501(c)(4) tax exempt without application

[dieselram94]

DRam, Trust the government? That would be crazy! Where do you get that?

I think you're reading my posts of advocating fairness as I'm completely down with the government and obama. I'm not. Unlike some here and elsewhere I'm not looking for Obama's hide on a long sharp stick. I want only the truth. To those who have made up their minds it makes me look like I'm totally in the tank for the government.

How can you possibly get the truth when the IRS is not being investigated honestly? This calls for a special prosecuter...

Sent from my SCH-R930 using Tapatalk 2

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Native Floridian]

d ram, i was going to hit like on your last post but can't. While i agree we need a special prosecutor i have no information that says the current investigation isn't honest. You must have better info than i do. maybe share a link?

I hope it's better than the White House email source you and others had here. A week ago you and others here were convinced that the White House had altered emails. How could i be so naive as to think differently? fact is i didn't know. But i waited for the truth. So only include the link if it is accurate. Not interested in reading any more fiction.

 

[dieselram94]

d ram, i was going to hit like on your last post but can't. While i agree we need a special prosecutor i have no information that says the current investigation isn't honest. You must have better info than i do. maybe share a link?

I hope it's better than the White House email source you and others had here. A week ago you and others here were convinced that the White House had altered emails. How could i be so naive as to think differently? fact is i didn't know. But i waited for the truth. So only include the link if it is accurate. Not interested in reading any more fiction.

As far as the like button goes, sometimes I have to reload the page to get the like button to appear. I am sure I can get a link for you, but how can you trust we are going to get to the bottom of this when just today Lois Lerner pleaded the fifth after already giving testimony? Every questioning session I have watched is nothing more than IRS officials not answering questions and being evasive. Just how is that going to bring info to light?

 

[dieselram94]

Native Floridian here is a video for you.
[video=youtube;KIpHuAh0sOI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KIpHuAh0sOI[/video]

 

[dieselram94]

"Shulman said he never discussed the targeting with anyone at the White House. Republican Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio noted that Shulman visited the White House 118 times during 2010 and 2011 and said it was surprising the issue would not have come up."
[h=1]IRS official refuses to answer questions at scandal hearing[/h]

• in[COLOR=#333333 !important]Share​

• [COLOR=#04558B !important]9[/COLOR]​
• Share this
• 
  
• Email
• Print

[/COLOR]
[h=3]Factbox[/h]

• Who knew what when in the IRS 'Tea Party' scandal5:43pm EDT

[h=3]Analysis & Opinion[/h]

• Defining “News photographer” for the future
• It’s not Watergate, it’s Whitewater

[h=3]Related Topics[/h]

• Politics »

[h=3]Related Video[/h]

[h=2]IRS official refuses to answer questions at scandal hearing[/h]1:06pm EDT

​

By Kim Dixon and Patrick Temple-West
WASHINGTON | Wed May 22, 2013 5:43pm EDT

(Reuters) - The Internal Revenue Service official at the center of a scandal about extra tax scrutiny of conservative groups told Congress on Wednesday she had done nothing wrong but invoked her constitutional right not to answer questions.
Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS tax-exempt unit, angered lawmakers by reading a statement before refusing to testify, but she was dismissed from the hearing with a warning that she could be called back for another appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
"I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any congressional committee," Lerner told the panel.
"Because I am asserting my right not to testify, I know that some people will assume that I have done something wrong. I have not," she said.
House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa, a California Republican, said Lerner appeared to have waived her right against self-incrimination by making the statement. Republican Trey Gowdy of South Carolina demanded that she stay to answer questions, drawing applause from the crowd in the hearing room.
After conferring with aides, Issa - who has accused Lerner of providing "false or misleading" information to Congress last year about the IRS's treatment of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status - dismissed her from the hearing but said he might call her to testify in the future. Photographers swarmed Lerner as she left.
Lerner is at the center of a political scandal over the tax-collection agency's use of search terms such as "Tea Party" and "patriots," to select groups for additional scrutiny of their qualifications for tax-exempt status.
The tax agency's "inappropriate" targeting of conservative groups, as described in a Treasury inspector general report released last week, has set off a political firestorm and led Republicans to question whether Democratic President Barack Obama's administration was involved.
The scandal - along with others involving questions about the Justice Department's tracking of reporters in investigations into national security leaks and an ongoing probe about the administration's response to the deadly attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, in September - threatens to undercut Obama's second-term agenda.
The president is trying to negotiate a budget deal with Republicans and push a comprehensive immigration reform bill through Congress.
Congressional investigators have said Lerner was the Washington official who learned in June 2011 that workers in a Cincinnati, Ohio, office were using inappropriate criteria and ordered them changed.
Issa and other lawmakers have complained that Lerner and other IRS officials knew of targeting by the IRS but did not inform Congress.
'FALSE OR MISLEADING'
Lerner made the IRS targeting public on May 10, sparking investigations by three congressional committees and a criminal probe by the Department of Justice.
Her refusal to testify on Wednesday stymied attempts by Issa's panel to learn who was responsible for initiating the targeting and supervising the targeting.
At the hearing, frustrated lawmakers repeatedly criticized former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman and J. Russell George, who published a watchdog report on the practice last week, for not alerting Congress to the practice earlier.
Democratic Representative Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts warned their failure to be more forthcoming could require the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into the scandal.
Issa said an IRS internal review uncovered the policy of scrutinizing conservative groups in May 2012 and that top officials, including outgoing acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, were made aware of the findings but did not alert Congress for nearly a year.
He also questioned why George's investigators looking into the targeting allowed IRS officials to be present during investigative interviews with subordinates and criticized the inspector general for waiting 10 months to give the committee information on the targeting.
George said it would have been "impractical for us to give you partial information that may not be accurate."
Shulman repeated the testimony he gave a Senate hearing on Tuesday that he did not know the full details of the targeting for two years after it started in 2010. Issa told Shulman, "If you didn't know, you were derelict in your duty."
Representative Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the panel, criticized Shulman for not alerting Congress to the practice after testifying in March 2012 without mentioning it. He said it would have been "common sense" to "come back, even if it were a phone call or a letter."
Issa said the employees in the IRS tax-exempt unit "could have and should have been a whistleblower" on the targeting.
Shulman said he never discussed the targeting with anyone at the White House. Republican Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio noted that Shulman visited the White House 118 times during 2010 and 2011 and said it was surprising the issue would not have come up.
Shulman said he mostly talked about budget and tax issues, with the healthcare overhaul another frequent topic.
(Writing by John Whitesides; Editing by Karey Van Hall, Doina Chiacu and Cynthia Osterman)

 

[Native Floridian]

You put way too much weight on congressional hearings which are more dog and pony shows than anything else. What we have here is failure to communicate!

Seriously, if you had to appear before a group of people who were more interested in burning you at the stake than hearing the truth how would you react? Knowing every word is going to get twisted as these "seekers of truth" play to the cameras and to their base. Congressional hearings, on par, are a joke! We are going to end up with a special prosecutor, not because one is really needed, but because that's the only way this goes away.

This woman did the right thing. In her psotion you would have done the same. No good can come from her telling these morons anything.

I do have to back track on one thing i said. I gave Hillary credit for being smarter than these congressman. Way too much credit! Apparently they can be out smarted by career bureaucrats as well! No wonder DC is such a mess!

 

[Native Floridian]

How about admitting you were wrong about the emails?

Any of you wanna give that shot?

 

[dieselram94]

NF, why don't you think a special prosecutor ? At what point has this administration proven to you they are trustworthy?

 

[Dave44]

There is a minor problem with this:

The Barack H Obama Foundation is a 501(C)(3) and the organizations in question are 501(C)(4). Apples and oranges.

It's that pesky not knowing how the IRS works thing again. Any comments that say this charity was given preferential treatment over conservative groups would be wrong. In that the types of organizations, application process, tax and contribution rules for each type are completely different. And, no doubt handled by different areas of the IRS. Again one set of groups, (c)(3) are charities. The other, (c)(4), are social organizations.

it could be said that as a charitble organization, this group was given special handling. Would you expect any less for the prez or high ranking gov't official?

Mostly, this is another misfire from the right. Just like the inaccurate reporting of the Whitehouse Bengazi emails. Which has turned out to be no more than a right wing smear campaign. ( though A+ for FOX news manning up and admitting it was wrong)

So you would change the subject? Why would the C 3 status be given and then backdated to cover wrongdoing? Here is help for your side. Or you could just try to spin a little more.

According to the NLPC, “It appears that the Obama Foundation was treated quite differently from Tea Party and conservative groups seeking nonprofit status. Soliciting tax-deductible contributions before applying for tax-exempt status is against the law, and should have been an impediment, if not an outright disqualification, from being granted such status.”
Added the NLPC: “The disparity is even more striking when one considers that the Obama Foundation sought 501(c)(3) status, which allows donors to deduct contributions while many Tea Party groups sought only 501(c)(4) status, which does not allow for the same benefit.”
Are you surprised that the IRS apparently gave the Barack H. Obama Foundation expedited service while Tea Party and other tax-exempt applications languished?

 

[bevo]

He doesn't want to read that Dave, it proves him wrong.

 

[dieselram94]

Seems to be a ongoing thing...

 

[bevo]

I know nothing, I found out like you did the news,it was low level agents, it was a video,onandonandonandon...................

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

How about admitting you were wrong about the emails?

Any of you wanna give that shot?

We were not wrong, Benghazi was a terrorist attack obama, clinton and others tried to cover up and are still trying to cover up their lies...There is no doubt in my mind and in the minds of millions and millions of other americans that there is a coverup going on....

 

[bevo]

Wrong?
[h=3]Ignore List[/h]

• 0121stockpicker
• Crispin
• Dano Sverige
• jerseyben
• Native Floridian
• tinpan

 

[dieselram94]

TH, I think Native Floridian lives in a different dimension

 

[Native Floridian]

We were not wrong, Benghazi was a terrorist attack obama, clinton and others tried to cover up and are still trying to cover up their lies...There is no doubt in my mind and in the minds of millions and millions of other americans that there is a coverup going on....

Fox news manned up, admitted it was wrong. Post after post here accusing the White House of doctoring the emails.

When it turns up to be false?

keep it real, admit whaen you are wrong and move on!

 

[Native Floridian]

So you would change the subject? Why would the C 3 status be given and then backdated to cover wrongdoing? Here is help for your side. Or you could just try to spin a little more.

According to the NLPC, “It appears that the Obama Foundation was treated quite differently from Tea Party and conservative groups seeking nonprofit status. Soliciting tax-deductible contributions before applying for tax-exempt status is against the law, and should have been an impediment, if not an outright disqualification, from being granted such status.”
Added the NLPC: “The disparity is even more striking when one considers that the Obama Foundation sought 501(c)(3) status, which allows donors to deduct contributions while many Tea Party groups sought only 501(c)(4) status, which does not allow for the same benefit.”
Are you surprised that the IRS apparently gave the Barack H. Obama Foundation expedited service while Tea Party and other tax-exempt applications languished?

LOL, another half baked smear job appealing to the uninformed.

1. a (3) (c) is a charity. a (4) (c) is a social welfare organization. The issue NLCP is trying to raise here is a non starter.

a. The Tea party groups started their groups for the purposes of funding political campaigns. Political campaigns are not charities.
b. Nothing prevented the tea party organizations from operating. That is, organizing, fund raising marketing for their cause and against dems etc. Their tax-exempt status was granted automatically. There was no waiting period.
c. Interviews with tea party group leaders called to answer why they needlessly filed for status they had already been granted came back with some bizzare anwsers. Most bizzar was the fear of persecution. That is, this particular group wasn't being persecuted, prosecuted or involved in any way with the IRS, but feared persecution. That paranioa led them to file. Others were uninformed and thought they had to file.

2. Non profits filing for tax exempt status can solicit donations before that status is granted. The donations are not deductible until tax exempt status is granted. As long as tax exempt status is filed withing 27 months of incorporation any taxable donation received before approval become tax exempt and the donor can amend their tax return taking the deduction.
3. Retro active approval is the norm not the exception.
4. (c)(3) and (c)(4) apples and oranges.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Fox news manned up, admitted it was wrong. Post after post here accusing the White House of doctoring the emails.

When it turns up to be false?

keep it real, admit whaen you are wrong and move on!

I stand by my post, there is major coverup of the Libya scandal and more to come out still...

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[0121stockpicker]

I stand by my post, there is major coverup of the Libya scandal and more to come out still...

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Is this "major coverup" whether the attack was called "terrorism" or something else?? Or is there something else going on here?

 

[pippinwhitepaws]

political action groups are not social welfare organizations...

big difference.
claim something you are not to the IRS, they investigate you...