Jay Sekulow is a well-known lawyer in the United States. He was an editorial member in Mercer Law Review. After completing his graduation from Mercer University, he did his Ph.D from Regent University. He is reckoned amongst the finest Attorneys in the United States.
Thursday, 19 March 2015
Tuesday, 3 February 2015
Jay Sekulow is a big contributor in the field of Law
Jay Sekulow has contributed immensely in the field of law. Apart from the field of law, he has contributed in the field of politics as well. He supported the candidature of Chief Justice John G. Roberts for the highest post of the Supreme Court. He has an immense interest in Politics.
Thursday, 15 January 2015
Chief Counsel of a prestigious law firm in Washington - Jay Sekulow
Renowned attorney Jay Sekulow serves as the Chief Counsel of American Center for Law and Justice. ACLJ is one of the most prestigious law firms in America. As lead counsel for this law firm, he has submitted many amicus briefs in support of the conservative matters.
Friday, 16 August 2013
IRS scandal hits 3 month mark -- where's the accountability, Mr. Obama?
Saturday, August 10 marks the third month of the IRS scandal.
On May10, when Lois Lerner, the former Director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division, answered a question at a legal conference – a question she arranged to have asked in advance -- she clearly had no idea what would happen next.
When she admitted that the IRS had targeted conservative groups, simply because of their political beliefs, she touched off a national firestorm. Her inept attempt to apologize for the Agency’s blunder, and put it to rest, backfired.
In the past three months, we have learned that the Obama administration repeatedly tried to downplay this unlawful targeting scheme which is an unprecedented breach of the public’s trust by the IRS.
We also know that the scandal continues to expand. And we know that the Obama administration is doing very little to get to the bottom of what happened, despite the president's promise to the American people that the administration would “hold the responsible parties accountable.”
Today, after all this time, it’s clear that the Obama administration isn't really interested in the facts about how this could happen at the IRS or about holding anyone accountable.
In fact, President Obama has moved on, calling the IRS targeting scheme a “phony” scandal and acting as if corrective action has been taken and problem solved.
Not so fast.
From the beginning, the facts did not square with the excuses offered up to the American public by the Obama administration.
It did not take long to punch holes in the IRS’ story that the scheme to target conservatives began in a small office run by just a couple of rogue agents.
In our lawsuit against the IRS, on behalf of 41 conservative organizations in 22 states, the evidence is very clear: documents have revealed that IRS offices coast-to-coast were involved in the scheme, including Lois Lerner herself! In fact, she sent more than a dozen letters to conservative organizations asking them intrusive and inappropriate questions.
The White House has also claimed that the unconstitutional targeting of conservative organizations ended in May 2012. Again, our documents clearly show that the IRS abuse continued through May of 2013 with the most recent letter dated May 6, 2013 – just four days before Lerner's admission.
And we now know, thanks to the testimony of former IRS attorneys, that the office of the IRS Chief Counsel (a political presidential appointee) was involved in the scheme, too. This testimony raises important questions about President Obama’s knowledge or involvement in the scheme.
Now, there’s new information to suggest that the IRS may have been providing taxpayer information to the Federal Election Commission, something that violates federal law and the IRS's own regulations.
An FEC commissioner says he has seen previously undisclosed emails between the IRS and FEC about the targeting scheme. And lawmakers are now demanding the FEC turn over records of more than five years of communications with the IRS.
All of this information comes as the Obama administration continues to stonewall Congress about the scandal -- providing just a fraction of the information requested.
Noting the three month mark since the scandal began, Reps. Darrell Issa (Calif.) and Dave Camp (Mich.), chairmen of the House committees on Oversight and Ways and Means have voiced their concern, saying in a statement, “The American people demand and deserve accountability from their government, not to live in fear of being subject to an audit or other extra scrutiny for reasons unrelated to the content of their filing. So far, the IRS and this administration have provided no assurances that oversight and accountability is in place to prevent such abuses from happening again.”
The president did order the new Acting IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel to conduct a 30-day review of the IRS scandal. Yes, you read that right, just a 30-day review to investigate a scheme that had been underway for years. It’s no surprise that Werfel claims the 30-day review turned up no “evidence of intentional wrongdoing by anyone in the IRS.”
It’s been 3 months since the American public learned about this outrageous behavior by the IRS. No one has been fired. Lerner and a handful of others are on leave and still being paid.
And what has happened to the investigations underway by the FBI and Department of Justice? Three months later, not one of our clients has been contacted by investigators at the FBI or Justice Department.
It’s difficult to imagine how anyone could claim that a thorough investigation -- or any investigation for that matter – has been conducted without even bothering to interview the taxpayers who were targeted.
So, the IRS scandal continues. It’s been three months and counting. The last three months have produced many more questions and very few answers.
Where’s the accountability, Mr. President?
Jay Sekulow is Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ). Follow him on Twitter@JaySekulow.
SOURCE http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/08/08/irs-scandal-hits-3-month-mark-where-accountability-mr-obama/
On May10, when Lois Lerner, the former Director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division, answered a question at a legal conference – a question she arranged to have asked in advance -- she clearly had no idea what would happen next.
When she admitted that the IRS had targeted conservative groups, simply because of their political beliefs, she touched off a national firestorm. Her inept attempt to apologize for the Agency’s blunder, and put it to rest, backfired.
In the past three months, we have learned that the Obama administration repeatedly tried to downplay this unlawful targeting scheme which is an unprecedented breach of the public’s trust by the IRS.
We also know that the scandal continues to expand. And we know that the Obama administration is doing very little to get to the bottom of what happened, despite the president's promise to the American people that the administration would “hold the responsible parties accountable.”
Today, after all this time, it’s clear that the Obama administration isn't really interested in the facts about how this could happen at the IRS or about holding anyone accountable.
In fact, President Obama has moved on, calling the IRS targeting scheme a “phony” scandal and acting as if corrective action has been taken and problem solved.
Not so fast.
From the beginning, the facts did not square with the excuses offered up to the American public by the Obama administration.
It did not take long to punch holes in the IRS’ story that the scheme to target conservatives began in a small office run by just a couple of rogue agents.
In our lawsuit against the IRS, on behalf of 41 conservative organizations in 22 states, the evidence is very clear: documents have revealed that IRS offices coast-to-coast were involved in the scheme, including Lois Lerner herself! In fact, she sent more than a dozen letters to conservative organizations asking them intrusive and inappropriate questions.
The White House has also claimed that the unconstitutional targeting of conservative organizations ended in May 2012. Again, our documents clearly show that the IRS abuse continued through May of 2013 with the most recent letter dated May 6, 2013 – just four days before Lerner's admission.
And we now know, thanks to the testimony of former IRS attorneys, that the office of the IRS Chief Counsel (a political presidential appointee) was involved in the scheme, too. This testimony raises important questions about President Obama’s knowledge or involvement in the scheme.
Now, there’s new information to suggest that the IRS may have been providing taxpayer information to the Federal Election Commission, something that violates federal law and the IRS's own regulations.
An FEC commissioner says he has seen previously undisclosed emails between the IRS and FEC about the targeting scheme. And lawmakers are now demanding the FEC turn over records of more than five years of communications with the IRS.
All of this information comes as the Obama administration continues to stonewall Congress about the scandal -- providing just a fraction of the information requested.
Noting the three month mark since the scandal began, Reps. Darrell Issa (Calif.) and Dave Camp (Mich.), chairmen of the House committees on Oversight and Ways and Means have voiced their concern, saying in a statement, “The American people demand and deserve accountability from their government, not to live in fear of being subject to an audit or other extra scrutiny for reasons unrelated to the content of their filing. So far, the IRS and this administration have provided no assurances that oversight and accountability is in place to prevent such abuses from happening again.”
The president did order the new Acting IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel to conduct a 30-day review of the IRS scandal. Yes, you read that right, just a 30-day review to investigate a scheme that had been underway for years. It’s no surprise that Werfel claims the 30-day review turned up no “evidence of intentional wrongdoing by anyone in the IRS.”
It’s been 3 months since the American public learned about this outrageous behavior by the IRS. No one has been fired. Lerner and a handful of others are on leave and still being paid.
And what has happened to the investigations underway by the FBI and Department of Justice? Three months later, not one of our clients has been contacted by investigators at the FBI or Justice Department.
It’s difficult to imagine how anyone could claim that a thorough investigation -- or any investigation for that matter – has been conducted without even bothering to interview the taxpayers who were targeted.
So, the IRS scandal continues. It’s been three months and counting. The last three months have produced many more questions and very few answers.
Where’s the accountability, Mr. President?
Jay Sekulow is Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ). Follow him on Twitter@JaySekulow.
SOURCE http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/08/08/irs-scandal-hits-3-month-mark-where-accountability-mr-obama/
Friday, 26 July 2013
Delivery of American Fighters to Egypt – Delayed!
It pays to speak up. Last December, we at the ACLJ came across a little-read report indicating that the Obama Administration was intending to send advanced American fighter jets (F-16s) to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood government.
“Business as usual,” we were told.
“Just fulfilling treaty obligations,” they said.
But it wasn’t “business as usual.” An allied Egyptian government had been replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood, our jihadist enemy. Yes, we were literally giving advanced American weapons to an enemy of the United States and Israel.
We launched a petition to stop the delivery, and the response was overwhelming. More than 285,000 Americans signed, and the petition became national news.
Senator Rand Paul introduced legislation to block the delivery – legislation that garnered the support of 18 other senators. Sadly, it was defeated, but the issue was now front and center in the national debate.
Thankfully, the people of Egypt overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood, but we still don’t know what kind of government will emerge from the chaos. Will it be an ally? Will it be an enemy? Facing this uncertainty, our Chief Counsel, Jay Sekulow issued a clear call: Hold any weapons deliveries. American aid is only for American allies.
Today, the Obama Administration delayed the next scheduled delivery of F-16s to Egypt. While we don’t yet know the length of the delay, it is clear that the delay is due to the very factors we’ve articulated from the beginning: American aid should not be given to lawless governments.
The lesson? If you speak loudly enough, sometimes even the Obama Administration can hear.
SOURCE http://aclj.org/sharia-law/delivery-american-fighters-egypt-delayed
Friday, 19 July 2013
ACLJ Calls Testimony Linking IRS Targeting to IRS Chief Counsel "Extremely Disturbing"
The ACLJ, which represents 41 conservative groups unlawfully targeted by the Internal Revenue Service, said new testimony released by members of Congress today revealing that the IRS Chief Counsel, a political appointee of President Obama, was involved in reviewing applications from Tea Party groups in advance of the 2010 election is “extremely disturbing” and raises critical questions about the involvement of the White House.
In advance of hearings tomorrow, Rep. Darrell Issa – chairman of the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform – released a letter detailing testimony from Carter Hull, a now-retired Washington tax specialist who was responsible for providing guidance on reviewing tax-exempt applications for Tea Party groups. Hull told Congressional investigators that Lois Lerner, Director of Exempt Organizations who is now on paid leave, directed that the Tea Party applications be sent directly to the office of IRS Chief Counsel William Wilkins for specific review and examination prior to the 2010 election.
“This is one of the most extremely disturbing revelations yet,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “It is now clear that the IRS Chief Counsel, appointed by President Obama in 2009, was involved in examining and reviewing applications from Tea Party groups – many that were basically shut out of the 2010 election process because of delays in handling of their applications. This development raises significant questions about what the White House knew and when. In a politically charged run-up to the 2010 election, why was one of President Obama’s most trusted and partisan appointees involved in examining the applications for Tea Party groups? We look forward to tomorrow’s testimony and further information about the origins of this unlawful and unconstitutional scheme that violated the First Amendment rights of our clients.”
Today’s revelation comes as the ACLJ rejected an IRS offer to expedite the application process for some organizations seeking 501(c)(4) status by creating an arbitrary 60/40 standard for groups which would require organizations to agree to devote 60% or more of their time and expenditures on activities to promote social welfare, and 40% or less on political activity.
In rejecting the offer, the ACLJ contends that the 60/40 ratio created by the IRS is not a legal standard defined by applicable statutes or regulations. The ACLJ asserts the ratio is created out of thin air and argues that “these percentages are merely safe harbor provisions the IRS has crafted in response to the problems that have been created by its own admitted misconduct.”
SOURCE http://aclj.org/free-speech-2/aclj-calls-testimony-linking-irs-targeting-irs-chief-counsel-extremely-disturbing
In advance of hearings tomorrow, Rep. Darrell Issa – chairman of the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform – released a letter detailing testimony from Carter Hull, a now-retired Washington tax specialist who was responsible for providing guidance on reviewing tax-exempt applications for Tea Party groups. Hull told Congressional investigators that Lois Lerner, Director of Exempt Organizations who is now on paid leave, directed that the Tea Party applications be sent directly to the office of IRS Chief Counsel William Wilkins for specific review and examination prior to the 2010 election.
“This is one of the most extremely disturbing revelations yet,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “It is now clear that the IRS Chief Counsel, appointed by President Obama in 2009, was involved in examining and reviewing applications from Tea Party groups – many that were basically shut out of the 2010 election process because of delays in handling of their applications. This development raises significant questions about what the White House knew and when. In a politically charged run-up to the 2010 election, why was one of President Obama’s most trusted and partisan appointees involved in examining the applications for Tea Party groups? We look forward to tomorrow’s testimony and further information about the origins of this unlawful and unconstitutional scheme that violated the First Amendment rights of our clients.”
Today’s revelation comes as the ACLJ rejected an IRS offer to expedite the application process for some organizations seeking 501(c)(4) status by creating an arbitrary 60/40 standard for groups which would require organizations to agree to devote 60% or more of their time and expenditures on activities to promote social welfare, and 40% or less on political activity.
In rejecting the offer, the ACLJ contends that the 60/40 ratio created by the IRS is not a legal standard defined by applicable statutes or regulations. The ACLJ asserts the ratio is created out of thin air and argues that “these percentages are merely safe harbor provisions the IRS has crafted in response to the problems that have been created by its own admitted misconduct.”
SOURCE http://aclj.org/free-speech-2/aclj-calls-testimony-linking-irs-targeting-irs-chief-counsel-extremely-disturbing
Wednesday, 10 July 2013
Critics question IRS' new 'fast-track' path to tax-exempt status
WASHINGTON — One solution the IRS has offered to the recent scandal over its handling of tax-exempt applications: a “fast-track” process, through which certain groups can simply declare themselves social welfare organizations and promise not to spend too much money on political activity.
But some lawmakers, campaign finance watchdogs, and nonprofit experts say this new “self-certification” option is a makeshift solution that lets the IRS off the hook from making tough calls about pending applications.
Under current rules, certain tax-exempt groups — those organized as 501(c)(4) organizations — are supposed to operate primarily for social welfare purposes. They can engage in some political electioneering, as long as it is not their main focus.
But political groups have eagerly sought the 501(c)(4) designation because such groups do not have to disclose their donors. Figuring out which groups legitimately deserve tax-exempt status and which are political organizations posing as do-gooders isn’t easy.
The Cincinnati IRS field agents at the center of the targeting scandal clearly struggled to figure out what constituted political activity — and to measure how much was too much. Under these new self-certification rules, some skeptics have questioned how a tea party activist in Ohio would be able to make those determinations if the federal tax agency’s own employees had such a hard time.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said the new expedited process “may help alleviate the backlog of applications,” but it’s hardly a great solution.
“Even this simplified process involves difficult determinations and by its very nature lacks perfect clarity,” he said. “Organizations may have trouble identifying which of their undertakings should be classified as promoting social welfare and which constitute political activities.”
Moreover, some critics say, the new process looks like an open invitation for bad actors to snag IRS approval for tax-exempt status with no real examination by the agency, a move that could set a new precedent for how the agency handles all such applications.
“My frank opinion is it’s just a giveaway,” said Paul Streckfus, a former IRS employee and now editor of the Exempt Organizations Tax Journal. The IRS “is basically saying ‘Just tell us you’re going to be good and we’ll give you exemption.’”
Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a campaign finance watchdog group, said the new process “potentially will help groups who are improperly claiming (tax-exempt) tax status” and appears to codify ambiguous rules that would allow groups to engage in more political activity than the law envisioned.
The new acting IRS chief, principal deputy commissioner Danny Werfel, unveiled the new process last month as one element of the agency’s effort to address the targeting scandal, in which agents in the IRS’s Cincinnati field office used inappropriate criteria to flag some tax-exempt applications for extra scrutiny.
An inspector general’s report, issued in May, concluded the IRS put terms like “tea party” and “patriot” on a watch list and subjected groups with those words in their names to a lengthy, burdensome review process. Since then, new evidence shows the IRS also flagged progressive and other groups for heightened review.
Werfel said under the new IRS process, any group that has been waiting for tax-exempt status for more than 120 days will be able to self-certify. Those who are eligible will have to swear, under penalty of perjury, that at least 60 percent of their organization’s resources will be devoted to a “social welfare” purpose and they will not spend more than 40 percent of their time or money on political campaign activities.
“This is a self-certification process which allows them a streamlined path to tax-exempt status if they agree they will operate within defined limits,” Werfel told lawmakers on the House Ways and Means Committee during a June 27 hearing.
He noted that under current law, groups already can skip the application process altogether and just start operating as a tax-exempt organization. Then when it comes tax time, they have to file a 990 —the IRS form used by tax-exempt groups — detailing their spending.
With this new process, Werfel said the IRS will secure a promise in advance from the groups that their political activities will be limited. And the IRS always can audit groups after they secure the tax-exempt status to make sure they are in compliance.
But experts say it’s unlikely the IRS will do any after-the-fact investigation.
“I seriously doubt if there will be any checking up,” Streckfus said. “The last thing the IRS wants to do is revisit any of these cases.”
During the recent House hearing, Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., highlighted another potential problem. He asked Werfel how these new rules might apply to Organizing for Action, an advocacy group devoted to pushing President Barack Obama’s agenda.
Schock noted that OFA had recently sent out “millions of emails” to Obama supporters urging them to use Twitter, Facebook and other social media to “call out” 85 Republican lawmakers that OFA labeled “climate change deniers.” The move came after Obama delivered a major address on limiting greenhouse gas emissions.
“I’m wondering whether or not that activity, those hours, and that money would be classified under the political campaign activities or under the promoting social welfare category,” Schock asked.
Werfel did not directly answer, saying experts would have to determine whether the activities were intended to influence the outcome of an election.
“If you can’t make a determination, how can we then ask a non-attorney, non-IRS commissioner, non-IRS employee to make that same determination under penalty of perjury to classify their activity as either advocating for, promoting social welfare or political campaign activity?” Shock asked.
It’s unclear if Organizing for Action — or other politically active tax-exempt groups — are eligible for the self-certification option. The IRS said Monday about 80 groups are eligible for the expedited approval but the agency can’t disclose the names of those organizations.
A spokesman for Organizing for Action did not respond to an email requesting comment. On its website, OFA says it’s operating as a 501(c)(4), but it’s not clear whether the IRS has signed off on the group’s application or if its pending.
Similarly, a Republican-leaning group, Crossroads GPS, which spent $71 million trying to influence the outcome of the 2012 congressional and presidential elections, did not respond to messages seeking comment on the self-certification process. A Crossroads spokesman said earlier this year that it had applied for tax-exempt status in September 2010, but had not received IRS approval yet.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative group that represents some of the tea party groups targeted by the IRS, said he is still reviewing the self-certification option and determining the “appropriate response.”
But it “does not change the fact that the IRS should do its job and grant the appropriate tax exemptions using viewpoint neutral processes,” Sekulow said. “Its self-certification plan does not cure (the IRS’) constitutional failings.”
Streckfus said the IRS might have to go to self-certification for all tax-exempt groups, because of an increase in such applications.
The number of groups seeking 501(c)(4) status nearly doubled from 2009 to 2012. Overall, about 140 agents, most based in the Cincinnati office, are charged with examining about 70,000 applications per year.
“It’s basically an impossible task to review (all of) them,” Streckfus said. “Some of us have said the IRS will have to go to self-certify for everybody.”
That could be a good option, if the agency shifts its emphasis to auditing groups after the fact, he said. But it’s not clear the IRS is able or willing to do really thorough follow up.
So groups might self-certify and then “go on their merry way” trying to influence federal elections, Streckfus said.
SOURCE http://www.coshoctontribune.com/article/20130710/NEWS01/307100001/Critics-question-IRS-new-fast-track-path-tax-exempt-status
But some lawmakers, campaign finance watchdogs, and nonprofit experts say this new “self-certification” option is a makeshift solution that lets the IRS off the hook from making tough calls about pending applications.
Under current rules, certain tax-exempt groups — those organized as 501(c)(4) organizations — are supposed to operate primarily for social welfare purposes. They can engage in some political electioneering, as long as it is not their main focus.
But political groups have eagerly sought the 501(c)(4) designation because such groups do not have to disclose their donors. Figuring out which groups legitimately deserve tax-exempt status and which are political organizations posing as do-gooders isn’t easy.
The Cincinnati IRS field agents at the center of the targeting scandal clearly struggled to figure out what constituted political activity — and to measure how much was too much. Under these new self-certification rules, some skeptics have questioned how a tea party activist in Ohio would be able to make those determinations if the federal tax agency’s own employees had such a hard time.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said the new expedited process “may help alleviate the backlog of applications,” but it’s hardly a great solution.
“Even this simplified process involves difficult determinations and by its very nature lacks perfect clarity,” he said. “Organizations may have trouble identifying which of their undertakings should be classified as promoting social welfare and which constitute political activities.”
Moreover, some critics say, the new process looks like an open invitation for bad actors to snag IRS approval for tax-exempt status with no real examination by the agency, a move that could set a new precedent for how the agency handles all such applications.
“My frank opinion is it’s just a giveaway,” said Paul Streckfus, a former IRS employee and now editor of the Exempt Organizations Tax Journal. The IRS “is basically saying ‘Just tell us you’re going to be good and we’ll give you exemption.’”
Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a campaign finance watchdog group, said the new process “potentially will help groups who are improperly claiming (tax-exempt) tax status” and appears to codify ambiguous rules that would allow groups to engage in more political activity than the law envisioned.
The new acting IRS chief, principal deputy commissioner Danny Werfel, unveiled the new process last month as one element of the agency’s effort to address the targeting scandal, in which agents in the IRS’s Cincinnati field office used inappropriate criteria to flag some tax-exempt applications for extra scrutiny.
An inspector general’s report, issued in May, concluded the IRS put terms like “tea party” and “patriot” on a watch list and subjected groups with those words in their names to a lengthy, burdensome review process. Since then, new evidence shows the IRS also flagged progressive and other groups for heightened review.
Werfel said under the new IRS process, any group that has been waiting for tax-exempt status for more than 120 days will be able to self-certify. Those who are eligible will have to swear, under penalty of perjury, that at least 60 percent of their organization’s resources will be devoted to a “social welfare” purpose and they will not spend more than 40 percent of their time or money on political campaign activities.
“This is a self-certification process which allows them a streamlined path to tax-exempt status if they agree they will operate within defined limits,” Werfel told lawmakers on the House Ways and Means Committee during a June 27 hearing.
He noted that under current law, groups already can skip the application process altogether and just start operating as a tax-exempt organization. Then when it comes tax time, they have to file a 990 —the IRS form used by tax-exempt groups — detailing their spending.
With this new process, Werfel said the IRS will secure a promise in advance from the groups that their political activities will be limited. And the IRS always can audit groups after they secure the tax-exempt status to make sure they are in compliance.
But experts say it’s unlikely the IRS will do any after-the-fact investigation.
“I seriously doubt if there will be any checking up,” Streckfus said. “The last thing the IRS wants to do is revisit any of these cases.”
During the recent House hearing, Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., highlighted another potential problem. He asked Werfel how these new rules might apply to Organizing for Action, an advocacy group devoted to pushing President Barack Obama’s agenda.
Schock noted that OFA had recently sent out “millions of emails” to Obama supporters urging them to use Twitter, Facebook and other social media to “call out” 85 Republican lawmakers that OFA labeled “climate change deniers.” The move came after Obama delivered a major address on limiting greenhouse gas emissions.
“I’m wondering whether or not that activity, those hours, and that money would be classified under the political campaign activities or under the promoting social welfare category,” Schock asked.
Werfel did not directly answer, saying experts would have to determine whether the activities were intended to influence the outcome of an election.
“If you can’t make a determination, how can we then ask a non-attorney, non-IRS commissioner, non-IRS employee to make that same determination under penalty of perjury to classify their activity as either advocating for, promoting social welfare or political campaign activity?” Shock asked.
It’s unclear if Organizing for Action — or other politically active tax-exempt groups — are eligible for the self-certification option. The IRS said Monday about 80 groups are eligible for the expedited approval but the agency can’t disclose the names of those organizations.
A spokesman for Organizing for Action did not respond to an email requesting comment. On its website, OFA says it’s operating as a 501(c)(4), but it’s not clear whether the IRS has signed off on the group’s application or if its pending.
Similarly, a Republican-leaning group, Crossroads GPS, which spent $71 million trying to influence the outcome of the 2012 congressional and presidential elections, did not respond to messages seeking comment on the self-certification process. A Crossroads spokesman said earlier this year that it had applied for tax-exempt status in September 2010, but had not received IRS approval yet.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative group that represents some of the tea party groups targeted by the IRS, said he is still reviewing the self-certification option and determining the “appropriate response.”
But it “does not change the fact that the IRS should do its job and grant the appropriate tax exemptions using viewpoint neutral processes,” Sekulow said. “Its self-certification plan does not cure (the IRS’) constitutional failings.”
Streckfus said the IRS might have to go to self-certification for all tax-exempt groups, because of an increase in such applications.
The number of groups seeking 501(c)(4) status nearly doubled from 2009 to 2012. Overall, about 140 agents, most based in the Cincinnati office, are charged with examining about 70,000 applications per year.
“It’s basically an impossible task to review (all of) them,” Streckfus said. “Some of us have said the IRS will have to go to self-certify for everybody.”
That could be a good option, if the agency shifts its emphasis to auditing groups after the fact, he said. But it’s not clear the IRS is able or willing to do really thorough follow up.
So groups might self-certify and then “go on their merry way” trying to influence federal elections, Streckfus said.
SOURCE http://www.coshoctontribune.com/article/20130710/NEWS01/307100001/Critics-question-IRS-new-fast-track-path-tax-exempt-status
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)