Mood:
accident proneTopic: "501 (c)(4)"
Explaining tax law to a hobbit is akin to teaching a cat to fetch; it is not worth the time. The issue that has returned Frodo to the keyboard however requires a little, very little I say, knowledge of tax law, if only to put thee, dear reader, on a par with the fools around you.
About a hundred years ago, the tax men at the National Revenue were charged by the Congress of the United States with the responsibility to ensure that certain tax-exempt organizations utilized the revenue received exclusively for the purposes specified. If the money was supposed to support the Salvation Army for example, then the tax guys made sure that was the case, and that none of the money would be used to benefit somebody else.
Okay so far?
In 1959, amid the Eisenhower Administration, somebody, and "somebody" is used because nobody actually knpws who, basically changed the wording of the responsibility without either telling anybody or seeking legislative approval. The word "exclusively" (as utilized above) was replaced by the word "primarily." The effect being, ever since that change was made, the tax men have for example, accepted the tax exempt return of the Salvation Army if the revenue collected was "primarily" for Salvation Army purposes, even if some of the revenue was used for other purposes, say like political contributions.
The point being that those instructions to the Revnue Department, ever since 1959, have been and are, illegal.
The effect of what has taken place is still not clear, since our elected representatives are only recently even aware of the "problem." This may explain why you haven't heard much from Congressman Daryl Issa (R-CA) regarding the "scandal" at the IRS of late. From all appearances, it seems quixotic, at best, that Republicans would seek to pursue an investigation that failed to include the source of the problem itself. It would be interesting, to say the least, just how much of that "primarily" money went into Republocan coffers, don't ya think?
