1) Then why doesn't he take credit for it?
2) aaaaaaaah ... I see ... you're trying to sell the notion that a 3 year delay in granting 501c4 status by asking ridiculously onerous questions is not really rejecting the request.
I suppose they thought the code was administered unfairly.
501(c)(4) — Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees
501(c) organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
501(c)(4) status is not granted... its presumed. You do not have to apply for it. You merely declare you are a 501(c)(4). Of course, the IRS can take that status away from you, but you own the status until that happens.
The reason there was no foul, is that no one lost their status as a result of this. They "crime" was they were asked a lot of questions. The link below is the actual "declaration" form.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/Form14449.pdf
501(c) organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No because they were also going after liberal, and progressive groups alike. The conservative groups were not singled out.
A Mother Jones reader, I see.
You're being silly.
No because they were also going after liberal, and progressive groups alike. The conservative groups were not singled out.
Uhhh well they did investigate liberal organizations as well.. So yea... But you can keep on believing whatever you believe.
Really. Even though they specifically admitted "targeting" conservative groups. So, in essence, even in the face of an admission, people like you will still deny, deny, deny.
501(c)(4) status is not granted... its presumed. You do not have to apply for it. You merely declare you are a 501(c)(4). Of course, the IRS can take that status away from you, but you own the status until that happens.
The reason there was no foul, is that no one lost their status as a result of this. They "crime" was they were asked a lot of questions. The link below is the actual "declaration" form.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/Form14449.pdf
501(c) organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An admission apparently isn't good enough for some fanboys ... that's what makes 'em fanboys.Really. Even though they specifically admitted "targeting" conservative groups. So, in essence, even in the face of an admission, people like you will still deny, deny, deny.
Well lets see here when the IRS goes after both groups, and this 501(c)(4) stats is only supposed to be given to social welfare organizations and local associations of employees and these groups are supposed to be forbidden from endorsing and or aiding candidates for public office, but as we all know this is being abused by both liberal and conservative groups, it only makes sense that the IRS was scrutinizing them more closely. Hell its their job.
LEt me spell it out for you....The IRS ADMITTED SPECIFICALLY TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS.
No because they were also going after liberal, and progressive groups alike. The conservative groups were not singled out.
This statement is completely false. An ungenerous reader might even call it a lie.:roll:
97 to 3. The statement is false. Your defense of it does you no credit.:roll:
I just proved it wasnt false. But keep on believing its "completely false"
You proved it was false. Your inability to see that is troubling.:mrgreen:
I claimed that the IRS went after liberal and progressive groups to. They went after at least 3 we know of so far. Therefore its not false. You claimed they did not. I proved they did. If anything i could play this petty game and be the one calling you a liar. :mrgreen:
I dont get how this is so hard for you to understand. I claimed that they targetted progressive and liberal groups. You claimed that is false. I then proved they did. 3, 4, 7, 2 whatever number they still targeted them therefor its not false. :2wave:Targeting three groups is a rounding error. Targeting 97 is targeting. Your claim is both false and silly. In the end, I don't think you're a liar; a liar would try something smarter.:mrgreen: