• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

US Internal Revenue Service.

Janadele

Banned
Janadele
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
2,515
US Internal Revenue Service demands donor list:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/ron-paul-group-to-defy-irs/article/2547261

"There is no legitimate reason for the IRS to know who donates to Campaign for Liberty," Megan Stiles, the communications director at Campaign for Liberty, told the Washington Examiner in an email on Tuesday. "We believe the First Amendment is on our side as evidenced by cases such as NAACP v. Alabama and International Union UAW v. National Right to Work. Many 501(c)(4) organizations protect the privacy of their donors in the very same way as Campaign for Liberty. For some reason the IRS has now chosen to single out Campaign for Liberty for special attention. We plan to fight this all the way."
 
Slowvehicle... enlighten us as to which religious denomination, if any, you consider Megan Stiles and the "Campaign for Liberty" represents.
 
Janadele said:
US Internal Revenue Service demands donor list:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/ron-paul-group-to-defy-irs/article/2547261

"There is no legitimate reason for the IRS to know who donates to Campaign for Liberty," Megan Stiles, the communications director at Campaign for Liberty, told the Washington Examiner in an email on Tuesday. "We believe the First Amendment is on our side as evidenced by cases such as NAACP v. Alabama and International Union UAW v. National Right to Work. Many 501(c)(4) organizations protect the privacy of their donors in the very same way as Campaign for Liberty. For some reason the IRS has now chosen to single out Campaign for Liberty for special attention. We plan to fight this all the way."
Click to expand...

And, why you or we should care would be?????????? I do hope they lose and turn out to owe loads of back taxes though as names like that suggest the vilest of slime involved such as teabaggers and religious fundies (I have no problem with freedom of religion but I support taxing the churches like any other business operation.)
 
Janadele said:
US Internal Revenue Service demands donor list:<snip>
Click to expand...
All you did was quote the link but said nothing about article. What do you think about the issue? What implications does it have politically and legally? Who are the potential winners and losers.

You have a severe habit of simply posting other people's stuff without commenting on your own views. Do you have any?
 
Janadele said:
Slowvehicle... enlighten us as to which religious denomination, if any, you consider Megan Stiles and the "Campaign for Liberty" represents.
Click to expand...

Janadele:

Enlighten me as to where I said, or implied, that Ron Paul, Megan Stiles, the scofflaws at "Campaign for Liberty", or the tireless crusaders for truth and the Constitution at the Washington Examiner are of any particular "religious denomination", if any.

Then explain why it matters to you to what sect, cult, or club Ron Paul and the Paulettes belong.

(Or are you, personally, as a member of the C"JC"LDS, {"...specifically commanded to respect the Law"...and all} repudiating the behaviour of Ron Paul et al. as they pretend the law does not apply to them? If so, you typically neglected to make that clear.)
 
Last edited:
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/04/15/na ... %E2%80%99t

"... former IRS official Lois Lerner last year discussed working with the Justice Department to prosecute nonprofit organizations according to new documents released on Wednesday by Judicial Watch about the agency's targeting of conservative groups. The new documents show Lerner's communications with Justice within days of publicly acknowledging that the Internal Revenue Service was singling out tea party, conservative, and religious groups. They also indicate that the targeting may have reached further into the Obama White House... "
 
Actually there is at least one reason for the IRS to know who donates. 501 (c) xx associations have a limited percentage as to how much one donor can give. That is to keep it from being actually a single person's loophole.
 
Janadele said:
US Internal Revenue Service demands donor list:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/ron-paul-group-to-defy-irs/article/2547261

"There is no legitimate reason for the IRS to know who donates to Campaign for Liberty," Megan Stiles, the communications director at Campaign for Liberty, told the Washington Examiner in an email on Tuesday. "We believe the First Amendment is on our side as evidenced by cases such as NAACP v. Alabama and International Union UAW v. National Right to Work. Many 501(c)(4) organizations protect the privacy of their donors in the very same way as Campaign for Liberty. For some reason the IRS has now chosen to single out Campaign for Liberty for special attention. We plan to fight this all the way."
Click to expand...

If they're claiming tax exemption, it seems to me that the IRS does, indeed, have a right to know just who is funding this organization, and whether the organization's activities fall under the permitted guidelines for 501(c)(4).
 
Janadele said:
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/04/15/na ... %E2%80%99t

"... former IRS official Lois Lerner last year discussed working with the Justice Department to prosecute nonprofit organizations according to new documents released on Wednesday by Judicial Watch about the agency's targeting of conservative groups. The new documents show Lerner's communications with Justice within days of publicly acknowledging that the Internal Revenue Service was singling out tea party, conservative, and religious groups. They also indicate that the targeting may have reached further into the Obama White House... "
Click to expand...

Interesting dodge. it looks more and more as if you, a claimed member of the c"JC"LDS are condoning scofflaw behaviour. How very...odd.
 
Tea Party Patriots Co-Founder Jenny Beth Martin today issued the following statement in response to the recent revelations on the extent of the targeting of tea party groups by the IRS.

“On Wednesday. we saw another example of how the Obama administration has turned government ‘Of the People’ upside-down.

Instead of the Department of Justice investigating the IRS targeting of innocent Americans, we learned they were preparing to investigate groups like ours with absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing. And where there is evidence of a crime at the IRS, the Justice Department isn’t interviewing Tea Party Patriots or other victims of IRS abuse.

...


Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere. Instead, cite a short passage and provide a link to the source.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Janadele said:
Tea Party Patriots Co-Founder Jenny Beth Martin today issued the following statement in response to the recent revelations on the extent of the targeting of tea party groups by the IRS.

“On Wednesday. we saw another example of how the Obama administration has turned government ‘Of the People’ upside-down.

Instead of the Department of Justice investigating the IRS targeting of innocent Americans, we learned they were preparing to investigate groups like ours with absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing. And where there is evidence of a crime at the IRS, the Justice Department isn’t interviewing Tea Party Patriots or other victims of IRS abuse.

...
Click to expand...

It was hardly investigating them for no reason. The people filling out the 1024s had to sign under perjury that they would not use the money for political purposes and then they turned around and did. Looking into stuff like that is the DOJ's job, at least in theory. And if a US Senator asks a DOJ official what steps they are taking to investigate perjury on IRS forms, its not unreasonable for the DOJ official to call up the IRS and ask for a meeting or two.

Whatever. BENGHAZI!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Janadele said:
Tea Party Patriots Co-Founder Jenny Beth Martin today issued the following statement in response to the recent revelations on the extent of the targeting of tea party groups by the IRS.

“On Wednesday. we saw another example of how the Obama administration has turned government ‘Of the People’ upside-down.

Instead of the Department of Justice investigating the IRS targeting of innocent Americans, we learned they were preparing to investigate groups like ours with absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing. And where there is evidence of a crime at the IRS, the Justice Department isn’t interviewing Tea Party Patriots or other victims of IRS abuse.
...
Click to expand...

You are certainly making it look as if you approve of other people breaking the law. In a country other than the one in which you claim to live. Interesting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Janadele said:
US Internal Revenue Service demands donor list:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/ron-paul-group-to-defy-irs/article/2547261

"There is no legitimate reason for the IRS to know who donates to Campaign for Liberty," Megan Stiles, the communications director at Campaign for Liberty, told the Washington Examiner in an email on Tuesday. "We believe the First Amendment is on our side as evidenced by cases such as NAACP v. Alabama and International Union UAW v. National Right to Work. Many 501(c)(4) organizations protect the privacy of their donors in the very same way as Campaign for Liberty. For some reason the IRS has now chosen to single out Campaign for Liberty for special attention. We plan to fight this all the way."
Click to expand...

The IRS tends to single out charities when there are indications of illegal shenanigans. 501(c) organizations are often used as illegal tax shelters.

For example: people will sometimes create a 501(c) charity and then endow it with enough funds to create a planned giving program. They them make donations to this shell charity in order to protect their own income, a portion of which they get back later in life as part of the planned giving program.

There are a LOT of charities that have legitimate planned giving programs, but if the "donors" are using the money in trust for purposes not related to the charity then it's an illegal tax shelter, plain and simple.

A new political 501(c) tends to arouse suspicion for good reason.

This isn't persecution. This is a charity that has fallen under suspicion trying to use the press to drum up opposition to a perfectly legal, routine investigation to determine if there is any wrongdoing.
 
According to a written determination released Friday by the IRS, The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, based in Manassas, Va., “has shown a pattern of deliberate and consistent intervention in political campaigns” and made “repeated statements supporting or opposing various candidates by expressing its opinion of the respective candidate’s character and qualifications,”


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...tive-groups-tax-exempt-status-/#ixzz2zmmoVYog
 
Janadele said:
According to a written determination released Friday by the IRS, The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, based in Manassas, Va., “has shown a pattern of deliberate and consistent intervention in political campaigns” and made “repeated statements supporting or opposing various candidates by expressing its opinion of the respective candidate’s character and qualifications,”





http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...tive-groups-tax-exempt-status-/#ixzz2zmmoVYog
Click to expand...


This article has a graph outlining which groups were targeted. It turns out the teebaggers are the tip of the iceberg.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2014/04/23/3429722/irs-records-tea-party/

A series of IRS documents, provided to ThinkProgress under the Freedom of Information Act, appears to contradict the claims by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that only Tea Party organizations applying for tax-exempt status “received systematic scrutiny because of their political beliefs.” The 22 “Be On the Look Out” keywords lists, distributed to staff reviewing applications between August 12, 2010 and April 19, 2013, included more explicit references to progressive groups, ACORN successors, and medical marijuana organizations than to Tea Party entities.
Click to expand...
 
Janadele said:
According to a written determination released Friday by the IRS, The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, based in Manassas, Va., “has shown a pattern of deliberate and consistent intervention in political campaigns” and made “repeated statements supporting or opposing various candidates by expressing its opinion of the respective candidate’s character and qualifications,”


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...tive-groups-tax-exempt-status-/#ixzz2zmmoVYog
Click to expand...

Um, those things are not allowed foe a non-profit group. Therrfore, if that group did those things, then the should get their non-profit status revoked.

What seems to be the problem?
 
pgwenthold said:
Um, those things are not allowed foe a non-profit group. Therrfore, if that group did those things, then the should get their non-profit status revoked.

What seems to be the problem?
Click to expand...

You've overlooked the gist of the OP's continuing rhetoric. It's okay if a non profit organization or anyone else violates the law as long as Janadele agrees with them. Unless they are gay. Or black.
 
pgwenthold said:
Um, those things are not allowed foe a non-profit group. Therrfore, if that group did those things, then the should get their non-profit status revoked.

What seems to be the problem?
Click to expand...

It's not a problem. It's an excuse to indulge the martyr complex. It's the same reason conservatives are supporting the criminal Bundy in his efforts to build a private army of right-wing theocratic anarchists.

desertgal said:
You've overlooked the gist of the OP's continuing rhetoric. It's okay if a non profit organization or anyone else violates the law as long as Janadele agrees with them. Unless they are gay. Or black.
Click to expand...

It seems that racism isn't unique to one particular poster, but endemic the very nation in which she lives.

Australian magistrate rules that the 'N-word' is not offensive

Why are there so many places named after the N-Word in Australia?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom