IRS Targets Tea Party Groups applying for non profit status

[Ziggurat]

Is anything I said untrue?

Yes.

• Tea Party groups ARE political groups.
  
• Political groups are by definition not eligible for NFP status.
  
• That's the law, and the IRS followed it.

501(c)(4) organizations are allowed to lobby for legislation and participate in elections, so you're wrong. Furthermore, the IRS did not deny 501(c)(4) status to these groups, so your own claims are self-contradictory.

 

[uke2se]

Is anything I said untrue?

• Tea Party groups ARE political groups.
  
• Political groups are by definition not eligible for NFP status.
  
• That's the law, and the IRS followed it.

Much ado about nothing.

While this was my initial thought, I apparently don't know enough about the system. However, if this was the case, the IRS didn't follow the law, as they didn't decline any of the groups from tax exempt status as far as I know.

 

[eeyore1954]

Is anything I said untrue?

• Tea Party groups ARE political groups.
  
• Political groups are by definition not eligible for NFP status.
  
• That's the law, and the IRS followed it.

Much ado about nothing.

All three statements are untrue. Although the first isn't that far from the truth.

 

[OMGturt1es]

and it turns the IRS was trying to handle an influx of politically-oriented groups (3,400, twice the usual) but were not picking on the teaers. They neglected to mention this little tidbit

In all, about 300 groups were singled out for additional review, Lerner said. Of those, about a quarter were singled out because they had "tea party" or "patriot" somewhere in their applications.

So they were looking at a bunch of groups, and since political groups often skate the edge of the law for tax-exemption, they get a little extra scrutiny.

FYI: the number of Tea-groups that were denied tax-exempt status = 0

FWIW, the head of the IRS is a Bush appointee.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups

This seems the most important post thus far.

Given the fact that conservative groups have completely outspent liberal groups lately (e.g., http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...rity-pac-democratic-group-congressional-races, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/20...spend_liberal_counterparts_7-to-1_243060.html, http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...er-pacs-outspend-liberal-ones-by-100-million/), 25% doesn't seem an unreasonable percentage at all.

Moreover, it's well known that corporations have played and continue to play a very important role in the tea party and other free-market advocacy groups. It is well known that the mountains of money pumped into these non-profit groups have helped build the system that shapes today's political context. And it is well known that these mountains of money have overwhelmingly been provided from for-profit organizations to conservative non-profit organizations.

Given this context, my gut reaction would be that the only controversy here is that our laws are so beyond tweaked in the favor of special interests that even the IRS is powerless to stop the obvious abuse of non-profits. Maybe the IRS went too far in these searches, but given this overall context, I think it's clear they didn't go far enough.

 

[triforcharity]

Part of the task of screening these 501(c) 3 non-profit organizations for tax exempt status is to make sure they aren't endorsing candidates. Yes, profiling by name is not an unreasonable way of deciding which organizations might merit closer scrutiny.

Again, not all NPO's are 501 (c)(3) organizations. Political organizations, like the Tea Party would be, are called 527's.

 

[triforcharity]

Is anything I said untrue?

• Tea Party groups ARE political groups.
  
• Political groups are by definition not eligible for NFP status.
  
• That's the law, and the IRS followed it.

Much ado about nothing.

Well, there are political groups exempt. So.....

 

[SezMe]

Oh, and if this was not illegal, that is in itself a scandal, and an even bigger one since it means the problem is systemic.

Yes, and if the problem is systemic, it could just as well be that the source of the problem belongs to the legislative branch, not the administration.

 

[SezMe]

And questions about the makeup of every single member of the organization, or the salary of every single employee? What is that geared towards determining?

Or how about "Provide copies of any agreements you have with others for provision of goods or services, sharing of facilities or other cooperative arrangements, or anything else."

I took my organization through the 501(c)(3) process. It took 18 months and included questions such as the above. While frustrating, I thought (think) that the questions were appropriate. For example, questions about salaries and contracts are directly relevant to the question of usage of funds, which is what a 501(c)(3) is all about.

 

[RandFan]

Some important questions:

• How many were denied status?
• How many should have been denied status?

 

[Lowpro]

Some important questions:

• How many were denied status?
• How many should have been denied status?

None for either; they wouldn't be denied status by the method of their profiling either. They'd only be denied status IF the group didn't conform to the proper NPO guidelines. Party affiliation is irrelevant. This whole thing is @!*!tarded. It'd actually be more of a problem IF they denied a group for all the right reasons but investigated them for the wrong ones; kind of a "fruit of the poisonous tree" but really "berry of the bitter shrub"

 

[RandFan]

None for either; they wouldn't be denied status by the method of their profiling either. They'd only be denied status IF the group didn't conform to the proper NPO guidelines. Party affiliation is irrelevant. This whole thing is @!*!tarded. It'd actually be more of a problem IF they denied a group for all the right reasons but investigated them for the wrong ones; kind of a "fruit of the poisonous tree" but really "berry of the bitter shrub"

Thanks.

 

[mgidm86]

Was there a delay or extra costs to these groups while they were being considered/investigated? Did the investigations hinder their business in any way? If so, it's a massive problem.

The IRS chief was asked to resign after all. You guys are defending the IRS more than the actual IRS itself!

And since when is the IRS worthy of such love?

 

[RandFan]

Was there a delay or extra costs to these groups while they were being considered/investigated? Did the investigations hinder their business in any way? If so, it's a massive problem.

Why? Their names make them appear political. Why is it that we cannot investigate groups that are apparently potentially political?

The IRS chief was asked to resign after all.

Appointed by Bush and who has said there was nothing partisan about what they did.

You guys are defending the IRS more than the actual IRS itself!

I've no idea what this means.

And since when is the IRS worthy of such love?

Skepticism and critical thinking doesn't stop because one doesn't like a particular organization. I have and will defend religions and others who I disagree with if and when I think the truth is being obfuscated. In this case I think it clear. Not that there were no mistakes, only that the mistakes were not partisan in nature and there was no harm (I suspect some of these organizations do not deserve 401(c) status).

 

[BenBurch]

It would appear that a number of Liberal groups got the exact same letter...

So, it would appear this wasn't partisan at all.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why? Their names make them appear political. Why is it that we cannot investigate groups that are apparently potentially political?

They can. But if you don't understand why it's not acceptable to do so in an uneven manner, well...

Appointed by Bush

Why do you say that like it makes any difference here?

and who has said there was nothing partisan about what they did.

We've been told lots of stuff about what they did that turned out to be completely false.

I've no idea what this means.

It means that even the IRS has acknowledged that what they did was wrong and unacceptable.

In this case I think it clear. Not that there were no mistakes, only that the mistakes were not partisan in nature and there was no harm (I suspect some of these organizations do not deserve 401(c) status).

But there was harm. Not only were groups unnecessarily burdened by the applications, but other groups actually avoided doing any fundraising specifically because they did not want to be the target of this sort of unfair investigation. Furthermore, the "evidence" that it wasn't partisan is so far from convincing that it's laughable. Of course the people who did it aren't going to admit that it was for partisan purposes, even if it was. And the IRS management was either clueless or complicit - in the latter case, they have obvious motive to also lie, and in the former case, well, they could still be clueless. Either way, they've repeatedly failed to disclose the truth about these events on their own, so there's no reason to trust them. So your insistence that it was not partisan is really unjustified. If you wanted to argue that we don't know that it was partisan, you'd have a point, but as it stands now, your dismissal of this possibility is rather premature.

 

[RandFan]

Liberal group Progress Texas also received extra IRS scrutiny

...

e similar treatment indicates the IRS was likely addressing a flood of 501c4 applications after Citizens United, and undermines the paranoid notion that Tea Party groups were singled out.”

An IRS letter (PDF) published by Progress Texas online Thursday showed the liberal group was given 22 days to respond to a list of 21 questions. Some of the questions included up to nine sub-questions.

 

[Ziggurat]

the IRS was likely addressing a flood of 501c4 applications after Citizens United

Small problem with that excuse: they started targeting tea party groups back in March 2010, before there was any flood of applications, and before Citizens United was even decided. So unless the IRS has some time travel capabilities they haven't told us about...

 

[applecorped]

They have a Delorian

 

[maxpower1227]

This whole deal regarding 501(c)4's seems broken to me. The TEA Party isn't a social welfare group that happens to lobby for legislation pertinent to its mission. It is the far-right wing of the Republican Party. It is as much a political group as it is possible to be. And applying the term "social welfare" to a TEA Party group seems obscene, as they generally oppose policies that promote social welfare. They are a group that fights for the economic interests of CEOs and billionaires. They are the exact opposite of a "social welfare" group.

 

[RandFan]

This whole deal regarding 501(c)4's seems broken to me. The TEA Party isn't a social welfare group that happens to lobby for legislation pertinent to its mission. It is the far-right wing of the Republican Party. It is as much a political group as it is possible to be. And applying the term "social welfare" to a TEA Party group seems obscene, as they generally oppose policies that promote social welfare. They are a group that fights for the economic interests of CEOs and billionaires. They are the exact opposite of a "social welfare" group.

Thanks Max,

What's the point of a non-political tea party organization? What is it that hey do? Is it possible for them to exploit the 401(c) designation for political purposes?