SMRs and AMRs

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

501(c) what?

tea-party-irs-580.jpg The Real I.R.S. Scandal

Posted by Jeffrey Toobin, The New Yorker

Washington’s scandal machinery, rusty from recent disuse, is cranking back up to speed due to the alleged targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service. Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said, “It’s the kind of thing that scares the American people to their core. When Americans are being targeted for audits based on their political beliefs, that needs to change.” Senator Susan Collins, of Maine, called on the President to apologize. George Will said President Obama could be impeached. Obama himself is taking the path of contrition. At a news conference Monday, the President said, “If in fact I.R.S. personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that’s outrageous. And there’s no place for it.” More hearings, with more outrage, are planned.

In light of this, it might be useful to ask: Did the I.R.S. actually do anything wrong?

The stories began to come to light on Friday, when the Associated Press reported that a draft report by a Treasury Department inspector general had found that the I.R.S. subjected certain Tea Party-affiliated groups to undue scrutiny. Lois Lerner, head of the I.R.S. tax-exempt-organizations division, said the agency was “apologetic” for what she termed “absolutely inappropriate” actions by lower-level workers.

It’s important to review why the Tea Party groups were petitioning the I.R.S. anyway. They were seeking approval to operate under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. This would require them to be “social welfare,” not political, operations. There are significant advantages to being a 501(c)(4). These groups don’t pay taxes; they don’t have to disclose their donors—unlike traditional political organizations, such as political-action committees. In return for the tax advantage and the secrecy, the 501(c)(4) organizations must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates.

(More here.)

3 Comments:

Blogger Tom Koch said...

First they came...

7:47 AM  
Blogger Minnesota Central said...

See the piece by Bill Keller about The Heritage Foundation being a (501)c.3 ... who are they "educating" on the impacts of immigration ... what's next, The Flat Earth Foundation will educate our politicians about going over the cliff ?

Remember that Dick Armey left with $8 million from FreedomWorks ....

It's time to eliminate the tax-exempt classification ... let people donate their monies without being able to claim a tax deduction and make these organizations pay taxes just the same as any other business or individuals.

Yes, the IRS may have examined new applicants closely, but did they reject them ?

7:48 AM  
Blogger Patrick Dempsey said...

It's not that they were rejected, it's that the IRS requirements for those applicants became so burdensome, it wasn't worth the time or effort to move forward with organization that was seeking the tax-exempt status.

The IRS purposely thwarted people from engaging in the political process precisely because of their political affiliations. And this was done at the behest of the Obama Administration who has, for five years, used the power of government to wage war on its political adversaries.

I highly doubt you would be as lenient of a Republican administration were the roles reversed, Mr McPherson.

10:17 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home