[EL] big IRS story

Fri May 10 18:09:16 PDT 2013

AHEM. Don't joke like that.

Adam Bonin

Chairman, Board of Directors

Netroots Nation, a 501(c)(4) Organization

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Mark
Schmitt
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 9:00 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] big IRS story

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,  <http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/> The Roosevelt Institute
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/eb625a25/attachment.html>