Skip to main content

View Diary: IRS Targeted Progressive Groups MORE than Tea Party (93 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, some groups had no response at all for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    as long as 18+ months.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 11:58:45 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Gave 'em extra time to (8+ / 0-)

      get directly involved in countless GOP primaries and funnel all that good Koch money into campaigns, in FLAGRANT violation of the 501(c)(4) regulations (and law!).

      Delays??? These sombitches are lucky they haven't been perp-walked for TAX FRAUD!

      •  And these Koch groups (4+ / 0-)

        will be getting away with this thru 2014 , because the IRS has been told to stand down on the subject , but the IRS will still go after progressive groups of course

        Obama and the dems should bring the hammer down on the Issa stooges and the IRS with the info in the diary , and not listen to these wimpering comments of VClib voters

        Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

        by Patango on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 03:01:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  StillAmused - what tax fraud? (0+ / 0-)

        The contributions were not tax deductible and these organizations never have profits so where is the tax fraud?

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 05:04:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A little slow on the uptake, (5+ / 0-)

          are ya', Cletus?

          "Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(4) provides for the exemption of two very different types of organizations with their own distinct qualification requirements. They are:

          "• Social welfare organizations: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated EXCLUSIVELY for the promotion of social welfare, and

          • Local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of designated person(s) in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted EXCLUSIVELY for the promotion of social welfare."

          "Reg. 1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(ii) provides that the promotion of social welfare does NOT include direct or indirect participation in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office."  — IRS (my emphases)

          In other words, Cletus, these fraudulent applicants for the (c)(4) exemption are not only directly or indirectly participating in political campaigns, they don't have to disclose the sources of the money they're using to do it!

          If it walks like tax fraud and talks like tax fraud, then...

          Always glad to help...

          •  c'mon drop the 'cletus' stuff please (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kvetchnrelease, VClib

            VClib is always polite and presents his cases need for Yahoo! Talk™

            This machine kills Fascists.

            by KenBee on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 06:21:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  StillA - for many years the IRS has applied a (0+ / 0-)

            "majority" standard rather than an "exclusive" standard to these 501 c 4 organizations. The reason is that the Congress passed a Revenue Act in the 60s that conflicted with part of the 501 c 4 regulations. While the IRS has repeatedly asked Congress to clarify this section it has never done so. That has led to the practice of "majority" standard. The IRS has recently solicited comments on how it should re-write the 4c standards. The exclusive language will be modified, although it is unlikely that "majority" will be substituted. It will likely be somewhere between 30-40%.

            No 501 c 4 organization who has applied, or has been approved, is committing any tax fraud by using less than half of its funds for political ads. That's the current safe harbor standard, although it is likely to change before the 2016 election.  

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 07:22:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Having been chastised by your legal counsel, (0+ / 0-)

              I will (more) respectfully point out that the ONLY discernible 'activity' in which most — if not all — 'Tea Party' groups are engaged is political!

              This is not a statistical hair-splitting exercise... the 'Tea Party' "experience" — unique among other 501(c)(4) applicants (except for the Kochs' AFP itself!) — is a literal tsunami of in-your-face, partisan political involvement, and both the history and financing of many 'Tea Party' groups is a matter of public record.

              Your reading assignments, should you choose to accept them:

              This and this from our own Daily Kos.

              ... and these from Sourcewatch, HuffPo, Reid Report, Alternet and The Nation.

              If you need more, The Google is your friend.


              •  SA - there is nothing mutually exclusive (0+ / 0-)

                about being a Tea Party advocate organization and qualifying for, and complying with, 4 C regulations. None of us know how these groups are actually spending their donations and if they are committing tax fraud or not. My understanding is that if a 4C group violates IRS regulations the remedies are civil and they are treated as a taxable entities. Few of these small 4 C organizations are "profitable" in an accounting sense as they tend to spend all of the donations they collect. Therefore there is no real incentive for the IRS to audit these entities in mass because there is no significant tax recovery available. The contributions to these 4 C's aren't tax deductible so there is no significant recovery available to the IRS from donors. The IRS typically targets people and entities where they can collect more taxes.  

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 08:26:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  "None of us know how these groups are actually (0+ / 0-)

                  spending their donations and if they are committing tax fraud or not." ???

                  The "fraud" lies not necessarily in "how these groups are actually spending their donations" but in their overwhelmingly documented, repeatedly reported and unashamedly trumpeted PARTISAN POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT in numerous campaigns, the whole POINT of the law and its derived regulation. It's their reason for being — their ONLY reason — which means that they KNEW they were, and would be, in violation of both the statute and the regulation governing 501(c)(4) WHEN THEY APPLIED.

                  Your unremitting, furious struggle to find an "out" for these fraudulent front groups on your calculator is impressive... dare I say, obsessive.

                  I'm sure you have your reasons. I'm not interested in knowing them.

          •  I have long thought the IRS scandal was... (2+ / 0-)

            that any applicant seeking to engage or subsequently engaged in politics on ANY level received or retained its 501(c)(4) certification.

            The law itself and the regulations, as quoted above, clearly say that certified organizations may not engage in political activity of ANY kind.

            The scandal is that the IRS does not immediately jerk the certification of ALL organizations that engage in political activity of ANY sort no matter how slight.

            I have nothing against the organizations engaging in political activity. I just don't think those organizations should be given special tax treatment unless they follow the law that grants it to them.

            "An egg is not poultry.” An old Blues tune's brilliant insight into the notion that a zygote can, in any sense, be "a person."

            by carbonman1950 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 07:57:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site