Chuck Schumer Calls on IRS to Crack Down on Tea Party Funding
- Thread starter beenthere
- Start date
Even though the letter Schumer sent to the IRS is irreverent to the OP, let me ask a question.
Would it be legal for US Senator to ask the IRS to target specific groups of people?
i need to see or hear citation from these losers..
well when one has we'll worry about it then.
The fucking OP is about Schumer verbally addressing a Soros funded group you idiot.
Enough of the letter, it's a straw man.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
"Total time for each debate will be approximately 45 minutes. 1. For each topic, there will be a five-minute unbiased introduction. This neutral introduction will be assigned to someone other than the two teams in a particular debate. 2. Following the unbiased introduction, there will be a seven-minute statement by the first team outlining their plan to implement the given topic. Only during this seven minute presentations are teams allowed to use Powerpoint slides. The PPT slides can contain text and only two colors (including background and text). 3. This will be followed by a three-minute cross-examination by the second team. This is an opportunity for the second team to clarify points made by the first team. This time is only for clarification, not for the actual debate. 4. The Second team then gives their seven-minute statement. Ideally, they will anticipate some of what the first team has to say and will have enough data researched to be able to show the flaws and problems with the first team's plan. The second team usually does not present an alternative plan, as the status quo is often the alternative. 5. The first team will then have an opportunity for a three-minute cross examination of the second team's argument. This time is also only for clarification. 6. Two-minute second team rebuttal 7. Two-minute first team rebuttal 8. Two-minute second team rebuttal 9. Two-minute first team rebuttal 10. Questions from the judges and the audience (10 minutes) A panel of judges will evaluate each teams argument independently and choose a winner. A draft summary of each team's position (600 words maximum), restrained to only 15 of their references, must be submitted to the Student Affairs Committee Chair prior to the meeting. Following the meeting, the team will have the chance to revise their manuscripts, which will then be compiled for submission to American Entomologist. Manuscripts should carefully follow the format of previous debate publications and American Entomologist, and must be well written and approved by the team faculty advisor. Note also that the advisor is not allowed to be a co-author of the manuscript." ............................................... Yeah, that's clearly the standard that has always been used here at RIU. If you don't believe the video, fine. One would think you would start to wonder why your favorite left wing news sources are keeping you so uninformed. But I guess the "true believer" in you won't allow you to question "the cause".
Red1966
Well-Known Member
start worrying
[h=1]2013 IRS scandal[/h]n 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revealed that it had targeted political groups applying for tax-exempt status for closer scrutiny based on their names or political themes. The Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating the IRS's actions as part of a criminal probe ordered by United States Attorney General Eric Holder.[SUP][1][/SUP] This led to both political and public condemnation of the agency and triggered further investigations.[SUP][2][/SUP] Initial reports had described the targeting as nearly exclusively on conservative groups with terms such as "Tea Party" in their names. Further investigation revealed that certain terms and themes in the applications of liberal-leaning groups and the Occupy movement had also triggered additional scrutiny, though possibly at a lower rate.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP] The only known denial of tax-exempt status occurred to a progressive group.[SUP][8][/SUP] The use of target lists continued through May 2013
Red1966
Well-Known Member
You were given a link to the video, but you refused to look at it, because it doesn't meet your "standards" I.E. Doesn't agree with you.
where? which post?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
do you even know what irreverent means?
show me where schumer asked the IRS to do this.
i posted his letter to the IRS, so this should be easy for you.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no, the OP is a straw man.
schumer's letter to the IRS is the actual substance.
your idiocy is my amusement.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
LIBERTYCHICKEN
Well-Known Member
And then how did obuma handle it -
Out of the dozens of qualified attorneys within the Department of Justice, who should conduct that investigation? A person with no known political leanings, or an open partisan -- a large donor to the president?
The most basic common sense tells us that a partisan should not accept the job, that public confidence can only be restored through neutral investigators. Yet in this administration, common sense fails.
This week, it emerged that the lead Department of Justice attorney in charge of the IRS Tea Party targeting scandal is a large donor to both of President Obamas presidential campaigns, with her first donation dating back to the primary season in 2008.
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
So I wanted to see for myself if he said it. Yup. He said it. [video=youtube_share;VO7e2oU8IpQ]http://youtu.be/VO7e2oU8IpQ[/video]
Y'all got some issues. Bucky's school of debate is nothing but being an internet bully. I don't watch foxnews because it sucks balls. I watch cnn when I watch the news.
Y'all got some issues. Bucky's school of debate is nothing but being an internet bully. I don't watch foxnews because it sucks balls. I watch cnn when I watch the news.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Why not just go to the source?
http://www.schumer.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=336270&
Hon. Douglas H. Shulman Commissioner
Internal Revenue Service
Room 3000 IR
1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Dear Commissioner Shulman:
We write to ask the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to immediately change the administrative framework for enforcement of the tax code as it applies to groups designated as social welfare organizations. These groups receive tax and other advantages under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter, IRC or the Code), but some of them also are engaged in a substantial amount of political campaign activity. As you know, we sent a letter last month expressing concerns about the 501(c)(4) issue; an investigation this week by the New York Times has uncovered new, specific problems on how c)4)s conduct business. We wanted to address those new concerns in this letter.
IRS regulations have long maintained that political campaign activity by a 501(c)(4) entity must not be the primary purpose of the organization. These regulations are intended to implement the statute, which requires that such organizations be operated exclusively for the public welfare. But we think the existing IRS regulations run afoul of the law since they only require social welfare activities to be the 'primary purpose' of a nonprofit when the Code says this must be its 'exclusive' purpose. In recent years, this daylight between the law and the IRS regulations has been exploited by groups devoted chiefly to political election activities who operate behind a facade of charity work.
A related concern, raised in a March 7[SUP]th [/SUP]New York Times article, concerns whether certain nonprofits may be soliciting corporate contributions that are then treated by the company as a business expense eligible for a tax deduction. The Times wrote: Under current law, there is little to no way to tell whether contributions are being deducted, especially because many of the most political companies are privately held. This potential abuse distorts the objectives of vital revenue mechanisms and undermines the faith that we ask citizens to place in their electoral system.
We propose that the IRS make three administrative changes to curtail these questionable practices and bring IRS tax regulations back into alignment with the letter and spirit intended by those who crafted the Code:
· First, we urge the IRS to adopt a bright line test in applying its primary purpose regulation that is consistent with the Codes 501(c)(4) exclusivity language. The IRS currently only requires that the purpose of these non-profits be primarily related to social welfare activities, without defining what primarily means. This standard should be spelled out more fully by the IRS. Some have suggested 51 percent as an appropriate threshold for establishing that a nonprofit is adhering to its mission, but even this number would seem to allow for more political election activity than should be permitted under the law. In the absence of clarity in the administration of section 501(c)(4), organizations are tempted to abuse its vagueness, or worse, to organize under section 501(c)(4) so that they may avail themselves of its advantages even though they are not legitimate social welfare organizations. If the IRS does not adopt a bright line test, or if it adopts one that is inconsistent with the Codes exclusivity language, then we plan to pursue legislation codifying such a test.
· Second, such organizations should be further obligated to document in their 990 IRS form the exact percentage of their undertakings dedicated to social welfare. Organizations should be required to show their math to demonstrate that political election activities and other statutorily limited or prohibited activities do not violate the primary purpose regulation.
· Third, 501(c)(4) organizations should be required to state forthrightly to potential donors what percentage of a donation, if any, may be taken as a business expense deduction. As the New York Times reported in its March 7[SUP]th[/SUP]article, some of these organizations do not currently inform donors whether a contribution is tax deductible as a business expense at all.
The IRS should already possess the authority to issue immediate guidance on this matter. We urge the IRS to take these steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities. But if the IRS is unable to issue administrative guidance in this area then we plan to introduce legislation to accomplish these important changes.
Sincerely,
Senators Charles E. Schumer, Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen and Al Franken
http://www.schumer.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=336270&
Hon. Douglas H. Shulman Commissioner
Internal Revenue Service
Room 3000 IR
1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Dear Commissioner Shulman:
We write to ask the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to immediately change the administrative framework for enforcement of the tax code as it applies to groups designated as social welfare organizations. These groups receive tax and other advantages under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter, IRC or the Code), but some of them also are engaged in a substantial amount of political campaign activity. As you know, we sent a letter last month expressing concerns about the 501(c)(4) issue; an investigation this week by the New York Times has uncovered new, specific problems on how c)4)s conduct business. We wanted to address those new concerns in this letter.
IRS regulations have long maintained that political campaign activity by a 501(c)(4) entity must not be the primary purpose of the organization. These regulations are intended to implement the statute, which requires that such organizations be operated exclusively for the public welfare. But we think the existing IRS regulations run afoul of the law since they only require social welfare activities to be the 'primary purpose' of a nonprofit when the Code says this must be its 'exclusive' purpose. In recent years, this daylight between the law and the IRS regulations has been exploited by groups devoted chiefly to political election activities who operate behind a facade of charity work.
A related concern, raised in a March 7[SUP]th [/SUP]New York Times article, concerns whether certain nonprofits may be soliciting corporate contributions that are then treated by the company as a business expense eligible for a tax deduction. The Times wrote: Under current law, there is little to no way to tell whether contributions are being deducted, especially because many of the most political companies are privately held. This potential abuse distorts the objectives of vital revenue mechanisms and undermines the faith that we ask citizens to place in their electoral system.
We propose that the IRS make three administrative changes to curtail these questionable practices and bring IRS tax regulations back into alignment with the letter and spirit intended by those who crafted the Code:
· First, we urge the IRS to adopt a bright line test in applying its primary purpose regulation that is consistent with the Codes 501(c)(4) exclusivity language. The IRS currently only requires that the purpose of these non-profits be primarily related to social welfare activities, without defining what primarily means. This standard should be spelled out more fully by the IRS. Some have suggested 51 percent as an appropriate threshold for establishing that a nonprofit is adhering to its mission, but even this number would seem to allow for more political election activity than should be permitted under the law. In the absence of clarity in the administration of section 501(c)(4), organizations are tempted to abuse its vagueness, or worse, to organize under section 501(c)(4) so that they may avail themselves of its advantages even though they are not legitimate social welfare organizations. If the IRS does not adopt a bright line test, or if it adopts one that is inconsistent with the Codes exclusivity language, then we plan to pursue legislation codifying such a test.
· Second, such organizations should be further obligated to document in their 990 IRS form the exact percentage of their undertakings dedicated to social welfare. Organizations should be required to show their math to demonstrate that political election activities and other statutorily limited or prohibited activities do not violate the primary purpose regulation.
· Third, 501(c)(4) organizations should be required to state forthrightly to potential donors what percentage of a donation, if any, may be taken as a business expense deduction. As the New York Times reported in its March 7[SUP]th[/SUP]article, some of these organizations do not currently inform donors whether a contribution is tax deductible as a business expense at all.
The IRS should already possess the authority to issue immediate guidance on this matter. We urge the IRS to take these steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities. But if the IRS is unable to issue administrative guidance in this area then we plan to introduce legislation to accomplish these important changes.
Sincerely,
Senators Charles E. Schumer, Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen and Al Franken
That straw man was already used and discredited.
The OP is about Schumer addressing a Soros funded group, he's telling them he wants the IRS to do something about the Tea Party elites.
So in other words, his intentions are clear, you can hear them coming straight from his mouth.
The formal letter he wrote to the IRS will never contain the same verbiage he used in front of the Soros funded progressives, because he knows it's illegal.
Nice try.
So, full context, eh?schumer's own site, not the huffpo.
you blithering nincompoop.
Dear Commissioner Shulman:
We write to ask the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”to immediately change the administrative framework for enforcement of the tax code as it applies to groups designated as “social welfare” organizations. These groups receive tax and other advantages under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter, “IRC” or the “Code”
IRS regulations have long maintained that political campaign activity by a 501(c)(4) entity must not be the “primary purpose” of the organization. These regulations are intended to implement the statute, which requires that such organizations be operated exclusively for the public welfare. But we think the existing IRS regulations run afoul of the law since they only require social welfare activities to be the 'primary purpose' of a nonprofit when the Code says this must be its 'exclusive' purpose. In recent years, this daylight between the law and the IRS regulations has been exploited by groups devoted chiefly to political election activities who operate behind a facade of charity work.
A related concern, raised in a March 7[SUP]th [/SUP]New York Times article, concerns whether certain nonprofits may be soliciting corporate contributions that are then treated by the company as a business expense eligible for a tax deduction. The Times wrote: “Under current law, there is little to no way to tell whether contributions are being deducted, especially because many of the most political companies are privately held.” This potential abuse distorts the objectives of vital revenue mechanisms and undermines the faith that we ask citizens to place in their electoral system.
We propose that the IRS make three administrative changes to curtail these questionable practices and bring IRS tax regulations back into alignment with the letter and spirit intended by those who crafted the Code:
· First, we urge the IRS to adopt a bright line test in applying its “primary purpose” regulation that is consistent with the Code’s 501(c)(4) exclusivity language. The IRS currently only requires that the purpose of these non-profits be “primarily” related to social welfare activities, without defining what “primarily” means. This standard should be spelled out more fully by the IRS. Some have suggested 51 percent as an appropriate threshold for establishing that a nonprofit is adhering to its mission, but even this number would seem to allow for more political election
activity than should be permitted under the law. In the absence of clarity in the administration of section 501(c)(4), organizations are tempted to abuse its vagueness, or worse, to organize under section 501(c)(4) so that they may avail themselves of its advantages even though they are not legitimate social welfare organizations. If the IRS does not adopt a bright line test, or if it adopts one that is inconsistent with the Code’s exclusivity language, then we plan to pursue legislation codifying such a test.
· Second, such organizations should be further obligated to document in their 990 IRS form the exact percentage of their undertakings dedicated to “social welfare.” Organizations should be required to “show their math” to demonstrate that political election activities and other statutorily limited or prohibited activities do not violate the “primary purpose” regulation.
· Third, 501(c)(4) organizations should be required to state forthrightly to potential donors what percentage of a donation, if any, may be taken as a business expense deduction. As the New York Times reported in its March 7[SUP]th[/SUP]article, some of these organizations do not currently inform donors whether a contribution is tax deductible as a business expense at all.
The IRS should already possess the authority to issue immediate guidance on this matter. We urge the IRS to take these steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities. But if the IRS is unable to issue administrative guidance in this area then we plan to introduce legislation to accomplish these important changes.
Sincerely,
Senators Charles E. Schumer, Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen and Al Franken
Well that doesn't make it any better.
Full context only makes it look a little worse in my opinion, because full context spells out that the Chucky is only butthurt because these groups are more republicans than democrats.
The full context fully illustrates that they want the IRS to do by mandate what Chucky and friends can't do through legislation.
That is really the point which is the worst. They can't do it the appropriate way, and their only motivation is clearly stated that these groups go to benefit more republicans than democrats.
So instead of following the law, let's just issue a papal bull, errr, I mean new IRS regulation outside of proper means.
Full context is just as bad. It only fully outlines the whining that goes on because this is one area where the opposition has an advantage, thus giving rise to his sole motivation.