The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum


Subject:  Re: Lamest scheme ever Date:  5/17/2013  6:13 PM
Author:  xLife Number:  1878107 of 2211133

It's 501(c)(4)...

I know. I keep making that mistake because 501(c)(3) is more common and I'm involved with a couple of those.

...and how do you know that it's irrelevant to donors?

It's irrelevant for tax purposes. Donations to (c)(4)'s aren't tax deductible. The income to the organization is tax-exempt.

Our law firm has a weekly 'casual day' where proceeds go to a selected organization that employees nominate - but only 501(c) organizations are eligible to participate.

Okay. Good luck proving in court that Joe Blow didn't don't money to the Tea Party Committee of East Smithville because its (c)(4) status was still under review even though it makes no difference at all with regard to the deductibility of the donation.

Except you weren't speeding. That's the point - these folks weren't speeding. They met the requirements, and didn't deserve to get pulled over.

That's where I fundamentally disagree with you. I've posted links to the IRS rules several times explaining why. These groups are primarily political organizations not social welfare groups. (I can't beleive anyone can dispute this.) And those that aren't primarily political are political enough to warrant additional scrutiny. The fact that the IRS eventually caved and granted them all status is political, in my opinion, an attempt to placate and avoid a political "scandal" over what was in reality bureaucratic screwup... as if that ever works.
Copyright 1996-2018 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us