IRS seeks to rein in tax-exempt groups after Tea Party targeting scandal

DeepseekerADS

Gold Member
Mar 3, 2013
14,880
21,733
SW, VA - Bull Mountain
Detector(s) used
CTX, Excal II, EQ800, Fisher 1260X, Tesoro Royal Sabre, Tejon, Garrett ADSIII, Carrot, Stealth 920iX, Keene A52
Primary Interest:
Other
IRS moves to rein in tax-exempt groups after targeting scandal | Fox News

The Obama administration launched an attempt Tuesday to rein in the same class of politically active non-profit groups the IRS was accused of targeting last summer.

Under the proposed new rules, organizations that fall under the tax-exempt 501(c)(4) umbrella would also be more clearly identified during campaigns. The new guidance would curtail activities such as running ads, distributing campaign literature and other get-out-the-vote initiatives.

The groups in question are able to raise millions of dollars to influence elections.

Smaller organizations that are similarly classified were the subject of unfair targeting practices earlier this year by IRS employees, leading to the eventual resignations of several senior IRS officials.

However, it could be several years before any regulations are finalized, meaning the groups could likely still raise millions before next year’s elections.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., says he’s skeptical about the administration's move.

"There continues to be an ongoing investigation, with many documents yet to be uncovered, into how the IRS systematically targeted and abused conservative-leaning groups," he said in a written statement. "This smacks of the administration trying to shut down potential critics."

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which is representing 41 organizations in a federal lawsuit challenging the IRS, says the proposed regulation change puts free speech rights of Americans at risk.

“This is a feeble attempt by the Obama Administration to justify its own wrong-doing with the IRS targeting of conservative and Tea Party groups,” attorney Jay Sekulow said in a written statement. “Instead of holding those responsible for the unlawful targeting scheme accountable for their actions, the Obama Administration is determined to further limit the free speech of Americans by attempting to change constitutional practices that are decades old.”

The 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision lifted the limits on donations by labor unions and companies to 501(c)(4) groups, allowing the largest to raise substantial sums outside the limits that apply to candidates' campaigns and traditional party committees.

The current rules are confusing and prone to abuse, critics say.

"Enormous abuses have taken place under the current rules, which have allowed groups largely devoted to campaign activities to operate as nonprofit groups in order to keep secret the donors funding their campaign activities," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, which advocates limits on money in politics.

Under current rules, social welfare organizations may conduct some political work as long as it is not their main activity. The proposed new rules would block such things as running ads that "expressly advocate for a clearly identified political candidate or candidates of a political party" as fulfilling their tax-exempt mission.

The rules also would limit voter drives and voter registration efforts and distribution of literature.

The idea behind the new regulations is to simplify the rules of the road going forward, supporters say.

Some of the outside groups that could be affected by the proposal, including Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS and the pro-Obama Priorities USA, did not offer any initial reaction to the announcement. The groups are expected to weigh in on the rulemaking as it proceeds.

Any changes to the regulations likely would not affect the 2014 elections because of legal challenges, but the rule changes could shape the next presidential election, said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance attorney and former head of enforcement for the Federal Election Commission.

"Brightening what are now blurred lines -- what is political activity -- is not only useful but necessary to have some kind of clarity to a vehicle that has been used to the tune of millions and millions of dollars," he said.

But Gross cautioned that "this is a long and winding road before anything is in ink."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
 

DeepseekerADS:

What is the difference between a 501(c)(4) and a 501(c)(3)?

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo
 

DeepseekerADS:

What is the difference between a 501(c)(4) and a 501(c)(3)?

Good luck to all,


~ The Old Bookaroo

From a tax exempt POV, the primary differences between a (c)(4) and a (c) (3) are these:

1. a (c)(3) allows it's donors to deduct contributions where as a (c)(4) does not.

2. (c) (3) organizations are under a time limit to achieve tax free status, whereas (c)(4) organizations are not. While both types may claim tax exempt status from day one without approval from the IRS, if the IRS does not grant tax exempt status to a (c)(3) within the specified time period that exemption is reversed. Because there is no time limit to gain IRS tax exempt status within the (c)(4) structure, and there is no penalty for not applying for tax exempt status, these organizations need not apply to the IRS. As long as they meet the (c)(4) guidelines, they are free to operate as a tax exempt entity.
 

Last edited:
Yeah, but he sure got the IRS to push through his brothers' charity 501c status, what, in 3 MONTHS!
 

Yeah, but he sure got the IRS to push through his brothers' charity 501c status, what, in 3 MONTHS!

That happened for the same reason you never hear of a shark eating a lawyer ...

Professional Courtesy. It's not just for honest people anymore.
 

native floridian:

So the brouhaha over alleged IRS campaign over approving 501(c)(4) status for conservative organizations didn't have a fiscal impact on them?

I did find an interesting note - is it true contributions to a 501(c)(4) may be deductible business expenses?

WoW!

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo
 

Last edited:
Would be rough if the AARP couldnt contribute millions to the dems.................... and, support Ocare!!!!!!!!
 

native floridian:

So the brouhaha over alleged IRS campaign over approving 501(c)(4) status for conservative organizations didn't have a fiscal impact on them?

I did find an interesting note - is it true contributions to a 501(c)(4) may be deductible business expenses?

WoW!

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

Input Error lead to a faulty outcome.
 

Pat, Let him look it up on his own, maybe he will appreciate it more. We have to teach these folks.
 

native floridian:

So the brouhaha over alleged IRS campaign over approving 501(c)(4) status for conservative organizations didn't have a fiscal impact on them?

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

Correct!

These groups needlessly applied. The claims that the IRS damaged them financially are wrong on two counts.

1. The claim they were financially damaged by the IRS, by the IRS impeding their ability to raise funds are completely false. Because donors do not receive a tax deduction there is nothing the IRS could have done to impede revenue collection at these organizations.

2 The tax exempt status goes to the organization. They don't have to pay taxes on the organization's income. Because tax exempt status is granted from day one, these organizations are free to operate as tax exempt entities from day one. Because of this fact, the IRS delaying granting of tax exempt status has/had no effect. The IRS could hold up approval for 100 years and that organization would be operating tax exempt the entire time.

While we haven't gotten the entire story on why the IRS targeted these groups it started with fraud investigations over the miss use of the (c)(4) designation. Someplace, after that it ran amuck off the tracks but that's where it started.

The line of (c)(4) organizers claiming damage? People who ran themselves out of business. Obviously some didn't even know the rules of tax exemption under which they were applying so how smart can they be? Poorly run organizations always end up in bankruptcy. Another factor is the decreasing popularity of the tea party. The customer base of like thinkers is shrinking.

The brouhaha over the whole thing? The Xright getting in their swings by misleading their true believers. Tax exempt status is a complicated issue. It's going to glaze over most people's eyes. The handlers on the right are well aware of this.
 

Last edited:
native floridian:

There you go again with your librul "facts."

I don't see an IRS conspiracy. I see a tax code so complex the Service has been given an impossible task to enforce it.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo
 

olroy70:

You claim the AARP donated money to the Democratic Party?

As Humble Howard Cosell used to say, "You've got a SCOOP!"

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo
 

olroy70:

You claim the AARP donated money to the Democratic Party?

As Humble Howard Cosell used to say, "You've got a SCOOP!"


FACT look it up!

I quit em when they donated to algore, and would never send another penny to em

they supported my decision with support of ocare!!!!!!!!!!!!:notworthy:

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo


They lost my support when they donated to algore. and reinforced with support of ocare!!!!!!!!

look it up, but do NOT give up your liberal ways!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:laughing7:
 

olroy70:

If you have any documentation that the AARP has made a donation to either political party, you should post it.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo
 

Dave44:

Once again you spin off topic - kind of you to try to prop up Olroy70, however.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo
 

OB,

What olroy has stated about the AARP and donations to the Dem Party and their heavy support of Obammycare are correct. I haven't got time to waste today on looking up to post, but if you think I'm wrong, please feel free to look it up .
 

OB,

What olroy has stated about the AARP and donations to the Dem Party and their heavy support of Obammycare are correct. I haven't got time to waste today on looking up to post, but if you think I'm wrong, please feel free to look it up .

If you make him look it up it will weaken his position again Buck! How could he possibly do that to himself?

He wants you to post it so that he can claim "plausible deniability" and say,,,,, "UH UH".. and then "i know I am but what are you". maybe even a " your facts are short on facts, factually". Or some other childish response ( surely he knows a few more?).
 

Unclebuck257:

Olroy70 made the statement. I asked him to back it up. Some people here on TN are willing and able to document what they claim are facts. Some are not.

Since the statement was his and not mine, I don't see how it is up to me to prove him wrong.

Just for the record - non- (not-for-) profits don't contribute to political parties or campaigns.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top