Heads Up: Some Bodies Watchin Us! .... Surprized?

[+Malamute]

Cuz, I think people may be getting this confused sometimes,.... the IRS is not telling people or groups they cannot exist or be allowed to carry on their constitutionally guaranteed rights generally centered around 1st amendment rights.

 

They are just saying, either pay your taxes like every other corporation in America(sort of) or try to qualify for non profit status to exempt yourself from taxes(mostly) as a corporation. 

 

 I think I see it said in many news sources that the IRS was forbidding these groups from existing, when actually, it is just a determination of how much or how little taxes they will pay for the work they do as a corporation.

[OG Fire Beaster]

Cuz, I think people may be getting this confused sometimes,.... the IRS is not telling people or groups they cannot exist or be allowed to carry on their constitutionally guaranteed rights generally centered around 1st amendment rights.

 

They are just saying, either pay your taxes like every other corporation in America(sort of) or try to qualify for non profit status to exempt yourself from taxes(mostly) as a corporation. 

 

 I think I see it said in many news sources that the IRS was forbidding these groups from existing, when actually, it is just a determination of how much or how little taxes they will pay for the work they do as a corporation.

 

 

I have never seen this reported anywhere. I think it has been pretty clear from the start that the IRS treated two groups differently for a reason they are not permitted to. The marginalizing of the issue and excuse making does not help anyone.

 

Once again the issue is not being represented accurately. These groups did try and gain tax exempt status. Their applications were delayed excessively instead of being approved or denied. This process effectively left them unable to do anything. It is strange how much misinformation is being tossed around.

[+Malamute]

Those groups could do whatever they wanted to.  It did not stop them from being a corporation or able to do business at all.  That is a misrepresentation for sure.  It merely determined how much in taxes they would pay.

 

These were not 501©3 groups... they were ©4's.  A ©3 accepts tax deductible donations. A ©4 is mostly not tax deductible for donations. 

 

And the IRS targets many different groups who have the highest propensity to not be eligible for non profit status.  Some groups were overtargetted obviously, including the group I am on the Board of.  It has already been dealt with and the problem is over.  It was created by a conservative republican in the IRS. They specifically did it.  It happens. They are short staffed and unable to give all Non Profit applications proper scrutiny, so they tend to focus towards problem areas.  I think this causes there to be excessive scrutiny to a small number of groups(what happened) and lets many just slip right by who probably do not deserve NP status.

 

I think there needs to be better broad oversight and less pigeon-holing for excess scrutiny until deemed they need to be because of specific rule violations within applications/websites/etc etc.

[OG Fire Beaster]

I actually don't have a TV believe it or not. As a result, I'm not as exposed to the 24 hour news cycle as you may be.  I did see it reported that conservatives had been singled out.  I also saw recently that they didn't just target conservative groups, that Darrell Issa had the report slanted by asking the IRS to only report Tea Party groups that had been scrutinized and not to include other groups in that report.  I haven't read as much detail on the story as you apparently have, like the Huffington Post article, so I don't know who, or what is right.  I do know the IRS says they targeted more than one type of group, and that's what I based my former statement on.  That's why I wrote "apparently," because I don't know all the facts and don't know who is right.  How me not knowing which side is right in this case can be construed into a conspiracy is beyond me.

 

I have to agree with Mal though.  I think there should be more scrutiny on non-profits.  How many people are cheating on their taxes by hiding behind non-profit status?  How much does it cost you and I, as taxpayers every year because we have to cover those taxes that aren't being paid by the people hiding behind non-profit status?  Political groups aren't supposed to get non-profit status?  How many are misusing it?

 

I have many TVs, I don't have cable or satellite though. I get most of my news from various sources on the internet. The issue was that 30% of groups that were supportive of the American political left received extra scrutiny. 100% of groups supportive of the American political right received extra scrutiny. Even if you think the extra scrutiny is a good thing it was not applied equally. According to that argument you should be upset that the groups supportive of the left didn't receive enough scrutiny. There were lists created that required scrutiny of groups associated with the political right. That same standard was not applied to the opposing grouops. Perhaps the reason you don't think government is a problem is because you really do not know what is going on.

[OG Fire Beaster]

Those groups could do whatever they wanted to.  It did not stop them from being a corporation or able to do business at all.  That is a misrepresentation for sure.  It merely determined how much in taxes they would pay.

 

These were not 501©3 groups... they were ©4's.  A ©3 accepts tax deductible donations. A ©4 is mostly not tax deductible for donations. 

 

And the IRS targets many different groups who have the highest propensity to not be eligible for non profit status.  Some groups were overtargetted obviously, including the group I am on the Board of.  It has already been dealt with and the problem is over.  It was created by a conservative republican in the IRS. They specifically did it.  It happens. They are short staffed and unable to give all Non Profit applications proper scrutiny, so they tend to focus towards problem areas.  I think this causes there to be excessive scrutiny to a small number of groups(what happened) and lets many just slip right by who probably do not deserve NP status.

 

I think there needs to be better broad oversight and less pigeon-holing for excess scrutiny until deemed they need to be because of specific rule violations within applications/websites/etc etc.

It is not a misrepresentation. These are groups that were created to be NP.

 

It does not matter who created the extra scrutiny lists. Please explain how that matters. Does that somehow mean their actions were not inappropriate?

 

It was created by a person appointed during the Presidential administration of a conservative. Please show some facts on that if you believe that to be false.

 

I have never seen anyone try and defend discrimination this much. Wow.

Edited July 1, 2013 by OG Fire Beaster

[+Malamute]

OG,... 100% is an incorrect number.

 

If you go back and look at the major influx of ©4 requests in 2006, you will see the general numbers reversed because so many more "leftist" groups were applying. 

 

 I think everyone agrees it was wrong how it was being done(to my group) , but I think people are way overreacting and it is an issue that can easily be resolved.

[OG Fire Beaster]

Mal

 

The IG report is for May 2010 through May 2012.

 

You really do not know what happened do you?

[+Malamute]

It is not a misrepresentation. These are groups that were created to be NP.

 

It does not matter who created it. Please explain how that matters. Does that somehow mean their actions were not inappropriate?

 

It was created by a person appointed during the Presidential administration of a conservative. Please show some facts on that if you believe that to be false.

 

I have never seen anyone try and defend discrimination this much. Wow.

 

 

 First of all OG,... I know WAAAAY more about this than you. I personally dealt with it for around 2 years.  What I am telling you is, listen to the victim of this bad practice.  It was not as bad as it is made out to be. Total pain in the butt,  but you can still operate as a NP while waiting for "official" recognition and file your tax forms as if you are a NP.  It was just annoying the extra scrutiny. But ya just filled out the basic stuff, removed offending material and ta' daa',... it gets done.

 

 As I said, better broad scrutiny is needed, the scrutiny we and teabagger groups  received was more than needed, but there are many groups that are denied for good reasons. *shrug*

 

 The policy has been changed, everyone that was abiding by NP rules and regulations is and was a NP©4.

[+Malamute]

Again,... I know EXACTLY what happened.

[OG Fire Beaster]

Why are you defending misbehavior by the government?

 

You may know more about your dealings with the group you applied with. You clearly do not have a very good grasp on this issue as a whole.

 

OG,... 100% is an incorrect number.

 

If you go back and look at the major influx of ©4 requests in 2006, you will see the general numbers reversed because so many more "leftist" groups were applying. 

 

 I think everyone agrees it was wrong how it was being done(to my group) , but I think people are way overreacting and it is an issue that can easily be resolved.

Edited July 1, 2013 by OG Fire Beaster

[+Malamute]

The only one not gripping well is you OG.

 

We went through the EXACT same scrutiny and delays for "official" status.  You still operate as a federal NP and file your tax returns as a NP and in no way whatsoever does "official" recognition make a difference in how your corporation operates.

 

If they were filing for 501©3 status, I would agree with you. Those are tax deductible donations and you need proper recognition to allow donors to make tax writeoffs.

[+Malamute]

Btw,... this issue is not about denials of status,.... this is about delays in "official" status.

[OG Fire Beaster]

I am aware of what the issue is.

 

 

I have never seen this reported anywhere. I think it has been pretty clear from the start that the IRS treated two groups differently for a reason they are not permitted to. The marginalizing of the issue and excuse making does not help anyone.

 

Once again the issue is not being represented accurately. These groups did try and gain tax exempt status. Their applications were delayed excessively instead of being approved or denied. This process effectively left them unable to do anything. It is strange how much misinformation is being tossed around.

Edited July 1, 2013 by OG Fire Beaster

[+Malamute]

This process effectively left them unable to do anything.

 

 

 What I am telling you,.. is that is absolutely not true.

[OG Fire Beaster]

Just keep defending, deflecting, and trying to claim some sort of "authority" on the issue. You lose credibility when you know wrong was done and you defend it anyway. Or do you not thing that anything wrong was done? Please answer that with a simple yes or no.

[+Malamute]

Just keep defending, deflecting, and trying to claim some sort of "authority" on the issue. You lose credibility when you know wrong was done and you defend it anyway. Or do you not thing that anything wrong was done? Please answer that with a simple yes or no.

 

 

 

Read my previous posts and figure it out. It is blatantly obvious.

[OG Fire Beaster]

Mal if you dont know the outcome of your status it is very hard to function effectively. Or are you saying two year delays do not matter? Are you saying they were not impacted anyway by being placed in limbo with the IRS?

 

 What I am telling you,.. is that is absolutely not true.

[+Malamute]

I believe I explained this already.

[Celliach]

You just can't talk to some people.  They get ideas in their heads and no matter what the proof, or how much of it, they will refute that truth just because it doesn't fit the narrative they've made inside their own head.

[OG Fire Beaster]

You have just described you and Mal exactly.

 

What proof did you two provide?

 

You said nobody was singled out. A very false statement.

 

Mal changed the argument to the fictional "They are not denying anybody"

 

Then Mal threw in some comments about 2006 when the time frame of the issue being discussed, per the IG report, Is 2010-2012

 

Then the comment of it did not impact the groups, it does not matter if they are approved or not.

 

What facts? Where? All that has been done is you have demonstrated your biases rule over justice and equal treatment.

 

You used every tactic of illogical argument.

 

If the groups had the name "Women" , "Gay", "Black", or "Minority" would you still defend it?

[Celliach]

Mal provided the proof of testimony from someone directly involved with this case firsthand and you're totally dismissing his eye witness account.  I don't know what else to say to that.

 

I still haven't seen proof of whatever it is that you're trying to prove.  I'm not even sure what it is you're trying to prove.

[OG Fire Beaster]

Really Cel? Ok.

 

Keep carrying that water. Let me know when you get tired.

[Celliach]

See?  How many times does he have to tell you that the extra scrutiny didn't shut them down or have any effect on their operation before you believe it?  Why do you want to blindly believe what you've been told by the media?

[OG Fire Beaster]

Even if it did not have an effect on their operation, which I do not agree with, how does that condone the action? You are trying to change what the issue is.

 

The IRS has admitted that it attacked improperly. Why do you defend misbehavior by the government? Accusing me of blindly believing the media does not change the facts of what happened.

 

So lets recap.

 

1. Attempting to change the narrative from it being an issue of government acting inappropriately to it is all good because it did not impact them.

 

2. Attacking the messenger because you can not back up your original statement of groups not being singled out.

 

Where is the pyramid when you need it.

[OG Fire Beaster]

As to the claim that groups were not impacted by the excessive delay in approval, it is completely false. Until they are granted their c4 status they are not able to receive donations on a tax exempt basis and keep the donors anonymous. It also prevents foundations and c3 groups from donating to them, because they are not officially NP yet. Do you refute these points?

 

If the group is formed to be a NP and they have not been granted NP status yet, how are they able to complete the function that they were created to do?

 

The same standard was not applied across the board and that is wrong. You two have lost a lot of credibility in my eyes, not that you care.