The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum
|Subject: Re: Lamest scheme ever||Date: 5/18/2013 10:09 AM|
|Author: xLife||Number: 1878230 of 1998569|
That's not my claim. My claim is that political groups applying for 501(c)(4) status deserve additional scrutiny, not that they automatically are ineligible.
I thought that you stated above that these groups shouldn't have been approved - that they did not meet the criteria for 501(c)(4) status, and were only approved because the IRS wanted to mitigate the scandal.
Yes. Without looking at the details of their applications, I think many, if not all, of these groups do not meet the IRS's definition of a social welfare group. That's not to say all political orgs do not.
That's how you concluded that there was no harm to them, since they never should have been applying for this particular status in the first place - they should have been applying as 527's.
That's not the only reason I believe they suffered no harm and not how I came to that conclusion. (I didn't say anything about applying as 527s.) I said they can't claim they suffered harm because their tax-exempt status was in limbo, because their tax-exempt status was never in limbo. They're tax-exempt as political organizations regardless of 501c4 status. Maybe there's some additional benefit c4 status confers and they could claim damages based on that.
If you're claiming that political issue groups need additional scrutiny - not that they're ineligible - then we're back to the main issue again.
No. I'm not saying all political groups aren't eligible. I'm saying most aren't (or shouldn't be.) All political groups applying for 501c4 status as social welfare organizations deserve extra scrutiny because 501c4 groups aren't supposed to engage in politics, with limited exceptions. Some will qualify under the exceptions. I don't believe most tea party groups do because their primary purpose is the support and opposition of political candidates. They're mission isn't charity or education They both directly and indirectly intervene in political campaigns, which is explicitly forbidden. Obviously, the IRS caved and granted them status anyway.
The IRS categorically subjected conservative groups to additional scrutiny that they did not categorically apply to progressive groups - all of the signifiers that they used for their BOLO screens were associated with conservative movements.
Yes. That's what was wrong about what they did. Their screens were specific to orgs with words like "tea party" and "patriot"in their names. That appears to be because there was a flood of "tea party" applications at the time (and relatively few "occupy" applications.) The employees in Cincinnati say they did this for convenience and fairness, not political reasons. The IRS IG came to a similar conclusion. Whether you believe them or not is another matter. Personally, I find it difficult to believe a Bush appointee, who headed IRS at the time, would condone the targeting of conservative groups. And there's no evidence - none - that that is what happened. The facts show that when higher ups in the IRS got eind of this, they put a stop to it and apologized. That's not exactly how you go about harassing your political opponents.
|Copyright 1996-2015 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|