Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Politics

[R Merm]

Source: NY Times

When CVFC, a conservative veterans’ group in California, applied for tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service, its biggest expenditure that year was several thousand dollars in radio ads backing a Republican candidate for Congress.

The Wetumpka Tea Party, from Alabama, sponsored training for a get-out-the-vote initiative dedicated to the “defeat of President Barack Obama” while the I.R.S. was weighing its application.

And the head of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, whose application languished with the I.R.S. for more than two years, sent out e-mails to members about Mitt Romney campaign events and organized members to distribute Mr. Romney’s presidential campaign literature.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us/politics/nonprofit-applicants-chafing-at-irs-tested-political-limits.html?hp

---

Well here is a surprise.

[Berlum]

1. Scofflaws & Greedhead Tax Dodgers (R)

RepubliBaggers lying & weasling to avoid their responsibilities. As usual.

[John2]

2. Why isn't there an

investigation, to see if there was outside pressure from politicians to clear these groups? It is very surprising and I might even say suspicious, all these groups were cleared by the IRS. I just wonder why Lerner found it necessary to apologize only to conservative groups and I also think the IG itself has to be questioned. I think this because he was reporting back to Isa. How is that independent of his influence? Why does he need to report to anyone during his investigation?

[ashling]

3. I just wonder why Lerner found it necessary to apologize only to conservative groups

[JDPriestly]

4. I also think this is a good point.

I just wonder why Lerner found it necessary to apologize only to conservative groups

Put the words Taxed Enough Already in your name and then complain when the IRS investigates? Those words are a challenge to the IRS, an invitation to an investigation. Why the surprise?

[greymattermom]

5. they should investigate all of them

This activity is clearly illegal. No need to target, it will take care of itself. Citizen volunteers could help.

[former9thward]

13. Citizen volunteers?

It is illegal for non-IRS personnel to view other people's/organizations' tax matters without permission.

[Historic NY]

6. More than a few were spanked during the primary's.....

including Rove's groups I think they're mostly upset because they found they couldn't get a tax deduction for the antics. Unregulated donations amounts a 501c3 would give them vs the caps on political giving is the real problem.

[aggiesal]

7. Couldn't get a tax deduction for the antics?

I thought each and every request was approved.

[Historic NY]

12. They know they are more than skirtng the issue...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/010797.htm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444549204578022201425205738.html

[mwooldri]

11. 501c3 stays out of politics. 501c4 can as a sideshow.

It's hard keeping up with these 501-whatnots... Besides I would consider any organization that is a non-profit to be a CHARITY. Mr. Rove's organizations need a different name: The American Society for the Prevention of Financial Losses by Wealthy Citizens Engaging in Politics. I wish I could have come up with a nice acronym but I got better things to think about right now.

[former9thward]

14. These are 501c4s not 501c3s.

There is no tax deduction when you give to a 501c4.

[nineteen50]

8. Ho does that go?

If you have nothing to hide why worry?

[PatrynXX]

9. hence why Stephen Colbert pointed out they don't need to ask the IRS

although strangely enough it puts them in the spotlight. basically I assume they do they to pick a fight whenever they had planned on doing so.

[LeftInTX]

10. If conservatives do something wrong, they blame Democrats

It's like a guy who breaks the law and blames the cops cuz they caught him.

[Sunlei]

15. probably testing and fronts for tax free work for the giant republican 'charities'

bunch of leeches, freeloaders.

Crazy how the republicans want tax free attacks against America AND hurt real legit charities, who need donations to survive.

[jmowreader]

16. They didn't "test" the rules. They ignored them.

501(c)(4) is for charities whose mission requires political activity, but political activity can't be their sole focus. The American Red Cross, maybe...they might have to lobby in support of additional FEMA funding, say, but most of what they do isn't political.(The Red Cross is actually a 501(c)(3) but they were the first charity I could think of.)

Tea Party groups are specifically political groups. That is all they do.

[DallasNE]

17. There Is A Reason The Law Says "Exclusively"

There is no reason for the current IRS "clarification" that says exclusively means primarily. That was a political decision by Eisenhower that was completely arbitrary. The current IRS director could rescind that, going back to the actual language in the law, but that will never happen Republicans will never stand for it. If the issue was truly tax-exempt status then these groups could reapply as PAC's. It's not. The only issue is keeping the donor lists secret. The reason is clear. These donors want to avoid a backlash for their political activity. Look at what happened with Olive Garden when they announced they were cutting workers hours to avoid provisions of Obamacare. The boycott hit their bottom line, as it should. These people simply want their cake and eat it too.