Showing posts with label Federal Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal Government. Show all posts
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Thursday, August 25, 2011
IRS Plays Dirty Pool With Small Charitable Organizations
The Internal Revenue Service has been revoking the tax-exempt status of thousands of small charitable organizations for failing to file form 990-N. The latter is filed online at the IRS website. However, if you didn't know you were supposed to file it, you're just out of luck. After three years of non-filing, the IRS automatically revokes your tax-exempt status. You can't simply file the delinquent forms to comply with IRS rules; once revoked, you can only regain your tax exempt status through an onerous application for exemption with the IRS.
The organizations most likely to come under these rules are not the actual charitable organizations themselves, but local chapters of the charitable organizations. Local chapters may believe they are merely a department of the main organization and thus covered by the main organization's tax filings. However, the IRS doesn't see it that way. Local chapters, no matter how small, are viewed as separate charitable organizations with their own filing requirements.
The IRS did not send out instructions to small charitable organizations on how and when to file Form 990-N, nor did they warn these organizations that their tax-exempt status would be revoked for failure to file. The 990-N has only eight questions and requires no financial information, except for an affirmation that the organization has less than $50,000 in revenues (including dues and donations).
The IRS did, however, send out notices of revocation of tax-exempt status. Had they sent out notices of warning beforehand, such revocations would not have been necessary. The IRS actions, in my opinion, smack of bad faith and appear to be a ploy to raise revenues.
Local chapters who lose tax-exempt status can only get it back by filing Form 1023 or 1024, onerous forms of 25 pages each of questions and information, some of which will not be readily available. Filing these forms requires a fee of $100, payable to the IRS. If you have a CPA or lawyer complete the forms for you, you can easily pay $1,000 or more for their help.
The consequences of losing your tax-exempt status is that your organization may have to file federal and state corporate tax returns. Donations to the organization may now be taxable income, and not deductible by the donor. Further, such organizations may now have to begin paying bank fees for their checking and savings accounts, as many banks only waive fees for exempt organizations.
The organizations most likely to come under these rules are not the actual charitable organizations themselves, but local chapters of the charitable organizations. Local chapters may believe they are merely a department of the main organization and thus covered by the main organization's tax filings. However, the IRS doesn't see it that way. Local chapters, no matter how small, are viewed as separate charitable organizations with their own filing requirements.
The IRS did not send out instructions to small charitable organizations on how and when to file Form 990-N, nor did they warn these organizations that their tax-exempt status would be revoked for failure to file. The 990-N has only eight questions and requires no financial information, except for an affirmation that the organization has less than $50,000 in revenues (including dues and donations).
The IRS did, however, send out notices of revocation of tax-exempt status. Had they sent out notices of warning beforehand, such revocations would not have been necessary. The IRS actions, in my opinion, smack of bad faith and appear to be a ploy to raise revenues.
Local chapters who lose tax-exempt status can only get it back by filing Form 1023 or 1024, onerous forms of 25 pages each of questions and information, some of which will not be readily available. Filing these forms requires a fee of $100, payable to the IRS. If you have a CPA or lawyer complete the forms for you, you can easily pay $1,000 or more for their help.
The consequences of losing your tax-exempt status is that your organization may have to file federal and state corporate tax returns. Donations to the organization may now be taxable income, and not deductible by the donor. Further, such organizations may now have to begin paying bank fees for their checking and savings accounts, as many banks only waive fees for exempt organizations.
Monday, August 02, 2010
Arizona Sheriff: "Our Government Has Become Our Enemy"
A sheriff from Pinal County Arizona says the Federal Government has become "our enemy."
He's got that right. And Arizona law enforcement are not the only ones under attack. We all are.
Read it all here.
He's got that right. And Arizona law enforcement are not the only ones under attack. We all are.
Read it all here.
Monday, July 20, 2009
The Jim Robinson Doctrine: Questions and Answers
Pastorius of Infidel Bloggers Alliance and the Astute Bloggers (see blog roll) has asked some good questions about Robinson's essay on taking power away from the federal government. He writes:
Stog,
I'm not exactly an expert on the whole states rights argument. Why would this guy want to repeal the 17th amendment? That doesn't make sense to me. He seems to be calling for less democracy if Senators are not elected by popular vote.
And, how is the NSA going to protect ports, bridges, roadways, etc., if the Federal government is supposed to cede all it's property to the states?
Are the states going to take over the ownership of Federal buildings and lands, and then lease them to the Federal government? Is that the idea?
Another problem I have with the FR post is that it is vague in that it does not explain the specifics of how the Federal government has usurped or overextended it's powers.
This is a lot of hot air if no one is willing to be specific.
As you probably know, I believe Obama is governing in a way which is outside the American Tradition. However, I believe he has generally been smart about not comitting impeachable offenses. I do believe that his firing of Inspectors General are probably impeachable offenses. His handling of Chrysler and GM is outside the American Tradition, but unless it can be proven in a court of law that dealerships were shut down for political reasons, that is going to go nowhere.
I am merely saying we have to have specifics around which people will rally. Otherwise, this is just b.s.
Check out this post:
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2009/07/first-in-relentless-series-of-national.html
Pas, originally U.S. Senators were selected by the legislatures of the individual states; they were appointed. Congressmen, however, were to be popularly elected. It was believed, with a great deal of common sense, that the Senate was to be a deliberative body unconcerned with political partisanship and petty politics. Since Senators were appointed, there was no need for this. Today we have really nasty politics, the politics of personal destruction and the stupid McCain-Feingold Act, which would be unnecessary if the 17th amendment were repealed. See arguments for repeal at this link: http://www.conservativefront.com/2009/05/13/rethinking-the-17th-amendment/
For your second question, ownership of land and property by the federal government now greatly exceeds its constitutional authority. Currently the federal government "owns" about one-third of all land in the United States; 98% of all land in Alaska, 86% of Nevada land and 65% of all Colorado land. How can the federal government "own" most of a state? That destroys the sovereignty of that state and trashes the "Equal Footing Doctrine" that the original founders wished to preserve, i.e. that all states in the Union are equal in sovereignty vis a vis the federal government.
Despite the intentions of the founders and the clear intent of the Equal Footing Doctrine, the states east of the 100th meridian are vastly "more equal" than the states to the west.
The Constitution is clear about what land the federal government is allowed to possess and the means for acquiring it: see Article 1, Section 8, which describes it thus:
"all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." That's all! The federal government has no legal right to own 98% of Alaska or any other state.
As far as the Dept of Homeland Security or the armed forces protecting the land of the United States, they are obligated to do so by the same Article I, Section 8, and there is no requirement or necessity for them to own the land that they defend; they are an arm of the states and carrying out duties specifically delegated to them by the Constitution, i.e. to raise armed forces for the common defense of the states.
So Jim Robinson is right about taking back the illegally seized lands from the feds and restoring the full sovereign rights of the states. The lands and natural resources of the individual states belong to the people of the states, not to the federal government. The federal government is currently greatly exceeding its Constitutional powers in this regard.
Also see this article:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43824
See Article I, Section 8 here:
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
Stog,
I'm not exactly an expert on the whole states rights argument. Why would this guy want to repeal the 17th amendment? That doesn't make sense to me. He seems to be calling for less democracy if Senators are not elected by popular vote.
And, how is the NSA going to protect ports, bridges, roadways, etc., if the Federal government is supposed to cede all it's property to the states?
Are the states going to take over the ownership of Federal buildings and lands, and then lease them to the Federal government? Is that the idea?
Another problem I have with the FR post is that it is vague in that it does not explain the specifics of how the Federal government has usurped or overextended it's powers.
This is a lot of hot air if no one is willing to be specific.
As you probably know, I believe Obama is governing in a way which is outside the American Tradition. However, I believe he has generally been smart about not comitting impeachable offenses. I do believe that his firing of Inspectors General are probably impeachable offenses. His handling of Chrysler and GM is outside the American Tradition, but unless it can be proven in a court of law that dealerships were shut down for political reasons, that is going to go nowhere.
I am merely saying we have to have specifics around which people will rally. Otherwise, this is just b.s.
Check out this post:
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2009/07/first-in-relentless-series-of-national.html
Pas, originally U.S. Senators were selected by the legislatures of the individual states; they were appointed. Congressmen, however, were to be popularly elected. It was believed, with a great deal of common sense, that the Senate was to be a deliberative body unconcerned with political partisanship and petty politics. Since Senators were appointed, there was no need for this. Today we have really nasty politics, the politics of personal destruction and the stupid McCain-Feingold Act, which would be unnecessary if the 17th amendment were repealed. See arguments for repeal at this link: http://www.conservativefront.com/2009/05/13/rethinking-the-17th-amendment/
For your second question, ownership of land and property by the federal government now greatly exceeds its constitutional authority. Currently the federal government "owns" about one-third of all land in the United States; 98% of all land in Alaska, 86% of Nevada land and 65% of all Colorado land. How can the federal government "own" most of a state? That destroys the sovereignty of that state and trashes the "Equal Footing Doctrine" that the original founders wished to preserve, i.e. that all states in the Union are equal in sovereignty vis a vis the federal government.
Despite the intentions of the founders and the clear intent of the Equal Footing Doctrine, the states east of the 100th meridian are vastly "more equal" than the states to the west.
The Constitution is clear about what land the federal government is allowed to possess and the means for acquiring it: see Article 1, Section 8, which describes it thus:
"all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." That's all! The federal government has no legal right to own 98% of Alaska or any other state.
As far as the Dept of Homeland Security or the armed forces protecting the land of the United States, they are obligated to do so by the same Article I, Section 8, and there is no requirement or necessity for them to own the land that they defend; they are an arm of the states and carrying out duties specifically delegated to them by the Constitution, i.e. to raise armed forces for the common defense of the states.
So Jim Robinson is right about taking back the illegally seized lands from the feds and restoring the full sovereign rights of the states. The lands and natural resources of the individual states belong to the people of the states, not to the federal government. The federal government is currently greatly exceeding its Constitutional powers in this regard.
Also see this article:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43824
See Article I, Section 8 here:
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
