For you folks who support profiling, the IRS was right to scrutinize Tea Party!

The Dude said:
No there was an actual change and anything teabaggy is most defiantly political
Click to expand...

Who made the change? According to what I've heard, there was no vote to make the change. Here's what I'm talking about...

After the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling freed corporations -- including nonprofits organized under sections 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) -- to spend money directly on political campaigns, 501(c)(4) spending on politics soared from an infinitesimal amount in 2006 to $294 million in the 2012 election. Nonprofits, unlike political committees and campaigns, are not required to disclose their donors, and the surge in their spending has raised concerns among lawmakers and campaign-finance watchdogs that groups are improperly claiming tax-exempt status when their primary purpose is electioneering.
This spending is allowed thanks to a difference between the tax law and IRS regulations for these nonprofit groups. The law says that 501(c)(4) organizations must be operated "exclusively" for the purpose of social welfare, while the IRS regulation defines "exclusively" as "primarily." This difference has created a substantial amount of confusion within and outside the agency around what constitutes political activity, and officials say it played a part in the abuses uncovered in the inspector general's report.
 
Classic Liberal said:
Senate Democrats Pressured IRS to Crack Down on Tea Party
in JMM news / by jmmedia / on May 15, 2013 at 2:17 pm
The same Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee who this week is calling for hearings into IRS activities, specifically called on the IRS to engage in that very conduct back in 2010. And he wasn’t the only one. Just last year, a group of seven Senate Democrats sent another letter to the IRS urging them to similarly investigate these outside political organizations……….. Read more: http://janmorganmedia.com/2013/05/s...irs-to-crack-down-on-tea-party/#ixzz2U7OEIEWf

From Max Baucus to Chuck Schumer to Jeanne Shaheen, key Senate Democrats publicly pressured the IRS to target groups that held differing political views and who, in their view, had the temerity to engage in the political process. The IRS listened to them and acted. And other Democrat senators like Kay Hagan and Mark Pryor said and did nothing about it………………….

Read more: http://janmorganmedia.com/2013/05/s...irs-to-crack-down-on-tea-party/#ixzz2U7S4NPhH
Click to expand...

More information that the left can ignore and pretend doesn't exist. :palm:
 
The Dude said:
Bingo no disclosure but can only be 49 percent political
Click to expand...

What I want to know is where that number came from? If an entity must be EXCLUSIVELY a social welfare organization, then it can't be political at all, right? Somewhere, the word exclusively got changed to primarily without the consent of Congress...they can't do that.
 
Classic Liberal said:
Senate Democrats Pressured IRS to Crack Down on Tea Party
in JMM news / by jmmedia / on May 15, 2013 at 2:17 pm
The same Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee who this week is calling for hearings into IRS activities, specifically called on the IRS to engage in that very conduct back in 2010. And he wasn’t the only one. Just last year, a group of seven Senate Democrats sent another letter to the IRS urging them to similarly investigate these outside political organizations……….. Read more: http://janmorganmedia.com/2013/05/s...irs-to-crack-down-on-tea-party/#ixzz2U7OEIEWf

From Max Baucus to Chuck Schumer to Jeanne Shaheen, key Senate Democrats publicly pressured the IRS to target groups that held differing political views and who, in their view, had the temerity to engage in the political process. The IRS listened to them and acted. And other Democrat senators like Kay Hagan and Mark Pryor said and did nothing about it………………….

Read more: http://janmorganmedia.com/2013/05/s...irs-to-crack-down-on-tea-party/#ixzz2U7S4NPhH
Click to expand...

Jan Morgan Media, huh? Can you get any more far right wing that that as a source? And who are they citing as a source?

USFREEDOM911 said:
More information that the left can ignore and pretend doesn't exist. :palm:
Click to expand...

See that :palm:?

Now shove it up your butt, USFISTER911.

This, my friends, is the ultimate example of the extremist right totally taking stuff out of context with the knowledge that the brain dead fools that read their shit, like ClassicDumbass and USFISTER911, won't investigate it any further.

From their link:

The Internal Revenue Service is caught in an election-year struggle between Democratic lawmakers pressing for a crackdown on nonprofit political groups and conservative organizations accusing the tax agency of conducting a politically charged witch hunt.
Click to expand...

What's the source? Jan Morgan Media says it's the NY Times. Why is there no link to the article?

More...

From Max Baucus to Chuck Schumer to Jeanne Shaheen, key Senate Democrats publicly pressured the IRS to target groups that held differing political views and who, in their view, had the temerity to engage in the political process.
Click to expand...

What's the source? Jan Morgan Media says it's the NY Times.

No, they each cite Fox Nation as their source. And who does Fox Nation cite as a source?

Some thing called USNews, another right wing crackpot blog...

And who do they credit?

You guessed it! Jan Morgan Media!

This is, of course, another example of what my friend Steve Benen calls...

The Circle Jerk of Attribution™ ​


So what did Shaheen, Baucus, and Schumer say?

Shaheen:

I think Congress has an oversight responsibility to make sure that investigation gets done and to make sure if there are people responsible, that they are punished appropriately.”
Click to expand...

Baucus:

Add a prominent Senate Democrat to the list of congressional leaders seeking hearings into the Internal Revenue Service's treatment of Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said his committee's investigation would include "who knew what" about the IRS's extraordinary scrutiny of conservative groups. "The IRS will now be the ones put under additional scrutiny," Baucus said in a written statement to reporters Monday.

"These actions by the IRS are an outrageous abuse of power and a breach of the public's trust. Targeting groups based on their political views is not only inappropriate but it is intolerable," Baucus said.
Click to expand...

Note, however, that these same Congressmen, along with others, last summer petitioned for review the IRS and the 401(c)(4) status of all "social charities", not just the tea party organizations following reports of abuse.

http://www.schumer.senate.gov/Newsroom/record.cfm?id=336270

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 12, 2012

SENATE DEMOCRATS URGE IRS TO IMPOSE STRICT CAP ON POLITICAL SPENDING BY NONPROFIT GROUPS—VOW LEGISLATION IF AGENCY DOESN’T ACT



Senators Seek To End Tax Code Abuse By Political Groups Masquerading As ‘Social Welfare Organizations’

In Letter to IRS, Lawmakers Say Firm Limit Should Be Set on Percentage of Nonprofits’ Spending That Can Be Devoted To Political Activities

Reforms Also Urged To Prevent Political Donors From Claiming Tax Deduction For Their Contributions




WASHINGTON, D.C. – A group of seven Senate Democrats urged the Internal Revenue Service on Monday to impose a strict cap on the amount of political spending by tax-exempt, nonprofit groups.



The senators said the lack of clarity in the IRS rules has allowed political groups to improperly claim 501(c)4 status and may even be allowing donors to these groups to wrongly claim tax deductions for their contributions. The senators promised legislation if the IRS failed to act to fix these problems.



“We urge the IRS to take these steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities. But if the IRS is unable to issue administrative guidance in this area then we plan to introduce legislation to accomplish these important changes,” the senators wrote.



The letter was signed by Senators Charles E. Schumer, Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen and Al Franken. It follows an earlier letter, sent to the IRS by the same of group of senators last month, that also urged the IRS to better enforce rules pertaining to 501(c)4 organizations.



Federal law defines 501(c)4 groups as groups engaged exclusively in “social welfare” activities. The IRS, however, has allowed these 501(c)4 groups to venture into political activities as long as civic and charitable work remains their “primary purpose.” This loophole has caused a number of organizations heavily engaged in political work to organize themselves as 501(c)4 groups in order to gain tax-exempt status and shield their donors from the disclosure requirements that apply to more traditional political organizations.



The senators said the IRS should close this loophole by imposing a strict, percentage-based cap on the amount of a nonprofit group’s spending that can go towards political activities. Legal experts have proposed a cutoff of 49 percent to ensure that political activities never command more than half of a group’s total spending. But the senators said even this threshold would be too high and would permit more political work than any nonprofit group should be able to perform.



The senators also said that 501(c)4 groups should have to disclose upfront—on all written and online solicitations that get sent to potential donors—how much of their activities are political. The senators said this would make it clear to potential donors how much of a tax deduction, if any, they could claim on their tax returns. Currently, no such information is required to be disclosed and tax experts have expressed concern that many corporations contributing funds to these political groups may be counting those donations as a business expenses eligible for a full tax deduction.



A copy of the senators’ letter to IRS Commissioner Douglas H. Shulman appears below.



Hon. Douglas H. Shulman

Commissioner

Internal Revenue Service

Room 3000 IR

1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W.



Dear Commissioner Shulman:



We write to ask the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to immediately change the administrative framework for enforcement of the tax code as it applies to groups designated as “social welfare” organizations. These groups receive tax and other advantages under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter, “IRC” or the “Code”), but some of them also are engaged in a substantial amount of political campaign activity. As you know, we sent a letter last month expressing concerns about the 501(c)(4) issue; an investigation this week by the New York Times has uncovered new, specific problems on how c)4)s conduct business. We wanted to address those new concerns in this letter.



IRS regulations have long maintained that political campaign activity by a 501(c)(4) entity must not be the “primary purpose” of the organization. These regulations are intended to implement the statute, which requires that such organizations be operated exclusively for the public welfare. But we think the existing IRS regulations run afoul of the law since they only require social welfare activities to be the 'primary purpose' of a nonprofit when the Code says this must be its 'exclusive' purpose. In recent years, this daylight between the law and the IRS regulations has been exploited by groups devoted chiefly to political election activities who operate behind a facade of charity work.



A related concern, raised in a March 7th New York Times article, concerns whether certain nonprofits may be soliciting corporate contributions that are then treated by the company as a business expense eligible for a tax deduction. The Times wrote: “Under current law, there is little to no way to tell whether contributions are being deducted, especially because many of the most political companies are privately held.” This potential abuse distorts the objectives of vital revenue mechanisms and undermines the faith that we ask citizens to place in their electoral system.



We propose that the IRS make three administrative changes to curtail these questionable practices and bring IRS tax regulations back into alignment with the letter and spirit intended by those who crafted the Code:



· First, we urge the IRS to adopt a bright line test in applying its “primary purpose” regulation that is consistent with the Code’s 501(c)(4) exclusivity language. The IRS currently only requires that the purpose of these non-profits be “primarily” related to social welfare activities, without defining what “primarily” means. This standard should be spelled out more fully by the IRS. Some have suggested 51 percent as an appropriate threshold for establishing that a nonprofit is adhering to its mission, but even this number would seem to allow for more political election activity than should be permitted under the law. In the absence of clarity in the administration of section 501(c)(4), organizations are tempted to abuse its vagueness, or worse, to organize under section 501(c)(4) so that they may avail themselves of its advantages even though they are not legitimate social welfare organizations. If the IRS does not adopt a bright line test, or if it adopts one that is inconsistent with the Code’s exclusivity language, then we plan to pursue legislation codifying such a test.



· Second, such organizations should be further obligated to document in their 990 IRS form the exact percentage of their undertakings dedicated to “social welfare.” Organizations should be required to “show their math” to demonstrate that political election activities and other statutorily limited or prohibited activities do not violate the “primary purpose” regulation.



· Third, 501(c)(4) organizations should be required to state forthrightly to potential donors what percentage of a donation, if any, may be taken as a business expense deduction. As the New York Times reported in its March 7tharticle, some of these organizations do not currently inform donors whether a contribution is tax deductible as a business expense at all.



The IRS should already possess the authority to issue immediate guidance on this matter. We urge the IRS to take these steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities. But if the IRS is unable to issue administrative guidance in this area then we plan to introduce legislation to accomplish these important changes.



Sincerely,



Senators Charles E. Schumer, Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen and Al Franken
Click to expand...


Notice that nowhere did that letter point out any specific group.

Question: Why didn't Congress act then to resolve this? Why wait until an IG report that, quite honestly, proved the Senator's point about 501(c)(4)'s in general.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and yet, you can't seem to find an example.....you'd think by now you could have......
Click to expand...

You're being VERY dishonest AGAIN. Here is the real irony, YOU are the one who has nothing. No link to the President, no link to any Democrats. While I have provided proof that Republicans wrote letters to the IRS demanding liberal churches, the NAACP and AARP be investigated.
 
Bfgrn said:
You're being VERY dishonest AGAIN. Here is the real irony, YOU are the one who has nothing. No link to the President, no link to any Democrats. While I have provided proof that Republicans wrote letters to the IRS demanding liberal churches, the NAACP and AARP be investigated.
Click to expand...

why don't you provide evidence of Republicans doing what was done here, as alleged?.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
why don't you provide evidence of Republicans doing what was done here, as alleged?.......
Click to expand...

I already provided evidence Republicans demanded the IRS investigate liberal churches, the NAACP and AARP. You have ZERO evidence that Democrats had anything to do with 'what was done here'...

You lose...
 
007 said:
It wasn't the IRS though was it, orders from above!!!
The party trying to terrorise future opposition.
Liberals are terrorists.
Click to expand...

terrorism: Noun
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Calling them terrorists and saying they're threatening our country in order to convince people to conform to your ideas through what is essentially fear; that is terrorism. So by definition, you are a terrorist. Tell someone they should be scared and that's why they should listen to you, for example: anti-obama campaigns, gun control (some nra members are political terrorists and should be seen as such without a doubt), and gay marriage are 3 issues specifically that republicans expressly use fear as a method of debate. "You need a gun to protect against rape!" well... pepperspray, taser, rape condoms (have you seen those things?!?!), voluntary training in self-defense(because if you're really that worried, you should be prepared for more than just a situation where you have a gun, without it or if disarmed your screwed... literally...). The drug, specifically, the pot issue is another one where the only real argument they have is an argument of fear and psychological terrorism for political footing. Plus, ever think about how, since the U.S. used violence and fear to achieve political goals in the middle-east, even before the obama administration, doesn't that make the american government terrorists? Problem with this word is anyone who uses fear as a form of control is essentially a terrorist. Most parents are terrorists. So you can say there is a terrorist threat about pretty much anything and you'd probably be right. And if you're not, you could probably scare a few people into thinking you are.

Not sure if your response was in a joking manner or serious but either way... voila.
 
Steelplate said:
But the TP is good to go? They are NOTHING BUT Political Group. The only Social Welfare they stand for is to get rid of it.
Click to expand...

the groups targeted hadn't even started yet......there were no actions to point at and say "that is wrong"......to decide beforehand that someone WILL violate the law and to therefore punish them is in itself a violation of the law.......

and if you think promoting fiscal restraint on the part of the government is NOT promoting social welfare then you are dumber than you look.....or did you think social welfare meant putting all of society on welfare?.....wait, you really did, didn't you......lords, what fools these liberals be......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top