The IRS: Speech Cop

Julian Sanchez | February 11, 2005

A story I'd meant to link earlier this week: The NAACP is declining to turn over documents to the IRS, which (apparently at the request of two members of Congress) is investigating the civil rights group. At issue is a speech in which Chariman Julian Bond criticized George Bush for declining an invitation to speak at the group's convention. If that's ruled too partisan, it could jeopardize the group's tax exempt status, though an expert on non-profit tax law cited in the linked story doesn't seem to think the IRS has much of a case here.

Comments

The Owner's Manual|2.11.05 @ 11:43AM|#

If one thinks the IRS has a weak case, then one is not bound to turn over documents they are after. I mean this is America, for a few anyway. Scientology proved that well enough. The rest of us can do our prison time and STFU.

|2.11.05 @ 11:52AM|#

If a non-profit group is too "partisan" it loses it's tax-exempt status?! Never new that.

Geez, yet more justification to simplify the tax code (no exemptions, but MUCH less taxation for everyone). When the NAACP has spend their efforts denying their partisanship, the less they spend on real work. But we all know that.

And enter the obligatory "but where would the tax consultants, audit agents, do for a living?" crowd. joe.

|2.11.05 @ 12:11PM|#

BFI,

I think the idea is that a tax-exempt organization must not be used for either financial or political profit.

|2.11.05 @ 1:17PM|#

I have no idea what this is supposed to do with me, Idiot. I imagine they'd get jobs in some other accounting/finance-related field.

|2.11.05 @ 1:46PM|#

If a non-profit group is too "partisan" it loses it's tax-exempt status

You got it. The idea is that tax exemptions are given to organizations that pursue specific charitable or other public purposes, and that partisan politics is not something that we should subsidize with a tax exemption.

Charities are not supposed to spend their tax-exempt assets on political campaigning, because that is not the purpose for which they were given the exemption.

|2.11.05 @ 2:29PM|#

Dude,
Is the ACLU, and the AARP tax exempt? Because that would be wrong too.

Not so much because they are partisan, but because they lobby for laws, and the spending of tax dollars.

gaius marius|2.11.05 @ 2:44PM|#

Charities are not supposed to spend their tax-exempt assets on political campaigning

we should be careful not to confuse "charity" with "nfp".

but, that said, this is just the latest example of how government can use the tax code to intimidate political opposition and squelch dissent. how sad. i don't agree with most of what naacp advocates -- but a government interested in defending the principles of the constitution would never stoop to this. is it the naacp's fault that bush chooses to be completely hostile to its platform? what are they supposed to do, kowtow to him as he torches their agenda?

of course, i'd be the last to suggest that american government even remembers what the constitution is.

gaius marius|2.11.05 @ 2:58PM|#

the assumption that would have to be valid to seriously challenge the naacp's funding, as i understand it, would be that they choose their platform and measure their actions to oppose a political party -- rather than to promote a cause in which they believe.

the naacp, whatever else may be said, CLEARLY falls into the latter catagory. if the republican party came out tomorrow with a bill to provide tax relief to minority-owned businesses or to pay reparations to descendents of slaves, would the NAACP oppose them? no -- because advocating these things furthers their agenda.

this realization puts the speciousness to this travesty of spite. for daring to insult the holy emperor, the barking dogs in the amorally populist lower house are whipped into a frenzy against the naacp.

|2.11.05 @ 3:34PM|#

kwais

The ACLU is not tax-exempt, for the very reasons you cite. Likewise the NRA.

I'm sure the AARP is likewise, non-exempt.

|2.11.05 @ 4:21PM|#

More correctly donations are not tax-exempt.

I think that as non-profits they pay no taxes. As far as I know lobbying groups can be non-profits.

|2.11.05 @ 6:30PM|#

The ACLU is a nonprofit organization that's split into two entities--the ACLU lobbies and is funded through membership contributions, the ACLU Foundation litigates and educates and contributions to the ACLU Foundation are tax-deductible. Many nonprofits that also lobby are split into two corporate entities this way.

|2.12.05 @ 4:23PM|#

None of them, or all of them should be tax exempt. Otherwise you can use the power of tax exemption as a lever to have people lobby you and help you get re-elected