Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, INSTITUTIONAL funders require proof of tax-exempt status. But how many people dropping off goods at Atlanta's Habitat for Humanity Re-Store require proof of tax-exempt status? While some organizations make the IRS letter available, on their website, for instance, many just provide you with a receipt, and often that receipt doesn't even have their tax ID #.
A well established organization? Probably few. A new one? I can't imagine why anyone would without checking out their status.
This spin isn't working. Those organizations were targeted after having actually done something. None of the groups in question here have had anyone accuse them of doing anything other than being counter to Obama's point of view.
Once again, you are arguing that since we arrested Jerry Sandusky it's understandable if we investigate every assistant coach. If they did nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about.
Actually, that's a bit disingenuous. The groups in question here haven't had anyone accuse them of anything, they simply requested tax-exempt status, and the IRS investigated their organization to determine if they qualified for such status. There is nothing wrong with that. That is the job of the IRS.
The wrongdoing was in the methodology used by the IRS in identifying organizations whose activities might be more political than charitable. Because political activity isn't supposed to be the majority of their activity. And as you know, I think political activity shouldn't be any portion of their activity. They can spin-off a separate organization for political activism, and that separate organization should be wholly transparent in its fundraising and expenditures, wholly transparent to the public at large.
A well established organization? Probably few. A new one? I can't imagine why anyone would without checking out their status.
You and I are probably exceptional in that we are willing to go to the trouble and effort to check out things. My mother was told by her cousin that fuel prices would drop below $2.00/gal this summer because the US is producing so much oil. She's not going to do any research to determine if it's true. She believes him and she believes he's already done the due diligence. And most people dropping things off at the Community Charity Center believe that the Community Charity Center name says it all, they must have met all their obligations as a non-profit charity, after all, they ARE the Community Charity Center.
Actually, that's a bit disingenuous. The groups in question here haven't had anyone accuse them of anything, they simply requested tax-exempt status, and the IRS investigated their organization to determine if they qualified for such status. There is nothing wrong with that. That is the job of the IRS.
The wrongdoing was in the methodology used by the IRS in identifying organizations whose activities might be more political than charitable. Because political activity isn't supposed to be the majority of their activity. And as you know, I think political activity shouldn't be any portion of their activity. They can spin-off a separate organization for political activism, and that separate organization should be wholly transparent in its fundraising and expenditures, wholly transparent to the public at large.
So it was wrong. Nobody is arguing otherwise. It wasn't I that tried to make the argument that groups doing something wrong is an excuse for politically singling out groups that did nothing wrong.
You and I are probably exceptional in that we are willing to go to the trouble and effort to check out things. My mother was told by her cousin that fuel prices would drop below $2.00/gal this summer because the US is producing so much oil. She's not going to do any research to determine if it's true. She believes him and she believes he's already done the due diligence. And most people dropping things off at the Community Charity Center believe that the Community Charity Center name says it all, they must have met all their obligations as a non-profit charity, after all, they ARE the Community Charity Center.
The community charity center has likely been there a long time.
No the wrongdoing was going after a specific segment of them, specifically they were targeting conservative groups.
Yeah. And what do you think "methodology" meant in my post?
The IRS is guilty of "profiling". It's wrong when the IRS does it. It's wrong when the local police do it. It's wrong when the TSA does it. When Homeland Security does it. "Profiling" is not the way we do things in the United States. And I'm so glad that so many conservatives are agreeing that "profiling" is wrong.
And, and, and, they also targeted...liberal churches, like this one:
"The Internal Revenue Service has warned one of Southern California's largest and most liberal churches that it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status because of an antiwar sermon two days before the 2004 presidential election."
Neither is/was right, but, y'all don't get be sole owners of the victim crown this time.
Sorry.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Soros Gave $6.1 Million to Groups Linked to Pressure on IRS to Target Conservative Nonprofits
