IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

#406
#406
Changing the subject as lawyers are known to do.

Back on track LG.

The IRS delayed applications based upon political reasons and expedited others based upon political reasons, which is currently illegal.
 
#407
#407
Vol Main said:
If a group does not want to be recognized as part of the Tea Party, then why does it call itself the Tea Party? The Tea Party is recognized by the U.S. House of Representatives as a faction of the Republican Party. It has its own caucus within the Republican Party. Do you dispute this? If not, then how many times must I post this fact? Just tell me now so that I can copy and paste the correct number for you. Is three times sufficient, or must I post that fact ten times for you before your sense of integrity assimilates that fact? How many times do you need to see it?

Have you read the tax code sections on tax deductible status for nonprofit corporations?

You surely do know that Blacks are a race, not a political party. The Congressional Black Caucus is officially nonpartisan. I don't recall the GOP banning them. As a matter of fact, a Black man was Chairman of the Republican National Committee a few years ago.
Click to expand...

The fact that there are Tea Party candidates and a caucus does not imply that an organization cannot use that name in their org's name and qualify for 501c4 status. How many times do I have to post that?

I would imagine there is some qualifying group out there with the word "democratic" in their name - are they forbidden from tax exempt status since their name includes the name of a political party? We both know the answer to that.

The Democratic Leadership Council was an 501c4 until it dissolved a couple years ago. Democrats for Life of America is a 501c4 - why do they use the word Democrat in their name?
 
Last edited:
#409
#409
volinbham said:
The fact that there are Tea Party candidates and a caucus does not imply that an organization cannot use that name in their org's name and qualify for 501c4 status. How many times do I have to post that?

I would imagine there is some qualifying group out there with the word "democratic" in their name - are the forbidden from tax exempt status since their name includes the name of a political party? We both know the answer to that.
Click to expand...

For the sake of argument, that should be the last time. Let's move on to the next question. If a group names itself after a political faction recognized by the U.S. House as a caucus of the Republican Party, don't you think it is ethical for the IRS to flag it and require rigorous examination to receive tax exempt status?
 
#410
#410
Vol Main said:
For the sake of argument, that should be the last time. Let's move on to the next question. If a group names itself after a political faction recognized by the U.S. House as a caucus of the Republican Party, don't you think it is ethical for the IRS to flag it and require rigorous examination to receive tax exempt status?
Click to expand...
By asking for a list of books its membership read? Sure. . .
 
#411
#411
Vol Main said:
For the sake of argument, that should be the last time. Let's move on to the next question. If a group names itself after a political faction recognized by the U.S. House as a caucus of the Republican Party, don't you think it is ethical for the IRS to flag it and require rigorous examination to receive tax exempt status?
Click to expand...

No. No more than other politically linked terms from any part of the political dimension. That's the entire rub here.
 
#413
#413
Vol Main said:
For the sake of argument, that should be the last time. Let's move on to the next question. If a group names itself after a political faction recognized by the U.S. House as a caucus of the Republican Party, don't you think it is ethical for the IRS to flag it and require rigorous examination to receive tax exempt status?
Click to expand...

only if they apply it across the entire political spectrum. Either everyone plays under the same rules or no one does
 
#414
#414
volinbham said:
No. No more than other politically linked terms from any part of the political dimension. That's the entire rub here.
Click to expand...

Ham, it has a caucus within the Republican Party in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is not just a politically linked term; it is a faction of a national political party.
 
#415
#415
utvolpj said:
only if they apply it across the entire political spectrum. Either everyone plays under the same rules or no one does
Click to expand...

not sure what's so hard to understand about this.

Also, if you look at the history - Tea Party organizations pushing issues existed before Tea Party candidates did. It is reasonable to see that an org supporting Tea Party issues is no more political than one support "green" issues (they have a political party), etc.
 
#417
#417
utvolpj said:
only if they apply it across the entire political spectrum. Either everyone plays under the same rules or no one does
Click to expand...

It is not just part of the political spectrum. It is part of a national political party, the Republican Party, and it is recognized as such by the U.S. House of Representatives. Are you going to ban me if I paste that fifty times? It's a fact. How many times do you need to read it before you stop ignoring it?
 
#418
#418
Vol Main said:
Ham, it has a caucus within the Republican Party in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is not just a politically linked term; it is a faction of a national political party.
Click to expand...

So what. Democrats routinely call themselves Progressives. There is a Green Party that is linked to any number of environmental groups.

Tea Party groups began as issue advocacy groups before any candidates became Tea Party "members".
 
#419
#419
Vol Main said:
For the sake of argument, that should be the last time. Let's move on to the next question. If a group names itself after a political faction recognized by the U.S. House as a caucus of the Republican Party, don't you think it is ethical for the IRS to flag it and require rigorous examination to receive tax exempt status?
Click to expand...

asymmetrical application of any standard by a regulatory body is illegal, period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#420
#420
Vol Main said:
It is not just part of the political spectrum. It is part of a national political party, the Republican Party, and it is recognized as such by the U.S. House of Representatives. Are you going to ban me if I paste that fifty times? It's a fact. How many times do you need to read it before you stop ignoring it?
Click to expand...

No one is ignoring it - we simply don't agree with your point and I've listed 3 501c4 orgs with the name Democratic or Democrats. I'm sure there are plenty more in the 501c3 category. If TP is a national political party then surely Democrats are even more so.

Your argument doesn't explain the use of Patriot, etc. as targeting words either.

Treat them all the same.
 
#421
#421
Vol Main said:
For the sake of argument, that should be the last time. Let's move on to the next question. If a group names itself after a political faction recognized by the U.S. House as a caucus of the Republican Party, don't you think it is ethical for the IRS to flag it and require rigorous examination to receive tax exempt status?
Click to expand...

BigPapaVol said:
asymmetrical application of any standard by a regulatory body is illegal, period.
Click to expand...


You are both right.

The only fix to both problems is to eliminate the exemption.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#422
#422
volinbham said:
not sure what's so hard to understand about this.

Also, if you look at the history - Tea Party organizations pushing issues existed before Tea Party candidates did. It is reasonable to see that an org supporting Tea Party issues is no more political than one support "green" issues (they have a political party), etc.
Click to expand...

You mean the party organized before it ran candidates. lol You think Tea Party candidates should have run before there was a Tea Party. LOL
 
#425
#425
Vol Main said:
You mean the party organized before it ran candidates. lol You think Tea Party candidates should have run before there was a Tea Party. LOL
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that like the Green Party emerged from any number of advocacy (tax exempt) groups so to did the Tea Party as a political party.

It was an advocacy movement that politicians attached themselves to.

Further, there can be hundreds of groups that advocate for smaller government and reduced taxation that never have anything to do with a particular candidate.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top