No, not trying to pull a fast one, just doing what the Democrats had been doing for years, there was already hundreds of Liberal 501 c4 groups operating with impunity.
Democrats Believe They Have The Right To Use The IRS To Attack Us
- Thread starter mudwhistle
- Start date
No, not trying to pull a fast one, just doing what the Democrats had been doing for years, there was already hundreds of Liberal 501 c4 groups operating with impunity.
They don't even exist as anything until they are approves and granted their Classification by the IRS.
Boy, you are either an idiot, or just average intelligence and think we're idiots.
There were already hundreds of Liberal Groups doing the very thing that the Conservative groups wanted to do.
Are you trying to tell us that it's alright for your side to do it, but not for our side to do it??
Stop pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining.
- Thread starter
- #104
No Republican president rewrote it.
He simply tried to enforce current laws. Although on the surface it appeared selective, they say if you open your mouth you'd better have your ducks in a row or expect to be squashed. They still kept their deductions. Did they expect a free pass because they're black? Because they're a church? Because they're a bunch of liberal assholes who occupy themselves by pissing everyone off? Kick a Grizzly Bear in the ass expect to get mauled. What did these conservatives do? Express their freedom of speech? Dare to back conservative causes? Is that a crime now? Apparently so.
Sunshine
Trust the pie.
- Dec 17, 2009
- 19,377
- 3,399
- 183
We have slaves? Care to sell one or two?
paperview
Life is Good
Proves you know diddly squat about how 501c4 nonprofits operate.
- Thread starter
- #107
Fairness is a big thing among Democrats. Remove everyone of the aforementioned groups' tax-free status and then liberals can talk about illegal deductions. Not until then.
paperview
Life is Good
Rumor: IRS-targeted conservative groups never needed IRS approval
TRUE: U.S. tax law allows any group to "self-declare" 501(c)(4) status
By all accounts the IRS's admitted targeting of conservative groups for added scrutiny is a scandal of epic proportions. One important detail often overlooked, however, is that groups that want tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) — as nearly all of the groups targeted by the IRS reportedly were — do not need IRS approval. In fact, U.S. tax code allows any group seeking tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) organization to "self declare" as such, thus bypassing any of the delays or added questions given to groups like those that were improperly targeted.
IRS: Groups can 'self declare'
A 2012 letter sent from the IRS's former acting commissioner Steven T. Miller to Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch obtained by MSN News lays out the exact position on what it takes to attain tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) organization.
From Miller's letter: "The law allows section 501(c)(4) organizations to self-declare and hold themselves out as tax exempt. Organizations can also apply for IRS recognition as tax-exempt. An organization determined by the IRS to be tax-exempt can rely on that determination if their exempt status is ever questioned, so long as the organization has not deviated from the organizational structure and operational activities set forth in its application."
Asked to confirm whether this letter shows that 501(c)(4) applicants don't need IRS approval, IRS spokeswoman Julianne Breitbeil tells MSN News that it does indeed. The IRS declined to provide statistics on whether any groups that chose the self-declare option were later audited, citing privacy laws."
IRS-targeted conservative groups never needed IRS approval
TRUE: U.S. tax law allows any group to "self-declare" 501(c)(4) status
By all accounts the IRS's admitted targeting of conservative groups for added scrutiny is a scandal of epic proportions. One important detail often overlooked, however, is that groups that want tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) — as nearly all of the groups targeted by the IRS reportedly were — do not need IRS approval. In fact, U.S. tax code allows any group seeking tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) organization to "self declare" as such, thus bypassing any of the delays or added questions given to groups like those that were improperly targeted.
IRS: Groups can 'self declare'
A 2012 letter sent from the IRS's former acting commissioner Steven T. Miller to Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch obtained by MSN News lays out the exact position on what it takes to attain tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) organization.
From Miller's letter: "The law allows section 501(c)(4) organizations to self-declare and hold themselves out as tax exempt. Organizations can also apply for IRS recognition as tax-exempt. An organization determined by the IRS to be tax-exempt can rely on that determination if their exempt status is ever questioned, so long as the organization has not deviated from the organizational structure and operational activities set forth in its application."
Asked to confirm whether this letter shows that 501(c)(4) applicants don't need IRS approval, IRS spokeswoman Julianne Breitbeil tells MSN News that it does indeed. The IRS declined to provide statistics on whether any groups that chose the self-declare option were later audited, citing privacy laws."
IRS-targeted conservative groups never needed IRS approval
paperview
Life is Good
I posted this back at the beginning of Feb...
<snip>
While the 501(c)4 existed for years in this hybrid state, it appears that for most of its history, few organizations exploited the designation’s political potential. That all changed in the lead up to, and aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizen‘s United ruling.
By the time of the ruling, many major political players, including Karl Rove, had formed 501(c)4 organizations, and 501(c)4 groups were beginning to take over a role that 527′s (such as 2004′s Swift Vets and POWs for Truth) had played in previous elections. Citizens United firmly established that any legislative attempts to regulate donations to 501(c)4′s—either by imposing limits OR forcing the publishing of donor information—were violations of First Amendment rights.
Critics of the decision continue to point out that it in essence endorsed using 501(c)4′s as quasi-political organizations to circumvent federal and state election regulations. Groups who would have originally filled for 527 status could now opt instead for the freedom of 501(c)4′s. Of course, in order to do so, those groups would have to “massage” their applications to ensure that it did not appear that they were a fundamentally “political” group.
The following chart, included in the IRS audit, demonstrates that in the wake of Citizens United, there was a marked increase (~40% a year) in the number of 501(c)4 applications being submitted to the IRS.
Let me note that this period—2010 to 2012—also saw the maturation of the Tea Party.
And research into Tea Party communities shows that the accepted wisdom was that new Tea Party chapters should immediately file as 501(c)4 organizations.
Ironically, of the three organization tax designations in question—501(c)3, 501(c)4, and 527—only 501(c)4 allows for a group to self-declare their status without first filing with the IRS. The advantage to filing is official recognition, which is only necessary if an outsider challenges the group’s 501(c)4 status. Otherwise, for all intents and purposes, the only thing required to operate as a 501(c)4 is to say that you‘re a 501(c)4.
501(c)4 vs 501(c)3 vs 527
paperview
Life is Good
Final line from that last link:
And, hereÂ’s the kicker: An effect of the Citizens United ruling was that it inherently established that only one authority could regulate 501(c)4′s:
the IRS.
And, hereÂ’s the kicker: An effect of the Citizens United ruling was that it inherently established that only one authority could regulate 501(c)4′s:
the IRS.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Not only take the Fifth, but demand Immunity as a condition for cooperating fully.
???
paperview
Life is Good
But none of you guys want the details...you just want sound bytes and invective.
bedowin62
Gold Member
- Feb 6, 2014
- 17,997
- 2,037
- 280
no YOU dont want the only detail that matters; innocent people dont plead the fifth
you dont have the details of THIS matter; only your interpretation of what the groups were trying to do; and the nature of the 501s.
that has NOTHING to do with whether the groups were targeted on purpose by the IRS.
you dont really want to know the details that matter
- Thread starter
- #114
The problem is can they expect not to be audited?
You can bet they will be.
I noticed that you guys don't want to talk about the real issue here, and that is people who never applied for tax-free status that are being harassed. Instead you want to focus only on 501c applicants.
Democrats want to use the IRS as a way to depress conservative thought, depress conservative activities, depress conservative turnout., depress conservative fundraising. Nope, let's just focus on 501c 4. Don't pay attention to the harassment that continues today.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Dear Paperview:
People are in SERIOUS denial if the political conflict of interests isn't OBVIOUS (for both sides, including when conservative administrations also threatened environmental lobby groups as "ecoterrorists". Not just with the IRS but the FBI: Look up the case out of California where Judi Bari and Earth First won a 4 million dollar federal lawsuit after govt opponents set up a bombing and them framed them, promoting false claims that the leaders bombed their own car, in a slander campaign to disable their movement)
The IRS was already set up where it is not fully constitutional, as it does not have equal checks and balances as the original structures of govt; and is only in operation because the people CONSENT to it.
if we all withdrew our consent, and decided it was too easily abused politically by the administration in power because of the lack of constitutional checks and balances, then it could be reformed or replaced with something else. (again, I suggest separating funding and taxing by party, and only leaving the minimal taxes going into federal govt and policies that all people agree to; and delegate the rest to local jurisdiction by state, party, etc.)
But like the ACA that is going to benefit and empower the people who use it as a political pitbull, we are stuck with this pitbull while the conflicting sides don't agree what to replace it with: the singlepayer left that believes in health care as a right, vs. the free market on the right that believes in paying for health care as a choice. As long as we stay divided, the political powers can abuse the IRS, ACA, the Fed, etc. to bully their way and stay in power.
If we keep playing this game, of only blaming the "other party" for such abuses,
then we miss the point. The IRS, the Fed, and now the ACA are set up where ANYONE in federal govt can abuse them to punish threaten or silence political opponents.
The same political cronyism that buys out either party's candidates still gets them to pay the piper at the expense of the people. we are lucky to get anything at all out of this game.
People complain about Republicans paying off corporate financiers; the Democrats not only do the same, but at the expense of poor minority voter communities that cannot afford these games.
Sheldon Adelson can afford to blow millions of bucks gaimbling on his presidential racehorse; but for the Democrats who give 1 million to Wendy Davis, or even the thousands of dollars in grassroots money that is still being collected by Obama to push the ACA, that is money that ISN'T going into local programs where people can learn to manage their own communities and QUIT relying on govt and welfare.
The money that goes into campaigns for Democrats who get bought out anyway is taking away from low income communities underserved and underrepresented. Instead of investing resources into programs to make such communities self-sustaining, the money gets funneled through govt to pay for more and more bureaucracy to keep people dependent on govt and politically enslaving taxpayers.
Maybe I'm biased from what has happened in Houston, but I see more and more of this trend trickling up to the national levels.
If you are going to blame wealthy conservatives for abusing govt to enable corporate welfare, that is the equivalent of people blaming the liberals for abusing govt to enable criminals and poor to cost taxpayers without paying it back either, which would require teaching and training people to be self-reliant, not depending on govt programs. The problem on both sides is the actual WRONGDOERS who abuse govt for EITHER corporate or social welfare and expect lawabiding taxpayers to keep footing the bill; we can't go after the WRONGDOERS to get taxpayers paid back, if we are too busy "going after the wrong people" fighting over whether to blame the rich Republicans or the poor Democrats while the REAL people abusing the system get away with it.
When both sides unite, maybe then we'll see the people holding govt accountable instead of competing to place blame on whole groups, deflecting public attention while we are being robbed. How long can this go on before people wake up?
Last edited:
JoeB131
Diamond Member
You know, guy, I know you think it's a big deal, but hey, no, not really.
The thing is, you guys aren't going to get away with what you got away with in the ACORN case because in the ACORN case, you all lied your asses off and edited tapes.
Frankly, I don't really care what's going on at "Enroll America", and neither do most people. I know you think it's the most horrible thing in the world that poor people are getting health insurance and rich people can't buy elections, but that's the way things are now.
Because you lost.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Greenpeace and NAACP are old and large organizations that probably have entire accounting departments dedicated to dealing with the IRS. Which means when the IRS called for documentation, they were probably able to produce it.
And frankly, the larger Conservative groups like Crossroads GPS probably didn't have any problems, either.
The "Teabaggers to Hunt Wetbacks" started by the lady with the machine shop? Yeah, she's probably not going to have her paperwork straight.
- Thread starter
- #118
It doesn't hurt that a brother is in the White House.
Dude, you are so prone to hyperbole.
R
rdean
Guest
You have so many comments for someone who doesn't seem to know what the law actually says.
- Thread starter
- #120
Similar threads
New Topics
-
There's at least 2 petitions in Virginia to recall Ms Abigal, the Governess.- Started by the watcher
- Replies: 0
-
-
How Medicare Advantage Is Costing Everyone More- Started by skews13
- Replies: 4
-
How do you know someone is not a 'real austrian if he speaks perfect '- Started by Mortimer
- Replies: 1
-
