The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum
|Subject: Re: Lamest scheme ever||Date: 5/17/2013 4:03 PM|
|Author: xLife||Number: 1878070 of 1976481|
That's wrong. They didn't even need to apply for 501(c)(4) status to be tax-exempt. If they refrained from activities while awaiting an IRS determination, that's their fault for being ignorant of the rules.
I'm not sure I understand this argument. You don't need to be confirmed by the IRS as a 501(c)(4) to qualify for the tax exemption; but the reason why you are allowed to apply for that status is so that you (and others) can confirm ahead of time that you qualify.
Yes, but that's irrelevant to my argument. Social welfare organizations need 501(c)(4) status to be tax exempt. But these groups in question are primarily political organizations. Political organizations don't need 501(c)(4) status for tax exemption. They just have to file a form (Form 1112-POL) with their return. So the filings for 501(c)(3) were entirely unnecessary.
It's sort of like applying for a license to open a lemonade stand even when you don't need one, then complaining that your application is being delayed while the town clerk tries to figure out what to do with you.
The IRS improperly delayed confirming that they were eligible for tax-exempt status under 501(c)(4), while numerous non-conservative groups were free to engage in activities without having such uncertainty.
What non-conservative political groups had their 501(c)(3) applications approved without being asked for additional information?
And again, what uncertainty? The groups were eligible for non-profit status with or without 501(c)(4) approval? Approval or rejection made no difference to their ability to operate.
|Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|