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

[Joseph E. Sandler]

Yes-- under section 527(f) if a 501(c)(4) spends any money on what would be exempt function activity for a 527, the highest corporate tax rate is imposed. BUT it's imposed on the LESSER of the amount spent on political activity or the c4's net investment income.  Since most c4's earn only a minimal amount of investment income, that's the amount on which the tax is imposed in almost all cases, making the actual tax payable only a nominal amount.


From: Trevor Potter [mailto:tpotter at capdale.com]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 4:18 PM
To: Joseph E. Sandler
Cc: Marty Lederman; law-election at UCI.EDU
Subject: Re: [EL] Rudimentary 501(c)(4) question

Joe

Did you mean to say that 501 c 4 organizations engaged in political activity are taxed on that political activity? Or am I misreading?

Trevor Potter

Sent from my iPad

On May 20, 2013, at 1:29 PM, "Joseph E. Sandler" <sandler at sandlerreiff.com<mailto:sandler at sandlerreiff.com>> wrote:
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> [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<mailto: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"?
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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. <-->
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130520/44245531/attachment.html>