It appears the first group denied its 501(c)(4) tax exempt status was Democratic

[NNN0LHI]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-13/news/sns-rt-usa-taxfundraisingl2e8icenx-20120713_1_tax-exempt-status-tax-exempt-organizations-ofer-lion

<snip>A 501(c)(4) group denied tax-exempt status by the IRS would
run afoul of Federal Election Commission rules and could be
required to disclose its donors.

Emerge America, a group which helps Democratic women seeking
elected office, said it lost it tax-exempt status last October.
The IRS invoked the "private benefit doctrine" barring 501(c)(4)
status for any group promoting a candidate or political party.
The IRS announced its final decision in May.

In June the IRS said it denied 501(c)(4) tax-exemption for
an unnamed political group also under the private benefit
doctrine. The IRS is barred by law from disclosing the group's
name and the group has not publicly identified itself.

The group had one objective: to serve the political goals of
its founder, the IRS said. A 501(c)(4) group can spend some
funds on political advocacy, but electioneering cannot be its
sole reason for existence or comprise a majority of its
spending.

[uppityperson]

1. Gee, how about that. But I thought only "conservative" groups were targeted.

Thanks for the info and link.

[Rex]

2. CNN BREAKING: Benghazi is now in Bangladesh!

Repukes are walking on vapors again, I don't know how they do it.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. !!!

[Bjorn Against]

3. No surprise, I knew the Tea Party was not singled out

The IRS was not targeting the Tea Party exclusively, they were targeting political groups that claimed tax exempt status which makes sense because political groups are not supposed to be tax exempt.

[No Vested Interest]

4. I'm coming to the conclusion that the woman from the IRS

who gave that "apology", who also happens to be a Republican, made that statement to stir up a little ****.
Trouble is, even when more info, balanced, comes out, the Fox news types will only have heard the initial report and will keep up the shrill noise.

[ErikJ]

6. What about the tax-exemption of Churches which have become RW breeding grounds?

[timdog44]

8. And they

should also be taxed. All of them. If you can use your "gift" as a tax deduction, it is not a gift.

[SunSeeker]

9. Good question. Why are churches even tax exempt to begin with?

Why are we violating the 1st Am establishment clause by supporting churches with tax exemptions?

[timdog44]

7. There should not be any

tax exempt groups. There should be a limit of just a couple thousand dollars per person. There should be no groups who give any monies to anything resembling a political group. Period. This is how this country is in the shape it is in. Citizen's fucking United. Non partisan Supreme Court of the United States of America, not making legislation from the bench. Supreme Joke of the United States of America.

[Cha]

10. Kickin

[alarimer]

11. Does anyone really think this Tea Party are really about "social welfare"?

Which is what this 501(c)(4) is supposed to be for. No, they use it so they can launder corporate money without having to reveal their donors. And it's so hard to catch them at it. They're taking advantage of Citizen's United. Congress can basically pass no laws reining this in.

[JLarocque]

12. I think we should just create a category called 501C28: Political Advocacy Nonprofit

There is confusion because political advocacy groups may want to register there is no good choice for them to get a government ID number. They are not going away. Currently, we try to determine how much activity is and isn't political and limit the amount performed. We need to create a special class for them and then tax their political activity and not tax their organizational expenses and non-political activity expenses are not taxed. We can then audit their expenses for appropriate classifications. Then these groups could get a tax id and use it when contracting for goods and services. The rules must prevent setting up such a group to only operate for a few months and then disappear. The rules should also require the disclosure of donors. There is a chance that huge payments could be made to individuals not running for office so we should protect for that and make sure it is declared as in requiring the group to issue 1099s.

[hrmjustin]

13. Welcome to DU my friend!