Thursday, May 22, 2014
I.R.S. Delays New Rules on Taxation for Activists
The IRS has recently decided to postpone their public hearings on the new rule to limit non-profit groups ability to spend money on political activities. This delay seems somewhat necessary, especially with the Supreme Court seeming to land on the side against restrictions in campaign finance laws, but also the large number of comments they have been receiving in regards to the rule change. Simply put, the IRS does need to wait to put out a rule change until after the next election to avoid creating a very messy confusion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is definitely the correct decision to hold off implementation of any rule changes until after the election. After all, new rule changes so close to an election would result in a great deal of confusion, something that we really don’t want—especially given the fact that this could differentially tie the hands of groups to differing degrees depending on political affiliation. It would be completely wrong for one group to have an advantage because of differential enforcement.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't like any delay in government action. I don't see what confusion could result because of the election. If this proposal does in fact limit non-profit groups ability to make campaign contributions, then I don't think it will receive much approval. In my opinion, I'm all for restricting campaign contributions which give much more power to the wealthy but the political elites will never be for it.
ReplyDeleteI think it is ridiculous for the IRS to hold off because an election is approaching. People involved in the side of politics that involves the IRS are either lawyers who can understand the law extremely well or people who can hire lawyers to deal with it for them. Do we hold off on charging a criminal with life in prison because his birthday is coming up and it might be confusing time for him? No. It is an unnecessary stall and definitely decreases faith in the government.
ReplyDeleteI am really not sure how I feel about this situation. I see Andrew's point that delaying the public hearings and decisions will avoid confusion during the upcoming midterm election, but I also see Emily and Olivia's point that it is ridiculous for the IRS to delay just because of elections. I find myself leaning more toward Andrew's opinion though because it seems to make more sense to avoid any possible confusion.
ReplyDeleteThe IRS should hold off. The confusion could be very detrimental to the situation. They way I see it is that what is one more election before the reform. It will garner an edge to people before the reform, but nothing can be done about that. It's not like we can go back in time and change all past elections that occurred before the reform. Our government and how it functions is always changing, this is no exception
ReplyDeleteI strongly feel that campaign contributions should be limited and it makes me so happy that the government is taking action. There is no way that billions of dollars should be spent to elect an official that most likely can't even follow through with a majority of the promises made when elected? There are so many people that could be helped with the money that is wasted on campaigns. Of course, I know that a campaign is an important factor, but I feel that today they are taken to the extreme and if we don't limit these contributions, things will only get worse. As for whether the change should be implemented now, I don't have an opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe accusation that this change would be to squelch out the Tea Party Republicans is absolutely absurd. The reason for this change is to limit the amount of money people donate towards campaigns. I think it is completely fair to limit that money because just because an organization has money doesn't mean they should be the superior choice. It just so happens that a great majority of Tea Party Republicans rely on these grass-roots organizations.
ReplyDeleteI really don't understand the delay. The reform applies to non-profit organizations, and I think these organizations would find a way to understand the laws and comply. These are activists who know what is going on. There would be plenty of time for these people to understand the law or hire a lawyer to understand it for them. The timing is fine if they don't delay anymore.
ReplyDeleteI think the delay of the new laws makes sense, as there would surely be some confusion or at least some feigned confusion of the new laws that could lead to messy legal battles. I think it's just better to wait until the next election. As for restrictions on campaign contributions, I support laws that restrict campaign contributions.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that the new campaign finance laws should be resolved as soon as possible because if campaign donations are limited even further, it will probably hurt the Republican party more than the Democrats, and as a liberal person, this seems like a good outcome to me. However, if it is passed soon, then it could get confusing, like the voter registration laws that were passed a couple weeks before the election, and the Obama administration will get accused of skewing the elections in their favor, or something along those lines.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with delaying the implementation of the new policy just because of the upcoming election. The IRS should use the election as motivation for implementing its plan quickly and efficiently. After the election occurs, there will be less urgency for reform, increasing the likelihood that it is weakened or abandoned. Procrastination is rarely effective in making positive changes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andrew on this one. We don;t want to implement new policy so close to election time. If the IRS implements their plan now, people are given no time to adjust to the new laws. However, if they implement after the election, people have new time to adjust and learn how to operate within the system.
ReplyDeleteI see value in both arguments, but Ethan's point really sticks. This election is more and more of a reason to create this law because otherwise Congress won't see reason to push for this reform later. They might even reach a next election and claim it's too confusing to make the reform then too. Conversely, it begs the question are we so far into the election that this reform acts as an ex-post facto law for those non-profits? I also would argue, why just non-profits? I think all organizations campaign donations should be limited; there is too much money in our elections.
ReplyDelete