Who here really thinks that the Tea Party groups in this country meet the definition of the 501(c)(3) non-profit status? Elections Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office. The Internal Revenue Service website elaborates upon this prohibition as follows: Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner. On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention. The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition.Lobbying In contrast to the absolute prohibition on political campaign interventions by all section 501(c)(3) organizations, public charities (but not private foundations) may conduct a limited amount of lobbying to influence legislation. Although the law states that "No substantial part..." of a public charity's activities can go to lobbying, charities with large budgets may lawfully expend a million dollars (under the "expenditure" test), or more (under the "substantial part" test) per year on lobbying. To clarify the standard of the "substantial part" test, Congress enacted §501 (h) (called the Conable election after its author, Representative Barber Conable). The section establishes limits based on operating budget that a charity can use to determine if it meets the substantial test. This changes the prohibition against direct intervention in partisan contests only for lobbying. The organization is now presumed in compliance with the substantiality test if they work within the limits. The Conable Election requires a charity to file a declaration with the IRS and file a functional distribution of funds spreadsheet with their Form 990. IRS form 5768 is required to make the Conable election.
Thanks for posting this information. As to whether any of the Tea Party Groups qualify or meet the definition of a 501(c)(3) Non-Profit really is a non-issue in the IRS Scandal. Main reason being is the groups were applying for 501(c)(4) status. But don't let this fact get in your way.
Maybe most. Haven't seen the the actual numbers. But thanks for the additional fodder. 501(c)(4) organizations are generally civic leagues and other corporations operated exclusively for the promotion of "social welfare", such as civics and civics issues, or local associations of employees with membership limited to a designated company or people in a particular municipality or neighborhood, and with net earnings devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community. 501(c)(4) organizations may inform the public on controversial subjects and attempt to influence legislation relevant to its programand, unlike 501(c)(3) organizations, they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities - generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election - is taxable.501(c)(4) organizations are not permitted direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. Contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations are usually not deductible as charitable contributions for U.S. federal income tax, with a few exceptions.501(c)(4) organizations are not required to disclose their donors publicly. The lack of disclosure has led to extensive use of the 501(c)(4) provisions for organizations that are actively involved in lobbying, and has become controversial.Criticized as "dark money," spending from these organizations on political TV ads has exceeded spending from Super PACs. The law allows Section 501(c)(4) organizations to self-declare and hold themselves out as tax-exempt; they do not have to obtain any approval from the Internal Revenue Service, though they may. The origins of 501(c)(4) organizations date back to the Revenue Act of 1913, which created a new group of tax-exempt organizations dedicated to social welfare in a precursor to what is now Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(4).
If your definition of "socialist" is someone who is more compassionate, caring and fiscally conservative then you may be on to something. But, if your definition is that of someone who agrees that it's OK to kill babies after they're born, tax and spend us into oblivion, mandate that the country's taxing authority dictate our healthcare in addition to forcing a healthcare tax upon us then I think the definition is suitable for the current crop of dirtbags occupying the White House and a majority of the Senate.
Based on The HSUS litmus test as an organization meeting the definition of a 501(c)(3); I'd say any organization whose mission does not advocate the overthrow of the US Government qualifies under 501(c)(4).
Tea-Party people stand for social welfare, according to the rules in acquiring a c4 designation, so they are Socialists wanting Welfare for all.
I think welfare (little w), in this case, means 'well being' and not 'hand out' and social (little s), in this case, means 'community' and not 'commune'.
Stu has proven, beyond a shadow-of-a-doubt, that republicans want a communistic-styled republic... ...and that Reagan wore a dress at the Kremlin... ...case closed.
I don't have any girls. Yes, I'm being smart with you. But, what you asking for is personal information, and I'm attempting to cease releasing any more of that here. That said, and only in order to clarify it for you, no: The woman I live with, and have a child with, does not work for the IRS. Not to be a jerk here, but leave it at that, please.
Do you want me to start asking you about your family? That would be against the rules Pete set, but if you insist... ...I still wouldn't. Leave our families out of this.
Criticism of IRS grows amid allegations of targeting beyond Tea Party What started as a scandal over the IRS's targeting of conservative groups has broadened, with lawmakers and other critics now questioning whether other kinds of organizations were unfairly flagged for additional scrutiny. Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., chairman of the House Small Business Committee, wrote a letter to Acting IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel on Friday asking a series of questions about the agency's audit practices for small businesses. He made no specific allegation, but said that lawmakers' investigations to date prompted the letter. "(Congressional) investigations have only raised more questions as to the extent these practices may have extended beyond conservative groups," Graves wrote. Indeed, the scope of the IRS' heavy auditing and scrutiny appears to go beyond Tea Party groups. A report by the IRS' Taxpayer Advocate Service found the IRS improperly targeted adoptive families -- flagging for further review 90 percent of those who claimed the adoption tax credit in 2012. Further, nearly 70 percent of them endured at least a partial audit of their returns. By contrast, just one percent of all returns are audited. The report fueled concerns that the IRS is unfairly lumping categories of filers together for additional review, in turn scrutinizing small-fry individuals and groups while ignoring bigger and richer organizations. The allegations have been cascading in from across the country as Congress investigates. First, religious groups claimed they had been subjected to additional scrutiny as well. In one high-profile letter from a Christian leader, Franklin Graham alleged that the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and one other group had been flagged in 2012 for additional review. Graham claimed the reviews were not "justifiable." The Washington Free Beacon also reported Thursday that at least five pro-Israel organizations were audited by the IRS following a campaign by White House-aligned group to challenge their tax-exempt status. Those pro-Israel groups came under criticism after they challenged the administration's stance against Israeli settlement construction. The Hill also reported on Friday that aid groups trying to help those caught in the Syrian civil war are facing long delays in their applications for tax-exempt status. This is similar to the problem faced by Tea Party and other groups, who had their applications tied up for a roughly 18-month stretch. Current and former IRS officials have said that while the practice of subjecting those groups to additional scrutiny was inappropriate, it was not politically motivated. Rather, they say the criteria were developed to deal with an influx of cases. Others have suggested it is up to Congress to clarify the rules for the IRS. An IRS official last week defended the scrutiny of adoptive families, arguing that the agency is obligated to make sure claims are accurate. "The IRS implemented the adoption credit program with an approach that balanced the objective of paying legitimate credits in a timely manner with that of ensuring that claims were accurate," IRS spokeswoman Michelle Eldridge said in a statement to FoxNews.com. "Our experiences and lessons learned from other refundable credits taught us that high dollar credits have high risk and the potential for fraud. We must ensure delivery of the credit to those entitled while protecting the government's interest in minimizing exposure to fraud." In 2011, more than 51,000 taxpayers claimed $668 million from the adoption tax credit. This was after the health care law increased the maximum credit per child. However, the extra audits only found $11 million in improper claims from the 2011 year. The taxpayer advocate report said the practice "caused significant harm to thousands of families who are selflessly trying to improve the lives of vulnerable children." The IRS will be in the hot seat once again next week to answer questions on its targeting practices, as Congress plans at least two upcoming hearings on the scandal. Meanwhile, a recent poll showed Americans overwhelming want an outside investigator to be assigned to examine the IRS. The Justice Department already has launched its own probe. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/31/criticism-irs-grows-amid-allegations-targeting-beyond-tea-party/?intcmp=HPBucket#ixzz2UuZzWu8o
Interviews with IRS agent suggest Tea Party targeting came from Washington June 02, 2013Interviews with a regional IRS agent involved in the agency targeting Tea Party groups for additional vetting appear to contradict the White House assertion that rogue agents, not the administration, were behind the effort, according to partial transcripts released Sunday by the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee. The agent in the Cincinnati office, where the targeting took place, told congressional investigators that he or she was told in March 2010 by a supervisor to search for Tea Party groups applying for tax-exempt status and that “Washington, D.C., wanted some cases.” The agent said that by April the office had held up roughly 40 cases and at least seven were sent to Washington. In addition, the agent said, a second IRS employee asked for information on two other specific applicants in which Washington was interested. When asked by congressional investigators about allegations and press reports about two agents in Cincinnati essentially being responsible for the targeting, the agent responded: “It's impossible. As an agent we are controlled by many, many people. We have to submit many, many reports. So the chance of two agents being rogue and doing things like that could never happen. … They were basically throwing us underneath the bus.” The administration has denied involvement in the scandal, repeatedly saying it was limited to only the two Cincinnati agents. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has appeared to give conflicting statements on the scandal, including whether top White House officials knew only of the inspector general’s probe into the targeting of politically conservative groups or if they were told about the bombshell findings when briefed in late April. Carney also said the top officials decided not to tell President Obama to avoid any possibility of the White House interfering in the investigation. On Sunday, California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Affair Committee, accused Carney of being untruthful about the scandal. “Their paid liar, their spokesperson … he’s still making up things about what happened and calling this a local rogue,” Issa said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” The congressman also provided the network with a copy of the transcript in which the agent said he or she followed directions from Washington. However, when asked if the Tea Party scrutiny came directly from Washington, the agency said “I believe so.” Officials have also said the targeting was not politically motivated, though it appeared to last until nearly the end of the 2012 election cycle and did not appear to target liberal-leaning political groups. At least three congressional committees are already investigating the scandal, which widened last week to include revelations about the agency spending roughly $60,000 on team-building videos that spoofed the TV shows “Star Trek” and “Gilligan’s Island.” New IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel has vowed to conduct a full investigation. In addition, the Treasury Department’s inspector general released a preliminary report this weekend that shows the IRS spent about $50 million to hold at least 220 conferences for employees from 2010 to 2012, according to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, with the full report to be released later this week. Steve Miller, the acting IRS director when the scandal broke, resigned May 15 after Obama and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew asked for his resignation. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/02/interviews-with-irs-agent-suggest-tea-party-targeting-came-from-washington/#ixzz2V5ZOqwky 02, 2013
