IRS Moves to Threaten Second Amendment Newsletters, E-mail Alerts

The ink is barely dry on the Supreme Court's devastating decision in McConnell v. FEC -- the so-called campaign finance case that GOA was involved in. That decision severely restricted broadcast communications, thus making it more difficult for GOA to hold legislators accountable on Second Amendment issues.

Now, the IRS is already leaping forward to expand the Court's ruling to include GOA newsletters, e-mail alerts, and other Second Amendment communications.

Put out for comment on December 23, 2003 -- when, presumably, no one would notice -- proposed IRS Revenue Ruling 2004-6 creates a broad new set of ambiguous standards which groups like GOA must follow in order to avoid losing all or part of their tax-exempt status.

Under the proposed Revenue Ruling, the IRS would create a vague "balancing test" to determine whether GOA communications would be "permitted" by the government.

If the communication occurred close to an election, mentioned an officeholder who was running for reelection, and was targeted to put pressure on congressmen through constituents in each representative's district, all of these factors would push toward outlawing the communication.

Although the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection law was repressive enough, the proposed Revenue Ruling would go far beyond this anti-gun statute:

* Unlike McCain-Feingold, the proposed Revenue Ruling would not be restricted to broadcast ads. Rather, it would apply to newspaper ads, e-mail alerts, newsletters, and other communications by organizations such as GOA.

* Unlike McCain-Feingold, the proposed Revenue Ruling would not automatically exempt communications which occurred more than 60 days prior to an election -- or which fell below a certain monetary threshold.

* Unlike McCain-Feingold, the proposed Revenue Ruling would contain no fixed standards for compliance. Rather every GOA newsletter or alert would have to be published with the realization that the government, after the fact, could apply its vague criteria to determine that is was "impermissible."

For example, when GOA learned that an anti-gun rider had been placed on a Defense authorization bill in September 2000, GOA alerted its members to this provision which would have allowed the Dept. of Defense to confiscate and destroy any military surplus item that had ever been sold by the government.

M1 Carbines, 1903 Springfields, Colt SAAs, uniforms, ammo, scopes -- and much more. All these privately-owned items could have been confiscated and destroyed by the feds.

GOA generated a groundswell of nationwide opposition against the confiscation attempt. But we especially targeted our focus on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The message evidently got through, as the Committee Chairman's office called GOA to discuss this problem after he received hoards of calls, postcards and e-mails from our members. The provision was removed, and Second Amendment rights were preserved.

But had this IRS regulation been in effect in 2000, the agency (which then was under Clinton's control) could have RETROACTIVELY punished GOA, stating that our activity would have been impermissible if just one of the targeted Senators had been facing reelection!

This new regulation would allow lawmakers to load up gun bills prior to an election, secure in the knowledge that GOA won't be able to let you guys know about them in time.

GOA has formally lodged a protest with the IRS regarding this expansion and abuse of power. To read the GOA comments, go to (link)

ACTION: Contact your congressmen. Ask them to write the IRS and demand that it withdraw proposed Revenue Ruling 2004-6. You can contact your Representative and Senators by visiting the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at (link) to send them a pre-written e-mail message.

Your Representative and Senators must submit their comments to the IRS by January 26.

Here is the text of the news release from the IRS.

IRS Issues Guidelines for Tax-Exempt Groups Engaged in Public Advocacy

IR-2003-146, Dec. 23, 2003

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today reminded tax-exempt organizations that their public advocacy activity must adhere to tax rules as well as campaign-finance laws.

On the eve of an election year, the IRS has issued Revenue Ruling 2004-6 concerning certain public advocacy activities conducted by social welfare organizations, unions and trade associations.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, social welfare organizations, unions and trade associations generally are permitted to engage in advocacy or lobbying related to their exempt purposes. However, they may engage in only limited political campaign activity. The guidance clarifies the tax implications of advocacy that meets the definition of political campaign activity.

The guidance provides examples and sets forth factors to be taken into account in determining whether expenditures for issue advertising are taxable. The situations and factors contained in the ruling are not exhaustive.

The guidance also serves as a reminder that the Bipartisan Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold) does not replace the tax rules on public advocacy by tax-exempt organizations. Tax exempt organizations, such as those described in sections 501(c) (4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code, must adhere to both McCain-Feingold and the Internal Revenue Code.

The IRS remains committed to ensuring that assets of tax-exempt organizations are used for exempt purposes and requests comments on situations or factors that the public believes should be covered in future guidance.

Revenue Ruling 2004-6 will be published in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2004-4, Jan. 26, 2004. Comments may be sent to: Judy Kindell, T:EO:RA:G, 1111 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20224.

Is the GOA a social, union, or trade organization? Nowhere does it say lobbying group.

Destructor: Every year around March anti-IRS threads start appearing, and the Freepers that put those threads up are flamed as tin foil hat people.

That's because they are.

yoe: of course when it comes to the IRS some of us know they don't need a law.
patriot_wes: As long as they publish what they want us to do - "that's the law!"

Actually they do have a law to back em up, several sections of law infact:

26 USC 7801(a) of the Internal Revenue Code states that the administration and enforcement of the Code shall be performed by or under the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury.
26 USC 7802(a) then says that there shall be a Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the Department of the Treasury who shall have such duties and powers as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.
26 USC 7803(a) of the Code states that the Secretary is authorized to employ persons for the administration and enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code.
26 USC 7804(a) of the Code states Unless otherwise prescribed by the Secretary, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is authorized to employ such number of persons as the Commissioner deems proper for the administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws, and the Commissioner shall issue all necessary directions, instructions, orders, and rules applicable to such persons.
26 USC 7805(a) of the Code state that "the Secretary shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title [Title 26]…"

Title 26 Section 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax
Title 26 Section 7202. Willful failure to collect or pay over tax
Title 26 Section 7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax

However the Supreme Court has made it very clear what we should do about such tax laws:

Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586

"The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax."

"Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty."

"If the laws here in question involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make congresses, to see that the evil was corrected.
The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government."

And again in:

MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)

"'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56] he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."

"Let us concede that if a case was presented where the abuse of the taxing power was so extreme as to be beyond the principles which we have previously stated, and where it was plain to the judicial mind that the power had been called into play, not for revenue, but solely for the purpose of destroying rights which could not be rightfully destroyed consistently with the principles of freedom and justice upon which the Constitution rests, that it would be the duty of the courts to say that such an arbitrary act was not merely an abuse of a delegated power, but was the exercise of an authority not conferred. "

So push for repeal of the current income/payroll tax scheme and return to consumption taxes, the removal of Congress Critters that think otherwise:

Thomas Hobbes from Leviathan

It is fairer to tax people on what they extract from the economy, as roughly measured by their consumption, than to tax them on what they produce for the economy, as roughly measured by their income.

John Linder in the House & Saxby Chambliss Senate, offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and payroll taxes outright, and provide a IRS free replacement in the form of a pure consumption tax:

H.R.25
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
S.1493
Sponsor: Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] (introduced 7/30/2003)
Title: A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org

So what's holding you back??

It's a bit off topic, but I have to admit every once in a while, I play with the temptation to talk to Jim about making a Free Republic newspaper. Printing costs for a sixteen page paper with spot color on the front, back and middle truck for ten thousand papers runs about a grand (give or take a hundred, add on sales tax if you don't want to deal with charging per copy.)

That's roughly equivalent 32 8x11 sheets. Ten cents a copy - about what a coin operated copy machine charges for one 8x11 sheet. Production, if it is handled by volunteers, is minimal.. Ideally you'd have a paid editor to lay out and see to it that it is printed. Mailing costs can be a pain - bulk mail, it works out to be about 38 cents a copy, first class it's $1.40.

Figure that there would have to be about 30 stringer reporters to keep the paper well fed with stories, add on another fifty with digital cameras to handle the photography. Most would do it unpaid, or for minimal payment per story/photo. Carrying the AP feed in the newspaper is based upon distribution - if you're doing 20,000 copies a month, you're talking about $1,400 a year.

Getting people credentialed as reporters isn't all that difficult - I covered the DemonRAT convention in Los Angeles in 2000, though I imagine it'd be a little more difficult for a FreeRepublic reporter. ;)

Anyway, it comes and passes like a pipedream.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.