[EL] Rudimentary 501(c)(4) question

Steve Klein stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com
Mon May 20 10:22:57 PDT 2013


I looked for this the other day through Westlaw searches and could not come
up with the case that's addressed point, but admittedly did not have much
time to devote to the question. CREW has an ongoing
lawsuit<http://www.citizensforethics.org/lawsuits/entry/crew-v.-internal-revenue-service>
over
the issue, but it may come up short on standing grounds and not get to the
question.

I believe, though the IRS's reg predates the 1970s and the IRC is not FECA,
that there would be serious vagueness, and certainly overbreadth problems
with implementing "exclusively." Like the issue advocacy / express advocacy
distinction in campaign finance law, there's far too much social welfare
(e.g., promoting the study of the U.S. Constitution) that inevitably has
political implications.

As for the administrative law issues that are immediately apparent, I leave
that to the admin law experts.


On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Marty Lederman
<lederman.marty at gmail.com>wrote:

> I probably should know this -- so apologies in advance if there's a
> well-known answer -- but I've never really thought about it, and it's an
> obvious question in light of recent events:
>
> When did the IRS decide that “[a]n organization is operated *exclusively*for the
> promotion of social welfare [the statutory standard] if it is *primarily*
> engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of
> the people of the community”?  26 CFR 1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(i)
>
> And why?  Since Congress chose the adverb "exclusively," how and whey did
> the agency and everyone else settle on "primarily"?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>



-- 
Steve Klein
Staff Attorney & Research Counsel*
Wyoming Liberty Group
www.wyliberty.org

**Licensed to practice law in Illinois. Counsel to the Wyoming Liberty
Group pursuant to Rule 5.5(d) of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130520/ef9e99ab/attachment.html>


View list directory