Logan Darklighter Wrote:Do you directly or indirectly communicate with members of legislative bodies? If so, provide copies of the written communications and contents of other forms of communications.
What is an “indirect” communication? A newspaper article that a legislator might read? A speech a legislator’s spouse might attend? The question is impossibly broad and vague.
The problem the IRS is having is that it doesn't have any extra personnel for this, but since the Citizens United decision they have been flooded with orders of maginitude more applications, mostly from Tea Party groups. If you make the tax code so hideously complicated you must provide sufficient personnel to handle it.... which costs money.
Second problem is the vagueness in the tax law... the groups on this status cannot be primarily political organisations, but the law is very vague and filled with loopholes... if they could actually affect election outcomes then they would definitly not fall under the tax exempt catagory. So why do some repubs claim it could have affected the election outcome? If so those groups should not have gotten tax exempt status at all.
But how is the IRS supposed to determine how much of your organization is political? Well that requires some very intrusive questions. If you don't want that don't put such vague loopholes as mostly in the law, just draw a line saying they must be non-political. As ussual congress messes up and blames everyone else.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."