15 ms·

If huge corporations are hiding parts of their operations under a 501c status it SHOULD be looked into. Don't fall into the trap that Tea Party members fell int

If huge corporations are hiding parts of their operations under a 501c status it SHOULD be looked into. Don't fall into the trap that Tea Party members fell into. This is not a scandal. Don't cry about it. No big deal.

jpdoctor 13y ago
It's a bit bizarre honestly. Operations are all deductions, and so write off against revenue. Why would somebody take expenses off they P&L?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- ghjm 13y ago
  They want to be able to take large donations from wealthy contributors, without (a) having to pay tax on them as income, or (b) having to follow the normal reporting requirements for political groups.
  - jpdoctor 13y ago
    > without (a) having to pay tax on them as income, But that is my point: The expenses write off against the revenue in the biz, so there's no point in creating a separate org. There can't be sizeable income left in the separate org, or they get nailed for having assets. > (b) having to follow the normal reporting requirements for political groups. That's different, but I got the sense from the article that it was more about advertising than politics. FTA: In short, the IRS is concerned that some of these organizations exist simply to market companies' software, and perhaps the associated services sold alongside them.
    - snowwrestler 13y ago
      The tax issue actually goes the other way--individuals can take a personal tax deduction on most donations to 501c orgs, but not to for-profit companies.
      - jpdoctor 13y ago
        Aha, it's because they think their income will go up from donations of individuals? That makes more sense.
adestefan 13y ago
People complain that government doesn't do a good enough job, but then people complain when government tries to do a better job.
- PencilAndPaper 13y ago
  The key word being "tries". they need to be a bit more effective with their trying (if indeed they are trying to do good things).
- sigzero 13y ago
  "targeting" equals "tries" now? Okie dokie.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Totally. Just earlier today I was reading something about how the IRS taxes citizens who have their wealth abroad. People were very angry! But these are the same people who want more taxes on the rich. All I could think was, 'Hold up a second guys, aren't you familiar with the key ways the rich avoid taxes?'
  - snogglethorpe 13y ago
    The thing is, the IRS "taxes citizens who have their wealth abroad" even if they have no significant financial/business links with the U.S. (they live/work/invest entirely outside the U.S.), and even if they aren't wealthy... I'm all for catching tax cheats when that's actually what's going on, but the IRS policies here are often just downright douchey...
  - untog 13y ago
    That's a little different. If you moved to Europe, took a job in Europe, lived in Europe and paid taxes in Europe, you'd STILL have to pay US tax. Very few other countries do that.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      Only if you make $100k+ though, from what I've read. You get an exemption if you make less than that, I believe?
pekk 13y ago
Strangely, "no big deal" is only the top post when it concerns open source. When it concerns the Tea Party, the top post is some political rant.
malandrew 13y ago
I think a lot of things the government does would not be a big deal, if they at least told us about what they are doing and why. Transparency goes a long long long way to resolve confusion and concern and prevent abuse.
- ryanisinallofus 13y ago
  Yeah, Obama seems to have promised more of that than he was able/willing to deliver.
newbie12 13y ago
To be fair, in the case of the Tea Party they delayed applications through the election, and there's also evidence the IRS handed donor information to outside groups.
- casual_slacker 13y ago
  If there "is evidence", you should provide it.
  - joshuahedlund 13y ago
    Here you go, straight from the "outside group": http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-sent-confidential-info-on-conservatives-to-liberal-nonprofit-propublica/ http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-sent-confidential-info...
    - casual_slacker 13y ago
      Here's the original source from your article: http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-t... I'm not convinced it's a targeting of opposing political groups by the white house though. If Propublica requested papers, and got them even if they shouldn't have, that's a bureaucratic error.
  - roboneal 13y ago
    He said that on March 30, 2012, NOM became aware that the Human Rights Campaign, the pro-gay rights group, obtained confidential information of its donors and posted the information without redacting the names. That information later appeared on websites like the Huffington Post. NOM discovered another document with redactions that had been posted. A computer analysis, after removing the document's redaction layer, discovered the document had "originated from within the IRS itself." He said the group found the header of each page read: “THIS IS A COPY OF A LIVE RETURN FROM SMIPS. OFFICIAL USE ONLY." And that was proof that the leak originated from the IRS. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/04/National-Organization-of-Marriage-Chairman-IRS-Leaked-Info-About-Group-s-Donors-to-Liberal-Groups http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/04/National-...
dllthomas 13y ago
But those of us trying to organize funds for FLOSS projects serving the public commons have a harder time raising money. That's a big deal. It's not really new info, though perhaps more confirmed - this is what people were telling us before even the Tea Party piece of this broke.

jpdoctor 13y ago

It's a bit bizarre honestly. Operations are all deductions, and so write off against revenue. Why would somebody take expenses off they P&L?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ghjm 13y ago
They want to be able to take large donations from wealthy contributors, without (a) having to pay tax on them as income, or (b) having to follow the normal reporting requirements for political groups.
- jpdoctor 13y ago
  > without (a) having to pay tax on them as income, But that is my point: The expenses write off against the revenue in the biz, so there's no point in creating a separate org. There can't be sizeable income left in the separate org, or they get nailed for having assets. > (b) having to follow the normal reporting requirements for political groups. That's different, but I got the sense from the article that it was more about advertising than politics. FTA: In short, the IRS is concerned that some of these organizations exist simply to market companies' software, and perhaps the associated services sold alongside them.
  - snowwrestler 13y ago
    The tax issue actually goes the other way--individuals can take a personal tax deduction on most donations to 501c orgs, but not to for-profit companies.
    - jpdoctor 13y ago
      Aha, it's because they think their income will go up from donations of individuals? That makes more sense.

adestefan 13y ago

People complain that government doesn't do a good enough job, but then people complain when government tries to do a better job.

PencilAndPaper 13y ago
The key word being "tries". they need to be a bit more effective with their trying (if indeed they are trying to do good things).
sigzero 13y ago
"targeting" equals "tries" now? Okie dokie.
sliverstorm 13y ago
Totally. Just earlier today I was reading something about how the IRS taxes citizens who have their wealth abroad. People were very angry! But these are the same people who want more taxes on the rich. All I could think was, 'Hold up a second guys, aren't you familiar with the key ways the rich avoid taxes?'
- snogglethorpe 13y ago
  The thing is, the IRS "taxes citizens who have their wealth abroad" even if they have no significant financial/business links with the U.S. (they live/work/invest entirely outside the U.S.), and even if they aren't wealthy... I'm all for catching tax cheats when that's actually what's going on, but the IRS policies here are often just downright douchey...
- untog 13y ago
  That's a little different. If you moved to Europe, took a job in Europe, lived in Europe and paid taxes in Europe, you'd STILL have to pay US tax. Very few other countries do that.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Only if you make $100k+ though, from what I've read. You get an exemption if you make less than that, I believe?

pekk 13y ago

Strangely, "no big deal" is only the top post when it concerns open source. When it concerns the Tea Party, the top post is some political rant.

malandrew 13y ago

I think a lot of things the government does would not be a big deal, if they at least told us about what they are doing and why. Transparency goes a long long long way to resolve confusion and concern and prevent abuse.

ryanisinallofus 13y ago
Yeah, Obama seems to have promised more of that than he was able/willing to deliver.

newbie12 13y ago

To be fair, in the case of the Tea Party they delayed applications through the election, and there's also evidence the IRS handed donor information to outside groups.

casual_slacker 13y ago
If there "is evidence", you should provide it.
- joshuahedlund 13y ago
  Here you go, straight from the "outside group": http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-sent-confidential-info-on-conservatives-to-liberal-nonprofit-propublica/ http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-sent-confidential-info...
  - casual_slacker 13y ago
    Here's the original source from your article: http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-t... I'm not convinced it's a targeting of opposing political groups by the white house though. If Propublica requested papers, and got them even if they shouldn't have, that's a bureaucratic error.
- roboneal 13y ago
  He said that on March 30, 2012, NOM became aware that the Human Rights Campaign, the pro-gay rights group, obtained confidential information of its donors and posted the information without redacting the names. That information later appeared on websites like the Huffington Post. NOM discovered another document with redactions that had been posted. A computer analysis, after removing the document's redaction layer, discovered the document had "originated from within the IRS itself." He said the group found the header of each page read: “THIS IS A COPY OF A LIVE RETURN FROM SMIPS. OFFICIAL USE ONLY." And that was proof that the leak originated from the IRS. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/04/National-Organization-of-Marriage-Chairman-IRS-Leaked-Info-About-Group-s-Donors-to-Liberal-Groups http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/04/National-...

dllthomas 13y ago

But those of us trying to organize funds for FLOSS projects serving the public commons have a harder time raising money. That's a big deal. It's not really new info, though perhaps more confirmed - this is what people were telling us before even the Tea Party piece of this broke.