• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Lois Lerner - deja vu

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
werepossum said:
LOL The "raving fringewhack axe to grind site" was the Washington Post.
Click to expand...

Be sure to ignore the rest of the post you quote so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.

Basically, you contend that the IRS should give the same scrutiny to 501C3 groups who obviously intend no politicking as 501C4 groups who clearly do, then contrast those apples & aardvarks in an attempt to make some sort of point.

The right wing never tires of false equivalency.
 
Last edited:
So, to get back to the matter at hand, a new report released today looks to be far from favorable towards Ms. Lerner.

Lois Lerner under fire in new House Oversight Committee report

A 141-page report released by Issa and the committee's Republicans Tuesday concludes that Lerner "was extensively involved in targeting conservative-oriented tax-exempt applicants for inappropriate scrutiny." The report includes nearly 100 pages of emails and documents that aim to show Lerner had an overtly left-leaning political ideology that, combined with the public scrutiny of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision by "voices on the left," led her to develop a process to scrutinize and delay tea party groups' applications for 501(c)(4) status and later cover up that scrutiny.

"She was keenly aware of acute political pressure to crack down on conservative-leaning organizations. Not only did she seek to convey her agreement with this sentiment publicly, she went so far as to engage in a wholly inappropriate effort to circumvent federal prohibitions in order to publicize her efforts to crack down on a particular Tea Party applicant. She created unprecedented roadblocks for Tea Party organizations, worked surreptitiously to advance new Obama Administration regulations that curtail the activities of existing 501(c)(4) organizations - all the while attempting to maintain an appearance that her efforts did not appear, in her own words, 'per se political,'" the report says.
Click to expand...
 
Lois Lerner needs to be held accountable for what she did. She is a leftist piece of crap who violated the Constitution and now wants to plead the 5th.
 
Incorruptible said:
Lois Lerner needs to be held accountable for what she did. She is a leftist piece of crap who violated the Constitution and now wants to plead the 5th.
Click to expand...

Oh, wait... the fifth amendment is part of the constitution which Lerner upholds by claiming it as her right. Funny that.
 
Incorruptible said:
Since when does a far left nutjob like yourself care about the Constitution? You have no problem with obama violating the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Yep, defending everybody's right to invoke the 5th amendment makes me a Commie, right?

Damn, I didn't know they had Commies back then.
 
Incorruptible said:
Since when does a far left nutjob like yourself care about the Constitution? You have no problem with obama violating the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Assume for a moment that the following is the regulation to be followed by the IRS regarding this issue. Do you think scrutiny of the various organizations is well within the responsibility of the IRS? And that Primary and Exclusive are terms that put into question the nature of the organizations having their requests challenged?

"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). For further information regarding political and lobbying activities of section 501(c) organizations, see Election Year Issues, Political Campaign and Lobbying Activities of IRC 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) Organizations, and Revenue Ruling 2004-6."

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Other-Non-Profits/Types-of-Organizations-Exempt-under-Section-501(c)(4)
 
LunarRay said:
Assume for a moment that the following is the regulation to be followed by the IRS regarding this issue. Do you think scrutiny of the various organizations is well within the responsibility of the IRS? And that Primary and Exclusive are terms that put into question the nature of the organizations having their requests challenged?

"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). For further information regarding political and lobbying activities of section 501(c) organizations, see Election Year Issues, Political Campaign and Lobbying Activities of IRC 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) Organizations, and Revenue Ruling 2004-6."

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Other-Non-Profits/Types-of-Organizations-Exempt-under-Section-501(c)(4)
Click to expand...

If you truly want a response from him, you need to phrase it in a question that can be answered "Fuck Yes", "Hell No" or "STFU you liberal slime".

😉
 
feralkid said:
If you truly want a response from him, you need to phrase it in a question that can be answered "Fuck Yes", "Hell No" or "STFU you liberal slime".

😉
Click to expand...

I figure that if he actually stopped and looked at what we pay the IRS folks to do he might link their job mandate to what the heck they did.

I'd have tried to get a handle on these 501(c)(4) applicants and hopefully determine which are more likely to be Primarily Political or more appropriately, Not primarily for the Social Good as indicated in the IRS regulations and which may be appropriately seeking tax exempt status.
SCOTUS decisions seemed to have created an envelope that while being pushed in all directions needed guidance beyond what is in law. Everyone of those political entities want avoiding taxation but what is also interesting is many if not all were allowed to proceed in violation of the law...

I want them to pay their tax... Maybe Issa can help in this regard. 😛
 
Incorruptible said:
You don't care about the Constitution with your support of obama and FDR. You only want to obey the parts that suit you.
Click to expand...

You have the Constitutional right to not support the policy put forth by any Administration but only to the same extent that others have the right to support those same policies. It is not a one sided street.

IF you demand the Right you must also give the Right, don't you think?
 
LunarRay said:
Assume for a moment that the following is the regulation to be followed by the IRS regarding this issue. Do you think scrutiny of the various organizations is well within the responsibility of the IRS? And that Primary and Exclusive are terms that put into question the nature of the organizations having their requests challenged?

"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). For further information regarding political and lobbying activities of section 501(c) organizations, see Election Year Issues, Political Campaign and Lobbying Activities of IRC 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) Organizations, and Revenue Ruling 2004-6."

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Other-Non-Profits/Types-of-Organizations-Exempt-under-Section-501(c)(4)
Click to expand...

Several things:

1. 501(c)(4)s are already prohibited from spending on campaigns.

2. If the IRS tries to insert the term "exclusively" in regulations they will be struck down.

3. The bolded sentence above won't fly because use of the term "political activities" is contrary to current case law and the term itself is problematic.

In the absence of statutory regulation status, which the IRS does not have under section 501, the IRS cannot write tax law. That power belongs to Congress.

I personally don't believe the IRS can, or should, be the instrument of change on this issue. That should be Congress. Furthermore, I've never seen a valid complaint with the current system. There just seems to be a general hysteria among the left that someone will contribute to a 501(c)(4) that will promote a policy stance (e.g., fiscal responsibility) that is popular ATM among the right.

Fern
 
LunarRay said:
I figure that if he actually stopped and looked at what we pay the IRS folks to do he might link their job mandate to what the heck they did.

I'd have tried to get a handle on these 501(c)(4) applicants and hopefully determine which are more likely to be Primarily Political or more appropriately, Not primarily for the Social Good as indicated in the IRS regulations and which may be appropriately seeking tax exempt status.
SCOTUS decisions seemed to have created an envelope that while being pushed in all directions needed guidance beyond what is in law. Everyone of those political entities want avoiding taxation but what is also interesting is many if not all were allowed to proceed in violation of the law...

I want them to pay their tax... Maybe Issa can help in this regard. 😛
Click to expand...

Examples of violation of the law please.

I've seen it, but the response was to revoke their 501(c)(4) status which indicates the current system is working as intended.

Fern
 
Incorruptible said:
I do though.
Click to expand...

Okay, then prove it.

Give me quotes five of your posts within the past 6 months were you have discussed something with another member here in a calm rational manner.

Since I can't be an impartial judge, for obvious reasons, I'll let DocSavageFan make the call on them.

Now, go prove to us you aren't just some misguided Canadian bot who is programmed to spout random things about CONSTITUTION WELFARE LIBERALTEABAGWARRGARBL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top