• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Politics

apdst said:
1) You don't know that, since you don't have access to their financials and can't see how much of their activity accounts for, "social welfare".

2) If that's the case, then the applications should have been outright denied and the orginizations advised as to what route they should take in setting up their orgizinational tax status. However, that didn't happen. Did it? AND, it only happened to Right Wing groups. And...AND...the scrutiny stopped after the election.


There's no evidence that this was a legitimate investigation of NFP's, to make sure they were in compliance.
Click to expand...

If you think Karl Rove is not primarily engaged in politics and more engaged in social welfare than you're in self-denial. Also to achieve the tax exempt status the IRS must be convinced by the organization that it deserves it, it's not up to the IRS to prove that a perticular group is primarily political, its up to that group to prove that its not primarily political.

Tax exempt is not the default status, so why don't you prove that Karl Rove is not primarily engaged in politics. Good luck with that. Well then again you'll probably come up with some bull**** to convince yourself.
 
Wiseone said:
If you think Karl Rove is not primarily engaged in politics and more engaged in social welfare than you're in self-denial. Also to achieve the tax exempt status the IRS must be convinced by the organization that it deserves it, it's not up to the IRS to prove that a perticular group is primarily political, its up to that group to prove that its not primarily political.
Click to expand...

I don't think anything. I'm pointing out that you don't know that Rove's orginization engages in less social welfare, than political campainging.

What I do know, is that you don't seem to have a problem with NFP's, like unions, Moveon.org and Media Matters engaging in political activity.

Tax exempt is not the default status, so why don't you prove that Karl Rove is not primarily engaged in politics. Good luck with that. Well then again you'll probably come up with some bull**** to convince yourself.
Click to expand...

I didn't say he is, or isn't. You're the one making the factual claim that he is engaged in primarily political activity...now, it's time you put up or shut up.
 
Wiseone said:
If you think Karl Rove is not primarily engaged in politics and more engaged in social welfare than you're in self-denial. Also to achieve the tax exempt status the IRS must be convinced by the organization that it deserves it, it's not up to the IRS to prove that a perticular group is primarily political, its up to that group to prove that its not primarily political.

Tax exempt is not the default status, so why don't you prove that Karl Rove is not primarily engaged in politics. Good luck with that. Well then again you'll probably come up with some bull**** to convince yourself.
Click to expand...

I think the problem might be that you're seemingly engaging in an attempt to deflect from the scandal by focusing on the various issues that have really nothing to do with the case. It's like learning that someone got busted for drugs through various acts that infringed on their constitutional rights, and you going "well people shouldn't be doing drugs"


Which would obvious ignore the issue of govt abuse
 
Wiseone said:
If you think Karl Rove is not primarily engaged in politics and more engaged in social welfare than you're in self-denial. Also to achieve the tax exempt status the IRS must be convinced by the organization that it deserves it, it's not up to the IRS to prove that a perticular group is primarily political, its up to that group to prove that its not primarily political.

Tax exempt is not the default status, so why don't you prove that Karl Rove is not primarily engaged in politics. Good luck with that. Well then again you'll probably come up with some bull**** to convince yourself.
Click to expand...

It might be wise to wait until Crossroads GETS their c4 status before proclaiming they didn't deserve it...

Crossroads GPS, founded with help from GOP strategist Karl Rove, applied for formal recognition as a tax-exempt group in September 2010 and has not received it, spokesman Jonathan Collegio said.
Click to expand...
Karl Rove-affiliated group also targeted by IRS?

just sayin'...;)
 
Dickieboy said:
It might be wise to wait until Crossroads GETS their c4 status before proclaiming they didn't deserve it...


Karl Rove-affiliated group also targeted by IRS?

just sayin'...;)
Click to expand...

If they are doing politics instead of social welfare, then they need to be targeted. That being said, the same should hold true for Liberal groups. The real wrongdoing is that the IRS has not been even handed in their targeting of the cheating, and abuse of 527(c) status, by political groups.
 
danarhea said:
If they are doing politics instead of social welfare, then they need to be targeted. That being said, the same should hold true for Liberal groups. The real wrongdoing is that the IRS has not been even handed in their targeting of the cheating, and abuse of 527(c) status, by political groups.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly but I'm having trouble getting my head around the extents of 'social welfare'. Charities, soup kitchens, food pantries and the like are pretty clear but 'educational organizations' formed to inform folks on 'social issues' seem to have an ultimate goal to influence legislation which further leads to political ends. It's kinda how far does one go down the rabbit hole before it's too deep.
 
danarhea said:
If they are doing politics instead of social welfare, then they need to be targeted. That being said, the same should hold true for Liberal groups. The real wrongdoing is that the IRS has not been even handed in their targeting of the cheating, and abuse of 527(c) status, by political groups.
Click to expand...

right, and it seems there is a concerted effort to ignore this and go 'these groups should be under heavier scrutiny". Which, again, ignores the issue that scrutiny was applied based on perceived political affiliation.
 
apdst said:
I don't think anything. I'm pointing out that you don't know that Rove's orginization engages in less social welfare, than political campainging.

What I do know, is that you don't seem to have a problem with NFP's, like unions, Moveon.org and Media Matters engaging in political activity.



I didn't say he is, or isn't. You're the one making the factual claim that he is engaged in primarily political activity...now, it's time you put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with it? You clearly don't read my posts, I specifically said over and over that I don't believe any political group should receive tax extempt status.

Here you go with a source.

‘Crossroads GPS and Priorities USA were created for the purpose of hiding donors.’
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
right, and it seems there is a concerted effort to ignore this and go 'these groups should be under heavier scrutiny". Which, again, ignores the issue that scrutiny was applied based on perceived political affiliation.
Click to expand...

Of course it was. If the IRS had also targeted Liberal groups to the same extent, then we would not even be having this discussion.
 
Dickieboy said:
I agree wholeheartedly but I'm having trouble getting my head around the extents of 'social welfare'. Charities, soup kitchens, food pantries and the like are pretty clear but 'educational organizations' formed to inform folks on 'social issues' seem to have an ultimate goal to influence legislation which further leads to political ends. It's kinda how far does one go down the rabbit hole before it's too deep.
Click to expand...

You make a good point.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I think the problem might be that you're seemingly engaging in an attempt to deflect from the scandal by focusing on the various issues that have really nothing to do with the case. It's like learning that someone got busted for drugs through various acts that infringed on their constitutional rights, and you going "well people shouldn't be doing drugs"


Which would obvious ignore the issue of govt abuse
Click to expand...

By no means should this be ignored, its a big problem that political groups are getting tax extempt status by pretending to be something they aren't. But the problem with this IRS scandel isn't that they were targeting political groups trying pretend to be something they aren't, the problem is they aren't applying the law equally nor as strict as they should be.

Many people think that these conservative groups should have gotten tax extempt status, they shouldn't, and neither should the liberal groups who actually did.
 
Wiseone said:
By no means should this be ignored
Click to expand...

Well, that is the impression I get everytime someone addresses this discussion with a diatribe about the issues with various tax designations.

its a big problem that political groups are getting tax extempt status by pretending to be something they aren't.
Click to expand...

Ha~!!! Well there you go.


But the problem with this IRS scandel isn't that they were targeting political groups trying pretend to be something they aren't, the problem is they aren't applying the law equally nor as strict as they should be.
Click to expand...

Yet, the direction you and other liberals are attempting to drive the discussion completely avoids the issue of the IRS behavior


Many people think that these conservative groups should have gotten tax extempt status, they shouldn't, and neither should the liberal groups who actually did.
Click to expand...

All fine and good, but totally questionable point to focus on given the case and smells of nothing more than political motivation
 
danarhea said:
You make a good point.
Click to expand...

Let me even extend this point a little more. The IRS publication that attempts to define 'social welfare' is 39 PAGES LONG! And the conclusion:

Although the Service has been making an effort to refine and clarify this area, section 501(c)(4) remains in some degree a catch-all for presumptively beneficial nonprofit organizations that resist classification under the other exempting provisions of the Code. Unfortunately, this condition exists because, "social welfare" is inherently an abstruse concept that continues to defy precise definition. Careful case-by-case analyses and close judgments are still required.
Click to expand...
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicg81.pdf

But from the article:

Section 1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(i) of the Income Tax Regulations states that an organization will be considered to be operated exclusively for social welfare purposes if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the people of the community, i.e. primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterments and social improvements.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't a group who attempts to get more folks engaged in the political arena be an attempt to bring 'about civic betterments'? This being true across the entire political spectrum.
 
danarhea said:
Of course it was. If the IRS had also targeted Liberal groups to the same extent, then we would not even be having this discussion.
Click to expand...

huh, does that even address what I just wrote?
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
huh, does that even address what I just wrote?
Click to expand...

Of course it does. Here is your post:

right, and it seems there is a concerted effort to ignore this and go 'these groups should be under heavier scrutiny". Which, again, ignores the issue that scrutiny was applied based on perceived political affiliation.
Click to expand...

And here is my response:

Of course it was. If the IRS had also targeted Liberal groups to the same extent, then we would not even be having this discussion.
Click to expand...

Pretty straightforward, don't you think?
 
danarhea said:
Of course it does. Here is your post:



And here is my response:



Pretty straightforward, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Yes, with the bolded text
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Well, that is the impression I get everytime someone addresses this discussion with a diatribe about the issues with various tax designations.
Ha~!!! Well there you go.


Yet, the direction you and other liberals are attempting to drive the discussion completely avoids the issue of the IRS behavior

All fine and good, but totally questionable point to focus on given the case and smells of nothing more than political motivation
Click to expand...

Don't assign other people's actions or words to me, if I didn't say it then I'm not responsible for it. Don't lump me in with whatever group you think I belong to and hold me responsible or ask me to answer for what other people do.

I've made my position clear on this issue, and I don't discriminate between liberals and conservatives or their political groups
 
Dickieboy said:
Let me even extend this point a little more. The IRS publication that attempts to define 'social welfare' is 39 PAGES LONG! And the conclusion:


http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicg81.pdf

But from the article:



Wouldn't a group who attempts to get more folks engaged in the political arena be an attempt to bring 'about civic betterments'? This being true across the entire political spectrum.
Click to expand...

Getting folks engaged in the process is one thing, but folks who are clearly working to get out the vote for only one party is quite another. There is a gray area here, though, and both Liberal and Conservative groups have pushed and abused the envelope. This needs to end, but if it means only going after Conservative groups, then this is very wrong. And this appears to be what the IRS has done. Heads clearly need to roll here.
 
danarhea said:
You clearly stated that targeting was applied unevenly, and I was actually agreeing with you. Jeez!
Click to expand...

Yes, I get that. I was just pointing out it was unclear without the bolding.
 
Wiseone said:
Don't assign other people's actions or words to me
Click to expand...

I'm commenting on what I see you writing here


Don't lump me in with whatever group you think I belong to and hold me responsible or ask me to answer for what other people do.
Click to expand...

You seem like one of those partisans that bends over backwards claiming how non-partisan they are, while being partisan. If my impression is wrong, then I apologize

I've made my position clear on this issue, and I don't discriminate between liberals and conservatives or their political groups
Click to expand...

right, you just seem intent on focusing on the periphery tax designation issue
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Yes, I get that. I was just pointing out it was unclear without the bolding.
Click to expand...

Wasn't unclear to me at all. I knew what you meant. I bolded the part that was most relevant in my response. Again, I agree with you. We don't need to go to war here. LOL.
 
danarhea said:
Wasn't unclear to me at all.
Click to expand...

Ok, but that doesn't change the fact that it was unclear to me, w/o the bolding.

Honestly, why is that even an issue?

I knew what you meant. I bolded the part that was most relevant in my response.
Click to expand...

and without that bolding it was pretty unclear

Again, I agree with you. We don't need to go to war here. LOL.
Click to expand...

Who's going to war? All i did was explain why I thought your comment was unclear
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom