Posted on 11/29/2015 6:27:10 AM PST by RKBA Democrat
The IRS recently proposed a rule to weaken the effectiveness of non-profits. Under this proposal, the IRS would give 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, which includes charities, religious groups, and educational foundations, the option to collect the social security numbers of donors giving more than $250 so that they can be sent to the IRS. While optional at the moment, it is obvious that the rule is simply a way for the IRS to transition to mandatory collection of social security numbers. This rule should frighten all Americans because it opens up a whole pandora’s box of security concerns. Additionally, the IRS can use this to further their political agenda, targeting not only conservative non-profits but also individual supporters of these groups.
Non-profit organizations will be more susceptible to hacking attempts to steal their donors’ identities. To combat this hacking risk, non-profits will be forced to expand their cybersecurity, diverting funds away from their core mission. Additionally, heightened privacy risk will scare away concerned donors. Given the pernicious effects this rule would have on non-profit groups, it is no wonder organizations from both sides of the aisle oppose this rule. Notably, the National Council of Nonprofits, which represents more than 25,000 groups throughout the country, has voiced strong opposition against this rule. The group writes that non-profits should “never be asking a donor for her or his Social Security number when soliciting donationsâ€.
The security risk on non-profits is compounded by the IRS’ failures to protect taxpayer information. Just this past year, the IRS compromised the personal information of a whopping 330,000 taxpayers; in spite of being warned at least seven times that it had faulty security.
In addition to the security risk, this rule should frighten for its political implications. Under this new rule, the IRS could target individual taxpayers for their political views, jeopardizing their First Amendment rights. The IRS has already engaged in politically motivated targeting of various conservative groups, causing a massive scandal and subsequent investigation into the IRS. In spite of this, all IRS officials involved in the scandal walked away scot-free.
The IRS’ new rule will jeopardize Americans’ security, harm non-profits, and suppress free speech. Given the horrible track record of IRS mismanagement, it is incredibly foolish to give them access to more taxpayer information. Time and time again, the IRS has proven itself and ineffective and harmful agency. Luckily, the IRS’ new rule is still a proposal and can be defeated before it takes effect, allowing the IRS to harm further the American people.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=IRS-2015-0049-0001
When I declare my giving at tax time I am required to have proof in case of an audit. That is sufficient. The other is nothing but an I.R.S. witch hunt.
But, but, but national security and all that B.S. It’ll give us the identity of every terrorist supporting imans and all those bad guys.
I think we know what happens to comments. They go straight to the circular file.
+1. Good comment!
There is no reason to do this. They should be more focused on if the group is actually operating as a nonprofit.
Or “angel” hunt if you will, since it’s supporters of Christian ministries they’re REALLY after.
Not really. The agency is required to respond to comments received. They don’t necessarily have to respond to each one nor do they have to agree, but they have to respond.
Blasting the agency with piles of negative comments usually results in withdrawal of the proposed rule or significant modification. It’s an effective tactic.
Completely unnecessary. The charitable group is required to issue a receipt to the donor, who then claims the deduction and files the receipt in case of audit.
The charitable group can then be asked to validate the receipt if the IRS requests. The giver can usually also produce a canceled check as proof of the donation.
What purpose, other than intimidation, does collecting social security numbers serve? What about existing statutes restricting the use of a social security number as an identification number?
Hogwash.
I want the IRS gone!
And, while we are at it....
the EPA, Gone
State Dept shaved by 50%, and that’s just for starters
Education Dept, totally gone
Homeland Security, get rid of 75% of the pencil pushers
All judges subject to recall
All the Joint Chiefs of Staff, fired and replaced
Secret Service fired and replaced by the military
yep. Vote for the "wrong" candidates and get put on the audit list or worse yet, the domestic terrorist list, for heightened NSA monitoring
And while large charities can more easily gather and track donor SSN's, this requirement will place an enormous burden om small non-profits.
It's big government destroying grass-roots charity. All praise Big Government, the taker and giver of all that is important!
I’d say that they might not be interested in hindering the non-profits; that it is just a byproduct.
The most paranoid view—justified with this administration—is that they want to collect a full political profile of the citizenry.
We’ve already heard from several sources (including Maxine Waters, in an intemperate remark) that the government was assembling a huge racially oriented database to facilitate seeding of white neighborhoods with minorities using tax dollars. Why not up the pressure by also using political knowledge at the individual level? It’s a very modern, leftist application of technology.
Elect a true conservative and it ends.
I'd take it further. Dismantle the entire Federal Government, with exception of Defense, Homeland Security, Treasury, and State. Let any gaps filter down to states.
Then watch what happens to the deficit, and how well our country flourishes.
Exactly how The Founding Fathers intended the federal government to work.
If you don’t cut out those departments, you are missing most of the graft. Do you really think the defense spending is paying for our “defense” or “people?” Those departments are where the huge spending is.
If you don’t meddle with interest, social ecurity, or defense— you could cut the rest to zero without a significant impact. The social programs need to be cut, but they, alone, are not going to do anything but tart a civil war.
“Elect a true conservative and it ends.”
Uhhh. No. Assuming such a true conservative could be elected (unlikely in my view), CONgress, the courts, and the bureacracy would do everything it could to preserve its power regardless.
Electoral politics is a bottomless pit of treachery and despair.
I am not saying those are exempt from cuts. The intent of the post was to show priority 1 should be elimination of all un-needed and redundant services.
Once that is done, then do as you suggest cut and slice as needed.
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.