Guns, Guns Guns

PeterZ wrote:Knowingly and deliberately making false claims. Not sure that applies here, but of course they can bring charges. Just as the IRS was sicked on political opponents, the DoJ is used to silence opposition.

What "opposition"? You can't seriously think the Department of Justice is going out of its way to conduct a politically motivated crusade against a few loudmouths spreading false claims about a case some low level US attorney is prosecuting in Idaho. To what possible political end? Whose nefarious purposes does that serve exactly? What goal is being achieved there that would motivate some higher up in the DoJ to politically involve themselves here rather than it just being some prosecutor getting ticked off that the integrity of their investigation was being compromised by a bunch of people spreading false information?


And the IRS was NOT "sicced on opponents". No evidence was ever presented that was anything other than the people in those departments trying to do their jobs. It was not some directive from higher-up to "go after" political opponents. It was just the result of a huge mass of organizations all filing for non profit status while taking on the name of an explicitly political movement when their non profit status required them NOT to be primarily engaged in political activity. Try to imagine why a bunch of people at the IRS might think they had to go out of their way to take a closer look.

There was evidence of the IRS being used to limit the ability of opposing political groups from being fully able to raise funds via tax exempt organizations. Those people in the IRS simply acted to delay tax exempt status for those organizations until after the election. Limiting the ability for these organizations to fundraise limited their ability to engage in political action.

You can believe the reasoning you post if you wish. Until the practice became publicized, the targeted organizations mostly reflected TEA party or similarly named groups. Once the practice was publicized, there were a few leftist groups targeted.

I know we won't agree on this either. Too many cases in which progressives support activity that is not consistent with freedom of speech and due process. Voting for Hillary is simply the confirmation that progressives will accept any amount of corruption to promote their political agenda.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Knowingly and deliberately making false claims. Not sure that applies here, but of course they can bring charges. Just as the IRS was sicked on political opponents, the DoJ is used to silence opposition.

What "opposition"? You can't seriously think the Department of Justice is going out of its way to conduct a politically motivated crusade against a few loudmouths spreading false claims about a case some low level US attorney is prosecuting in Idaho. To what possible political end? Whose nefarious purposes does that serve exactly? What goal is being achieved there that would motivate some higher up in the DoJ to politically involve themselves here rather than it just being some prosecutor getting ticked off that the integrity of their investigation was being compromised by a bunch of people spreading false information?


And the IRS was NOT "sicced on opponents". No evidence was ever presented that was anything other than the people in those departments trying to do their jobs. It was not some directive from higher-up to "go after" political opponents. It was just the result of a huge mass of organizations all filing for non profit status while taking on the name of an explicitly political movement when their non profit status required them NOT to be primarily engaged in political activity. Try to imagine why a bunch of people at the IRS might think they had to go out of their way to take a closer look.

PeterZ wrote:There was evidence of the IRS being used to limit the ability of opposing political groups from being fully able to raise funds via tax exempt organizations.

The tax exemption of those organizations is DEPENDENT on them not overly involving themselves in political campaigning or organizing.

What you just said can be reworded as "there is evidence the IRS acted to enforce tax law". Political groups are NOT SUPPOSED to be raising funds using tax exempt organizations!

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:There was evidence of the IRS being used to limit the ability of opposing political groups from being fully able to raise funds via tax exempt organizations.

The tax exemption of those organizations is DEPENDENT on them not overly involving themselves in political campaigning or organizing.

What you just said can be reworded as "there is evidence the IRS acted to enforce tax law". Political groups are NOT SUPPOSED to be raising funds using tax exempt organizations!

Really? Are PACs tax exempt? There are indeed political activities that are tax exempt. I recall that is covered under section 527 of the IRS code.

Btw, I am glad we have managed to become civil (as much my fault as not) in these discussion. I find it more interesting this way.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:The tax exemption of those organizations is DEPENDENT on them not overly involving themselves in political campaigning or organizing.

What you just said can be reworded as "there is evidence the IRS acted to enforce tax law". Political groups are NOT SUPPOSED to be raising funds using tax exempt organizations!

Really? Are PACs tax exempt? There are indeed political activities that are tax exempt.

This "scandal" was entirely about applications for 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) status

501(c)(3)s are prohibited from engaging in political campaigning or organizing.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profi ... anizations


501(c)(4)s may only engage in very limited political activity, and it may not be their primary activity. So monitoring how much they are engaging in it if they start making noises about how politically active they're getting is the IRS's job.


https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profi ... anizations



So like I said, it is exactly the IRS's job to do what you just stated there was evidence of them doing. But even for that, it was not some top down "sic em" directive, it was just them going about their business and managing to tick off people with enough political influence to throw a very public tantrum about it to force a bunch of apologies which were mostly completely unwarranted.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
Really? Are PACs tax exempt? There are indeed political activities that are tax exempt.

This "scandal" was entirely about applications for 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) status

501(c)(3)s are prohibited from engaging in political campaigning or organizing.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profi ... anizations


501(c)(4)s may only engage in very limited political activity, and it may not be their primary activity. So monitoring how much they are engaging in it if they start making noises about how politically active they're getting is the IRS's job.


https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profi ... anizations



So like I said, it is exactly the IRS's job to do what you just stated there was evidence of them doing. But even for that, it was not some top down "sic em" directive, it was just them going about their business and managing to tick off people with enough political influence to throw a very public tantrum about it to force a bunch of apologies which were mostly completely unwarranted.

And the tax exempt status of the Occupy movement? Not political or simply selective?

PeterZ wrote:And the tax exempt status of the Occupy movement? Not political or simply selective?

I've seen scattered claims here and there claiming that either Occupy has claimed tax exempt status or people are claiming donations TO Occupy are tax exempt charitable contributions, but I'm unfamiliar with any credible sources laying out actual tax exempt status of OWS.

Do you have some source material to point me at?

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:And the tax exempt status of the Occupy movement? Not political or simply selective?

I've seen scattered claims here and there claiming that either Occupy has claimed tax exempt status or people are claiming donations TO Occupy are tax exempt charitable contributions, but I'm unfamiliar with any credible sources laying out actual tax exempt status of OWS.

Do you have some source material to point me at?

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Occupy-Wall-tax-exempt/2011/10/31/id/416319/

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051774

I thought two links would let you parse the information better.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:I've seen scattered claims here and there claiming that either Occupy has claimed tax exempt status or people are claiming donations TO Occupy are tax exempt charitable contributions, but I'm unfamiliar with any credible sources laying out actual tax exempt status of OWS.

Do you have some source material to point me at?

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Occupy-Wall-tax-exempt/2011/10/31/id/416319/

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051774

I thought two links would let you parse the information better.

Ok, just going to skip the newsmax story since it took just a quick scan of that one to see they weren't going to bother actually trying to provide any information and move on to the second which actually has some data that leads to some answers.


What appears to be the situation is that a different organization ("AFGJ", which has been around since the 90s and significantly pre-dates OWS) has 501(c) tax exempt status.

That organization is acting as a 'fiscal sponsor' of OWS (along with sponsoring a bunch of other things)

So if anyone just donates money to OWS, no that is not tax exempt. And OWS does not get to claim tax exemption for their money they spend. OWS has no tax exemption contrary to the misleading claim made by the newsmax article.


BUT, AFGJ can, so long as they establish that any money *they* give aligns with their stated purpose of, and I'm quoting... nurturing "organizations seeking fundamental change in international and national conditions that disempower people, create disparities in access to wealth and power, poison the earth, and plunder its resources.

...then they can do that while still maintaining their own tax exempt status so long as they don't violate the rules that grant them that status. And the entities they send their money to do not have to have tax exempt status themselves, but those entities do need to keep their own activities within certain boundaries since the "fiscal sponsor" is basically becoming a middle man for tax exempt money for them. (So they can't just take that money and go buy an election ad for some politician with it or something... because then they're just funding a political campaign and bye bye tax exemption)


(As I understand it, the IRS is not a fan of the whole 'fiscal sponsorship' rule but it is what it is unless someone changes it...)

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Occupy-Wall-tax-exempt/2011/10/31/id/416319/

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051774

I thought two links would let you parse the information better.

Ok, just going to skip the newsmax story since it took just a quick scan of that one to see they weren't going to bother actually trying to provide any information and move on to the second which actually has some data that leads to some answers.


What appears to be the situation is that a different organization ("AFGJ", which has been around since the 90s and significantly pre-dates OWS) has 501(c) tax exempt status.

That organization is acting as a 'fiscal sponsor' of OWS (along with sponsoring a bunch of other things)

So if anyone just donates money to OWS, no that is not tax exempt. And OWS does not get to claim tax exemption for their money they spend. OWS has no tax exemption contrary to the misleading claim made by the newsmax article.


BUT, AFGJ can, so long as they establish that any money *they* give aligns with their stated purpose of, and I'm quoting... nurturing "organizations seeking fundamental change in international and national conditions that disempower people, create disparities in access to wealth and power, poison the earth, and plunder its resources.

...then they can do that while still maintaining their own tax exempt status so long as they don't violate the rules that grant them that status. And the entities they send their money to do not have to have tax exempt status themselves, but those entities do need to keep their own activities within certain boundaries since the "fiscal sponsor" is basically becoming a middle man for tax exempt money for them. (So they can't just take that money and go buy an election ad for some politician with it or something... because then they're just funding a political campaign and bye bye tax exemption)


(As I understand it, the IRS is not a fan of the whole 'fiscal sponsorship' rule but it is what it is unless someone changes it...)

I got that far. Long and the short of it is that the goals of that organization ARE political. Similar goal statements but describing conservative policy initiatives were rejected disproportionately by the IRS. The FBI and DOJ looked into it and found no wrong doing.

Funny, disparate impact only seems to work if one believes the proper things. Otherwise, one is SOL.