4 ms·

> we have political opposition groups targeted for audits What happened was the IRS decided to ask extra questions for groups attempting to register as chariti

> we have political opposition groups targeted for audits What happened was the IRS decided to ask extra questions for groups attempting to register as charities but suspected to be engaged in political activities. If, as you say, they were "political opposition groups" then the IRS was completely correct in reviewing their applications; they didn't qualify to be charities. Why do "political opposition groups" deserve special tax status? Why shouldn't the IRS enforce the law?

metaphorm 13y ago
the IRS should enforce the law. they should enforce it equally. It appears as if they were a bit too selective. Their reasons for auditing were well justified, but they aimed those audits at a very specific group of organizations.
hga 13y ago
Non-profits, not charities; many of the 27 types of 501(c) organizations are not charities. Here we're talking about 501(c)(4) groups, which are explicitly allowed to engage in politics, with limits. See this for more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5698931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5698931
- jellicle 13y ago
  They're social welfare groups, by law. And the intent of the registering persons is not to create a social welfare group, but to hide the identity of political donors. The creators in this case gave their groups names indicating they intended to use the group fraudulently. The IRS was completely correct to investigate them.
  - hga 13y ago
    Now wait a second: in the message I'm replying to, you said they were "charities ... suspected to be engaged in political activities". Now they're social welfare groups ... but how is hiding the identity of "political donors" a problem? They're allowed to do that! And you need to be more specific about how these charities, excuse me, social welfare groups, are fraudulent, you haven't clearly outlined what you claim they're doing that's a fraud.
    - jellicle 13y ago
      Engaging in political activities as 100% of their operation. For instance, Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS entity. If you can point to any social welfare activity Mr. Rove is engaged in, I'd love to see it. But his group's primary purpose is required to be social welfare. Rove's group pays no taxes because it is supposedly a social welfare group, but it's actually a political slush fund. And the Republicans, having broken the law flagrantly, are now attempting to prevent the IRS from taking any action to end their abuse of the tax-exempt nonprofit status. That's the scandal. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/05/irs-scandal-tea-party-oversight.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/05/irs-sc...
      - hga 13y ago
        Crossroads GPS claims public policy advocacy, which is certainly allowed under 501(c)(4) (compare to the NRA's lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative action, also a 501(c)(4), albeit not partisan, see again Republican ex-Senator Lugar spending more time with his family), and fits into the broad category of "social welfare". "Rove's group pays no taxes..." because it is a non-profit. Contributions for political activity are taxed. And claims that it's a "slush fund", with all the connotations that implies, need more than just a bald accusation. Look, this corruption of the political process is worse than Watergate, because it was successful in suppressing a lot of election year political activity, compared to the latter getting caught early and therefore not going very far. It calls into question the very legitimacy of Obama's reelection, as pointed out by e.g. James Tatarnto: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323716304578481112854394652.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732371630457848... A lot of people including myself were wondering where the "Tea Party" was in the 2012 election ... well, now we know part of the answer: getting stomped upon by the IRS, or avoiding that and staying too small to matter. You can stop your ears up and say "La, la, la" all you want, but we on the other side are not buying it. And your side should think really hard about the ultimate long term consequences of illegally suppressing the loyal opposition, if we're pushed out of the political process, that doesn't leave us with any palatable options.
tsotha 13y ago
>What happened was the IRS decided to ask extra questions for groups attempting to register as charities but suspected to be engaged in political activities. That's okay, in and of itself. The problem is they only did this to conservative groups, while leaving obvious law-breakers on the left (like MMFA) alone.
- jellicle 13y ago
  By "leaving them alone", you mean "has investigated them numerous times at the urging of various conservatives, and found they didn't violate the law". In other words, the IRS has applied the same standard to MMFA that the Republicans so vigorously object to having applied to them.
  - tsotha 13y ago
    >By "leaving them alone", you mean "has investigated them numerous times at the urging of various conservatives, and found they didn't violate the law". No, I don't mean that at all. The IRS has decidedly not applied the same standard. I would have thought the fact that the president himself has described the IRS's conduct as "outrageous" as he tries to run away from the scandal would clue you in a bit.

metaphorm 13y ago

the IRS should enforce the law. they should enforce it equally. It appears as if they were a bit too selective. Their reasons for auditing were well justified, but they aimed those audits at a very specific group of organizations.

hga 13y ago

Non-profits, not charities; many of the 27 types of 501(c) organizations are not charities. Here we're talking about 501(c)(4) groups, which are explicitly allowed to engage in politics, with limits. See this for more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5698931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5698931

jellicle 13y ago
They're social welfare groups, by law. And the intent of the registering persons is not to create a social welfare group, but to hide the identity of political donors. The creators in this case gave their groups names indicating they intended to use the group fraudulently. The IRS was completely correct to investigate them.
- hga 13y ago
  Now wait a second: in the message I'm replying to, you said they were "charities ... suspected to be engaged in political activities". Now they're social welfare groups ... but how is hiding the identity of "political donors" a problem? They're allowed to do that! And you need to be more specific about how these charities, excuse me, social welfare groups, are fraudulent, you haven't clearly outlined what you claim they're doing that's a fraud.
  - jellicle 13y ago
    Engaging in political activities as 100% of their operation. For instance, Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS entity. If you can point to any social welfare activity Mr. Rove is engaged in, I'd love to see it. But his group's primary purpose is required to be social welfare. Rove's group pays no taxes because it is supposedly a social welfare group, but it's actually a political slush fund. And the Republicans, having broken the law flagrantly, are now attempting to prevent the IRS from taking any action to end their abuse of the tax-exempt nonprofit status. That's the scandal. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/05/irs-scandal-tea-party-oversight.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/05/irs-sc...
    - hga 13y ago
      Crossroads GPS claims public policy advocacy, which is certainly allowed under 501(c)(4) (compare to the NRA's lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative action, also a 501(c)(4), albeit not partisan, see again Republican ex-Senator Lugar spending more time with his family), and fits into the broad category of "social welfare". "Rove's group pays no taxes..." because it is a non-profit. Contributions for political activity are taxed. And claims that it's a "slush fund", with all the connotations that implies, need more than just a bald accusation. Look, this corruption of the political process is worse than Watergate, because it was successful in suppressing a lot of election year political activity, compared to the latter getting caught early and therefore not going very far. It calls into question the very legitimacy of Obama's reelection, as pointed out by e.g. James Tatarnto: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323716304578481112854394652.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732371630457848... A lot of people including myself were wondering where the "Tea Party" was in the 2012 election ... well, now we know part of the answer: getting stomped upon by the IRS, or avoiding that and staying too small to matter. You can stop your ears up and say "La, la, la" all you want, but we on the other side are not buying it. And your side should think really hard about the ultimate long term consequences of illegally suppressing the loyal opposition, if we're pushed out of the political process, that doesn't leave us with any palatable options.

tsotha 13y ago

>What happened was the IRS decided to ask extra questions for groups attempting to register as charities but suspected to be engaged in political activities. That's okay, in and of itself. The problem is they only did this to conservative groups, while leaving obvious law-breakers on the left (like MMFA) alone.

jellicle 13y ago
By "leaving them alone", you mean "has investigated them numerous times at the urging of various conservatives, and found they didn't violate the law". In other words, the IRS has applied the same standard to MMFA that the Republicans so vigorously object to having applied to them.
- tsotha 13y ago
  >By "leaving them alone", you mean "has investigated them numerous times at the urging of various conservatives, and found they didn't violate the law". No, I don't mean that at all. The IRS has decidedly not applied the same standard. I would have thought the fact that the president himself has described the IRS's conduct as "outrageous" as he tries to run away from the scandal would clue you in a bit.