The Internal Revenue Service Has Become A Political Organization

The Wall Street Journal posted an opinion piece this morning about changes that the Treasury Department is proposing to current Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules. The proposed rule gives 501(c)(3) charities the ‘option’ of filling out reports on every donor who contributes more than $250 to the organization. This ‘option’ would include name, address, and Social Security number. As of now the rule will be voluntary, but based on past experience (particularly with the IRS) voluntary will soon morph into required.

The article reports:

Under current law, nonprofits must report only donors who give more than $5,000 a year, and then only names and addresses. Donors who give less than $5,000 to (c)(3) charities, and who want to claim a tax deduction, must obtain a “receipt” from the charity—to furnish to the IRS if they are audited or examined. This process has been in place for years, and even Treasury and the IRS acknowledge in their new rule that it “works effectively, with the minimal burden on donors and donees.”

So why change it? The IRS is claiming this will aid in more “timely reporting” of tax-deductible donations, and no doubt the agency’s auditors would love more information to harass taxpayers.

Unfortunately, the IRS has used donation information to harass taxpayers before. After a list of supporters was made public a business that donated money to the Proposition 8 proposal in California was target by opponents of the proposal. I reported another example of IRS abuse in February of 2014 (rightwinggranny.com).

The Wall Street Journal reports another example of IRS abuse:

Frank VanderSloot, a Mitt Romney donor, was audited by the IRS and Labor Department after the Obama campaign singled him out for criticism. Catherine Engelbrecht, the head of the 501(c)(3) True the Vote, was publicly attacked by Democrats and then hit with personal and business audits from the IRS, OSHA and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The National Council of Nonprofits, which opposes the proposed rule, notes that the IRS routinely warns taxpayers not to give out their Social Security numbers unless “absolutely necessary.” Donors will be suspicious of charities that now ask for them.

Many taxpayers will also lack confidence that nonprofits, which are often small operations staffed by volunteers, can safeguard their information. The proposed regulation is an invitation to fraud and identity theft by creating an opportunity for scam artists to claim to be charities and solicit Social Security numbers.

It may be time to go to a tax system that does not involve the IRS. Unfortunately the IRS has shown itself to be an agency that cannot be trusted to be above politics. I realize that a lot of the politicization has been under the Obama Administration, but there are no guarantees that any future administrations will not use the agency in the same way.

 

Let The Sunshine In (But Only In Some Places)

National Review posted an article today about the Obama Administration’s support of the DISCLOSE Act. The DISCLOSE Act seeks unprecedented disclosures from private individuals, organizations, and corporations as the price of participating in public debate.

The article reports:

But the administration and its congressional allies hardly need a statute to make public participation in civic life difficult for private citizens. The Obama Campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee have filed complaints against a major conservative social-welfare organization, Crossroads GPS, arguing it should be required to disclose it donors. Even worse, the IRS has responded to dozens of tax-exemption applications by tea-party groups with astonishingly intrusive document demands, seeking not only donor lists but also lists of volunteers.

Some recent problems with disclosing the names of everyone who chooses to take part in the public discourse:

It’s a sad reality of our decayed political discourse that too many dissenting citizens face similar dangers even today. Since 2008, we’ve seen intimidation of religious organizations, death threats, and extreme economic reprisals after disclosures of financial support for allegedly offensive causes. In recent months, formerly anonymous bloggers have been targeted for “SWATings” (where someone calls the police to fraudulently report a violent crime at a person’s home, resulting in a potentially dangerous police intervention). And frivolous lawsuits against controversial speakers have become so common that more than 20 states have adopted protective legislation.

No doubt the Obama administration would condemn the intimidation tactics its reckless “transparency” efforts enable. Yet the government still bears responsibility for the harm that results. The Supreme Court recognized this simple concept: “It is only after the initial exertion of state power . . . that private action takes hold.” In other words, without the government-mandated disclosure, bad actors would be on a tighter rein and have fewer targets.

Please note. My name is nowhere on this blog. The domain name is registered to someone other than myself. That was the agreement I made with my husband and children when I started the blog–they were afraid of repercussions if I said anything that upset anyone. They did not want to see some crazed political zealot attack a little old lady. I tend to share that opinion and thus went along with their request.

Generally transparency is a good idea, but when it endangers people who speak out, it needs to be stopped. See rightwinggranny.com for the story of  Frank VanderSloot, a major contributor to Mitt Romney‘s campaign. His is an example of government intimidation of a donor in a political campaign.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Using The Government For Political Purposes

Obviously, money is an important part of current American politics. Each Presidential campaign this year will raise billions of dollars from donors and spend that money to fund their campaign. It’s not a great system, but the money spent helps certain sectors of the economy, provides jobs, and causes all of us to reach for the mute button on the television more frequently (exercise?). Theoretically, it’s a system where people can spend money to support their political views without fear of retribution. Well, at least it’s supposed to be.

On Thursday the Wall Street Journal posted an article about some of the consequences a major Republican political donor has faced for his financial support of Mitt Romney.

The article reports:

An Obama campaign website in April sent a message to those who’d donate to the president’s opponent. It called out Mr. VanderSloot and seven other private donors by name and occupation and slurred them as having “less-than-reputable” records.

But wait–there’s more:

Just 12 days after the attack, the Idahoan found an investigator digging to unearth his divorce records. This bloodhound—a recent employee of Senate Democrats—worked for a for-hire opposition research firm.

Now Mr. VanderSloot has been targeted by the federal government. In a letter dated June 21, he was informed that his tax records had been “selected for examination” by the Internal Revenue Service. The audit also encompasses Mr. VanderSloot’s wife, and not one, but two years of past filings (2008 and 2009).

Mr. VanderSloot, who is 63 and has been working since his teens, says neither he nor his accountants recall his being subject to a federal tax audit before. He was once required to send documents on a line item inquiry into his charitable donations, which resulted in no changes to his taxes. But nothing more—that is until now, shortly after he wrote a big check to a Romney-supporting Super PAC.

Remember, this is not doing opposition research on an opposing candidate–this is doing opposition research on a private citizen who made a campaign donation! That is called intimidation.

It gets worse:

Two weeks after receiving the IRS letter, Mr. VanderSloot received another—this one from the Department of Labor. He was informed it would be doing an audit of workers he employs on his Idaho-based cattle ranch under the federal visa program for temporary agriculture workers.

…This letter requests an array of documents to ascertain whether Mr. VanderSloot’s “foreign workers are provided the full scope of protections” under the visa program: information on the hours they’ve worked each day and their rate of pay, an explanation of their deductions, copies of contracts. And on and on.

I don’t know how involved President Obama is in this sort of campaign activity. If he is not involved he needs to denouce these activities and fire the people behind them. If he is directly involved, he needs to be held accountable. Is this the country you want to live in?