Breaking: IRS to go HARD after American Crossroads/Priorities USA

[Donnachaidh]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/10/974931/-Breaking:-IRS-to-go-HARD-after-American-Crossroads-Priorities-USA



According to Ben Smith at Politico, the IRS is about to do something HUGE with regards to anonymous funding. This may end up killing (or at least drying up a good chunk of their funding) before they get off the ground in 2012.

IRS Gift Tax Move Could Hit New Anonymous Groups


Here's the situation. Normally, contributions to 501c4s, c5s and c6s are generally not taxable gifts much like any political donation. Things may be about to change with the IRS increasingly focusing in on this type of donation. This may dry up the funding on all sides both Dems and Republicans.

:snip:

This essentially means that donations to these types of organizations could hit as high as 35% in terms of taxable income. It would have to be reported to the IRS. This would make those rich individuals (who dislike taxes) think twice before contributing to these groups as their funding would be taxed. The IRS is going to focus in particular on HIGH INCOME FOLKS (Think Koch Brothers, Soros, etc.)

MORE at the link --

[xchrom]

1. I'll believe it when I see it. But right now it sounds great. Nt

[Wounded Bear]

2. Agreed....

Let's hope they get something done before the next election cycle.

[spooky3]

3. I don't understand this line:

"Normally, contributions to 501c4s, c5s and c6s are generally not taxable gifts much like any political donation."

The writer was asleep here - the grammar and punctuation (or lack of them) of this sentence make it incomprehensible.

Political donations ARE taxable, i.e., not deductible, on the part of the person making the contribution. Contributions to 501c3s exemplify deductible contributions. So are contributions to 501c4s etc. deductible to the donor, or not? Or is the reporter describing the recipient's tax situation? If so, what makes these contributions "much like any political donation"?

In reading more of the post at the link, I see the rest of the article is talking about gift tax as opposed to income tax. But the sentence still makes no sense to me.

In any case, if it's going to mean the IRS is starting to clamp down on Rove and friends, that's all that matters.

[KharmaTrain]

4. Politicians Aren't Always Happy With These "SuperPacs"

I'm a bit dubious about this story, but I'd love to be proven wrong. Seems like a move that is sure to stir up a right wing shitstorm (led by Faux...of course) that this Administration is politicizing the IRS. It's not in character of this administration to go so "in your face" on something the wingnuts could use to rally around.

That said, I sense a growing angst by some rushpublicans to the control and agenda that comes with the big Rove/Koch money. I'm betting there are some teabaggers who are now catching shit for their votes to kill medicare and Planned Parenthood that they didn't expect and now are torn cause they need the Rove/Koch money to keep their jobs but they do so at the risk of pissing off voters. Also the money fundraising has to be a major strain.

The outrageous spending and the cottage industry that feeds off big campaign money should be investigated by the IRS. There are people making nice coin off of being fundraisers and pollsters and "consultants"...and its all supposedly considered "non-profit". While no limits can be placed on what a person contributes (or a corporation), it doesn't mean that the money shouldn't be taxed as our political system has become "industrialiszed".

One last thought is this move could scare away a lot of possible donors who will lose their annonymity...and then have to pay a tax on top of it. I like the idea, but again, I'm dubious as to the authenticity of this.