) their findings and even suspicions for investigation. In many Congresses, that exact thing has happened, especially in Ethics related matters. Not so, at the present, and that presents issues for the partisan group left out of the process. Thus, they have to instigate investigation where they can.

This is even scarier and I think more urgent of an issue with the IRS. Refund fraud. Identity thieves filing your taxes BEFORE you do just to get a refund, and it's YOU who has to PROVE to the IRS that someone else falsely filed in YOUR name. I've seen at least 2 or 3 mentions, A DAY, in our little town's police reports recently.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/20/us/tax-re ... index.html

false filer would need you name, SSN and how you sign your name. Your signature may be your biggest proof someone falsely filed.

woodchip wrote:false filer would need you name, SSN and how you sign your name. Your signature may be your biggest proof someone falsely filed.

ultimately, yes, that will prove to be the case. Where these thieves are operating is in the grey area between when they auto-scan the returns and send out refund checks, and the more stringent verification period(weeks or even months later). Basically, they take advantage of speed of modern communication to foil a manual system.

NOPE.

my mother had her tax return stolen 2 years ago. the IRS confirmed that it was stolen but they have still not corrected her refund. PLUS it has messed up this years e-filing so she didn't get her refund this year either.

CUDA wrote:NOPE.

my mother had her tax return stolen 2 years ago. the IRS confirmed that it was stolen but they have still not corrected her refund. PLUS it has messed up this years e-filing so she didn't get her refund this year either.

I'll bet they eventually straighten it out, but the slowness of the process works to the perpetrator's advantage.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:what Cummings did was right. The law is VERY specific about the matter. If True the Vote is involved AT ALL with politics, no tax exemption. That they claim one leaves them open to both IRS and Congressional scrutiny. Says loads that Congress and it's 'Oversight' committee, seems to overlook this aspect of the law. At least Cummings was doing his job, and to suggest 'corruption' is ludicrous.

Seems to me, if your interpretation is correct then the oversight is extremely, EXTREMELY, selectively partisan! But that's what happens when you trust the fox to guard the henhouse. In your case as long as the fox is the one on your team he can do no wrong.

it always is, to some extent, in House investigations. Not to say that is right, but it has always been so. What you need is to allow BOTH partisan sides to be allowed to openly air(have public hearings, in other words) their findings and even suspicions for investigation. In many Congresses, that exact thing has happened, especially in Ethics related matters. Not so, at the present, and that presents issues for the partisan group left out of the process. Thus, they have to instigate investigation where they can.

That would be easier to accept if the media was an objective watch dog.

Will Robinson wrote: That would be easier to accept if the media was an objective watch dog.

far too many people have become comfortable with the 'media'(I take that to mean 'news media') being one of two things: 1)entertainment or 2) reinforcement of preconceptions.

CUDA wrote:NOPE.

my mother had her tax return stolen 2 years ago. the IRS confirmed that it was stolen but they have still not corrected her refund. PLUS it has messed up this years e-filing so she didn't get her refund this year either.

Yeah, it's becoming a BIG problem if it's showing up in small towns. The IRS has made it just too easy to file electronically.

http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/local/ ... f887a.html

President Obama, in an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, tried to put behind him the scandals that have hung over his second term, suggesting his administration did not mislead the public on the Benghazi attack and going so far as to say
“ the IRS targeting scandal had not even a smidgen of corruption.”

DAYS BEFORE Lois Lerner, left, the key figure in the IRS scandal, publicly acknowledged the agency was targeting the Tea Party and other organizations, she spoke with the Justice Department about going after groups seeking tax-exempt status, newly revealed emails show.

And last week, emails obtained by the GOP-led House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform show the office of the committee's top-ranking Democrat, Elijah Cummings of Maryland, contacted the IRS in January 2013 about True the Vote, one of the conservative groups that was targeted.

in what way should the IRS handle misuse of the statute in question? I mean, the wording is clear: tax exempt status can go only to organizations without any involvement in politics? I think they should be MORE aggressive, and spend the money and time to investigate ALL 501-C organizations with even the SLIGHTEST hint of political involvement. For some reason, one party seems to be disinterested in that way of handling it......

callmeslick wrote:in what way should the IRS handle misuse of the statute in question? I mean, the wording is clear: tax exempt status can go only to organizations without any involvement in politics? I think they should be MORE aggressive, and spend the money and time to investigate ALL 501-C organizations with even the SLIGHTEST hint of political involvement.

your interpretation of a 501C is incorrect. 501c denotes NON profit only. no rules about being political

Exemption Requirements - 501(c)(3) Organizations

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct.

they are restricted to "how much" lobbying activities they may conduct. but not prevented because the are political

one party seems to be disinterested in that way of handling it......

and one party is using the power of the government and colluding to target a political enemy.

but that is TOTALLY off track from my point. the President said there was not a "smidgen of corruption". the emails prove otherwise

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:in what way should the IRS handle misuse of the statute in question? I mean, the wording is clear: tax exempt status can go only to organizations without any involvement in politics? I think they should be MORE aggressive, and spend the money and time to investigate ALL 501-C organizations with even the SLIGHTEST hint of political involvement.

your interpretation of a 501C is incorrect. 501c denotes NON profit only. no rules about being political

Exemption Requirements - 501(c)(3) Organizations

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct.

the red part above refers to politics(hence, political).Also, note the word 'exclusively'

but that is TOTALLY off track from my point. the President said there was not a "smidgen of corruption". the emails prove otherwise

[/quote]
A Congressman, FROM THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, requesting an inquiry is NOT corruption. What is proven otherwise, again?