The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum
|Subject: Re: Lamest scheme ever||Date: 5/17/2013 4:27 PM|
|Author: xLife||Number: 1878077 of 2010682|
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.
But this is factually untrue.
It's not the least bit untrue.
(1) 501(c)(4) is the section of the tax code dealing with social welfare organizations.
(2) Political organizations don't need 501(c)(4) status to be tax exempt. All they need to do is file a FORM 1112-POL with their return.
As noted repeatedly in this thread, all of these organizations were eventually granted their 501(c)(4) status.
After the kind of review people are now squealing about and despite the fact they're not primarily social welfare organizations, but are instead political organizations. (I think the granting of the status was political. Having bungled the process, the IRS waved them through even though they don't technically qualify. The practical implications are nil anyway.)
All of them properly filed for a designation that they qualified for.
I disagree. And again, whether they filed for 501(c)(3) and whether they were granted 501 (c)(3) status is irrelevant to my argument. They didn't need 501(c)(3) status to be tax exempt and therefore the status, its delay or denial, didn't affect their operations. In effect, they were seeking a "permit" they didn't need and (in my opinion) didn't qualify for in the first place. Tea party groups are explicitly and primarily political groups. As I've said repeatedly, political groups don't need 501(c)(3) status.
|Copyright 1996-2015 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|