Chuck Schumer Calls on IRS to Crack Down on Tea Party Funding
- Thread starter beenthere
- Start date
Jeeze, where's Schuylarr?
i'm right here..let me ask you this..in your world, does 1+1=2?
you're fail..because i asked for the vid over and over..and was TOLD it was here by red..which was a lie..anti get the vid..i posted word for word and commented..now the ball is in your court..FYI..this is how debate works..
You and Buckie got your asses handed to you on a platter, you denying only makes you look more of a poor loser.
You and Buckie got your asses handed to you on a platter, you denying it only makes you look more of a poor loser.
keep your fingers in your ears and go.."lalalalalallalalalalalalalalalala" all you want..you do the same thing in debate your party does..
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
theblaze discredits itself and is the strawman.
the letter to the IRS is what's important.
you are my own personal jester.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that's not what he told the IRS though, you buffoon.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
hold the mustard and relish on mine. and like i said, please make sure to toast the bread well.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
researchers at pepperdine have conducted thorough, double blind clinical studies and concluded that those who must convince themselves that they won a debate on the internet not only never won, they made the biggest asses out of themselves.
link to study here: http://tinyurl.com/2g9mqh
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
You sure do look down on a lot of good hard working people out there. Landscapers, fast food workers, etc. For some reason you seem to feel you are above them and mock people who do those jobs.
It makes you look like an petty little person who is engaged in the very class warfare that you accuse others of.
You are a sickening man.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
All that aside he aint sucking off clients for 20 bucks a pop
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
he prefers the term "servicing people" 10-15 times a day for $20 a pop.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Unclebuck gets his ass handed to him and comes back with personal attacks, like everyone doesn't see right through them.
You're a miserable failure Bucky.
please point out where schumer asks the IRS for extra scrutiny on any specific group:
Dear Commissioner Shulman:
We write to ask the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”
to immediately change the administrative framework for enforcement of the tax code as it applies to groups designated as “social welfare” organizations. These groups receive tax and other advantages under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter, “IRC” or the “Code”, but some of them also are engaged in a substantial amount of political campaign activity. As you know, we sent a letter last month expressing concerns about the 501(c)(4) issue; an investigation this week by the New York Times has uncovered new, specific problems on how c)4)s conduct business. We wanted to address those new concerns in this letter.IRS regulations have long maintained that political campaign activity by a 501(c)(4) entity must not be the “primary purpose” of the organization. These regulations are intended to implement the statute, which requires that such organizations be operated exclusively for the public welfare. But we think the existing IRS regulations run afoul of the law since they only require social welfare activities to be the 'primary purpose' of a nonprofit when the Code says this must be its 'exclusive' purpose. In recent years, this daylight between the law and the IRS regulations has been exploited by groups devoted chiefly to political election activities who operate behind a facade of charity work.
A related concern, raised in a March 7[SUP]th [/SUP]New York Times article, concerns whether certain nonprofits may be soliciting corporate contributions that are then treated by the company as a business expense eligible for a tax deduction. The Times wrote: “Under current law, there is little to no way to tell whether contributions are being deducted, especially because many of the most political companies are privately held.” This potential abuse distorts the objectives of vital revenue mechanisms and undermines the faith that we ask citizens to place in their electoral system.
We propose that the IRS make three administrative changes to curtail these questionable practices and bring IRS tax regulations back into alignment with the letter and spirit intended by those who crafted the Code:
· First, we urge the IRS to adopt a bright line test in applying its “primary purpose” regulation that is consistent with the Code’s 501(c)(4) exclusivity language. The IRS currently only requires that the purpose of these non-profits be “primarily” related to social welfare activities, without defining what “primarily” means. This standard should be spelled out more fully by the IRS. Some have suggested 51 percent as an appropriate threshold for establishing that a nonprofit is adhering to its mission, but even this number would seem to allow for more political election activity than should be permitted under the law. In the absence of clarity in the administration of section 501(c)(4), organizations are tempted to abuse its vagueness, or worse, to organize under section 501(c)(4) so that they may avail themselves of its advantages even though they are not legitimate social welfare organizations. If the IRS does not adopt a bright line test, or if it adopts one that is inconsistent with the Code’s exclusivity language, then we plan to pursue legislation codifying such a test.
· Second, such organizations should be further obligated to document in their 990 IRS form the exact percentage of their undertakings dedicated to “social welfare.” Organizations should be required to “show their math” to demonstrate that political election activities and other statutorily limited or prohibited activities do not violate the “primary purpose” regulation.
· Third, 501(c)(4) organizations should be required to state forthrightly to potential donors what percentage of a donation, if any, may be taken as a business expense deduction. As the New York Times reported in its March 7[SUP]th[/SUP]article, some of these organizations do not currently inform donors whether a contribution is tax deductible as a business expense at all.
The IRS should already possess the authority to issue immediate guidance on this matter. We urge the IRS to take these steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities. But if the IRS is unable to issue administrative guidance in this area then we plan to introduce legislation to accomplish these important changes.
Sincerely,
Senators Charles E. Schumer, Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen and Al Franken
The OP is about what Schumer said when addressing the George Soros funded Center for American Progress.
Not the formal letter he wrote to the IRS, your attempt at introducing the letter is a straw man, and just another Bucky FAIL.
Give it up ya pathetic poor sport, you got clobbered, suck it up and live with it.
Not the formal letter he wrote to the IRS, your attempt at introducing the letter is a straw man, and just another Bucky FAIL.
Give it up ya pathetic poor sport, you got clobbered, suck it up and live with it.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the article from theblaze (lulz) is the straw man.
the letter to the IRS is what matters.
you are like my little jester.
tell me again how writing a letter to the IRS is tyranny, ya fucking clown.
LMFAO!
You got owned dude, straight up owned.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
