What is going on at IRS?

[Snaggletooth]

Forum does not allow partisan political posts, so I'll talk in terms of government in general. I am disgusted at the recent stonewalling of questions regardless which party is doing it. This news (if true) DOES affect what we do.

I have been told that the biased treatment of processing/approving conservative tax-exempt orgs are being CODIFIED. In short, this would mean that regulations are now being written which actually create procedures whereby the IRS would require applications from these groups to endure additional requirements, much as the procedures used to delay certain groups. And of course the codification would define certain classifications where these groups would be placed.

Does anyone know whether this is going on? My source is a conservative radio talk show, which like the "progressive" talk shows, is extremely biased.
But regardless of bias, I think we need to know whether this is true or not.

Please respond if you have good information on this. Please be factual with responses, and not tainted by political persuasion.

[Gary2]

Have you looked at the IRB online? Did your source give you enough information to be able to verify things? Usually I'd expect them to cite something such as an IRS news release, a legislator's office, or another media outlet.

[Snaggletooth]

No Cites

Have you looked at the IRB online? Did your source give you enough information to be able to verify things? Usually I'd expect them to cite something such as an IRS news release, a legislator's office, or another media outlet.

No. If such a thing has been fashioned into a cite I wouldn't have the first clue where to look. Consider the source, being a conversationalist on talk radio. Either they had no cites, and even if they did they would not barrage the listeners with boring regs. Reading regs is difficult for most of us, and out of grasp for most listeners. Whereas you and I might be interested in cites, the general listening audience would not. Many of the listeners are just as biased as their hosts, as a particular talk show appeals to a particular audience.

For example, many stations talk about Obamacare, but no one mentions HR3962, the much adulterated bill which finally became law.

Bias or not, this might be happening and if so, the reg writers would not be very open. Lois Lerner was not open. The one thing no conspiracy can tolerate is the light of day on their activities.

And of course, the information coming from the radio show could be somewhat misleading or even totally false. Many times, however, where there is smoke, there is fire. Anyway, I thought I would ask as this is something that is in our ballpark. And clients often ask about things like this as well.

[commonstalk]

I think this is what you're referring to.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/01/22/Rep-Dave-Camp-Introduces-Bill-To-Delay-New-IRS-501-C-4-Rules

And yes I realize it is from a right wing site.

[ATSMAN]

Interpret the Law as written originally

IRS screwed up on this long before Ms. Lerner's involvement. They should have used the "Exclusive" criteria instead of "Primarily" as the test for C4 orgs.

They need to go back and enforce the law as written and this means both conservative and liberal leaning C4s will have to prove that otherwise they should be shut down!

We have extremes on both sides making a mockery of this!

[Bees Knees]

I have been told that the biased treatment of processing/approving conservative tax-exempt orgs are being CODIFIED.

It should be noted that nobody is trying to put the word conservative into the code or regs. What is happening is they are trying to prevent any type of political organization, whether conservative, liberal, or moderate, from gaining tax-exempt status.

There is a difference. Congress long ago codified tax-exempt status to mean an organization that promoted some type of social good. Getting someone elected was not considered promoting some type of social good.

[David1980]

Basically what happened is after the "Tea Party" scrutiny in 2012 (which of course affected other political groups as well, but the Tea Party made the most noise) the anti-IRS crowd wanted a less vague regulation to clearly show what the IRS will do. The IRS proposed regulations and the anti-IRS crowd thinks the proposed regulations go too far.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/IRS-Update-on-the-Proposed-New-Regulation-on-501(c)(4)-Organizations

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Treasury,-IRS-Will-Issue-Proposed-Guidance-for-Tax-Exempt-Social-Welfare-Organizations

A decent third-party write up: https://www.independentsector.org/501c4_organizations

I don't think Rep Dave Camp's bill is really about the proposed regulations myself. It's become "trendy" to be anti-IRS, in that it makes you look good to certain voters to be against the IRS. Short of permitting the 501(c)(4) to be used for any purpose desired no strings attached I think we would see people against the regulations.

Personally, I agree with ATSMAN - it should use "exclusive" rather than "primarily". Of course, even under the "primarily" for the promotion of social welfare rule, does anyone really believe these political 501(c)(4)'s have anything to do with the promotion of social welfare? It seems far more likely the primary purpose for many of these things is to engage in political activities.

[buzzardbreath]

The downside

Tea Party organizations made the most noise about it, but if the mantra were to be applied equally to both liberal and conservative groups, Ms. Lois Lerner should not be so wary to speak of it.

One of the consequences of any legislation is enforcement. This applies not just to taxes. The government can pick and choose whom it wishes to enforce the legislation.

One very blatant example, and my guess is it happens everywhere and not just in Tennessee. Most of us were relieved when the "DO NOT CALL" list was established whereby ordinary people could protect their sanity from the endless barrage of telephone solicitors. Legislation was passed, but did the govt go after the perpetrators? We get just as many calls as we did before. The telephone providers tell us no enforcement money was authorized after the bill was passed. In other words, we can turn one of these rude perpetrators in to the Federal Trade Commission, but nothing will be done -- in fact, there would be no one to even talk to.

[Snaggletooth]

Thanks for Response

Thanks for very good and informative responses. And we did a good job on keeping discussion free of political bias.

Commonstalk, I notice this is your first post. Welcome, and come back often.

[commonstalk]

Thank you!

I certainly will. Thanks for the welcome!