The IRS probe of the NAACP

The Washington Times ^ | February 3, 2005 | Masthead Editorial

[neverdem]

---

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

---

The IRS probe of the NAACP

Published February 3, 2005

---

The NAACP has sent a letter to the IRS telling the federal agency that it was refusing to cooperate with the investigation of its tax-exempt status. The privileged tax status of the nation's oldest civil rights organization may be in jeopardy if the NAACP engaged in prohibited partisan political activity during last year's presidential election. At issue are the remarks made by NAACP Chairman Julian Bond on July 11, 2004, at the NAACP's annual convention.

    NAACP Interim President and CEO Dennis Hayes has charged that the IRS investigation, which was officially launched on Oct. 8, apparently in response to complaints filed by two congressmen, was "clearly motivated by partisan politics." An NAACP statement declared that the organization "has rejected the IRS's premise that Bond's speech constituted prohibited campaign intervention."

    The NAACP reports that the IRS, in its communications with the civil rights group, "claims that Bond, speaking at last year's convention, 'condemned' President Bush's war, economic and educational policies." Referring to the IRS' reported rationale for launching its investigation, Mr. Bond asserted, "Under that standard, 55 million Americans would be subject to audits."

    Apart from the fact that more than 60 million Americans -- not 55 million -- actually voted for presidential candidates other than George W. Bush, Mr. Bond also errs in failing to consider the relevant fact that none of those divided voters, unlike the NAACP on whose behalf Mr. Bond was speaking, enjoys tax-exempt status.

    In a letter to Rep. Charles Rangel, who is the ranking member of the House Ways...

[Howlin]

Oh, yes, it is; I was looking for more and got distracted with daily life!

He made even worse ones in 2003.

[Octar]

Perfect timing. Probe away. Oh, and remove their tax exempt status. Their recent policital activities show that they are no longer eligible for the tax exemption extended to genuine apolitical organizations.

[spintreebob]

The defense will come down to "everybody does it". While technically not true; it is true that there are many not-for-profit organizations that step over the line. Most political 501C3's are leftist... but not all of them.

A bigger question for the tax reform people is whether the constitution allows congress (or the IRS) to make laws regarding the freedom of speech of not-for-profits.

I can remember sitting in 501C3 meetings where a motion was made and seconded to endorse a candidate, "not officialy as the organization but unanimously as individuals who are officers and members of the organization with the full impact as if it were an official endorsement." The lawyers said that was OK.

[nothingnew]

Actually, there was a recent federal court ruling that the IRS has no authority to compel cooperation absent a court order.

Can you point me to it? Thanks.

FMCDH(BITS)

[NCC-1701]

Excellent extrapolation of the situation.

[dsc]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42634

[The Bat Lady]

JACKSON: I'm not totally convinced that's true in the African-American community. Certainly there's a separation of church and state. But in our community there's little distinction between our religion and our politics. ... And so in many African-American churches born out of experience in this country, the role of the churches has evolved into a very, very active political institution which has been very effective for a number of causes in the black community.

Dont' you think the white people would like this RIGHT too? Hummmmm Jesse?