It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by FyreByrd
reply to post by xuenchen
I'd like to inject some facts into this argument.
Non-profit groups are being used to hide political donors names.
But the particular bias people are angry about is the opposite of the bias they should be angry about. The problem wasn’t that the IRS was skeptical of tea party groups registering as 501(c)4s. It’s that it hasn’t been skeptical of Organizing for America, Crossroads GPS, Priorities USA and Heritage Action Fund registering as 501(c)4s. The IRS should be treating all these groups equally and appropriately — which would mean much more harshly.
Instead, the IRS has permitted 501(c)4s to grow into something monstrous. And if they cower in the aftermath of this embarrassment, it might make matters even worse.
Social welfare organizations have a couple of neat advantages. They’re tax-exempt — which means, in effect, that your tax dollars subsidize them. And thanks to a 1958 court case, they don’t have to disclose their donors.
Non-Profits are not meant to be political at all:
But they’re not meant to be political. A 2003 IRS document says that “organizations that promote social welfare should primarily promote the common good and general welfare of the people of the community as a whole.” It goes on to give pages and pages of examples. “A corporation organized for the purpose of rehabilitating and placing unemployed persons over a stated age,” for instance. Or “a corporation formed to provide a school district with a stadium.” “A memorial association organized to study and develop methods of achieving simplicity and dignity in funeral and memorial services,” qualifies, as does “an organization that conducts an annual festival centered around regional customs and traditions.”
Nowhere does the IRS mention “an organization formed by top political operatives for the clear and obvious purpose of reelecting or defeating the president.” But that’s what 501(c)4s have become. According to data collected by OpenSecrets.org, 501(c)4s spent $92 million in the 2010 election. They spent $254 million in the 2012 election. That’s a lot of social welfare going to the good people who live in swing states and competitive districts.
Both of the above quotes from:www.washingtonpost.com...
Only 1 group was denied status (a liberal group) there were delays for more information (as required by law) for political groups.
Some of the flagged groups did have their tax-exempt status delayed or did face some additional scrutiny, but not a single group has been denied tax-exempt status.
A May 14 draft report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found that none of the 296 questionable applicants had been denied, “For the 296 potential political cases we reviewed, as of December 17, 2012, 108 applications had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied, and 160 cases were open from 206 to 1,138 calendar days (some crossing two election cycles).” (p. 14)
In fact, the only known 501(c)(4) applicant to recently have its status denied happens to be a progressive group: the Maine chapter of Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office. Although the group did no electoral work, and didn’t participate in independent expenditure campaign activity either, its partisan nature disqualified it from being categorized as working for the “common good.”
So, a little more than 2/3rds of applications flagged for processing by specialists were indeed politically-oriented.
Normally, the aforementioned category would disqualify applicants for 501(C)(4) status. But the sheer volume of applicants during and after the 2008 presidential election along with the polarization of the political process in general combined to inhibit the agency's screening ability, allowing those groups to obtain the highly-sought-after 501(C)(4) tax-exempt status. Yes, it's an excuse. It was a bureaucratic failure with "bureaucratic" being the operative term.
But, it wasn't Barack Obama's army of liberal zombies.
Both from: www.dailykos.com...#
We should read this one closely as it goes on to detail blatant political activity by groups stating on the yearly returns that they don't support political candidates. Shouldn't they go to jail for perjury?
There was some racial (in this case 'verbiage') profiling going on - but that's the American way of efficiency.
Originally posted by Staroth
reply to post by xuenchen
So if the top IRS official refuse to talk they should present the evidence and charge them with the crimes accordingly and let's see how they like that silence!
Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by _Del_
Put her away? You granted immunity.
They need to look at the legality of making opening remarks insisting innocence and then pleading the fifth.
She chose to use the occasion to spin her side of the story, but not answer questions? That's the whole reason she was there in the first place.
: immunity granted to a witness in a criminal case that prevents the use of the witness's compelled testimony against that witness in a criminal prosecution
Transactional and use immunity are granted to preserve the constitutional protection against self-incrimination. The states grant either form of this immunity, while the federal government grants only use immunity. A witness with use immunity may still be prosecuted, but only based on evidence not gathered from the protected testimony.