1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Shumer, Franken urged IRS to look at conservative

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by Barrelbulge(Fl), May 26, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Barrelbulge(Fl)

    Barrelbulge(Fl) TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    11,679
    Location:
    West Central Florida
    Home | Newsfront Tags: schumer | franken | irs | tea | party Schumer, Democrats Urged IRS to Target Tea Party Groups in 2012
    Saturday, 18 May 2013 09:52 AM


    More than a year before the recent revelation by the Internal Revenue Service that it had targeted conservative and Tea Party organizations, a group of Democratic senators headed up by New York Sen. Chuck Schumer asked the agency to do that very thing, the Daily Caller reports.

    Schumer, along with fellow Democratic Sens. Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen and Al Franken, contacted the IRS last year requested the agency cap the amount of political spending by groups presenting themselves as “social welfare organizations.”

    They said gray areas in the IRS rules had created a loophole allowing political groups to improperly claim 501(c)4 status and may even be permitting people who donate to these groups to wrongly claim tax deductions for their contributions.

    The senators said they would present legislation to rectify these problems if the IRS did not act to fix them first.

    In a press release from Shumer’s office dated March 12, 2012, the senators wrote:

    “We urge the IRS to take these steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities.



    Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/schumer-franken-irs-tea/2013/05/18/id/505157#ixzz2UOmaPagP
    Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
     
  2. shadow

    shadow Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,445
    Not a single word about "move on" ???? I am SHOCKED !
     
  3. Barrelbulge(Fl)

    Barrelbulge(Fl) TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    11,679
    Location:
    West Central Florida
    Liberal organizations were not looked into. Bulge.
     
  4. mcneeley5

    mcneeley5 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    427
    I believe that ALL government agencys should be looked into (EPA, Dept of AG etc). The EPA has more control over much of what small buisness does than they should. Mix power with biased politics and you have stopped growth.
     
  5. BAD 303

    BAD 303 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    3,550
    What libtards represent is total control and absolute power over their people. And that is best gained my silencing critics and shutting down all resistance. And people still vote for these rat bastards. This country was officially doomed last November. The US is officially a welfare state that is about to go belly up. We are Greece on steroids.
     
  6. 548

    548 Guest

    If anyone is interested, and I don't imagine you are, this is a copy of the letter the Senators sent to the IRS. It does not single out any party affiliation. And if you take it for what it says, and not what you want it to say, the Senators are right on target!!

    Letter:


    Hon. Douglas H. Shulman

    Commissioner

    Internal Revenue Service

    Room 3000 IR

    1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

    Dear Commissioner Shulman:

    We write to ask the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to immediately change the administrative framework for enforcement of the tax code as it applies to groups designated as “social welfare” organizations. These groups receive tax and other advantages under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter, “IRC” or the “Code”), but some of them also are engaged in a substantial amount of political campaign activity. As you know, we sent a letter last month expressing concerns about the 501(c)(4) issue; an investigation this week by the New York Times has uncovered new, specific problems on how c)4)s conduct business. We wanted to address those new concerns in this letter.

    IRS regulations have long maintained that political campaign activity by a 501(c)(4) entity must not be the “primary purpose” of the organization. These regulations are intended to implement the statute, which requires that such organizations be operated exclusively for the public welfare. But we think the existing IRS regulations run afoul of the law since they only require social welfare activities to be the 'primary purpose' of a nonprofit when the Code says this must be its 'exclusive' purpose. In recent years, this daylight between the law and the IRS regulations has been exploited by groups devoted chiefly to political election activities who operate behind a facade of charity work.

    A related concern, raised in a March 7th New York Times article, concerns whether certain nonprofits may be soliciting corporate contributions that are then treated by the company as a business expense eligible for a tax deduction. The Times wrote: “Under current law, there is little to no way to tell whether contributions are being deducted, especially because many of the most political companies are privately held.” This potential abuse distorts the objectives of vital revenue mechanisms and undermines the faith that we ask citizens to place in their electoral system.

    We propose that the IRS make three administrative changes to curtail these questionable practices and bring IRS tax regulations back into alignment with the letter and spirit intended by those who crafted the Code:

    · First, we urge the IRS to adopt a bright line test in applying its “primary purpose” regulation that is consistent with the Code’s 501(c)(4) exclusivity language. The IRS currently only requires that the purpose of these non-profits be “primarily” related to social welfare activities, without defining what “primarily” means. This standard should be spelled out more fully by the IRS. Some have suggested 51 percent as an appropriate threshold for establishing that a nonprofit is adhering to its mission, but even this number would seem to allow for more political election activity than should be permitted under the law. In the absence of clarity in the administration of section 501(c)(4), organizations are tempted to abuse its vagueness, or worse, to organize under section 501(c)(4) so that they may avail themselves of its advantages even though they are not legitimate social welfare organizations. If the IRS does not adopt a bright line test, or if it adopts one that is inconsistent with the Code’s exclusivity language, then we plan to pursue legislation codifying such a test.

    · Second, such organizations should be further obligated to document in their 990 IRS form the exact percentage of their undertakings dedicated to “social welfare.” Organizations should be required to “show their math” to demonstrate that political election activities and other statutorily limited or prohibited activities do not violate the “primary purpose” regulation.

    · Third, 501(c)(4) organizations should be required to state forthrightly to potential donors what percentage of a donation, if any, may be taken as a business expense deduction. As the New York Times reported in its March 7tharticle, some of these organizations do not currently inform donors whether a contribution is tax deductible as a business expense at all.

    The IRS should already possess the authority to issue immediate guidance on this matter. We urge the IRS to take these steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities. But if the IRS is unable to issue administrative guidance in this area then we plan to introduce legislation to accomplish these important changes.

    Sincerely,

    Senators Charles E. Schumer, Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen and Al Franken
     
  7. 548

    548 Guest

    The problem, if there is one, appears to be with the IRS and not any outside influence. And on a side note, the IRS chief just canned by President Obama was appointed by Bush 43.
     
  8. 548

    548 Guest

    I would be far more concerned with Eric Holder's involvement with Fox News. So far I haven't seen any of you talking about that.
     
  9. Catpower

    Catpower Molon Labe TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    10,249
    Location:
    In the Cabana
    I knew it was going to be Bush's fault
     
  10. 548

    548 Guest

    No Cat, it's definately not Bush's fault... this one time


    Just wanted to let everyone know this wasn't Obama's boy.
     
  11. ou.3200

    ou.3200 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,492
    You are right 548, no outside influence, it came from within the Obama Administration. Now the question is did the White House directly order IRS to attack conservative groups or did Obama just create an atmosphere that resulted in such actions. This case cries out for a special prosecutor. Congress can only do so much due to constraints of rules they must follow.
     
  12. Catpower

    Catpower Molon Labe TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    10,249
    Location:
    In the Cabana
    Jeff all the stuff your zero blames Bush for are not Bush's fault, he is the man in charge, he wanted the job and since he got it all he has done is whined, it's Bush's fault
     
  13. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    548 knows more than a dozen investigating news journalists. Who needs Fox news.
     
  14. 548

    548 Guest

    Barker, the IRS should be looking at ALL political groups posing as social welfare organizations. And when I read the letter, that is what is being asked of the IRS. So just because conservatives think there are sinister motives a foot doesn't make it so.
     
  15. 548

    548 Guest

    It is a scandel within the IRS. It is a non event in terms of the Democratic party. Look at the polls if you don't believe me.
     
  16. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    So, 548, the bottom line is, the IRS then took the letter from the senators, and then, because there was absolutely no outside influence whatsoever, investigated without bias both conservative and liberal political groups and audited both fairly and equally?
     
  17. 90Tshooter

    90Tshooter Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Messages:
    329
    This type of political watching goes way back. In the GWB administration the IRS was looking into union activity. All local union business had to be documented as to what the time was used for, whether you were getting paid (wage reimbursement or pay role) or not (volunteer work). This is still in effect now. This is why the NRA has the NRA-ILA. Typical DC BS, One side doesn't want the other to get away with anything.

    Joe
     
  18. Catpower

    Catpower Molon Labe TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    10,249
    Location:
    In the Cabana
    Joe that went back into the time of slick Willie if not before, I worked for a union during the time
     
  19. 548

    548 Guest

    Brian In Oregon - I don't know the answer to the question you pose. My position is, I hope so.

    You have to acknowledge the difference in contributors to the parties though. Democrats primarily get political contributions by the ten and twenty dollar bills from constituents. Republicans enjoy some of the same, however, they survive through gigantic corporate contributions through these social welfare organizations. So I guess, you go fishing where the fish are. If we don't agree on that premis, we won't agree at all.
     
  20. timberfaller

    timberfaller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,973
    Location:
    Eastern Washington
    So 548, who are the BIG money contributors to the Democrats??

    It will be interesting to see your answer!

    Please also give us the "bio" of the Bush appointee!!!

    One of Bush's biggest "fault" he tried to work across party lines!!

    And WE ALL see what that get ya!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.