Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Internal Revenue Manual - 4.76.13 Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Association of Employees - IRC 501(c)(4)
The law says, "civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare".
EXCLUSIVELY -
exclusive - definition of exclusive by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Under Eisenhower, that word was changed to "primarily".
The law can only be changed by congress. Duh!
None of these right wing groups is interested in the promotion of "social welfare". Because that would be "socialism".
Internal Revenue Manual - 4.76.13 Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Association of Employees - IRC 501(c)(4)
The law says, "civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare".
EXCLUSIVELY -
exclusive - definition of exclusive by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Under Eisenhower, that word was changed to "primarily".
The law can only be changed by congress. Duh!
None of these right wing groups is interested in the promotion of "social welfare". Because that would be "socialism".
That's an opinion article.
There is the law that comes from congress.
There are so called rules written by the IRS.
LAW written and passed by congress trumps IRS rules. It always does. It always has. No one can just "rewrite" the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The original statute passed by Congress requires 501(c)(4) organizations engaged exclusively in social welfare activities, said Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland. But in 1959, Treasury Department issued a regulation that requires these entities only to be primarily engaged in social welfare activities. As a result, many groups now believe they can spend up to 49% of their funds on campaign-related activities.
At the House Ways and Means Committee hearing Friday, Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas name-checked ODonnell and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) for their attention to this matter.
The IRS in 1959 without authority from Congress changed Congress intent in 501(c)(4) organizations, and they suddenly had to be primarily for social welfare, which meant from that day forward, IRS agents somewhere, Washington or Cincinnati or somewhere were going to have to evaluate how much politics a 501(c)(4) applicant was going to engage in, said ODonnell. And so, the real scandal here is not that the applications were delayed, but that they were ever approved.
"Exclusively" vs. "primarily": IRS law a "disaster waiting to happen" | NBC News
Been past time to Impeach his ass.
That's an opinion article.
There is the law that comes from congress.
There are so called rules written by the IRS.
LAW written and passed by congress trumps IRS rules. It always does. It always has. No one can just "rewrite" the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The original statute passed by Congress requires 501(c)(4) organizations engaged exclusively in social welfare activities, said Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland. But in 1959, Treasury Department issued a regulation that requires these entities only to be primarily engaged in social welfare activities. As a result, many groups now believe they can spend up to 49% of their funds on campaign-related activities.
At the House Ways and Means Committee hearing Friday, Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas name-checked ODonnell and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) for their attention to this matter.
The IRS in 1959 without authority from Congress changed Congress intent in 501(c)(4) organizations, and they suddenly had to be primarily for social welfare, which meant from that day forward, IRS agents somewhere, Washington or Cincinnati or somewhere were going to have to evaluate how much politics a 501(c)(4) applicant was going to engage in, said ODonnell. And so, the real scandal here is not that the applications were delayed, but that they were ever approved.
"Exclusively" vs. "primarily": IRS law a "disaster waiting to happen" | NBC News
Who are you trying to kid? Obama rewrites the ACA almost every day. He makes up new laws and calls them "regulations."
That doesn't matter. Deany thinks the FCC should be in newsrooms monitoring what they're doing as well.Internal Revenue Manual - 4.76.13 Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Association of Employees - IRC 501(c)(4)
The law says, "civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare".
EXCLUSIVELY -
exclusive - definition of exclusive by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Under Eisenhower, that word was changed to "primarily".
The law can only be changed by congress. Duh!
None of these right wing groups is interested in the promotion of "social welfare". Because that would be "socialism".
So, in other words, 501(c)(4)s exist to promote socialism? Thanks for explaining the Libturd take on the subject. Of course, you realize that would be a violation of the First Amendment, don't you?
That's an opinion article.
There is the law that comes from congress.
There are so called rules written by the IRS.
LAW written and passed by congress trumps IRS rules. It always does. It always has. No one can just "rewrite" the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The original statute passed by Congress requires 501(c)(4) organizations engaged exclusively in social welfare activities, said Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland. But in 1959, Treasury Department issued a regulation that requires these entities only to be primarily engaged in social welfare activities. As a result, many groups now believe they can spend up to 49% of their funds on campaign-related activities.
At the House Ways and Means Committee hearing Friday, Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas name-checked ODonnell and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) for their attention to this matter.
The IRS in 1959 without authority from Congress changed Congress intent in 501(c)(4) organizations, and they suddenly had to be primarily for social welfare, which meant from that day forward, IRS agents somewhere, Washington or Cincinnati or somewhere were going to have to evaluate how much politics a 501(c)(4) applicant was going to engage in, said ODonnell. And so, the real scandal here is not that the applications were delayed, but that they were ever approved.
"Exclusively" vs. "primarily": IRS law a "disaster waiting to happen" | NBC News
4.76.13.4.2 (03-01-2003)
Legislative and Political Activities
1.
An IRC section 501(c)(4) organization's attempts to influence legislation are considered to be activities that further section 501(c)(4) social welfare purposes so long as such legislation is germane to the accomplishment of its social welfare purposes.
2.
In contrast, an organization whose primary activity is lobbying to advance the financial interests of its members, as opposed to promoting the social welfare of the community, does not qualify for IRC section 501(c)(4) status.
3.
The promotion of social welfare does not include participation or intervention in political campaigns of candidates for public office.
4.
However, an IRC 501(c)(4) organization may intervene in political campaigns without jeopardizing its exempt status provided it is primarily engaged in other activities which further the promotion of social welfare.
That's an opinion article.
There is the law that comes from congress.
There are so called rules written by the IRS.
LAW written and passed by congress trumps IRS rules. It always does. It always has. No one can just "rewrite" the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The original statute passed by Congress requires 501(c)(4) organizations engaged exclusively in social welfare activities, said Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland. But in 1959, Treasury Department issued a regulation that requires these entities only to be primarily engaged in social welfare activities. As a result, many groups now believe they can spend up to 49% of their funds on campaign-related activities.
At the House Ways and Means Committee hearing Friday, Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas name-checked ODonnell and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) for their attention to this matter.
The IRS in 1959 without authority from Congress changed Congress intent in 501(c)(4) organizations, and they suddenly had to be primarily for social welfare, which meant from that day forward, IRS agents somewhere, Washington or Cincinnati or somewhere were going to have to evaluate how much politics a 501(c)(4) applicant was going to engage in, said ODonnell. And so, the real scandal here is not that the applications were delayed, but that they were ever approved.
"Exclusively" vs. "primarily": IRS law a "disaster waiting to happen" | NBC News
That's an opinion article.
There is the law that comes from congress.
There are so called rules written by the IRS.
LAW written and passed by congress trumps IRS rules. It always does. It always has. No one can just "rewrite" the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The original statute passed by Congress requires 501(c)(4) organizations engaged exclusively in social welfare activities, said Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland. But in 1959, Treasury Department issued a regulation that requires these entities only to be primarily engaged in social welfare activities. As a result, many groups now believe they can spend up to 49% of their funds on campaign-related activities.
At the House Ways and Means Committee hearing Friday, Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas name-checked ODonnell and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) for their attention to this matter.
The IRS in 1959 without authority from Congress changed Congress intent in 501(c)(4) organizations, and they suddenly had to be primarily for social welfare, which meant from that day forward, IRS agents somewhere, Washington or Cincinnati or somewhere were going to have to evaluate how much politics a 501(c)(4) applicant was going to engage in, said ODonnell. And so, the real scandal here is not that the applications were delayed, but that they were ever approved.
"Exclusively" vs. "primarily": IRS law a "disaster waiting to happen" | NBC News
Who are you trying to kid? Obama rewrites the ACA almost every day. He makes up new laws and calls them "regulations."
Provide the following information for the income you received and raised for the years from inception to the present. Also, provide the same information for the income you expect to receive and raise for 2012, 2013, and 2014.
a. Donations, contributions, and grant income for each year, which includes the following information:
1. The names of the donors, contributors, and grantors. If the donor, contributor, or grantor has run or will run for a public office, identify the office. If not, please confirm by answering this question “No.”
2. The amounts of each of the donations, contributions, and grants and the dates you received them.
3. How did you use these donations, contributions, and grants? Provide the details. If you did not receive or do not expect to receive any donation, contribution, and grant income, please confirm by answering “None received” and/or “None expected.”
If the I.R.S. did nothing wrong why did they apologize for their actions? Why did the President call the targeting a outrage? Why has Lois Lerner pleaded the 5th not one but two times?
Why did George Zimmerman plead the 5th?
Then his lawyers told his story.
Lois pleaded the fifth and her lawyer was about to tell her story but Issa ended the proceedings. Probably to keep her story off the record.
Remember the right wing smear of Shirley Sherrod?
Timeline of Breitbart's Sherrod smear | Research
Fox & Friends Whitewashes Problems With O'Keefe's NPR Video | Research
That's what the right wing does. They lie, they cheat, they suppress. It's who they are. Remember, Issa was furious because Cummings released full transcripts. Why? Because it destroyed Issa's narrative.
The right, which lies so much is constantly calling others "liars".
Zimmerman didn't plead the 5th, you lying sack of shit. He spent hours talking to police officers and detectives without having a lawyer present.
Sent from my NWO shill phone using TapYourLine II
Why did George Zimmerman plead the 5th?
Then his lawyers told his story.
Lois pleaded the fifth and her lawyer was about to tell her story but Issa ended the proceedings. Probably to keep her story off the record.
Remember the right wing smear of Shirley Sherrod?
Timeline of Breitbart's Sherrod smear | Research
Fox & Friends Whitewashes Problems With O'Keefe's NPR Video | Research
That's what the right wing does. They lie, they cheat, they suppress. It's who they are. Remember, Issa was furious because Cummings released full transcripts. Why? Because it destroyed Issa's narrative.
The right, which lies so much is constantly calling others "liars".
Zimmerman didn't plead the 5th, you lying sack of shit. He spent hours talking to police officers and detectives without having a lawyer present.
Sent from my NWO shill phone using TapYourLine II
Which is why he took the witness stand.
Oh, wait..................
Why did George Zimmerman plead the 5th?
Then his lawyers told his story.
Lois pleaded the fifth and her lawyer was about to tell her story but Issa ended the proceedings. Probably to keep her story off the record.
Remember the right wing smear of Shirley Sherrod?
Timeline of Breitbart's Sherrod smear | Research
Fox & Friends Whitewashes Problems With O'Keefe's NPR Video | Research
That's what the right wing does. They lie, they cheat, they suppress. It's who they are. Remember, Issa was furious because Cummings released full transcripts. Why? Because it destroyed Issa's narrative.
The right, which lies so much is constantly calling others "liars".
Zimmerman didn't plead the 5th, you lying sack of shit. He spent hours talking to police officers and detectives without having a lawyer present.
Sent from my NWO shill phone using TapYourLine II
Which is why he took the witness stand.
Oh, wait..................
Why did George Zimmerman plead the 5th?
Then his lawyers told his story.
Lois pleaded the fifth and her lawyer was about to tell her story but Issa ended the proceedings. Probably to keep her story off the record.
Remember the right wing smear of Shirley Sherrod?
Timeline of Breitbart's Sherrod smear | Research
Fox & Friends Whitewashes Problems With O'Keefe's NPR Video | Research
That's what the right wing does. They lie, they cheat, they suppress. It's who they are. Remember, Issa was furious because Cummings released full transcripts. Why? Because it destroyed Issa's narrative.
The right, which lies so much is constantly calling others "liars".
Zimmerman didn't plead the 5th, you lying sack of shit. He spent hours talking to police officers and detectives without having a lawyer present.
Sent from my NWO shill phone using TapYourLine II
Which is why he took the witness stand.
Oh, wait..................
Zimmerman didn't plead the 5th, you lying sack of shit. He spent hours talking to police officers and detectives without having a lawyer present.
Sent from my NWO shill phone using TapYourLine II
Which is why he took the witness stand.
Oh, wait..................
One is not required to take the stand in their own defense.Choosing not to take the stand is NOT pleading the 5th. Never has been never will be.
Why did George Zimmerman plead the 5th?
Then his lawyers told his story.
Lois pleaded the fifth and her lawyer was about to tell her story but Issa ended the proceedings. Probably to keep her story off the record.
Remember the right wing smear of Shirley Sherrod?
Timeline of Breitbart's Sherrod smear | Research
Fox & Friends Whitewashes Problems With O'Keefe's NPR Video | Research
That's what the right wing does. They lie, they cheat, they suppress. It's who they are. Remember, Issa was furious because Cummings released full transcripts. Why? Because it destroyed Issa's narrative.
The right, which lies so much is constantly calling others "liars".
Zimmerman didn't plead the 5th, you lying sack of shit. He spent hours talking to police officers and detectives without having a lawyer present.
Sent from my NWO shill phone using TapYourLine II
Which is why he took the witness stand.
Oh, wait..................
That's an opinion article.
There is the law that comes from congress.
There are so called rules written by the IRS.
LAW written and passed by congress trumps IRS rules. It always does. It always has. No one can just "rewrite" the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The original statute passed by Congress requires 501(c)(4) organizations engaged exclusively in social welfare activities, said Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland. But in 1959, Treasury Department issued a regulation that requires these entities only to be primarily engaged in social welfare activities. As a result, many groups now believe they can spend up to 49% of their funds on campaign-related activities.
At the House Ways and Means Committee hearing Friday, Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas name-checked ODonnell and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) for their attention to this matter.
The IRS in 1959 without authority from Congress changed Congress intent in 501(c)(4) organizations, and they suddenly had to be primarily for social welfare, which meant from that day forward, IRS agents somewhere, Washington or Cincinnati or somewhere were going to have to evaluate how much politics a 501(c)(4) applicant was going to engage in, said ODonnell. And so, the real scandal here is not that the applications were delayed, but that they were ever approved.
"Exclusively" vs. "primarily": IRS law a "disaster waiting to happen" | NBC News
Who are you trying to kid? Obama rewrites the ACA almost every day. He makes up new laws and calls them "regulations."
Yep,
The last time I checked the congress suppose to make laws and regulations.
Zimmerman didn't plead the 5th, you lying sack of shit. He spent hours talking to police officers and detectives without having a lawyer present.
Sent from my NWO shill phone using TapYourLine II
Which is why he took the witness stand.
Oh, wait..................
where is that link Dean?.....3 posters here are saying you are full of shit.....
Who are you trying to kid? Obama rewrites the ACA almost every day. He makes up new laws and calls them "regulations."
Yep,
The last time I checked the congress suppose to make laws and regulations.
This seems like as good a point as any to get into the food fight. First a little background on the hierarchy of tax authority. Tax law is Title 26 of the United States Code (26 USC) a/k/a the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (IRC). Citations are made either in the form of 26 USC 501(c)(4) or TC 501(c)(4) for Section 501(c)(4), for example. Baring a constitutional issue, the language of the Code Section is determinative, but arguments of the "intent of Congress" as indicated in the official JCT explanations of a law or the legislative history and record can be made in interpreting the statute.
Most tax legislation contains an enabling clause for the IRS to issue regulations to implement and explain the Code Section involved. These often include numerical examples to highlight possible variations in the application of the rules involved in the Code Section. For example, IRC 162 simply states "There shall be allowed as a deduction all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business," and continues with a number of special cases such as lobbying and political activity. The regs under IRC 162 defining "ordinary and necessary" business expenses run into the hundreds of pages. Treasury regulations are presumed to be correct and are binding as to law, unless a case is made that the regulations are inconsistent with the law itself. Code and regulations together are citeable authority and form the main body of tax law. The final determination of the meaning of Code sections is ultimately a judicial determination and a decision by the Supreme Court is the strongest authority of all. Appellate courts, Tax Court, Court of Claims, and District Courts are lesser judicial authority.
Additional citeable authority is guidance formally given by the IRS and published in the Internal revenue Bulletin (IRB) such as acqiescenses and non-acquiescenses to court decisions, Revenue Rulings and Revenue Procedures, General Counsel Memoranda, and so forth. Private Letter Rulings and Closing Agreements are binding only for the taxpayer directly involved.
Some information is often reported to indicate what the IRS thinking will be on an issue, which does not rise to the level of authority at all. This includes IRS publications, form design and instructions, and the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM). The Commissioner is only bound by official guidance issued.
So how does this apply to 501(c)(4)? The plain language of the Code requires that such an organization be operated as "exclusively" for social benefit purposes.
[quote="IRC 501(c)(4)(A)] Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
