[EL] Watchdog Groups Call on IRS to Investigate American Tradition Partnership

[bzall at aol.com]

Thanks to ignorant reporting that equates "political" with electioneering, there's no good reason to file a 1024 any more.


Thanks to idiotic comments attributed to my friend Marc Owens that those who file 1024s with which other people disagree should be "prosecuted" for false statements under penalty of perjury, there are affirmative reasons NOT to file. 


Thanks to internal systems conflicts in the IRS and inadequate training or supervision, the recent disclosure of ungranted 1024s has shaken peoples' willingness to trust the IRS, even in the face of fairly-clear privacy requirements backed up with felony penalties, and hence their willingness to file has diminished. 


It used to be that organizations would receive a note from the Service when they filed their 990s saying that they should file a 1024, but we now have the appropriate computer coding instructions to write back and educate the IRS personnel on their own computer systems. So even when the Service asks for a 1024, there's no reason to file one to get appropriate notices and reviews. 


And a new Rev Proc 2013-9 provides that exemption will only be recognized retroactively if the 1024 is filed within the first 27 months. But as a discussion at our First Tuesday Lunch group last week showed, that's not really a reason to file a 1024 either; it's more in the nature of a clarification. 

So why buy trouble? It's one thing to have, as Justice Scalia wrote in Doe v Reed, a "rough and tumble" political discussion. It's another to have the prison doors waiting if you check the wrong box and someone claims you did it intentionally. 


Hence, "disclosure" seems to have the unintended consequence of discouraging disclosure. 


Barnaby Zall 
Of Counsel 
Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani, LLP 
10411 Motor City Drive, Suite 500
Bethesda, MD 20817
301-231-6943 (direct dial) 
bzall at aol.com 
_____________________________________________________________ 
U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice 

Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this communication (including 
any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be 
used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding U.S. federal tax-related penalties 
or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any 
tax-related matter addressed herein. 
_____________________________________________________________



-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Abramson <danielkabramson at gmail.com>
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Cc: law-election at UCI.edu <law-election at uci.edu>
Sent: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 1:51 pm
Subject: [EL] Watchdog Groups Call on IRS to Investigate American Tradition Partnership



On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

“Watchdog Groups Call on          IRS to Investigate American Tradition Partnership; Cite Its          Reported Submission of Apparent False Information to the IRS          Regarding Its Application for Tax-exempt Status”



Does anyone have any thoughts as to why an organization would do this?  They are free to operate under section 501(c)(4) while their exemption application is pending, or even without filing an exemption application at all.  What is the advantage of receiving an expedited determination, other than for a potential donor who wants to see the determination letter?  If this allegation is true, no such donor existed, so I'm not seeing the advantage to the organization here.  Anyone have any ideas?




Daniel Abramson

 
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130116/05302ae6/attachment.html>