Just stop, he is making you look like a clown. He is basically using the Glenn Beck raped a 14 yr old girl tactic and your going back and forth with him.
What associations am I trying to disown? I'm disputing you're race bating allegations.
Aha! Here it is. You're the one with the racist preconceived ideas. As far as I'm concerned she's an idiot first. You see her as black first. You're the racist.
Hey, I'm not the one calling black people any type of ni@@er, unlike yourself. I have to say that I admire the size of your "grapes" keeping this line of mental gymnastics up because you look like a fucking fool.
He doesn't say how you can lose the "house" part of the name. I was hoping that you, since you're such an almost clairvoyant when it comes to people's racism, would explain in your own words what makes a black person a house ni@@er. How should a black person act to avoid being called this vile racist term?
I'm just trying to figure out what it's like to believe that blacks should act a certain way and anybody who doesn't is a house ni@@er. I am hoping Jhhnn could give some fucking answers for a change.Just stop, he is making you look like a clown. He is basically using the Glenn Beck raped a 14 yr old girl tactic and your going back and forth with him.
I'm just trying to figure out what it's like to believe that blacks should act a certain way and anybody who doesn't is a house ni@@er. I am hoping Jhhnn could give some fucking answers for a change.
Just stop, he is making you look like a clown. He is basically using the Glenn Beck raped a 14 yr old girl tactic and your going back and forth with him.
Owens told me that attempts to determine the degree to which some 501(c)(4) groups “played fast and loose with the tax law will soon be lost to history.” Under the law, he explained, the I.R.S. must act on complaints within three years of the date an organization files what is known as an annual 990 report.
“The statute starts running when a return is filed,” he wrote in an email. “990 returns are due on the 15th day of the 5th month after the close of the organization’s fiscal year, with the possibility of two three-month extensions. As a result, an organization with a calendar year fiscal year can file its 2010 990 as late as Nov. 15, 2011. The statute of limitations on the return filed on the last day possible will normally run out on Nov. 15, 2014.”
Just thought I'd update this thread with what appears to be the end game on this puzzling accusation:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/2...-irs-scandal-wont-go-away.html?_r=0&referrer=
It all makes sense now! You gotta protect your donors and in the big leagues where the big dogs play, they like their donations kept secret.
Karl rove, the political gift that keeps on giving!
The “notion that the section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization category is an appropriate classification for politically active charitable organizations seems to have originated with the IRS in the 1950′s,” wrote Ms. Chisolm [Case Western Reserve University law professor].
She cited a 1955 IRS revenue ruling that was spurred by questions over the tax-exempt status of an unnamed group whose stated missions involved encouraging government to “practice wise economy in public spending.”
The IRS stated that one of its “principal means of accomplishing these purposes is the printing and dissemination of literature devoted to advocating the principles which it supports. Occasionally, the literature may advocate or oppose pending legislation.”
Four years later, the federal government codified that policy, assigning the label of “action organization” to any legislatively active organization and issuing regulations stating that an action organization can qualify as a social welfare organization under section 501(c)(4), wrote Ms. Chisolm.
The IRS then loosened the rules on political campaign activity in 1981 with another ruling, which stated:
[An] organization may carry on lawful political activities and remain exempt under section 501(c)(4) as long as it is primarily engaged in activities that promote social welfare.
Wow. I'm really not sure if Thomas B. Edsall really is that stupid or if he's just incredibly dishonest and feels everyone else really is that stupid. He begins by acknowledging that the IRS improperly politically targeted conservative groups and then tries to blame those same conservative groups for it. Just . . . wow.Just thought I'd update this thread with what appears to be the end game on this puzzling accusation:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/2...-irs-scandal-wont-go-away.html?_r=0&referrer=
It all makes sense now! You gotta protect your donors and in the big leagues where the big dogs play, they like their donations kept secret.
Karl rove, the political gift that keeps on giving!
Wow. I'm really not sure if Thomas B. Edsall really is that stupid or if he's just incredibly dishonest and feels everyone else really is that stupid. He begins by acknowledging that the IRS improperly politically targeted conservative groups and then tries to blame those same conservative groups for it. Just . . . wow.
Man, that IRS scandal really exploded, huh.
Man, that IRS scandal really exploded, huh.
"Kepp fucking that chicken"
It's still a story and still in the news and if you think that people have more trust in the IRS since it broke you're a fucking idiot.
He won't, and trying to engage in civil discourse with jhhn is a waste of time. He went off the rails several years ago.
Next. Benghazi!
Next. Benghazi!
Heh. They're going to need another chicken I think. This first one is in appalling disrepair the poor thing.
This is what makes Fern happy.So, hundreds of nonprofit groups filed their organizations papers with the IRS in hopes of being improperly hassled (see IG's report) so they could delay the IRS's ability to audit their tax returns that were never filed because the IRS withheld permission for them to be treated as a nonprofit?
--------------------------
The IRS can audit all they like. They'll lose. It matters not that liberals, who have been using the 501(c)(4) rules for a long time, have become suddenly alarmed that conservatives will too.
501(c)(4) goes back to the 1913 tax code. I.e., it's been around since the beginning of income taxation when the Constitution was amended.
In fact, in 1955 the IRS OK'd policy advocacy:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/05/16/the-surprisingly-muddled-history-of-the-501c4-exemption/
Because there are no legal tools the IRS adopted improper procedures to hassle and delay those it targeted.
At this point it will probably take legislation to change the non-disclosure of donors to a 501(c)(4) org. The IRS could try with revised Treas Regulations but that will surely be fought in court and is doubtful to succeed.
Fern
<sigh>Lol wut!?
The story began in 2010, but did not become public until May 10, 2013, when Lois Lerner, then the director of the little-known Cincinnati-based Exempt Organization Division of the I.R.S., which reviews applications for tax-exempt status for nonprofits, publicly acknowledged and apologized for the practice of targeting Tea Party groups for special scrutiny.
Lerners admission came four days before J. Russell George, the Treasury departments inspector general for tax administration, released a critical report confirming that conservative groups had indeed been targeted. Its title presents its conclusion: Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review.
George and his investigators found that in August 2010, the I.R.S. Exempt Organization Division had distributed to its staff a Be On the Look Out (BOLO) warning about groups with the words Tea Party in their name. These Tea Party-linked groups were to be subject to detailed examination regarding their eligibility for tax-exempt status. The BOLO directive was later expanded to include organizations that contained the word patriot in their names.
Let's see: The IRS was caught doing wrong; they admitted it and apologized. yet to this "author" the "losers" will be Lois Lerner (Obama's point-of-corruption) and the I.R.S. staffers in Cincinnati. In other words, the losers are those people who got caught using the most feared federal department for political gain. And the big players "will in all probability skate", meaning of course they are presumed guilty, it's just a shame that in defending itself against its own admitted corruption, the IRS hasn't managed to find time to figure out precisely of what they are guilty.The first is that the losers will be the bit players. These include Lois Lerner, who resigned; the I.R.S. staffers in Cincinnati, many of whom have been forced to hire private counsel; and the generally innocuous, low-level Tea Party groups, like the Rochester Tea Party Patriots and the Acadiana Patriots in Louisiana, which have suffered questioning and delays in getting their applications for tax-exempt status approved.
The second is that the big players will in all probability skate. Karl Rove and Charles and David Koch are unlikely to see their tax-exempt political organizations reined in or to see any restraints placed on the tremendous financial clout of their 501(c) independent expenditure groups, clout made possible by their adroit use of the social welfare designation and by an aggressive, unyielding approach to campaign-finance law and I.R.S. regulations.
"Kepp fucking that chicken"
It's still a story and still in the news and if you think that people have more trust in the IRS since it broke you're a fucking idiot.
<sigh>
From your link:
Let's see: The IRS was caught doing wrong; they admitted it and apologized. yet to this "author" the "losers" will be Lois Lerner (Obama's point-of-corruption) and the I.R.S. staffers in Cincinnati. In other words, the losers are those people who got caught using the most feared federal department for political gain. And the big players "will in all probability skate", meaning of course they are presumed guilty, it's just a shame that in defending itself against its own admitted corruption, the IRS hasn't managed to find time to figure out precisely of what they are guilty.
I do realize that Karl Rove and the Koch brothers are your proggie dog whistles, but surely if you are going to post a link you can mark your place, bark yourself out, and then return to finish reading it.
God! You are fucking stupid! Had you continued to read the paragraph, of which you fucking quoted, you would understand the point he was making.
Way to latch on to one out of context scentence to totally dismiss the articles premis while defending Karl rove and co, ignoring the reality of what they have been doing the last several years. Social welfare? Lol! You bought that shit hookline and sinker like the brain dead lemming you are