Skip to main content

View Diary: The IRS screwed up. No political group should enjoy 501(c)(4) status (50 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Every agency makes its own rules under statute (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ender, erush1345, VClib

    FCC, SEC, EPA, FERC, DOJ, etc... why is the IRS doing it so hair-on-fire inducing?  

    If Congress thinks its overstepped its authority, it has every right to pass a law "clarifying" the rule.  Congress is always the highest authority here (unless its a question of a potential conflict with the Constitution, in which case the SCOTUS would have to weigh in.  But even them, Congress could act preemptively and rewrite the law in question prior to judicial review).  Congress does this to the EPA all the time.  

    If Congress chooses not to act, the agency should continue to act under its own published interpretation unless and until a new statute is passed.

    I don't understand the outrage here.  I really don't.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Fri May 17, 2013 at 08:44:20 AM PDT

    •  The original language sounds pretty clear to me (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lunachickie

      Is there really any question as to what "exclusively" means?

      •  apparently there is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny wurster, erush1345

        since this has been in effect for 54 years and no one has passed a single thing in 26 different sessions of Congress.

        Ive seen them move to override an EPA rule in a matter of weeks.  

        This wasn't some back-room swindle of the Eisenhower Administration.  They published their rules in the Treasury Regulations and have enforced them accordingly ever since.

        11 Presidential Administrations, 26 Congressional Sessions and 30 Commissioners of the IRS later and NOW its an egregiously shady overreach of agency power that protects lobbyists... or something....

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:01:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You presume the tax code is written in english (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        It isn't, really.  Dictionary definitions don't always apply.  For purposes of Section 501(c)(3), exclusively means primarily but you can have insubstantial amounts of other stuff (primarily lobbying and investment activity.)  I've always treated that as no more than 15%.

        The shocking this is that the same language in Section 501(c)(4) could be treated as 49%/51% - but no one really knows because the IRS has never issued much in the way of guidance on that.

        •  In my Library tax code takes up a whole room (0+ / 0-)

          Its written and read by lobbyists not legislators.

          Exclusive actually does mean exclusive because the definition of primarily refers back to 501 C exclusive.

          Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

          by rktect on Fri May 17, 2013 at 02:28:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  yes, it's different than primarily (0+ / 0-)

        The current test for 501 c 4s.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Fri May 17, 2013 at 11:37:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (129)
  • Community (54)
  • Republicans (35)
  • Environment (33)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (30)
  • Bernie Sanders (26)
  • Elections (26)
  • Media (24)
  • Spam (23)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Education (21)
  • GOP (21)
  • Labor (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (18)
  • Law (17)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Barack Obama (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site