Thanks for the link Upside....The article raises more questions about c4's but none the less, it seems pretty clear if your article is correct and c4's don't have to apply to claim status under the rules of the IRS, then why did their status come under this type of scrutiny? Was it only after they submitted a tax return as a c4 that they came under that scrutiny? We don't know because the story is incomplete, and if liberals have their way, will remain so because of a couple of things.
1. It seems some liberal progressives believe in what Lerner was doing, and think it appropriate to do, even though in the inverse would be screaming discrimination.
2. Obstruction of anything shady has been, and will continue to be blocked from getting to the bottom of by democrats. Ever since F&F the meme seems to be that no one above some low level actor has any knowledge, or complicity in the action that brings the scrutiny of congress. That is simply unbelievable. And it is because of two things....
a. either it is a lie
or
b. This administration is totally incompetent.
or c. certain groups are trying to make an issue out of the most benign things and organizing facts to meet their arguments (see also, Salem Witch Trials)
Nonsense, I don't buy that at all. At least from what we know to this point, the scrutiny has been one sided. I am not saying that an investigation won't change that, but at this point what we have seems to be a pattern of intimidation from this administration toward their political opponents in a totalitarian way.
If that is the case, are you saying that NO liberal groups applied, or claimed this status? Or that they came under the same scrutiny? Because any reporting to that so far seems to be in the opposite direction, to include the IRS themselves admitting that they did unfairly target conservative, or religious groups.
This seems to be a lot of excuse making, and hoping that this just fades away. I don't think that is going to happen as long as they continue to play dumb, or have people involved in the scandal taking the 5th.
Again, the issue is about determination letters. Now, drawing on my background as a CPA (earlier in my career), you can self declare and never have to ask the IRS anything, but you are responsible for carrying on your affairs in a matter consistent with the qualification. Alternatively, as with any questionable tax position, tax payers seek a IRS Determination Letter. They present the facts to the IRS and ask for their judgment. They want the Determination Letter to take to their donors; they need the Determination Letter because their application is not a slam dunk; they wait for their Determination Letter because getting one from the IRS is a difficult, labor intensive process.
The problem with groups with a substantial political focus is they are questionable for 501(c)(4) status. In fact, by the letter of the law, they do not qualify because they have to be exclusively social welfare, with no political component. Fortunately, for these groups, when the regs were written, they relaxed "exclusively" substituting the "primarily" standard, which opened the door for political activity.
If these groups stuck to the social welfare aspect of their jobs and stayed out of the political side, the IRS determination would not be necessary and their would be no controversy. The fact that these are controversial groups (from a 501(c)(4) qualification status) made this controversial.
The political groups liked the 501(c)(4) status because they do not have to disclose donors. The perceived uneven application to conservative groups is largely de facto: 1) The vast majority of political groups formed in the 2009-2011 time frame were Tea Party groups.... and their focus was hardly a-political. It was clear they were 'tweeners"; if they qualified, they would barely qualify...2) many liberal groups are actually social welfare groups first with a political component second... they are advocating for a cause, not a party. Groups like Green Peace or the Sierra Club (which were already formed... so this does apply to them), are more typical of progressive groups... they clearly advocate a social position ahead of a political position (which firmly qualifies them as a 501(c)(4)). It is easier to qualify a social group, then a political one.
Religious groups would generally apply as a 501(c)(3) organization so that donor contributions were tax deductible. They could only have this status if they had NO political component. If they engaged at all in politics, or advocated political positions from the pulpit, they could get "kicked-down" to 501(c)(4) status. Religious groups have a bad habit of wanting to engage in politics and wanting to tell their constituencies how they should vote in the name of God... (their on sinners using the Lord's name to their political vein on both sides of the aisle... but the evangelicals, at least during the Bush years, often crossed the line)
In either case progressives have failed this country.
Obviously, I would change out one word in that statement to make it true.
BTW... when you are the attorney for the highest ranking official in the controversy (Lois Lerner) and have political leaders saying irresponsible things like '..someone needs to jail, it would be mal-practice for her attorney to let her testify. This whole issue is already out of control (see also, Salem witch trials) .... she can always testify letter, but can never take her words back.
