• 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!

IRS revokes group's tax exemption over anti-Clinton statements

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This is guaranteed to raise the blood pressure of the nation's political right

The Internal Revenue Service has revoked the tax-exempt status of a conservative-aligned charity for engaging in political activity as far back as the 2004 presidential election — including statements opposing Hillary Clinton for president.

The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, based in Manassas, Va., “has shown a pattern of deliberate and consistent intervention in political campaigns” and made “repeated statements supporting or opposing various candidates by expressing its opinion of the respective candidate’s character and qualifications,” according to a written determination released by the IRS Friday.

Although the name of the group was redacted from the determination, the facts of the case match statements made by the Patrick Henry Center’s founder. A separate IRS noticeconfirms that the Patrick Henry Center’s tax exemption was revoked in February.

[snip]

IRS revokes group's tax exemption over anti-Clinton statements


 
there will be a lawsuit and the Center will win.

Funny how george soro's companies aren't on the chopping block or had their tax exempt status revoked yet are constantly doing the same thing.
 
This is guaranteed to raise the blood pressure of the nation's political right

The Internal Revenue Service has revoked the tax-exempt status of a conservative-aligned charity for engaging in political activity as far back as the 2004 presidential election — including statements opposing Hillary Clinton for president.

The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, based in Manassas, Va., “has shown a pattern of deliberate and consistent intervention in political campaigns” and made “repeated statements supporting or opposing various candidates by expressing its opinion of the respective candidate’s character and qualifications,” according to a written determination released by the IRS Friday.

Although the name of the group was redacted from the determination, the facts of the case match statements made by the Patrick Henry Center’s founder. A separate IRS noticeconfirms that the Patrick Henry Center’s tax exemption was revoked in February.

[snip]

IRS revokes group's tax exemption over anti-Clinton statements



I know of many church pastors who do the same thing in the pulpit, thus their tax exemption should be revoked as well.
 
It should be noted that this group was organized under (c)(3) and not (c)(4).

Under c3 no influencing of legislation or a campaign is allowed while under c4, which is the matter at hand in the Issa investigation, an organization IS allowed to use funds for political purposes as long as the use doesn't violate the provisions of subsection (h) of section 501.
 
It should be noted that this group was organized under (c)(3) and not (c)(4).

Under c3 no influencing of legislation or a campaign is allowed while under c4, which is the matter at hand in the Issa investigation, an organization IS allowed to use funds for political purposes as long as the use doesn't violate the provisions of subsection (h) of section 501.

Yep, obviously the NAACP never does that. ;)

Actually the 501(c)(3) status seems to allow "lobbying" but not the influencing of campaigns/candidates. This whole can of worms is far too complex and the SCOTUS lets it continue. Either federal income tax exempt status is (or is not) compatable with full freedom of political speach or it is not - having the current administration pick and choose favorites is insane.
 
This whole can of worms is far too complex and the SCOTUS lets it continue. Either federal income tax exempt status is (or is not) compatible with full freedom of political speech or it is not...

I can agree that it's complex and even somewhat confusing to me from the outside looking in, with each of the various types of 501(c) org having slightly different rules that apply to each and my trying to make heads or tails of them with no real vested interest in any.

But I'd think that once you've decided which you are, made your application, and been awarded a particular "status" there'd really only be one set of rules that you'd need to worry about - the ones that apply specifically to you.

If you know what you are, and you know what rules apply to you, I don't really see how it would be all that complex.

Looking into this issue a little bit it seems to me that complexity isn't the issue here so much as this Gary Aldrich character is crazy, or an idiot, or both ("alleging, among other things, that First Lady Hillary Clinton decorated the White House Christmas Tree with crack pipes and condoms", ummm, yeah, okay jackass).

Seems like this guy wants to have his cake and eat it too.

And it seems like he played fast and loose with the rules, got caught (repeatedly) and ultimately got slapped on the dick.

It shouldn't have mattered to him, and it shouldn't matter to anyone else judging this event, what rules apply to 501(c)(4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or ...) orgs.

What should have mattered, and what should matter, are the rules that apply to 501(c)(3) orgs, and whether or not this org broke those rules.

Seems to me, based upon the little I've read, that the argument can be made that they did.

Oh well...
 
there will be a lawsuit and the Center will win.

Funny how george soro's companies aren't on the chopping block or had their tax exempt status revoked yet are constantly doing the same thing.
Don't be so certain, their activity clearly violates the law as written.
 
I know of many church pastors who do the same thing in the pulpit, thus their tax exemption should be revoked as well.
Church's should not be tax exempt unless they are involved with a charity. The opulence displayed by some churches should not have tax exempt status.
 
So exactly why was their tax exempt status revoked? Because they criticized Hillary Clinton?
 
So exactly why was their tax exempt status revoked? Because they criticized Hillary Clinton?

In a manner that broke the laws under which their tax exempt status was granted, yes. Along with other political activities their type of organization isn't allowed to engage in.
 
In a manner that broke the laws under which their tax exempt status was granted, yes. Along with other political activities their type of organization isn't allowed to engage in.

Yeah, this isn't going to go well... pile one more thing onto the pyre that is the Democrats hopes in November. :lamo
 
In a manner that broke the laws under which their tax exempt status was granted, yes. Along with other political activities their type of organization isn't allowed to engage in.

I read the article twice. I can't figure out what they did that was so wrong.

Tax exempt organizations interject themselves in politics all the time.
 
I read the article twice. I can't figure out what they did that was so wrong.

Tax exempt organizations interject themselves in politics all the time.

From the IRS:

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Exemption Requirements - 501(c)(3) Organizations

The text of the law can be found at: 26 U.S. Code § 501 - Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc. | LII / Legal Information Institute
 
Last edited:
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Exemption Requirements - 501(c)(3) Organizations

The text of the law can be found at: 26 U.S. Code § 501 - Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc. | LII / Legal Information Institute

Then I will be breathlessly awaiting the news that the IRS has removed the tax exempt status of 501(c)3 organizations who endorsed Obama, such as the HSUS.
 
Then I will be breathlessly awaiting the news that the IRS has removed the tax exempt status of 501(c)3 organizations who endorsed Obama, such as the HSUS.

I don't know the exact details of the case, but provided the law that prohibits campaign activities (the IRS alleges the entity participated in them) and limits lobbying of a certain class of tax-exempt organizations. If the organization in question did not violate those requirements, it will pursue a legal case and will prevail. If, however, it did violates those provisions, it either won't pursue such a case or it will wind up losing in court.
 
Then I will be breathlessly awaiting the news that the IRS has removed the tax exempt status of 501(c)3 organizations who endorsed Obama, such as the HSUS.
If they engage in that activity, they should indeed have their exempt status revoked.
 
I read the article twice. I can't figure out what they did that was so wrong.

Tax exempt organizations interject themselves in politics all the time.

There are different sorts of tax exempt organizations and this one wasn't supposed to try to influence an election.
 
Don't be so certain, their activity clearly violates the law as written.

1st amendment trumps the IRS and that is all they have to claim and given the recent SCOTUS rulings they will win. as long as the majority of their
funding is going toward their charity organization purpose the IRS has no weight in the matter.

again soro's so called charity businesses do way worse so why is the IRS not going after them ol yea he backs democrats so he is off limit.
 
I know of many church pastors who do the same thing in the pulpit, thus their tax exemption should be revoked as well.

Absolutely. I'd go one further and say there should be no tax exempt status therefore nothing to argue over.
 
Lots of accusations, no evidence. HSUS has many critics and some appear fair but I don't see anything in their history that was campaigning.

What 501c3 organizations can do is define issues. Both liberal and conservatives churches do it all the time. Some cross the line, others balance very well.

This is not a free speech issue because no one's speech is being taken away, even if straddled because you get the non-profit tax-exempt status you choose to get. It isn't like you can't do that work without that status.

Organizations like Media Matters which is a highly partisan (for the left and not necessarily for Democrats) who have a mission to point out right wing misinformation. What they do is not considered charitable in the strictest sense of the word but does not violate IRS rules which is a position held by one of the first people who challenged their status. They dance close to the line but have smart lawyers who know where the line is. (The are several groups from other perspectives that do similar things).

The biggest problem is that law is not black and white on purpose.
 
1st amendment trumps the IRS and that is all they have to claim and given the recent SCOTUS rulings they will win. as long as the majority of their
funding is going toward their charity organization purpose the IRS has no weight in the matter.

again soro's so called charity businesses do way worse so why is the IRS not going after them ol yea he backs democrats so he is off limit.

That's not how the rules work. Being a charity, a (c)(3) org, means donors can DEDUCT their contributions. And Congress gave the IRS some guidelines about what orgs qualify as charities, and the IRS enforces those rules. One of them is you can't work to elect or oppose specific candidates if you are organized as a charity. Has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment - it's about donors' deductions and whether the org has to pay income taxes on its net income for the year. Those things are under the purview of Congress which delegates authority to IRS to enforce rules they set up about income tax matters.

Sababa - missed your post earlier. That's well said, especially about the fact that the lines aren't black and white.

"We are against abortion. Candidate X's voting record has resulted in the deaths of 30 million babies." Probably good.
"Vote for Candidate Y, because Candidate X is a baby killer." Probably prohibited coming from a (c)(3)
 
Last edited:
there will be a lawsuit and the Center will win.

Funny how george soro's companies aren't on the chopping block or had their tax exempt status revoked yet are constantly doing the same thing.

Not so sure of that. To be tax exempt requires that your work consist of actual community service, not politicking.
 
That's not how the rules work. Being a charity, a (c)(3) org, means donors can DEDUCT their contributions. And Congress gave the IRS some guidelines about what orgs qualify as charities, and the IRS enforces those rules. One of them is you can't work to elect or oppose specific candidates if you are organized as a charity. Has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment - it's about donors' deductions and whether the org has to pay income taxes on its net income for the year. Those things are under the purview of Congress which delegates authority to IRS to enforce rules they set up about income tax matters.

Sababa - missed your post earlier. That's well said, especially about the fact that the lines aren't black and white.

"We are against abortion. Candidate X's voting record has resulted in the deaths of 30 million babies." Probably good.
"Vote for Candidate Y, because Candidate X is a baby killer." Probably prohibited coming from a (c)(3)

Then why have Soro's 501c3 charities not been shut down for the same reason? hmm i have to ask because they promote more than anyone else yet again only conservatives are targeted.

again they will sue the IRS for the decision it will go to court and they will win.
 
Then why have Soro's 501c3 charities not been shut down for the same reason? hmm i have to ask because they promote more than anyone else yet again only conservatives are targeted.

again they will sue the IRS for the decision it will go to court and they will win.
No, they won't win, because they violated the rules for a 501c3 organization. Media Matters, which is partially funded by George Soros qualifies for 501c3 because they provide education to the public at no cost and the do not engage in politics. If you are thinking that is unfair, I will tell you the political right's NewsBusters also has a 501c3 exemption for the same reason.

Exemption Requirements - 501(c)(3) Organizations
 
Back
Top Bottom