Public Law 114–7 - Section (d)

[MAJ]

First, I hope everyone had an Incredible Christmas and/or Incredible Holiday/Birthday/Anniversary or DAY!

Public Law 114–7 in particular, section (d)

While I find this a HUGE step in the right direction I also find it insulting on many levels.
I'm confused as to why 2 Police Officers out of all the Police Officers / Fire Fighters / IRS Agents or YOU or I were chosen to receive this, this LAW for them and THEM alone? What agenda did this SERVE?
Why not that same RIGHT, No - LUXURY for any contribution to ANY Family who experienced and untimely death? It is obviously not that the IRS is Simplistic or Naive enough to think that only these two families were the only ones impacted or not Financially prepared for their Loved Ones to have been taken away too soon. Unbelieveable. I'm obviously missing something, so please feel free to Help me Understand.

Thanks....


To quote from Tax News & Industry Updates - 2015 - Vol 3, Issue 2:
Cross References
• Public Law 114-7

On April 1, 2015, the President signed into law H.R. 1527
which allows a charitable tax deduction for cash contributions
made for the relief of the families of slain New
York Police Department Detectives Wenjian Liu and Rafael
Ramos even if the contributions are made for the
exclusive benefit of the detective’s families. A taxpayer
who makes such a contribution may claim a deduction
in 2014 for contributions made between January 1, 2015,
and April 15, 2015. The law also provides that the recordkeeping
requirements for the charitable tax deduction
will be satisfied if the taxpayer produces a telephone
bill showing the name of the organization to which a
contribution was made with the date and amount of the
contribution.
The law also confirms that payments made on or after
December 20, 2014, and on or before October 15, 2015,
to the spouse or any dependents of Detectives Wenjian
Liu or Rafael Ramos by a tax-exempt organization
will be treated as related to the purpose or function
constituting the basis for such organization’s tax exemption,
and shall not be treated as inuring to the benefit
of any private individual, if the payments are made
in good faith using a reasonable and objective formula
which is consistently applied.


Thanks -

[Burke]

The only misconception I see is that the IRS didn't do it, Congress did.

[taxea]

Perhaps because they are considered 1st responders who were killed in cold blood and with malice. They are out there to protect and serve you. What if it were your sons and the same circumstances? Would you say the same if they were military? It looks from the law that it is intended to be used in the future as deemed appropriate. How is this any different than the Red Cross designating donations to a specific cause?

[MAJ]

Public Law 114–7 - Section (d)

I agree they should have the benefits appropriated by this law. What confused me is why ALL Police Officers, Fire Fighters, First Responders, Military - AND YOU AND I!

If someone needs to Donate to a Family in need then why shouldn't this be fair for all? Especially First Responders, Period. Why JUST those 2 officers is what my Question was?

By the way, I was a First Responder. I was a Fire Fighter for 12 years. So I understand the position fully.

Perhaps because they are considered 1st responders who were killed in cold blood and with malice. They are out there to protect and serve you. What if it were your sons and the same circumstances? Would you say the same if they were military? It looks from the law that it is intended to be used in the future as deemed appropriate. How is this any different than the Red Cross designating donations to a specific cause?

[Snaggletooth]

Much Different Taxea

Taxea, the difference is out of all the hundreds of casualties among police and firefighters, only these two were chosen to have a special law passed allowing this deductibility.

There are special laws written for the benefit of chosen people, and this may be one. Example: there was a special law passed to make all property in Jackson Hole, WY tax-exempt.

There are reasons this happens, and they are usually behind the scenes unless there is a whistleblower. We as the public may never know.

[Burke]

If it were appealed, what do you think the Supreme Court would do? Is a law that pertains to 2 particular people and not to a class unconstitutional? It appears from the wording that the contributions went through certain organizations set up to benefit them.

[kathyc2]

It's always amusing to me how the pols all campaign about tax law being too complex, and then they pass something like this with unanimous consent.

[New York Enrolled Agent]

If it were appealed, what do you think the Supreme Court would do? Is a law that pertains to 2 particular people and not to a class unconstitutional? It appears from the wording that the contributions went through certain organizations set up to benefit them.

Whether you like it or not, Congress writes the Internal Revenue Code. §170 generally prohibits any deduction if the contribution is directed toward the inurement of any individual(s). But Congress can make exceptions and if you read the Slain Officer law (HR 1527), subsection (d) of section 2 legislates that despite being for the exclusive benefits of the two families monies donated on or after 12/20/14 are charitable contributions under §170.

The chances that the Supreme Court would grant certiorari for such an inconsequential tax law is virtually non-existent.

[taxea]

I agree they should have the benefits appropriated by this law. What confused me is why ALL Police Officers, Fire Fighters, First Responders, Military - AND YOU AND I!

If someone needs to Donate to a Family in need then why shouldn't this be fair for all? Especially First Responders, Period. Why JUST those 2 officers is what my Question was?

By the way, I was a First Responder. I was a Fire Fighter for 12 years. So I understand the position fully.

You are no longer. These two were on duty when gunned down. As I said the law will probably be used in the future, in similar cases, according to the way it was written. Don't know who is responsible for making the decision. That would be helpful.