[EL] big IRS story

Fri May 10 17:59:46 PDT 2013

My original question was just a question, not a rhetorical one, and I
appreciate Trevor for taking it as such and providing a useful factual
answer.

But, switching to argument, can we resist words like "silence voices" and
"targetting." These are not ordinary citizens getting a knock on the door.
They are organizations that are applying for a privileged tax status. As a
taxpayer, I expect and hope that the IRS will ask tough questions about any
organization applying for a privileged tax status, whether it's c(3), c(4),
or anything else. If an organization applies for c(4) status, and there are
superficial indications that it's primary purpose is electoral, the IRS
should ask some questions. The name, or other words used in the
description, should count for something. If I start the "Retire Mitch
McConnell Committee," even though it doesn't have the word "campaign" in
the name, they should ask me questions about whether its a valid c(4). It's
not fair to say, look only at "activities," because (1) in theory these
groups are just starting, and may not have any activities yet; (2) once
they get c(4) status, their activities may never be looked at again, ever;
and (3) the only way to look at activities is to ask the kinds of questions
the IRS asked in these cases.

A politically savvy IRS branch office would probably have looked for some
parallel set of left-of-center groups so that they could show they were
asking the same questions of groups with words like "Netroots" in their
name, if there were any. But I'm not sure I want such a politically savvy
IRS.

Mark Schmitt
Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute <http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/>
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: mschmitt9

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:

>  Except that we don't know if he IRS is failing to force the law re 501c
> organizations- we do know that there is a partisan political effort to
> silence certain voices, though - and we do know now that the IRS was using
> improper political screening.
>
>  It's interesting that Sen Levin declares as fact things we dont know
> have occurred, and where we do now know that abuses occurred he phrases it
> as a question of "whether" they occurred.
>
>  Brad Smith
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 7:36 PM, "Stephen Spaulding" <
> SSpaulding at commoncause.org> wrote:
>
>   Senator Levin delineated the issues appropriately in his statement this
> evening. An investigation into the IRS's failure to enforce the law re: c4s
> that are set up for no other reason than shielding donor identity &
> intervening in political campaigns should include an investigation into how
> the IRS identifies and screens these entities in the first place.
>
>  OHis statement is below.
>
>  Stephen Spaulding
> Staff Counsel
> Common Cause
>
>  Levin: IRS enforcement of nonprofit rules requires investigation
>
> Friday, May 10, 2013
>
> WASHINGTON – Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Permanent
> Subcommittee on Investigations, issued the following statement today after
> the IRS acknowledged it applied additional scrutiny to certain groups
> applying for nonprofit status:
>
> “My subcommittee has been investigating the IRS’s failure to enforce the
> law requiring that tax-exempt 501(c)4s be engaged exclusively in social
> welfare activities, not partisan politics. Today’s announcement by the IRS
> raises a second issue: whether the IRS, to the extent it has enforced its
> rules, has been impartial in doing so. Both issues require investigation.”
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 7:00 PM, "John Tanner" <john.k.tanner at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>   March of Dimes Campaign?
>
> The name of an organization is a terrible, utterly
> inapproporiate predicate for triggering an investigation.  A federal
> investigation should only be opened based on activity
>
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu>wrote:
>
>>  Actually, they were not being targeted 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." They were
>> targeted if they had *certain* words in their title that suggested the
>> organizations were political in nature-- ie that their major purpose was to
>> engage in political activity.
>>
>>  That's a big difference, since the words selected were not neutral,
>> like say, "Campaign."
>>
>>  Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On May 10, 2013, at 6:31 PM, "Trevor Potter" <tpotter at capdale.com> wrote:
>>
>>    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>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> 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> 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****
>>>
>>> d: 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" <
>>> 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>
>>> Sender: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 17:47:50
>>> To: law-election at uci.edu<law-election at uci.edu>
>>> Subject: Re: [EL] big IRS story
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> 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
>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> 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
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> 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
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130510/f27eef79/attachment.html>