Here is a link to the actual report again, for those who prefer going to the source: http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdfNo. What I said is factually correct. You may confirm this by looking at page 2 of the TIGA report. I copied the info from there.
Fern
Please explain.
As to the bolded - nope. A 501 c3 must comply with the disclosure requirements to establish whether or not they are a private foundation. Generally speaking, a private foundation is a c3 organization that receives a substantial portion of its contribution from a limited number of people/donors. This calculation can only be done if the large donors are identified.
This is well known. I have not said anything to the contrary. I do not see your point.
Fern
Here is a link to the actual report again, for those who prefer going to the source: http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf
The information Fern references in on page 8 of the .pdf (which is page 2 of the report body). According to the IG, 501(c)(4)s (and (c)(5)s and (c)(6)s) are all permitted unlimited political advocacy and lobbying. They are limited in political campaign intervention, however, the nebulous "primary purpose" restriction often referenced.
You and I seem to be reading different things. From Figure 1, for 501(c)(4)s, the report states that the requirement for this:It's only "unlimited" insofar as political advocacy does not become their primary purpose, from Fig 1 of the report. That's interpreted by the IRS to mean that they must not exceed 49.999% of their spending on political activities.
A 501c(4) with contributions of $100,000 may not spend more than $49,999.99 on political advocacy. That same formula applies to 501c(4) organizations with much larger contributions, as well. They can spend as much as they want, just so long as it doesn't exceed those percentages.
You and I seem to be reading different things. From Figure 1, for 501(c)(4)s, the report states that the requirement for this:
"May engage in general advocacy not related to legislation or the election of candidates."Is:
"Yes (unlimited amount if in furtherance of tax-exempt purposes)"It is only "Political Campaign Intervention" that is limited and may not be the primary activity.
You and I seem to be reading different things. From Figure 1, for 501(c)(4)s, the report states that the requirement for this:
"May engage in general advocacy not related to legislation or the election of candidates."Is:
"Yes (unlimited amount if in furtherance of tax-exempt purposes)"It is only "Political Campaign Intervention" that is limited and may not be the primary activity.
I know what he's saying; it's just not what the IG report states. The report states 501(c)(4)s are permitted to engage in unlimited lobbying and general advocacy, as long as such activities are consistent with the purpose of the organization. The restriction is on "political campaign intervention." While I think one could raise legitimate questions about whether this truly serves the public interest, that's a separate issue. Unless someone with greater expertise steps forward, I'm inclined to accept the IG's interpretation of what current law specifies.What he is saying is that if you have $10 you cannot spend more $4.99 towards "political" activity (ie trying to get someone elected or not elected, etc).
However that scales up. So you could spend $249 million dollars on "political" activity provided that you spend $251 million on non "political" activities. Have you seen some of the things that aren't considered political? It's a bullshit requirement that is almost impossible to enforce (hence the IRS "scandal" we have now).
I know what's he's saying; it's just not what the IG report states. The report states 501(c)(4)s are permitted to engage in unlimited lobbying and general advocacy, as long as such activities are consistent with the purpose of the organization. The restriction is on "political campaign intervention." While I think one could raise legitimate questions about whether this truly serves the public interest, that's a separate issue. Unless someone with greater expertise steps forward, I'm inclined to accept the IG's interpretation of what current law specifies.
I can see where this IRS scandal originated with attitudes like yours that every conservative organization is guilty of something, somewhere at sometime because............. well just because they're conservative and evil.What Tea Party groups do is generally & correctly identified as "advocacy related to legislation & the election of candidates" so what I offered applies.
I can see where this IRS scandal originated with attitudes like yours that every conservative organization is guilty of something, somewhere at sometime because............. well just because they're conservative and evil.
I am the lead lawyer in the ACLJ’s lawsuit against the IRS on behalf of 41 conservative groups in 22 states. From the beginning we knew the IRS’s public story was false. We have documents showing the abuse stretched from coast-to-coast and originated from IRS offices from coast-to-coast.
From my own experience as an IRS tax trial attorney, I knew that abuse so widespread could not possibly be originated or sustained from just a few “line people.”
Now the evidence is in, and the scandal is moving up from Cincinnati and deep into the ranks of key Obama administration officials.
How high will it go? Could this end up at the Oval Office? The evidence will tell the tale.
Yawn. You already posted that link. Why should we give his spin any credibility given that he has a huge vested interest in portraying the IRS in the worst possible light? (You noticed he is suing them, right?) Is Peggy Noonan no longer partisan enough for you? Why do you need such people to tell you what to think? Read the facts, not the spin, and use your critical thinking skills to reach your own conclusions.
After a political group in Texas asked the IRS for a tax exemption last year, it got a lengthy, time-consuming list of questions — like a request for the minutes of all the board meetings since the group got started.
And a California-based group got turned down completely in 2011, because the IRS concluded that it was set up “primarily for the benefit of a political party.”
These two stories sound like they’d fit right into the raging IRS scandal over its treatment of conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt status.
(PHOTOS: 10 slams on the IRS)
The only difference: these two groups — Progress Texas and Emerge America — were unabashedly liberal.
I can see where this IRS scandal originated with attitudes like yours that every conservative organization is guilty of something, somewhere at sometime because............. well just because they're conservative and evil.
From your own article
But those harsh investigations were more rare than what POLITICO had found when it surveyed conservative groups at the beginning of the scandal. And the questions themselves appear less invasive, overall.
The bottom line is, Republicans have more fuel to keep the scandal alive
But it’s also a lot easier to find conservative groups that were singled out for lengthy, intrusive interrogations. The treatment of the liberal groups appears to have been more random. Some had a hard time, but there were plenty that didn’t think their experiences were hellish at all.
Re-bump: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/irs-scrutinized-liberal-groups-94556.html?hp=l4
lol IRS scandal.
From your own article
thanks for yet another article that supports investigation into this scandal.
Yes, they did admit to denying 6 progressive groups. VS a few hundred conservative groups.
I'm supposing you just named 2 out of the 6.
The problem with the OP and his ilk is that they have (biased) theories in search of (biased) facts.
Its a good thing we don't do science that way.
Well, some people do "science" that way. Usually when funded by the Koch brothers.
Are you talking about the BEST project?Well, some people do "science" that way. Usually when funded by the Koch brothers.
Well, some people do "science" that way. Usually when funded by the Koch brothers.
Splitting hairs, obfuscating, and avoiding the point entirely.
When I refer to disclosure, I refer to public disclosure, not disclosure to the IRS, which is confidential in nature. You knew that, of course, even though you pretend it's something else.
In that context, what you've offered is malarkey.