IRS Targeting Right Wing Groups

[Stoked]

Those names all indicate that the groups are political in nature and therefore do not qualify for tax free status.
Show me all the Democratic Groups with political sounding names that are given tax free status without examination.

That is what I have stated I'd liek to see. You do a marvelous job of trolling in a most annoying way.

I also have history on my side.

https://swampland.time.com/2013/05/...servatives-anchored-in-long-history-of-abuse/

 

[Stoked]

Those names all indicate that the groups are political in nature and therefore do not qualify for tax free status.
Show me all the Democratic Groups with political sounding names that are given tax free status without examination.

Keep on spinning. Even the Dems can see that they were politically targeted.

 

[MoreFeasts]

That is what I have stated I'd liek to see. You do a marvelous job of trolling in a most annoying way.

I also have history on my side.

https://swampland.time.com/2013/05/...servatives-anchored-in-long-history-of-abuse/

Your reference is about review of tax returns, and not applications for tax status.
There is a simple solution to the problem. Do away with these tax free classifications and special loopholes for groups with any political interests, period.

 

[Stoked]

Your reference is about enforcement of tax laws, and not applications for tax status.
There is a simple solution to the problem. Do away with these tax free classifications for groups with any political interests, period.

No it isn't.

 

[MoreFeasts]

In no way did I intend my statements in this thread to support every action ever of every US politician and every government employee in our historical records. I am just talking about the issue at hand.

 

[Stoked]

In no way did I intend my statements in this thread to support every action ever of every US politician and every government employee in our historical records. I am just talking about the issue at hand.

Perhaps but the statements you did make have nothing to do with the issue at hand either.

 

[moevillini]

In no way did I intend my statements in this thread to support every action ever of every US politician and every government employee in our historical records. I am just talking about the issue at hand.

LOL



How do you come up with these pearls of wisdom of yours?

 

[MoreFeasts]

The category 501(c)(4) took on new significance in 2010 when the US Supreme Court ruled that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns. Groups that are in the 501(c)(4) category are allowed to spend on political campaigns as long as raising funds for political campaigns is not their primary purpose, and they are not required to disclose their donors. So they can say their primary mission is educational, get gobs of money from corporate sources, and have plenty of money to spend "educating" the public about how they should vote
from wikipedia

Good research. If this is the Tea Parties position, and if it were up to me, I would reject their application because I don't agree with the distinction between educating and campaigning that you are making, (not sure if you were serious.) , I'd like to know more about the Supreme Court's reasoning. I think this creation of this category is a mistake, because it encourages just the sort of problems we are talking about. The existence of this category does not mean that the IRS should make zero efforts to try to avoid improper abuse of this category for political purposes, and rubber stamp every application regardless of merit.

 

[Stoked]

Good research. If this is the Tea Parties position, and if it were up to me, I would reject their application.

So wise of you to know if they qualify or not without knowing all the facts.

 

[MoreFeasts]

In other words, I think the primary purpose of the Tea Party IS to campaign, even if they try to modify their activities so as to argue that it isn't.

 

[MoreFeasts]

So wise of you to know if they qualify or not without knowing all the facts.

Incorrect. I made a conclusion based on a hypothetical with the facts given and my reasoning explained.

 

[Stoked]

In other words, I think the primary purpose of the Tea Party IS to campaign, even if they try to modify their activities so as to argue that it isn't.

I highlighted the major problem with your approach.

 

[Stoked]

Incorrect. I made a conclusion based on a hypothetical with the facts given and my reasoning explained.

All you have is a definition of what qualifies. You have no details on the operations of the exact groups applying. So you cannot judge wether they qualify or not.

 

[MoreFeasts]

You are wrong. I drew a conclusion based on sufficient evidence in the hypothetical. More information was not required.

 

[Stoked]

You are wrong. I drew a conclusion based on sufficient evidence in the hypothetical. More information was not required.

The IRS disagreed.

 

[MoreFeasts]

The IRS disagreed.

damn you're annoying
the IRS did not address the hypothetical .
You just type nonsense.

 

[One Brow]

Welcome to One Brow.

Also if the group meets all the requirements to be tax free then what you consider them is irrelevant.

What I would want to see is the number of groups that filed for tax exempt status in 2011 and 2012, the number of cases reviewed by the IRS and what percentage the targeted groups were of each relative to the overall percentage of filers.

Fixed and agreed.

 

[Stoked]

damn you're annoying
the IRS did not address the hypothetical .
You just type nonsense.

And you just type crap.

 

[Stoked]

Fixed and agreed.

For the pickier readers I guess...

 

[MoreFeasts]

why should political groups applications not receive more scrutiny than nonpolitical groups when the primary criteria for tax exempt status is that the group not be a political group?