IRS scrutinizes 501(c)(4)s

[Winehole23]

Point:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/opinion/the-irs-does-its-job.html

Counterpoint:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/obamas-irs-on-warpath-against-tea-parties/

[CosmicCowboy]

Wow

I had heard they were targeting tea party organizations but hadn't realized the scope. A lot of those questions are way overboard and have nothing to do with whether they are or aren't paying their appropriate taxes. By their very nature 501(c)4's are political or they would be (c)3's. Because they are (c)4's donations to them are NOT deductible and the only activity they should be taxed on was if they donated directly to a candidate or advertised directly for a single candidate. That's pretty damn easy to prove/disprove and the IRS should put up or shut up.

[101A]

To be tax-exempt … they must be primarily engaged in the promotion of social welfare.”

Quote from an IRS representative.

The nature o the questions from IRS certainly is chilling; and I do not like the direction this is going for us as a country; intimidating, invasive questions from the Federal Govt. directed at political opponents - what the hell is going on here?

On the other hand, if "C4's" indeed must be primarily engaged in "Social Welfare"; then is there another Federal designation available to these groups, and they just, out of habit, have chosen the wrong one? If one more "appropriate" does not exist, then the IRS just needs to STFU. Otherwise we're edging closer to Russia, and eventually Libya in terms of our political freedoms.

This is not a partisan issue, IMO, this one ought to cut both ways, obvious knee jerk journalistic responses notwithstanding.

[CosmicCowboy]

Quote from an IRS representative.

The nature o the questions from IRS certainly is chilling; and I do not like the direction this is going for us as a country; intimidating, invasive questions from the Federal Govt. directed at political opponents - what the hell is going on here?

On the other hand, if "C4's" indeed must be primarily engaged in "Social Welfare"; then is there another Federal designation available to these groups, and they just, out of habit, have chosen the wrong one? If one more "appropriate" does not exist, then the IRS just needs to STFU. Otherwise we're edging closer to Russia, and eventually Libya in terms of our political freedoms.

This is not a partisan issue, IMO, this one ought to cut both ways, obvious knee jerk journalistic responses notwithstanding.

Nope, (c)4 is their appropriate category. And social welfare is a really ambiguous term that can include political discourse that is not candidate specific (example: the evils of deficit spending, higher taxes, etc)

[GSH]

There are 8,000 non-profits in Bexar County alone. That's about one for every 200 people, give or take. You could get rid of three-fourths of them today, and the world would be a better place. And a BUNCH of them are overtly political, and spend a sizable portion of their resources (especially if you include staff time) on political issues.

If you want to abolish all of them, I'm with you. If you're advocating selective enforcement of laws to target one ideology, you can go straight to hell. (To quote Maxine Waters.)

I've never even approached a Tea Party gathering, of any kind. But when I see them jump through hoops to get permits to gather, and then the Occupy people get to gather in the same places without a permit? That's an absolute bullshit abuse of power to promote one ideology and punish another. The same goes for what the IRS is doing. Pick one way or the other. But this selective enforcement is an invitation for pendulum to swing farther the other direction, when the next administration comes in. (And, yeah, I'm against that too.)

[Yonivore]

There are 8,000 non-profits in Bexar County alone. That's about one for every 200 people, give or take. You could get rid of three-fourths of them today, and the world would be a better place. And a BUNCH of them are overtly political, and spend a sizable portion of their resources (especially if you include staff time) on political issues.

If you want to abolish all of them, I'm with you. If you're advocating selective enforcement of laws to target one ideology, you can go straight to hell. (To quote Maxine Waters.)

I've never even approached a Tea Party gathering, of any kind. But when I see them jump through hoops to get permits to gather, and then the Occupy people get to gather in the same places without a permit? That's an absolute bullshit abuse of power to promote one ideology and punish another. The same goes for what the IRS is doing. Pick one way or the other. But this selective enforcement is an invitation for pendulum to swing farther the other direction, when the next administration comes in. (And, yeah, I'm against that too.)
:tu

[101A]

Nope, (c)4 is their appropriate category. And social welfare is a really ambiguous term that can include political discourse that is not candidate specific (example: the evils of deficit spending, higher taxes, etc)

:depressed

Ironic, frankly. Considering what the Tea Parties are, ostensibly, all about. Chilling, frightening - the Federal Government, and specifically the Executive Branch is becoming too big to control. Hope the courts do.

[TDMVPDPOY]

tax avoidance nothing new here :D