Government Reform Committee Memo Suggests Radical Media Helped Push IRS Agents to Target Tea Party and Conservative Groups

13 Responses to Government Reform Committee Memo Suggests Radical Media Helped Push IRS Agents to Target Tea Party and Conservative Groups

1. dewey says:

   Monday, September 23, 2013 at 12:31 pm

   The actual Federal law states non profits are tax free if they are “exclusively for social welfare”

   The IRS attacked tea party, republicans, democrats, and churches involved in politics. It was not just Tea party. The facts are out there. That is their job. I am not a fan of the IRS attack on citizens now. That is a better subject.

   However the fact foreign money is injected into our elections & hidden in non profits is a problem for us and National Security.

   Politics is not a non profit business! Lobbyists donate to a politician who regardless of party sneaks in laws for them.

   Citizens United has injected massive money into elections!

   To be honest it is not about the tax exempt status to them it is about the fact non profits do not have to disclose who, what, or what country that money came from. Again National Security.

   I personally say I want to know who and what in 1959 changed IRS guidelines to disregard the actual federal law passed by congress almost 100 years ago.

   Churches, or any non profit tax free org should not be involved in politics.

   There is enough money being injected and the public should be able to see any money donated to any politician from any party.

   I would like to see how much Chinese money was in our election personally. That is why the fed law excludes politics as non profit.

   There is no political party at present who works for the people. All about who gave them the money.
2. J. soden says:

   Monday, September 23, 2013 at 2:18 pm

   It’s now the Press’ fault??? Horsefeathers!!

   The stench of the IRS scandal, the NSA snooping & Benghazigate continue to waft from the white house.
3. Tina says:

   Monday, September 23, 2013 at 4:51 pm

   dewey: “The IRS attacked tea party, republicans, democrats, and churches involved in politics. It was not just Tea party.”

   This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts but it doesn’t surprise me since the media covers for Obama and liberals/Democrats.

   The big bad lady at the IRS, Lois Lerner, has decided to retire early since she is being investigated in the matter and been caught red handed!

   In a February 2011 email, Ms. Lerner advised her staff—including then Exempt Organizations Technical Manager Michael Seto and then Rulings and Agreements director Holly Paz—that a Tea Party matter is “very dangerous,” and is something “Counsel and [Lerner adviser] Judy Kindell need to be in on.” Ms. Lerner adds, “Cincy (Cincinnati) should probably NOT have these cases.” …

   …Earlier this summer, IRS lawyer Carter Hull, who oversaw the review of many Tea Party cases and questionnaires, testified that his oversight began in April 2010. Tea party cases under review are “being supervised by Chip Hull at each step,” Ms. Paz wrote to Ms. Lerner in a February 2011 email. “He reviews info from TPs, correspondence to TPs etc. No decisions are going out of Cincy until we go all the way through the process with the c3 and c4 cases here.” TP stands for Tea Party, and she means 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) nonprofit groups. …

   …On July 10, 2012 then Lerner-adviser Sharon Light emailed Ms. Lerner a National Public Radio story on how outside money was making it hard for Democrats to hold their Senate majority.

   The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had complained to the Federal Election Commission that conservative groups like Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity should be treated as political committees, rather than 501(c)(4)s, which are tax-exempt social welfare groups that do not have to disclose their donors.

   “Perhaps the FEC will save the day,” Ms. Lerner wrote back later that morning.

   That response suggests Ms. Lerner’s political leanings, and it also raises questions about Ms. Lerner’s intentions in a separate email exchange she had when an FEC investigator inquired about the status of the conservative group the American Future Fund. The FEC and IRS don’t have the authority to share that information under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code. But the bigger question is why did they want to? After the FEC inquiry, the American Future Fund also got a questionnaire from the IRS.

   And the excuse that Tea party organizations were engaging in politics in a way the democrat leaning 501c3 and 501c4 organizations were not is absurd…ever hear of ACORN…what about black churches that have involved themselves in getting Obama elected? There are many other leftist groups that claim tax exempt status…how about all the green groups?
4. Tina says:

   Monday, September 23, 2013 at 4:52 pm

   J the media are enablers of the President AND his agenda.
   • Post Scripts says:

     Monday, September 23, 2013 at 5:23 pm

     Yep, the media is just another form of enabler or co-dependent.
5. Chris says:

   Monday, September 23, 2013 at 7:26 pm

   Tina, for once the media followed the conservative framing of this story to the letter. The IRS “scandal” was all the rage for a few months, don’t you remember? Since it has come out that progressive and “Occupy” groups were subject to the same treatment, where has the media coverage been? Silence. You have no grounds to complain about the “leftist media” in this case. They picked up the story from conservative media, ran with it, and it turned out to be a non-story.

   Most of the groups “targeted” by the IRS should not have received tax-exempt status in the first place. It is ridiculous that clearly political organizations like Media Matters (left-wing) and the Media Research Council (right-wing) are considered tax exempt entities.
6. Tina says:

   Monday, September 23, 2013 at 8:42 pm

   Chris you are so easily duped.

   The left dug up a couple of examples of liberal organizations flagged (What? They blew it and had a bad word in their names?) but the numbers were so small and the level of harassment so disparate it doesn’t compare.

   It was enough to provide the media cover, however. Just enough…and enough to satisfy people like you who don’t find it alarming that a department of government charged with collecting taxes but with extraordinary powers to harass, restrict, and fine citizens did so with a political motive and intent.

   That should be very troubling to you, Chris, and it should be equally troubling that the media has failed to inform you of the facts and instead acts as an enabler and cover agent for the President and left politics.

   Thank God conservative media is doing the job that the antique, mostly progressive, activist media will not do!

   Ed Morrissey at the Hot Air blog reported the following:

   USA Today uncovered internal IRS documents from 2011 that show targeting of groups for “anti-Obama rhetoric” and “emotional” statements by non-profits…

   …Supposedly, the IRS was concerned about “propaganda” in its attempt to enforce 501(c)(4) status, but the actual tax law doesn’t mention “propaganda” as a barrier to tax-exempt status:

   …The IRS categorized the groups as engaging in several advocacy-related activities that could have barred them from tax-exempt status, such as lobbying and “propaganda.”

   But the word “propaganda” doesn’t appear in section 501(c)(4), which governs the social welfare status that most Tea Party groups were applying for, said John Colombo, a law professor at the University of Illinois. Instead, it appears in section 501(c)(3), which governs public charities.

   “There would be no reason I would think to flag them if it’s for a 501(c)(4) status,” Colombo said. “That’s very odd to me.”

   The IRS targeted 162 groups in this effort, of which only 11 were liberal groups, according to USA Today. Jeff Dunetz predicts that Democrats in Congress will claim that this demonstrates even-handedness by the IRS, but don’t be fooled:

   Liberals will be happy to learn that out of the 162 groups mentioned on the 2011 documents at least 11 of them are progressive organizations, giving them the ability to say, “See they weren’t targeting conservative groups.” …

   What the report doesn’t show is which of these groups eventually were approved and the difference in waiting times between the conservative and progressive organizations. Either way the ratio of conservative/progressive organizations targeted indicate that there was something rotten going on in the IRS offices in DC.

   When the IRS starts targeting political dissent for scrutiny, they have stopped being a revenue collector and have become instead a political enforcer. That’s dangerous for all Americans, and Congress needs to demand and enforce immediate reform in the IRS. They also need to find out who ordered the targeting, regardless of how high up it goes. (emphasis mine)

   Guy Benson at TownHall highlights the vast differences in targeted liberal and conservative groups:

   If the wrongful targeting affected both sides of the spectrum, that would have represented solid evidence for the ‘innocent incompetence’ defense. As I’ve written previously, pleading ineptitude boosts conservatives’ case that the federal government has become too sprawling and unaccountable, but it’s still less damaging than leaving a general impression of deliberate partisan malice. Are we to believe that as the latter assumption calcified in the public’s imagination, the IRS and its defenders chose not to disclose the other side of the story? Remember, lefty groups had already stated that they weren’t targeted, evidence abounds that left-leaning applications sailed through while righty applications languished, the Inspector General’s report clearly showed a distinct ideological imbalance, and Stephen Miller conceded under oath that right-leaning groups were exclusively victimized by the practice. The IRS admitted and apologized for their disparate treatment of conservatives, for crying out loud. So why, after all of that, are we finally being informed that liberal groups were ensnared in the scandal, too? National Review’s Eliana Johnson cuts through the fog and makes some important distinctions that help illuminate the truth:

   A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were in fact instructed to treat “progressive” groups differently from “tea party” groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for applications containing the word ”progressive” – 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off IRS higher-ups for further scrutiny. That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT,” which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not.

   So the terms employed during initial screening processes did include words like “progressive” (although from what we know about the original ‘BOLO’ lists, they were overwhelmingly skewed toward conservative descriptors), but only conservative applications were marked for additional scrutiny — including micromanagement from Washington. This abuse led to plainly uneven outcomes along ideological lines, as reported by USA Today:

   In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked. That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn’t be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months. In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows. As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like “Progress” or “Progressive,” the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.

   Zero Tea Party conservative groups’ applications were approved for more than two years, as dozens of lefty groups were rubber-stamped.

   Patrick Howely of the Daily Caller:

   House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp slapped down Democratic claims that progressive groups were also improperly targeted by the IRS between 2010 and 2012, stifling a growing media narrative that the IRS targeting was not partisan.

   The term “progressive” appeared on a heavily redacted November 2010 ”Be On the Lookout” (BOLO) list released this week by Ways and Means Democrats. The term was used to help the IRS identify political activity that “may not be appropriate” among 501(c)(3) charities eligible for tax-deductible contributions.

   However, the targeting of conservative groups largely focused on applicants for 501(c)(4) “social welfare organization” status, which shields groups from having to disclose their donors. The scrutinized “progressive” applications were not required to be sent to a special IRS unit for additional review — but tea party and conservative applications were subjected to extra scrutiny by 12 different working groups within the IRS. Tea Party groups were also marked for extra scrutiny in the same document.

   Nevertheless, the New York Times reported, “taken together, the documents seem to change the terms of a scandal that exploded over accusations that the I.R.S. had tried to stifle a nascent conservative political movement. Instead, the dispute now revolves around questionable sorting tactics used by I.R.S. application screeners.”…

   …While Camp’s Ways and Means staff noted that progressive groups were also featured on an IRS’ BOLO list, alongside tea party groups, it pointed out that only tea party groups had their donors threatened, had confidential information leaked, were sent “inappropriate and intrusive” questions, and had their applications delayed for more than two years, according to currently available evidence.
   Camp’s staff also noted that only tea party groups were mentioned as having been targeted in a Treasury Inspector General’s report on the IRS scandal.

   Nearly 100 conservative or tea party applications were given extra scrutiny, according to the IG report.

   Ways and Means Democrats did not call any progressive victims of IRS targeting at the committee’s hearing on IRS victims.

   If ANY of this information has been absent in reporting from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, or NYT and other news outlets then the media has NOT been doing its job.

   Those of us that have watched politics for more than two minutes are well aware of media anal exams that conservatives receive at the slightest hint of scandal…the media is relentless and they go on for months even if the outlet must make things up to continue the politically motivated destructo marathon!

   Media Research Council wouldn’t exist except for the fact that the media is not doing its job. I can’t say the same for Media Matters which seems to be a me too organization created for purposes of progressive “fairness”. (Blotting out the opposition by muddying the waters.)

   Chris you have a lot to learn about the tactics of the folks you hang with.
7. dewey says:

   Monday, September 23, 2013 at 9:23 pm

   Tina

   With all respects I stand by my statements. I do not watch much media as it is all corrupt. I dug up the actual public documents. I also belong to no I repeat no political party any more.

   Furthermore there were some democrat non profits denied, I believe all tea party were approved. Frankly they all need to be denied.

   None the less all political parties receiving tax exempt status are breaking the actual federal law. The IRS needs to be disciplined for not following the actual federal law.

   Federal law passed almost 100 years ago by Congress says the non profit exemption must be “exclusively for social welfare” Fact!

   I personally am happy to meet and show you the law but it is also available (but hard to find) in the corrupt search engines. I went to the library and searched for the actual federal law. Please take the time to read the Fed law to which the IRS guidelines (first changed in 1959) ignore.

   Personally I believe it is time to rid ourselves of all current parties as they all do business the same way.

   Our elected officials are pillaging public assets and the end goal is to have corporate rule on a global basis. Canada is falling as fast as we are. The TPP may just take away our sovereignty.

   Non profits do not have to disclose their donors and that is the sole reason all 3 parties use them. They hide who gave them the money and that opens the door to foreign money. It is no secret Sheldon Addelson bribed Chinese gov for his casino, is under investigation for said accusations, and Chinese money was infiltrating our elections from at least one source.

   The United states of America is loosing our civil rights. When over 4 million regular citizens are hired to watch us for the NSA, invade our privacy, and keep the information all through a private corporation “We the people” are at risk.

   It is a National Security issue above all else.

   The hate game will loose us Democracy. I love all Americans, believe that everyone is entitled to an opinion, but facts are facts and those should always be the basis of discussion.

   The undeniable fact here is Politics are not a non profit business nor should they be. Hiding foreign money is a National security issue.

   If one disagrees than that debate should happen in Congress and the law be changed.
8. Tina says:

   Monday, September 23, 2013 at 11:04 pm

   Dewey I appreciate your desire to express opinions but I don’t think you are the one person in the worl in possession of the facts.

   At least one of your statements about the Tea Party applicants is inaccurate as my earlier comment shows. It is also NOT TRUE that all conservative applicants were approved and certainly not in a timely fashion for those who were eventually approved.At least one applicant was targeted by not one but three agencies.

   Your lack of concern that the IRS was acting as an activist agent for one of the political parties is indeed troubling. That “they’re all the same” mantra and tone, once again, makes you highly suspect as being who you say you are.

   As you know anyone can post comments here and if they choose, misrepresent themselves. Most of those who participate here will at least declare some party affiliation or political bent…you demure, preferring to trash everything and everyone.

   So, as an exercise in getting to know you better, may I ask a question?

   If you could have what you want for America what would it look like? What exactly is it that you want?
9. dewey says:

   Monday, September 23, 2013 at 11:36 pm

   If a tea Party org was denied please let me know which one so I can correct. However the point is not a single political org is eligible for Tax exempt status.

   Tina I never suggested Political parties have never used the IRS to attack they all have! FACT

   The Federal law states “exclusively for social welfare”

   Point? Politics is not a tax free business

   Attacking me because I will out any and every corrupt politician and have no party? I call that American. This is not a football game.

   Democracy, compromise because when the 2 major sides debate the answer lies within.

   The answers are in a discussion by the people.

   My wish? repeal citizens united and put a cap on campaigns. Any number who cares. Then and only then can Americans have a conversation.

   politicians (both parties)and their friends are raping public assets now they have most our companies raped.

   I separate my opinions from facts.

   Bottom line politics is not tax exempt. All political parties have used the IRS. This is not a viable case. breaking the law is breaking the law!

   I do not condone all past uses of the IRS by both parties, just this time it is the job of the IRS to shut all rep and Dem non profit political orgs down as non profits.
10. Tina says:

    Tuesday, September 24, 2013 at 10:30 am

    “not a single political org is eligible for Tax exempt status”

    By law that is incorrect:

    The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditure it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f).

    Excuse me dewey but I have not “attacked” you because you “out any and every corrupt politician and have no party”…in fact I have not attacked you at all. If anything I have attempted to better understand your position.

    I have also attempted to clarify differences that I believe are crucial in the parties that are in power and that do have power over our lives because they do hold office. The “all of them are crooks” position may feel good but it doesn’t give anyone a practical choice to move the powerful.

    Politicians are people, no different from you or I. A lot of them, like a lot of Americans, have forgotten what the purpose of government is and they have a distorted idea of what is expected of them. Some are corrupted;some are grossly corrupted. These problems are exacerbated by influence of the interest groups that constantly press politicians. Corporations are not the only lobbyist that do this…one of the most insidious in the last few decades has been radical environmental groups. But the politician has the power and control. Only he can write and vote. It is up to the people to elect, press, and inform our representatives that a neutral limited federal government would be in the best interest of ALL of the people.

    My reason for supporting the Republican Party is that it is the single party with sufficient power that proposes ideas to move our country away from big government solutions and reverse the big government trend we have experienced over the past seventy years. The Democrat Party has power but it has been taken over by radical elements that prefer the central planning model of corporatism, nationalism, socialism…the antithesis of freedom and our free republic model.

    I’m glad to hear you don’t “condone” the IRS abuses. I find it suspect that you just can’t bring yourself to be outraged by this particular abuse of power. This is a viable case and it will be shoved under the rug, thus encouraging further abuse, unless the people stand up and show their outrage.

    The IRS, FEC scandal represents an extreme abuse. “All of them do it” doesn’t reach the level of outrage that is necessary from the people to stop such abuses in any servant of the people regardless the party, or no party, they prefer personally.

    I was unable to find the names of the organizations that still have not been approve/denied 501c4 status and I don’t have all day to look. The following should further enlighten those who are interested.

    Washington Times:

    Republicans investigating the IRS targeting scandal said Wednesday that the agency continued to conduct secret surveillance on tea party groups even after approving them for tax-exempt status.

    Acting Commissioner Danny Werfel said he shut down the monitoring program after he found out about it, and said he has halted all audits of tax-exempt organizations based on political activity as he tries to get a handle on the embattled agency.

    Mr. Werfel, who was tapped four months ago to clean up the Internal Revenue Service after the targeting came to light, also told Congress he is troubled by emails sent by Lois G. Lerner, the woman at the center of the targeting scandal, that raise questions about her behavior. He said he has asked internal investigators to follow up on those emails.

    In May, the IRS acknowledged subjecting conservative groups to intrusive scrutiny and delaying applications for far too long before approving them. Some applications are still awaiting approval after three years. (emphasis mine)

    See also a report by the US Treasury here:

    The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax‑exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued.

    Although the processing of some applications with potential significant political campaign intervention was started soon after receipt, no work was completed on the majority of these applications for 13 months. This was due to delays in receiving assistance from the Exempt Organizations function Headquarters office. For the 296 total political campaign intervention applications TIGTA reviewed as of December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied, and 160 were open from 206 to 1,138 calendar days (some for more than three years and crossing two election cycles).

    More than 20 months after the initial case was identified, processing the cases began in earnest. Many organizations received requests for additional information from the IRS that included unnecessary, burdensome questions (e.g., lists of past and future donors). The IRS later informed some organizations that they did not need to provide previously requested information. IRS officials stated that any donor information received in response to a request from its Determinations Unit was later destroyed.

    This Washington Times Editorial exposes collusion and partisan activity between Lois Lerner of the IRS and the FEC (Federal Elections Commission):

    Procedures at the IRS not only haven’t changed, it appears that the IRS disease has spread to other government agencies. Congressional investigators released documents that show the Federal Election Commission (FEC) complicit in targeting conservative organizations, too. A set of emails show that when the FEC lawyers wanted to make trouble for conservative groups, they turned to Lois Lerner, the senior IRS official at the heart of the scandal, for instructions and advice.

    Ms. Lerner was a lawyer for the FEC in 1990 when she led the charge against the Christian Coalition. The commission harassed the Christian Coalition for nearly a decade, until the charges were thrown out by a federal judge.

    Like the IRS, the FEC is supposed to be apolitical. Established in response to the Watergate scandal, the FEC was meant to be a neutral watchdog over political contributions, eliminating corruption. The commission has instead become the government’s speech police, laying minefields for ordinary citizens who might run an ad criticizing a politician, and eager to make a federal case out of one innocent verbal misstep.

    The full extent of connivance between the IRS and FEC won’t be known soon, if ever, given the government’s talent for obfuscation. But a simple solution is readily available. The commission could adopt written, objective criteria to guide the agencies. Donald F. McGahn, the vice chairman of the FEC, has complained for years that the commission’s work has been “conducted in secret, on an ad hoc basis.” Due process was a foreign concept to the agency, “and the idea of ensuring that those accused of wrongdoing had a meaningful opportunity to be heard by the commission was anathema to many.”

    If the commission had adopted the enforcement manual that Mr. McGahn proposes, the FEC wouldn’t be among the usual suspects now. The FEC would have been required to obey the law, foreign concept or not, which states clearly that the agency cannot open an investigation, or refer anything to other agencies without approval of the bipartisan commission. Congressional investigators found that FEC lawyers and other employees called Ms. Lerner on their own imagined authority. Ellen L. Weintraub, the Democratic chairman of the agency, won’t even discuss reforms. The scandals reveal a presidential administration adrift in a sea of spreading shame.

    The IRS was not doing its job dewey. It was acting as a political organ for Obama’s and Democrats re-election chances.
11. dewey says:

    Tuesday, September 24, 2013 at 10:47 am

    Tina,

    With all respects I will finish reading response later today. I do ask a question.

    can you post source of the included quotes. It appears that may be from the IRS Guidelines which is exactly my point.

    1959 was the first year the IRS changed it’s guidelines against the FEDERAL LAW.

    if this is from the IRS guidelines it is part of my point. I will try to locate the Actual Federal Law. just running low on time.

    My point is the IRS does not follow the law. The federal law states “Exclusively for Social welfare”

    I find conversation refreshing, respect all views, but also think federal law trumps rules orgs make up along the way.

    i really would like to know who started changing the IRS guidelines in 1959. that would be amazing to find out.

    I stand by my statements and welcome yours. Will respond later and provide the law and source.

    Peace Dewey

    Are you from the Tea party?
12. Tina says:

    Wednesday, September 25, 2013 at 11:11 am

    dewey how do you define “social welfare”? Are we talking only about charity or are we talking about any activity that is in the civic interests of the people?

    One group that was targeted was engaged in eliminating outdated or erroneous voter registration…names of people that had died or moved out of state to help prevent vote fraud and review of he previous election to identify instances of vote fraud. That charitable activity would be in the interest of all citizens.

    How do you resolve the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled money is speech?

    My preference is that anyone or any group can give any amount of money but all of it should be publicly disclosed immediately down to the penny.

    The flap over 501c4 status, as I see it, is that the leftist organizations that have abused this law for decades couldn’t stand competition from the right. When the right started similar organizations, and when the Supreme Courts ruling that corporations have the same rights as big unions and big environmental groups, the left began a campaign to destroy that equal opportunity.

    A search reveals some references to the change in 1959. The most prominent are leftists sources like PBS, Daily Kos, MSNBC, NBC…none of which has been a friend to conservatives and all of which have participated in promoting and covering for the Democrats for decades.

    I’m not familiar with this site but its purpose seems to be to change the narrative and focus away from egregious abuses of power against conservative groups by activist leftists at the IRS to a more generic topic…the 1959 change.

    There is a pdf download available. A response letter to Senator Levin from the Treasury Department:

    I am responding to your letter to Commissioner Shulman dated July 27, 2012,
    requesting additional information about section 501 (c)(4) organizations. This response supplements the previous responses dated June 4,2012 and July 13,2012, and addresses the additional questions raised in your recent letter.

    Question 1. How can the IRS interpret the explicit language in 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(4), which provides that 510(c)(4) entities must operate “exclusively” for the promotion of social welfare, to allow any tax exempt partisan political activity by 501 (c)(4) organizations?

    We note that the current regulation has been in place for over 50 years. Moreover, unlike Internal Revenue Code section 501 (c)(3), which specifically provides that organizations may “not participate in, or intervene in … any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”), section 501 (c)(4) does not contain a specific rule or limitation on political campaign intervention by social welfare organizations.

    Question 2. Since partisan political activity does not meet the IRS definition of “promoting social welfare,” how can an organization that participates in any partisan political activity be “organized exclusively to promote social welfare?”

    As stated above, long standing Treasury Regulations have interpreted “exclusively” as used in section 501 (c)(4) to mean primarily. Treasury Regulation § 1.501 (c)(4)1(a)(2)(i), promulgated in 1959, provides: “An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.” Applying this Treasury Regulation, Revenue Ruling 81-95, 1981-1 C.B. 332, concluded that “an organization may carry on lawful political activities and remain exempt under section 501 (c)(4) as long as it is primarily engaged in activities that promote social welfare.” (emphasis mine)

    (smile)

    Sounds like the Treasury is telling the good Senator that his veiled objection cannot be taken seriously when his own constituents have been taking advantage of the regulation change for fifty years!

    Eisenhower was President in 1959 and Democrats controlled Congress.

    According to PBS “regulators” changed the meaning and cited http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Treasury_Regulations,_Subchapter_A,_Sec._1.501%28c%29%284%29-1“>tax almanac.

    PBS:

    Nearly a century ago, Congress created the complicated legal framework that governs these tax-exempt nonprofits, also known as 501(c)(4)s for the part of the tax code they fall under. That rule said they were supposed to operate “exclusively for the promotion of social welfare” — a definition that includes groups ranging from local fire departments to the Sierra Club to the National Right to Life Committee.

    While these nonprofits have always been allowed to lobby for change, in 1959, regulators opened the door to political activity by interpreting “exclusively” to mean that groups had to be “primarily” engaged in social welfare and helping the community.

    I am not an official member of the Tea Party but I have been a supporter and promoter from it’s spontaneous grassroots beginning!

Comments are closed.