UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the two idiots who fell for skewed polls are now yapping like chihuahuas about how evil it is to write a letter to the IRS.
Chuck Schumer Calls on IRS to Crack Down on Tea Party Funding
- Thread starter beenthere
- Start date
Asking for a video as proof and getting the video shoved in you face and proving you wrong, is priceless.
Suck it up, kiddo.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
El Tiberon
Active Member
I think everyone should just throw photos of their degrees up so we can all see who is qualified to be an expert in what field. Without the education, under US law, you can't be proffered. In other words, with no degree, you have nothing more than an uneducated opinion and that carries the power of a fart in a football stadium.
Derp de derp
show me where schumer asked the IRS to do this.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you just posted a quote where i ask you to show me where schumer asked the IRS to target certain groups.
i'll even ask you again.
you claimed schumer asked the IRS to target conservative groups. show me where schumer asked the IRS to do this, please.
here's his request to the IRS to get you started, dipshit.
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 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
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
good job on trying to convince yourself of that.
say, can you please point out when i asked for a video of anything in this thread?
can you please point out where schumer asked the IRS to target any certain group?
thanks again, caveman beenthere.
El Tiberon
Active Member
501(c)4 applies to all non-profits correct? What's the big problem?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
beenthere is illiterate and got duped by right wing partisan hacks again, just like he did with the whole skewed polls fiasco.
he just can't admit it and is overdosed on axiron.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Listen to the expert on US law (not)
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckFUCK.
Technically not a strawman but the old argumentum ad hominem.
Most folks think that the ad hom is to deflect the argument onto personal insult. This is not so; it is actually a matter of dismissing the argument by dismissing the source. This is dangerous, since even the most distasteful sources get some things right some of the time
.
n.b. i am making no claims that this source got that right.
El Tiberon
Active Member
El Tiberon
Active Member
and probably the 3rd time I have done it. I like clicking. Then again I can afford another Asus G series if this one gets knocked out.that's gotta be the third time with the same exact "researchers at pepperdine" setup.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
I saw the video. I heard the words. I saw his lips moving. They were right.
El Tiberon
Active Member
I agree. He is never going to let you down, never going to say goodbye, never going to tell a lie and hurt you.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
we've known each other for so long. your heart's been aching but you're too shy to say it.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
It is ironic that some anonymous liar on the internet suddenly gets the idea to measure dicks by pieces of worthless paper...
Red1966
Well-Known Member
You have proven a point, but not the one you think. You have proven that it is possible to remain willfully ignorant by limiting your sources of information to those that only tell you what you want to hear. Your eager acceptance of a letter as if it was a transcript of the speech without any evidence at all shows you don't have the ability to make decisions based on facts, but rely solely on what you want to believe. You are such a sad example of femininity, I suspect you are just another sock puppet created by BuckHead to populate his cheering gallery. You surely couldn't pass as a female who anyone could admire. Your children, if you actually had any, would despise the mother who abandoned them so she could pursue her lofty career of collecting food stamps and unemployment.