by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, TAXES
The NYT reported that the IRS made yet another law clarification this past week:
“Many employers — some that now offer coverage and some that do not — had concluded that it would be cheaper to provide each employee with a lump sum of money to buy insurance on an exchange, instead of providing coverage directly.
But the Obama administration raised objections, contained in an authoritative question-and-answer document released by the Internal Revenue Service, in consultation with other agencies.
The health law, known as the Affordable Care Act, builds on the current system of employer-based health insurance. The administration, like many in Congress, wants employers to continue to provide coverage to workers and their families”.
However, it seems that the real issue is less about continuing coverage and more about getting as much tax revenue for the government as possible:
Christopher E. Condeluci, a former tax and benefits counsel to the Senate Finance Committee, said the ruling was significant because it made clear that “an employee cannot use tax-free contributions from an employer to purchase an insurance policy sold in the individual health insurance market, inside or outside an exchange.”
If an employer wants to help employees buy insurance on their own, Mr. Condeluci said, it can give them higher pay, in the form of taxable wages. But in such cases, he said, the employer and the employee would owe payroll taxes on those wages, and the change could be viewed by workers as reducing a valuable benefit”.
The ruling comes as the IRS seeks to finish establishing the plans and programs for employer coverage that starts in 2015.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The Pease Amendment came into play for high income taxpayers this year once again, after a bit of a hiatus. The Pease Amendment was passed as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, and named after Congressman Donald Pease, who introduced it. This rule provided that if your adjusted gross income (AGI) passed a particular threshold, then some deductions would be reduced on your taxes — thereby curbing your ability to limit your tax liability.
This rule has the effect of increases tax rates for those individuals by 1.2% — therefore a tax rate that was 39.6% became 40.8%. The way it was done is patently criminal because it uses the tax system to incorporate a complicated formula to hide the fact you are raising tax rates. There is no rational or logical reason for a formula like that to be used unless its intent was to deceive.
Acknowledging the irrationality of the Pease Amendment, Congress slowly scaled it back and then eliminated by 2010 after the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. During 2010 session, Congress passed the 2010 Tax Relief Act which extended the elimination of the Pease Amendment, but only through 2012.
By that time, it was understood that the tax reductions of 2001, including across-the-board rate reductions, the Pease Amendment and Personal Exemption Phaseouts (PEP) would all be gone forever. And yet, Congress declined to extend the Pease Amendment elimination further past 2012 which meant that 2013 saw a return to the previous Pease Amendment rules that existed before 2001.
Also during that time in 2012, Obama insisted as a revenue-raising measure that the rates in the Bush tax cuts be reinstated for the high income earners in 2012. This is a simple, straight-forward tax hike. But in an action that can only be considered mean spirited, and counter to any attempt to simplify the tax laws, Obama personally insisted that both the Pease Amendment and the similarly convoluted Personal Exemption Phaseouts (PEP) be reinstated for high network individuals. Their reintroduction into the tax code by Congress is unconscionable.
The tricky thing about the Pease Amendment is that it actually has very little to do with deductions, because the trigger to implement it is based on earned income thresholds. Eliminating deductions based on income — which then affects the amount of increases tax paid — is underhanded.
Coming on the heels of the actual margin rate increase in 2012 when rates for highest earners reverted to the 39.6% rate of the Clinton years, many taxpayers found themselves with even higher tax bills in 2013 without an actual tax increase due to re implementation of the Pease Amendment. The result of the rule ensured that wealthy taxpayers were squeezed just a little bit more for their “fair share” — now nearly 41% on income tax alone.
The Pease Amendment carefully obfuscates the net effect of raising taxes without having to actually do so. Perhaps the most interesting thing about the amendment is that Pease’s only claim to fame as an eight-term Congressman is that he is responsible for writing a tax rule that tricks people into paying more taxes than they believed they were paying.
by | ARTICLES, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, QUICKLY NOTED
From Katie Pavlich at Townhall.com
“According to new IRS emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request from Judicial Watch, former head of tax exempt groups at the IRS Lois Lerner was in contact with the Department of Justice in May 2013 about whether tax exempt groups could be criminally prosecuted for “lying” about political activity.
JW IRS doc
Read the full story here
by | ARTICLES, ELECTIONS, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The IRS recently proposed major changes to the way not-for-profit 501c4 organizations operate, which would effectively and severely limit their ability to engage in advocacy. These are your social welfare organizations, for which advocacy for “the common good and general welfare” is their primary purpose. They differ from 501c3, which are your charitable organizations; 501c5s, your labor unions; and 501c6s, your trade organizations. The one thing all of these organizations do have in common is that they are all tax-exempt organizations.
501c4s are not tax-deductible precisely because they are not political organizations. They serve to educate by being issue-based. This is protected under free speech; so long as the 501c4 sticks to an issue and not advocate for a particular candidate, it is not considered political speech and therefore it cannot be curbed. They can talk about policies and positions, not people.
These social welfare groups can therefore participate in the political arena as long as they maintain education as their primary purpose. Some examples of 501c4s would be the National Rifle Association (NRA), American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), and the Sierra Club. 501(c)4s have been around for nearly 100 years, and the regulations that currently govern them have been in place since 1959.
So why has the Obama administration and the IRS taken a sudden interest in clarifying the rules for social welfare organizations that have been in place for more than 50 years? And why only the social welfare organizations, not the unions or trade organizations?
It is well known that on issue-based advocacy, the Republicans have made much better use of 501c4s than the Democrats. So of course, the Democrats want to find a way to disrupt this. You can find a flood of recent articles documenting how this conservative group and that conservative group spent money on political ads, more than the liberal groups–as if that is somehow unfair. It’s perfectly fair and perfectly legal — except when the Democrats are on the losing/receiving end.
This situation is reminiscent of the attempt to implement the “Fairness Doctrine” for talk radio, pushing to give conservative and liberal talk radio shows “equal air time” — because the conservatives dominate that market as well.
The 2014 Democrats are vulnerable, and they know it. What better way to stifle the ability for conservatives to message (foremost on the fledgling Obamacare law) than by attacking the methodology? The Obama Administration is retaliating by using the IRS to propose changes to the way social welfare organizations function and introducing very specific and onerous rules. These rules that have not been necessary at all for the entirety of the time (nearly a century) 501c4s have been in existence — until suddenly now.
What the new policy does is make definitions of political activity, specifically creating a huge number of things to now be considered “political”. The regs “would explicitly define which kind of activities are political and fall outside of the social welfare category, forcing such groups to be more careful about how they spend their funds. Under the proposed regulation, “candidate-related political activities” would include running ads that mention candidates close to Election Day, preparing voter guides or holding voter registration drives”.
By defining such activities as “political” instead of advocacy, they would be opened to being limited or even banned — activities which serve to provide education for the common good, as they always have.
Critics of the way 501c4s operate, which allow their donors to remain protected, suggest that the 501c4s are somehow gaming the system — using phrases like “secret donors” and “secret activity” to inflame the public against 501c4s. But this is patently untrue.
Political donors are required to be disclosed under campaign finance, but since 501c4s are specifically not political organizations, the donor names do not need to be made public. Their anonymity is protected under the Right of Free Association. Those who are on the receiving end of 501c4 activities to educate the populace during the election cycle, however, are now pushing for this to change in order to reveal citizens identities.
Therefore turning a simple and known definition of a 501c4 into a new and incomprehensible one, has the effect of stifling speech. Even the mere presence of such a proposal has had detrimental repercussions.
The regulation triggered more public commentary– tens of thousands of responses — during the open comment timeframe that recently ended, than any other regulation in history. Because of the outcry, there is a strong likelihood that it the proposed changes will be rescinded. How it even was allowed to come to fruition is mind-boggling.
It is possible that the persons who drafted the legislation didn’t even care about its clarity or effects. Every day that the proposal is even out there is another day that these 501c4s either a) can’t get started or b) can’t engage in advocacy. Why? The possibility of these regulations becoming permanent rules has 501c4s worried about potential infractions. After the recent revelations about the IRS targeting last year, it is not unlikely to think that the IRS purposely crafted muddled regulations.
From the vantage point of the 2014 midterm elections, the effect of curbing or scaring the activity of 501c4s during this election cycle undoubtedly benefits the Democrats.
What organization would risk the potential for increased scrutiny and possible violation from the IRS, knowing that the IRS has been operating in an unjust and partisan matter? They wouldn’t of course. So the 501c4s are currently holding back.
The IRS continues to act in an incompetent manner. That they are targeting 501c4s, and not c5s and c6s, show that there is an inherent bias internally within the IRS. No one can look at the situation and not think that this wasn’t done to have an affect on the current political cycle. This is not how the IRS is supposed to function in our country.
by | ARTICLES, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, OBAMA, POLITICS
Mat Staver from the Liberty Council put together a good overview of the proposed changes to Social Welfare Organizations (501c4s). Below is a partial list that attempts to define political activity, changing the language that has stood for more than 50 years.
“IRS Regulation-134417-13, “Guidance for Tax-Exempt Social Welfare Organizations on Candidate-Related Political Activities,” is a proposed new regulation that is an outrageously brazen attempt by the IRS to silence the speech of 501(c)(4) organizations before the upcoming election. If implemented, the regulation would prohibit a 501(c)(4) from speaking to matters of public concern during the 2014 election cycle.
In part, the proposed regulation:
–Prohibits using words like “oppose,” “vote,” “support,” “defeat,” and “reject;”
–Prohibits mentioning, on its website or on any communication (email, letter, etc.) that would reach 500 people or more, the name of a candidate for office 30 days prior to a primary election and 60 days prior to a general election;
–Prohibits mentioning the name of a political party 30 days prior to a primary election and 60 days prior to a general election, if that party has a candidate running for office;
–Prohibits voter registration drives or conducting a nonpartisan “get-out-the-vote” drive;
–Prohibits creating or distributing voter guides outlining how incumbents voted on particular bills;
–Prohibits hosting candidates for office at any event, including debates and charitable fundraisers, 30 days prior to a primary election or 60 days prior to a general election, if the candidate is part of the event’s program;
–Prohibits distributing any materials prepared on behalf of a candidate for office;
–Restricts employees of such organizations from volunteering;
–Restricts the ability of officers and leaders of such organizations to make public statements regarding the nomination of judges;
–Creates a 90-day blackout period, in an election year, that restricts the speech of §501(c)(4) organizations;
–Declares political activity as contrary to the promotion of social welfare; and
–Protects labor unions and trade associations by not including them under the proposed regulations.
The proposed IRS regulation even restricts the ability of leaders within these organizations to speak publicly regarding legislative matters of public concern and to volunteer”
Tens of thousands of comments have been recorded during the IRS open comment session, which has now closed. While the 501c4s wait to hear the outcome, many have chosen not to be active right now, which is having an impact on the current 2014 election cycle..
