'How is the IRS supposed to vet 501(c)(4) groups, anyway?'

[midcan5]

What ever happened to jobs and reducing poverty levels in America as goals of our representatives? What happened to rebuilding America? Today one assumed scandal after another is all the American public is treated to. How would the IRS vet front groups for big money? Anyone know? It is as if Monica is back and distraction is the name of the game. Remember all those ideas on job creation that these new representatives had in 2010? What happened? Has Rand Paul or Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz presented a single jobs bill of any kind? No need to answer, money now manages America. Shame it ain't the good kind of money.

'The Real I.R.S. Scandal' Posted By Jeffrey Toobin

"It’s important to review why the Tea Party groups were petitioning the I.R.S. anyway. They were seeking approval to operate under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. This would require them to be “social welfare,” not political, operations. There are significant advantages to being a 501(c)(4). These groups don’t pay taxes; they don’t have to disclose their donors—unlike traditional political organizations, such as political-action committees. In return for the tax advantage and the secrecy, the 501(c)(4) organizations must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates.

If that definition sounds murky—that is, if it’s unclear what 501(c)(4) organizations are allowed to do—that’s because it is murky. Particularly leading up to the 2012 elections, many conservative organizations, nominally 501(c)(4)s, were all but explicitly political in their work. For example, Americans for Prosperity, which was funded in part by the Koch Brothers, was an instrumental force in helping the Republicans hold the House of Representatives. In every meaningful sense, groups like Americans for Prosperity were operating as units of the Republican Party. Democrats organized similar operations, but on a much smaller scale. (They undoubtedly would have done more, but they lacked the Republican base for funding such efforts.)"

Tea Partiers and Tax Exemption: The Real I.R.S. Scandal : The New Yorker

How is the IRS supposed to vet 501(c)(4) groups, anyway?

Original source: Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog: Brian Leiter thinks right-wing crazy issue "du jour" is nonsense

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Funny, it didn't stop the IRS, the same group in charge of enforcing Obama's "Health care" machine from giving information on the groups to Progressives

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What ever happened to jobs and reducing poverty levels in America as goals of our representatives? What happened to rebuilding America? Today one assumed scandal after another is all the American public is treated to. How would the IRS vet front groups for big money? Anyone know? It is as if Monica is back and distraction is the name of the game. Remember all those ideas on job creation that these new representatives had in 2010? What happened? Has Rand Paul or Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz presented a single jobs bill of any kind? No need to answer, money now manages America. Shame it ain't the good kind of money.

'The Real I.R.S. Scandal' Posted By Jeffrey Toobin

"It’s important to review why the Tea Party groups were petitioning the I.R.S. anyway. They were seeking approval to operate under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. This would require them to be “social welfare,” not political, operations. There are significant advantages to being a 501(c)(4). These groups don’t pay taxes; they don’t have to disclose their donors—unlike traditional political organizations, such as political-action committees. In return for the tax advantage and the secrecy, the 501(c)(4) organizations must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates.

If that definition sounds murky—that is, if it’s unclear what 501(c)(4) organizations are allowed to do—that’s because it is murky. Particularly leading up to the 2012 elections, many conservative organizations, nominally 501(c)(4)s, were all but explicitly political in their work. For example, Americans for Prosperity, which was funded in part by the Koch Brothers, was an instrumental force in helping the Republicans hold the House of Representatives. In every meaningful sense, groups like Americans for Prosperity were operating as units of the Republican Party. Democrats organized similar operations, but on a much smaller scale. (They undoubtedly would have done more, but they lacked the Republican base for funding such efforts.)"

Tea Partiers and Tax Exemption: The Real I.R.S. Scandal : The New Yorker

How is the IRS supposed to vet 501(c)(4) groups, anyway?

Original source: Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog: Brian Leiter thinks right-wing crazy issue "du jour" is nonsense

Another authoritarian asshole defending government abuse, why am I not surprised that he also happens to be a left wing moonbat extremist?

 

[boedicca]

This is lovely:

The report was more emphatic on page 18, stating, “Specialists lacked knowledge of what activities are allowed” by tax-exempt, nonprofit 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) groups.

Part of this, the report said, was due to unclear guidance in the law. “Regulations do not define how to measure whether social welfare is an organization’s ‘primary activity,’” the IG said.


IRS Tea Party Scandal: White House Did Not Drive Investigation, Inspector General Says


Talk about ARBITRARY ABUSE OF POWER...it's going to be so great having these same people have access to our personal health information!

 

[asterism]

What ever happened to jobs and reducing poverty levels in America as goals of our representatives? What happened to rebuilding America? Today one assumed scandal after another is all the American public is treated to. How would the IRS vet front groups for big money? Anyone know? It is as if Monica is back and distraction is the name of the game. Remember all those ideas on job creation that these new representatives had in 2010? What happened? Has Rand Paul or Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz presented a single jobs bill of any kind? No need to answer, money now manages America. Shame it ain't the good kind of money.

'The Real I.R.S. Scandal' Posted By Jeffrey Toobin

"It’s important to review why the Tea Party groups were petitioning the I.R.S. anyway. They were seeking approval to operate under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. This would require them to be “social welfare,” not political, operations. There are significant advantages to being a 501(c)(4). These groups don’t pay taxes; they don’t have to disclose their donors—unlike traditional political organizations, such as political-action committees. In return for the tax advantage and the secrecy, the 501(c)(4) organizations must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates.

If that definition sounds murky—that is, if it’s unclear what 501(c)(4) organizations are allowed to do—that’s because it is murky. Particularly leading up to the 2012 elections, many conservative organizations, nominally 501(c)(4)s, were all but explicitly political in their work. For example, Americans for Prosperity, which was funded in part by the Koch Brothers, was an instrumental force in helping the Republicans hold the House of Representatives. In every meaningful sense, groups like Americans for Prosperity were operating as units of the Republican Party. Democrats organized similar operations, but on a much smaller scale. (They undoubtedly would have done more, but they lacked the Republican base for funding such efforts.)"

Tea Partiers and Tax Exemption: The Real I.R.S. Scandal : The New Yorker

How is the IRS supposed to vet 501(c)(4) groups, anyway?

Original source: Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog: Brian Leiter thinks right-wing crazy issue "du jour" is nonsense

No comments about the liberal 501(c)(4) groups that were rubber-stamped?

 

[midcan5]

The question remains, how does an over worked IRS employee make sense of the growth of tea party groups that claim to be about social welfare? Someone please show us what the tea party and other so called patriots do that is 'social welfare?' Whining is not social welfare.

"Pretend you work at the Internal Revenue Service. Actually, let’s make this exercise even more terrible. Pretend you’re an underpaid, low-level clerk working in the understaffed IRS backwater of Cincinnati. Every day, a big stack of files lands on your desk. Every day, the stack gets a little bigger than the last. Each file represents a new application for a certain tax status—501(c)(4), a tax-exempt designation meant for “social welfare” organizations. Nonprofits with this status aren’t required to disclose the identity of their donors and they’re allowed to lobby legislative officials. The catch is that they must limit their political campaign activity. According to IRS rules, 501(c)(4) groups can participate in elections, but electioneering must not be their “primary” mission.

Got all that? Good—now let’s get to work. It’s your job to decide which 501(c)(4) applications represent legitimate social-welfare organizations, and which ones are from groups trying to hide their campaign activities. What’s more, you’ve got to sort the good from the bad very quickly, as you’re being inundated with applications. In 2010, your office received 1,735 applications for 501(c)(4) status. In 2011, the number jumped 30 percent, to 2,265, and in 2012 there was another 50 percent spike, this time to 3,357 applications."

Tea Party, IRS: Will the IRS?s profiling of Tea Party groups convince conservatives that all kinds of profiling are wrong? - Slate Magazine

 

[mudwhistle]

What ever happened to jobs and reducing poverty levels in America as goals of our representatives? What happened to rebuilding America? Today one assumed scandal after another is all the American public is treated to. How would the IRS vet front groups for big money? Anyone know? It is as if Monica is back and distraction is the name of the game. Remember all those ideas on job creation that these new representatives had in 2010? What happened? Has Rand Paul or Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz presented a single jobs bill of any kind? No need to answer, money now manages America. Shame it ain't the good kind of money.

'The Real I.R.S. Scandal' Posted By Jeffrey Toobin

"It’s important to review why the Tea Party groups were petitioning the I.R.S. anyway. They were seeking approval to operate under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. This would require them to be “social welfare,” not political, operations. There are significant advantages to being a 501(c)(4). These groups don’t pay taxes; they don’t have to disclose their donors—unlike traditional political organizations, such as political-action committees. In return for the tax advantage and the secrecy, the 501(c)(4) organizations must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates.

If that definition sounds murky—that is, if it’s unclear what 501(c)(4) organizations are allowed to do—that’s because it is murky. Particularly leading up to the 2012 elections, many conservative organizations, nominally 501(c)(4)s, were all but explicitly political in their work. For example, Americans for Prosperity, which was funded in part by the Koch Brothers, was an instrumental force in helping the Republicans hold the House of Representatives. In every meaningful sense, groups like Americans for Prosperity were operating as units of the Republican Party. Democrats organized similar operations, but on a much smaller scale. (They undoubtedly would have done more, but they lacked the Republican base for funding such efforts.)"

Tea Partiers and Tax Exemption: The Real I.R.S. Scandal : The New Yorker

How is the IRS supposed to vet 501(c)(4) groups, anyway?

Original source: Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog: Brian Leiter thinks right-wing crazy issue "du jour" is nonsense

If being political was the litmus test then every 501c (4) working for the Democrats would be rejected. The problem isn't that you're being political. It's whether or not you support one candidate. You also cannot attack a single candidate ether. This would cause the NAACP, Media Matters, and all of the other Soros' braintrusts to lose their tax-exempt status as well because all of them enjoy the title and all of them specifically attacked Romney.

What the left is doing is attempting to justify the criminal acts of the Obama Administration.

BTW, Obama is using the federal government to attack political opponents behind the scenes anyway. What do they need all of the outside groups for?

 

[editec]

'How is the IRS supposed to vet 501(c)(4) groups, anyway?'

Excellent question given that so many 501c-4s are clearly POLITICAL and NOT REALLY non-partisan.

Personally I think the entire 501c-4 IRS tax status concept is flawed at inception.

 

[hortysir]

The question remains, how does an over worked IRS employee make sense of the growth of tea party groups that claim to be about social welfare? Someone please show us what the tea party and other so called patriots do that is 'social welfare?' Whining is not social welfare.

"Pretend you work at the Internal Revenue Service. Actually, let’s make this exercise even more terrible. Pretend you’re an underpaid, low-level clerk working in the understaffed IRS backwater of Cincinnati. Every day, a big stack of files lands on your desk. Every day, the stack gets a little bigger than the last. Each file represents a new application for a certain tax status—501(c)(4), a tax-exempt designation meant for “social welfare” organizations. Nonprofits with this status aren’t required to disclose the identity of their donors and they’re allowed to lobby legislative officials. The catch is that they must limit their political campaign activity. According to IRS rules, 501(c)(4) groups can participate in elections, but electioneering must not be their “primary” mission.

Got all that? Good—now let’s get to work. It’s your job to decide which 501(c)(4) applications represent legitimate social-welfare organizations, and which ones are from groups trying to hide their campaign activities. What’s more, you’ve got to sort the good from the bad very quickly, as you’re being inundated with applications. In 2010, your office received 1,735 applications for 501(c)(4) status. In 2011, the number jumped 30 percent, to 2,265, and in 2012 there was another 50 percent spike, this time to 3,357 applications."

Tea Party, IRS: Will the IRS?s profiling of Tea Party groups convince conservatives that all kinds of profiling are wrong? - Slate Magazine

Would I send out a string of ever-increasingly probing questionnaires asking for more and more personal information, thus making my work load even larger?

Not unless someone, somewhere, was ordering me to do so

 

[hortysir]

About Us | Media Matters for America

 

[Mad Scientist]

When did that Exemption start? It's amazing to me how ANY religious group managed to keep going without it.

 

[depotoo]

When did that Exemption start? It's amazing to me how ANY religious group managed to keep going without it.

in 1913. Woodrow Wilson (D) Revenue Act of 1913

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The IRS needs to go the way of the USSR

 

[regent]

Seems like the tea party just wants a little more latitude on its taxes, and if the IRS gives in, then no more scandal talk. A simple political trade off.

 

[boedicca]

How about we just move to a simple flat tax that doesn't require any government agency to ask for book reports and lists of students?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

About Us | Media Matters for America

^ I smell an audit in their future....as soon as Republicans get back the WH

 

[depotoo]

Seems like the tea party just wants a little more latitude on its taxes, and if the IRS gives in, then no more scandal talk. A simple political trade off.

seriously?? If moveon, media matters, progressnow, etc. qualify, I guarantee you the tea parties do as well.

 

[hortysir]

Seems like the tea party just wants a little more latitude on its taxes, and if the IRS gives in, then no more scandal talk. A simple political trade off.

seriously?? If moveon, media matters, progressnow, etc. qualify, I guarantee you the tea parties do as well.

Make that the 3rd time, today, I've seen the progressive hacks flee from the mention of the similarities between their pet orgs and TEA

 

[midcan5]

Turns out many - I would bet most - of the presumed social welfare conservative groups were breaking the law. Guess the right will now apologize for another completely useless act of a completely useless congress. Or will they have more hearings, wasting more time, wasting more money, while doing nothing substantive for America. The latter is my guess.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/u...s-chafing-at-irs-tested-political-limits.html

"The stakes are high for both the I.R.S. and lawmakers in Congress, whose election fortunes next year will hinge in no small part on a flood of political spending by such advocacy groups. They are often favored by strategists and donors not for the tax benefits — they typically do not have significant income subject to tax — but because they do not have to reveal their donors, allowing them to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into elections without disclosing where the money came from."

 

[whitehall]

How about this? It took the IRS about a month to issue Obama's half brother tax exempt status for what seems to be a bogus charity. Applicants using words like "patriot" and "tea party" had to wait two years or more. The obvious intent was to suppress "tea party" activism and it worked.