[EL] big IRS story
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Fri May 10 16:59:35 PDT 2013
Completely agree with you Mark, but a reader writes to tell me of a big
Democratic "Patriot" group:
The nonprofit arm of Patriot Majority USA spent $7 million to help elect
Democrats, also without identifying the source of the money; it didn't
exist in 2008.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-30/fec-expired-terms-prompt-calls-for-obama-to-keep-promise.html
On 5/10/13 3:43 PM, Scarberry, Mark wrote:
>
> Apparently "Patriot" was one of the words that caused extra scrutiny.
>
> This can't be explained away. Someone at some level politicized the
> review process. The only real question, I think, is the level at which
> that was done.
>
> The extraordinarily unpersuasive excuse that the IRS official gave (it
> happened because the process was centralized?) also seems telling. She
> did not say, "We were flagging names that indicated political
> activity." At least I have not heard that she said that.
>
> There may also need to be some accountability (at higher levels than
> the level at which the decision was made) for creation of a culture or
> of attitudes that would make this seem acceptable.
>
> Mark
>
> Mark S. Scarberry
>
> Professor of Law
>
> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of
> *Trevor Potter
> *Sent:* Friday, May 10, 2013 3:30 PM
> *To:* Joe La Rue
> *Cc:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] big IRS story
>
> To remind everyone of what we know at this point, applications for 501
> c4 social welfare status were being flagged for review by IRS staffers
> if they had words in their title that suggested the organizations were
> political in nature-- ie that their major purpose was to engage in
> political activity and therefore they should be registered as a 527
> rather than a c4. That is one of the IRS's jobs-- to determine whether
> a group qualifies for c4 status, or is too "political" in purpose to
> do so. Based on recent cases, the IRS has certainly questioned/
> challenged the appropriateness of c4 status of groups with both
> "Democrat" and " Republican" in their name.
>
> Trevor Potter
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 6:22 PM, "Joe La Rue" <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
> <mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> The anger should be there, regardless. NOBODY should be targeted
> by the IRS because of his or her political views. It doesn't
> matter to me whether they are targeting conservatives only,
> liberals only, or conservatives AND liberals together. And it
> shouldn't matter to anyone else who claims to love freedom. If the
> government can target us because of our political views, and can
> subject us to extra scrutiny and make us jump through extensive
> hoops because of we have political views, then what have we become?
>
>
> Joe
> ___________________
> *Joseph E. La Rue*
>
> cell: 480.272.2715
> email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com <mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any
> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
> may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise
> be protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
> distribution is prohibited. If you have received this message in
> error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete
> the message.
>
> PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT
> COMMUNICATION/ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT.
>
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any tax advice contained in this
> communication was not written and is not intended to be used for
> the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal
> Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending any
> transaction or matter addressed herein.
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Byron Tau <btau at politico.com
> <mailto:btau at politico.com>> wrote:
>
> I think the anger comes from the fact that they were just flagging
> conservative-linked words. If the list also included "progressive"
> and "liberal," I don't think the anger would be there.
>
> --
>
> Byron Tau
>
> Lobbying and influence reporter || POLITICO
>
> c: 202-441-1171 <tel:202-441-1171>
>
> d: 703-341-4610 <tel:703-341-4610>
>
> Follow: @byrontau <http://twitter.com/byrontau>
>
> Subscribe to: http://www.politico.com/politicoinfluence/
>
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 6:03 PM, "john.k.tanner at gmail.com
> <mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>" <john.k.tanner at gmail.com
> <mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Both are common adjectives for advocacy groups as well as the
> names of political parties. ADA, SDS, ....
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com
> <mailto:schmitt.mark at gmail.com>>
> Sender: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 17:47:50
> To: law-election at uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu><law-election at uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] big IRS story
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> To
> ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you
> that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice
> contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not
> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
> (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or
> (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any
> tax-related matter addressed herein. This message is for the use of
> the intended recipient only. It is from a law firm and may contain
> information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the
> intended recipient any disclosure, copying, future distribution, or
> use of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in error, please advise us by return e-mail, or if you
> have received this communication by fax advise us by telephone and
> delete/destroy the document. <-->
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130510/c44e4a44/attachment.html>
View list directory