[EL] why seek c4 recognition?

[Mark Schmitt]

I'm curious, then: Does anyone know why so many local Tea Party groups did
decide to file 1024's? I recall that long before last Friday, a number of
lawyers on this list, esp. Mr. Zall, had said that they discourage (c)4
clients from filing. Were the Tea Party groups just poorly advised? Was
Cleta Mitchell's advice on whether groups should file different from other
lawyers?

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


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:19 PM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:

> **
> Beth is absolutely right, IMHO.  Jim Bopp
>
>  In a message dated 5/14/2013 12:04:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> bkingsley at harmoncurran.com writes:
>
> For some groups the question is why seek recognition, not why not.
>
> The form takes time and energy to complete. If you don't know the lingo
> you risk saying something that raises a red flag and triggers further
> scrutiny, so you'll spend time and energy responding to further IRS
> inquiries. To avoid that you can hire a lawyer and spend thousands on legal
> fees. Plus it costs $850 just to file the application, for all but the very
> smallest groups.
>
> And what are the benefits? If the IRS ever happens to audit your group,
> you can rely on the determination to avoid retroactive revocation, provided
> there have been no material changes in operations. If you're pretty
> confident where you fit in the tax code, that benefit is pretty slim, and
> it can be easier just to start operating.
>
> Many groups do file a 1024, and of course my experience tends to be with
> those who decide to do so, since they've probably come to me for help.
> There are some ancillary benefits -- being able to provide assurances to
> funders and other supporters that you're operating within the law, or in
> some cases eligibility for local tax exemption. But for many the plusses
> are not worth the hassles.
>
> Beth
>
> Elizabeth Kingsley
> Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP
> 1726 M St., NW
> Suite 600
> Washington, DC 20036
> 202-328-3500
> www.harmoncurran.com
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:50 AM
> To: law-election at UCI.edu
> Subject: [EL] why seek c4 recognition?
>
> Over on Twitter the NYT's Nick Confessore is tweeting about the question
> why only some groups seek c4 recognition status. Apparently the
> Democratic-oriented Priorities USA has not.
>
> Can someone shed some light on the reasons why a group would not seek
> such recognition from the IRS and what the risks are?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Rick
>
> --
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130514/e030036c/attachment.html>