IRS Targeted Donors To Tea Party Groups

That was the general background. My posts have been about recently uncovered IRS emails that give some color to what they were doing, and incidentally show that obama and IRS officals lied about the scandal.

The IRS demanded the names of donors to Tea Party groups during the vetting process, which was in itself highly questionable, then attempted to put the screws to those donors by hitting them with gift taxes. There were also incidents of donor names being released or leaked to liberal groups.
I wasn't aware of any of that, so thank you. But nevertheless this is highly illogical since donors could not be hit with gift taxes for donating to any of the tax exempt organizations. The gift tax applies to gifts to individuals over a set amount. Even if the organization did not qualify as a social welfare organization it would certainly qualify under 527, but in neither case would the gift tax apply. The gift tax is something entirely different. Possibly your sources are unreliable.

If the organizations, in a final determination, can only qualify under 527, then of course a requirement is that donor names become public. There is an outrageous amount of misinformation on the internet. I'll check with propublica and see if there is a follow up to this business. They usually have it right.
 
Last edited:
Why not just read the article linked in my first post?

This explains the issue. http://roskam.house.gov/media-cente...-groups-rally-behind-roskam-irs-gift-tax-bill

The issues itself appears closed for now, so there is no reason to waste time on it. What is crucial is that the IRS employees who abused their positions to attack Tea Party groups and their donors must be held accountable. So far that has clearly not happened.

When Obama and his administration cover up for them and obstruct investigations, as they are doing, it lends credence to the conclusion that the administation was complicit in the misconduct.
 
Piezoe,
Thanks for you comments. My son's thesis is on the japanese economy. They now have , I think, a government debt load of 200% of the gdp, and almost no growth for the last 25 years, despite following keynesian principles. Any comments on that example?
I do have a few comments. Japan has really not followed Keynesian principles applied at full force, possibly because they couldn't. Yet it wouldn't be incorrect to say that they had, at least in part, been trying various Keynesian measures.

They are now, finally, after years of recession, trying to fully apply Keynesian principles to their situation. However they only began doing this since Abe, and even since Abe they made the mistake of raising the sales tax by 8%, a highly anti-Keynesian move that had to be quickly rescinded. Prior to this most recent change, they applied a mixed approach that was not fully Keynesian, and it did not work. It may turn out that Keynesian economics doesn't fit their situation very well. In any case, up to now they have made more or less a mess of it.

From the late 1990s going forward there was a strong Yen. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) tried to keep the Yen down but failed. The effect of the strong Yen was, in Japan's case, deflation. Prices fell, profit margins and sales declined, workers bonuses were cut and there was retrenchment among the general public. They stopped spending. How did the authorities react. They thought about cutting rates, but there was great reluctance to do that because a large part of the japanese population lived on its Postal Savings accounts. Cutting rates would cut their income. Also insurance annuities were very popular. These guaranteed a return rate, and if rates were cut, the insurance companies would have a loss. At the same time these problems began, the stock market was selling at high multiples and yields were very low.

Japan has been in recession ever since. The differences between the U.S. economy and the Japanese economy are quite striking. Various half-hearted, partial attempts at Keynesian-like economic moves have been tried with poor results. They tried massive public works projects and built up huge debt, they tried zero interest, they tried quantitaive easing, and none of this has had the desired effect. Now, since Abe was elected, for the first time, Japan seems to be getting serious about trying to apply Keynesian principles in full force. Whether they can do it remains to be seen. My personal observation is that to an even greater extent in Japan than in the U.S. there is a conflict between to economic schools of thought, and this seems to be hampering the proper application of Keynesian economics. It's best if one commits fully and either does it or does not. The worst situation is when you have people in the same boat rowing in opposite directions. That might characterize the situation in Japan. We will see.
 
Translation to Piezoe's elegant (non libertarian) misdirection....

as Max predicted....

"They didnt print enough",



I do have a few comments. Japan has really not followed Keynesian principles applied at full force, possibly because they couldn't. Yet it wouldn't be incorrect to say that they had, at least in part, been trying various Keynesian measures.

They are now, finally, after years of recession, trying to fully apply Keynesian principles to their situation. However they only began doing this since Abe, and even since Abe they made the mistake of raising the sales tax by 8%, a highly anti-Keynesian move that had to be quickly rescinded. Prior to this most recent change, they applied a mixed approach that was not fully Keynesian, and it did not work. It may turn out that Keynesian economics doesn't fit their situation very well. In any case, up to now they have made more or less a mess of it.

From the late 1990s going forward there was a strong Yen. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) tried to keep the Yen down but failed. The effect of the strong Yen was, in Japan's case, deflation. Prices fell, profit margins and sales declined, workers bonuses were cut and there was retrenchment among the general public. They stopped spending. How did the authorities react. They thought about cutting rates, but there was great reluctance to do that because a large part of the japanese population lived on its Postal Savings accounts. Cutting rates would cut their income. Also insurance annuities were very popular. These guaranteed a return rate, and if rates were cut, the insurance companies would have a loss. At the same time these problems began, the stock market was selling at high multiples and yields were very low.

Japan has been in recession ever since. The differences between the U.S. economy and the Japanese economy are quite striking. Various half-hearted, partial attempts at Keynesian-like economic moves have been tried with poor results. They tried massive public works projects and built up huge debt, they tried zero interest, they tried quantitaive easing, and none of this has had the desired effect. Now, since Abe was elected, for the first time, Japan seems to be getting serious about trying to apply Keynesian principles in full force. Whether they can do it remains to be seen. My personal observation is that to an even greater extent in Japan than in the U.S. there is a conflict between to economic schools of thought, and this seems to be hampering the proper application of Keynesian economics. It's best if one commits fully and either does it or does not. The worst situation is when you have people in the same boat rowing in opposite directions. That might characterize the situation in Japan. We will see.
 
Why not just read the article linked in my first post?

This explains the issue. http://roskam.house.gov/media-cente...-groups-rally-behind-roskam-irs-gift-tax-bill

The issues itself appears closed for now, so there is no reason to waste time on it. What is crucial is that the IRS employees who abused their positions to attack Tea Party groups and their donors must be held accountable. So far that has clearly not happened.

When Obama and his administration cover up for them and obstruct investigations, as they are doing, it lends credence to the conclusion that the administation was complicit in the misconduct.
Thanks. Since I don't subscribe to WSJ I couldn't read the WJS article (Is there any way you can slip it to me.??

This is a great article by the way that i just discovered. http://www.propublica.org/article/six-facts-lost-in-irs-scandal

What I learned is that I was completely wrong thinking that donations to social welfare organizations were tax deductible. Apparently they are not, according to propublica. So all of those donations would be taxable in any case, which makes me wonder what Roskam was referring to. It turns out that only donations to charities are tax deductible. If only I could read that WSJ article I might understand what the hell these folks are talking about. Perhaps the IRS ruled that that donation to the Bush Campaign was a personal donation to bush. In which case it would come under the gift tax rules. That's the only thing I can figure, with the limited information I could access.

However this statement in Roskam's letter adds further confusion. "The need for Roskam’s bill became evident after it was learned the IRS had sent letters to at least five high-dollar donors to conservative and tea party causes warning that, under an internal agency reading of the relevant section of the tax code, gifts to those kinds of groups could be subject to the federal gift tax if they exceeded $14,000 dollars."

The reason I find this confusing is that Propublica says flat out that contributions to "social welfare organization" , which are 501c(6), are taxable without mentioning anything about a threshold.

In any case the IRS must follow statutory law, so perhaps Roskam's bill is about clearing up insufficiently clear parts of the 501 tax law. If I had to guess, I would guess that the law is already clear, And that Roskam's bill is just another of endless political stunts. The law already does not seem to leave any doubt that organizations that are "primarily" political in nature are 527, not 501. Now it is up to the IRS to state clearly and unambiguously what "primarily" means. The IRS made a mess of things by letting these political organizations get a foot in the 501 door. It is now up to them to make it very clear exactly what the criteria are for qualifying under 501c(6) and under 527, and then stick to it. The IRS should get out of the business of certifying organizations based on guesses, and instead let the chips fall into the correct budget bins after the real numbers are known at filing time. The IRS communications with these organizations should be limited to providing clear interpretation of the code. Ideally, the IRS would audit 100% of organizations filing under 501c(6), but since there are hundreds, that may be impractical. By far the best way to handle this situation is to set the bar for political activity so low that it catches every organization that is not almost entirely social welfare oriented and pushes them off into 527, where they belong. Then everyone is, while not happy, at least treated fairly.
Let the organizations themselves worry about their liabilities under laws requiring them to report donors names and their compliance with FEC regs.
 
Last edited:
or eliminate income taxes entirely thereby eliminating the way the administration used the IRS as a weapon against conservative Americans.
 
piezoe wrote:
"The reason I find this confusing is that Propublica says flat out that contributions to "social welfare organization" , which are 501c(6), are taxable without mentioning anything about a threshold."

There is a $14k exemption for gifts. Anything above that is subject to gift tax.
 
or eliminate income taxes entirely thereby eliminating the way the administration used the IRS as a weapon against conservative Americans.
Democrats are about control all the way. I hate being controlled, or even observed really but I have to tell them all kinds of stuff when I fill out the income tax forms. I like to taunt the ACLU every year at tax time about how they should protect our privacy by getting rid of the IRS. They never answer me though... Universal Healthcare will give Democrats full control over people that don't have a private doctor. "Oh, you are a dissenter from the Hillary policies? I'm sorry, we can't provide you healthcare and we can't tell you why".
 
agreed... govt control is the opposite of liberty. its sickening that so many are so pro govt control. how the hell does the govt get us to fill out forms about a personal finances...and force us to sign them under penalty of perjury.

it makes no sense to me that any court could ever force and american to do that. its slavery in a short form and it seems one should be able to take the 5th... based on the arguments we heard about lois learning being innocent but needing to take the 5th anyway.

Democrats are about control all the way. I hate being controlled, or even observed really but I have to tell them all kinds of stuff when I fill out the income tax forms. I like to taunt the ACLU every year at tax time about how they should protect our privacy by getting rid of the IRS. They never answer me though... Universal Healthcare will give Democrats full control over people that don't have a private doctor. "Oh, you are a dissenter from the Hillary policies? I'm sorry, we can't provide you healthcare and we can't tell you why".
 
Back
Top