1 – Is 501(c)(4) Status Being Abused?
2 – Revocation 201036031 — Private Benefit and Inurement Discussion
__________________________
1 – Is 501(c)(4) Status Being Abused?
The New York Times had an interesting article yesterday, “Interest-Group Spending Drives G.O.P. Lead in Ads,” about “an array of Republican-oriented organizations that are set up so that they can accept donations of unlimited size from individuals and corporations without having to disclose them.”
The article notes that one of the groups, Crossroads GPS, “is organized as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, meaning it legally cannot devote more than half of its activities to politics, but it also means that it does not have to disclose its donors.” Also mentioned is Americans for Prosperity, “another 501(c)(4), which does not have to disclose its donors. Mr. Koch, who has mostly supported Republicans over the years, serves as the chairman of its sister-organization, Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which is much more limited in its political activities because it is set up as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.”
As I noted yesterday, the less Lois Lerner and her folks do, the more they embolden those who would flout the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Section 501(c)(4) organizations may engage in political activity, but not as their primary activity. I suspect many of the (c)(4)s being formed have few activities that are not political. Query for Lois, Rob, and Cindy: What’s being done in Cincinnati to make sure new (c)(4)s will be truly engaged in social welfare activities? Query for Lois, Rob, and Nan: Is anyone looking at existing (c)(4)s — those in the news — to make sure that they are truly engaged in social welfare activities?
I also suspect that many of these political (c)(4)s are operating in tandem with (c)(3)s so that donors can claim 170 deductions. Query for all of the above: Who is looking at these (c)(4)/(c)(3) combinations?
___________________________
2 – Revocation 201036031
In PLR 201036031, the IRS revoked an organization based in part on findings of private benefit and inurement. The facts are very detailed, but what I found of interest is the law and rationale portion of PLR 201036031. The IRS practically wrote a CPE article on what they consider the law of private benefit and inurement, with special emphasis on the much-maligned American Campaign Academy case. I’m setting out the IRS discussion in PLR 201036031 in case anyone is currently dealing with these issues — sort of a roadmap of the IRS’ views, and about all we now know about the IRS’ current thinking in this area.