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

[Joseph E. Sandler]

Marty--
In 1975 Congress enacted section 527 including section 527(f) which specifically contemplates that 501(c) organizations may engage in SOME "527 exempt" activity, i.e., political activity, since they are taxed on the amount expended on such activity.   So it was perfectly reasonable for the IRS in its regulations and in its rulings to determine that it would not be inconsistent with Congressional intent fo find  no absolute prohibition against a c-4 engaging in political activity.  The  problem is that the IRS has failed to define by regulation or ruling how much is too much-- clearly one of its fundamental  obligations as the agency charged with interpreting and enforcing the law.
Joe

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:13 PM
To: law-election at UCI.EDU
Subject: [EL] Rudimentary 501(c)(4) question

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"?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130520/531ae7b4/attachment.html>