Thursday, March 10, 2016
The IRS Scandal, Day 1036
Press Release, California Violates Federal Donor Privacy Law; Kamala Harris Is the ‘Lois Lerner’ of State Attorneys General:
American Target Advertising, Inc., America’s largest and oldest conservative direct marketing and fundraising consulting agency, filed comments this week with California Attorney General Kamala Harris explaining that her dragnet demands for the names of donors to charities and other nonprofit organizations that ask Californians for donations violate post-Watergate reforms to the Internal Revenue Code. The tax code protects against unauthorized inspection of and intra-office access to confidential federal tax return information by government officials, and creates an exclusive and rigid regime for state charity regulators that Ms. Harris has bypassed in obtaining donor names on Schedule B of charities’ federal tax returns. The comments address a proposed confidentiality rule issued by Ms. Harris, and may be viewed here.
“We have seen the lawlessness directed at nonprofit organizations under ex-IRS official Lois Lerner, and her arrogance in acting ‘above the law.’ The very partisan Ms. Harris is carrying on that formula in her role as California’s top charity regulator,” said lawyer and fundraising executive Mark Fitzgibbons, who added, “The quantity of charities affected by California’s evasion of federal law far exceeds those affected by Lois Lerner’s lawlessness.”
Citing federal tax code section 6104(c) as “exclusively and rigidly” regulating the process for accessing and using confidential federal tax return information in administration of state charitable solicitation laws, interpretations by the IRS, and even a published article by the former head of California’s Registry of Charitable Trusts, the comments state: “[D]emands for Schedule B donor names and addresses are a bold, brash, and startling statement that the Attorney General believes she is not bound by or beholden to IRC 6104(c).”
Ms. Harris unilaterally decided to use the charitable solicitation registration process to acquire confidential donor names on Schedule B of charities’ federal tax returns. Those demands also violate the rights of association and privacy explained in the 1958 landmark case NAACP v. Alabama.
Another set of comments explaining the potential civil and criminal penalties for state officials who engage in unauthorized inspection of confidential federal tax return information, signed by five lawyers who specialize in tax and nonprofit law, were filed and may be viewed here. Both sets of comments were sent to Janet Kleinfelter, president of the National Association of State Charity Officials, which organization claimed Lois Lerner as its “partner in the regulation of charities.”
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1035 (Mar. 9, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1034 (Mat. 8, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1033 (Mar. 7, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1032 (Mar. 6, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1031 (Mar. 5, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1030 (Mar. 4, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1029 (Mar. 3, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1028 (Mar. 2, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1027 (Mar. 1, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1026 (Feb. 29, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1025 (Feb. 28, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1024 (Feb. 27, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1023 (Feb. 26, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1022 (Feb. 25, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1021 (Feb. 24, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1020 (Feb. 23, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1019 (Feb. 22, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1018 (Feb. 21, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1017 (Feb. 20, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1016 (Feb. 19, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1015 (Feb. 18, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1014 (Feb. 17, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1013 (Feb. 16, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1012 (Feb. 15, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1011 (Feb. 14, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1010 (Feb. 13, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1009 (Feb. 12, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1008 (Feb. 11, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1007 (Feb. 10, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1006 (Feb. 9, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1005 (Feb. 8, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1004 (Feb. 7, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1003 (Feb. 6, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1002 (Feb. 5, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Day 1001 (Feb. 4, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Days 901-1000 (Oct. 27, 2015 - Feb. 3, 2016)
- The IRS Scandal, Days 801-900 (July 19, 2015 - Oct. 26, 2015)
- The IRS Scandal, Days 701-800 (April 10, 2015 - July 18, 2015)
- The IRS Scandal, Days 601-700 (Dec. 31, 2014 - April 9, 2015)
- The IRS Scandal, Days 501-600 (Sept. 22, 2014-Dec. 30, 2014)
- The IRS Scandal, Days 401-500 (June 14, 2014 - Sept. 21,2014)
- The IRS Scandal, Days 301-400 (Mar. 6, 2014 - June 13, 2014)
- The IRS Scandal, Days 201-300 (Nov. 26, 2013 - Mar. 5, 2014)
- The IRS Scandal, Days 101-200 (Aug. 18, 2013 - Nov. 25, 2013)
- The IRS Scandal, Days 1-100 (May 10, 2013 - Aug. 17, 2013)
https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2016/03/the-irs-scandal-day-1036.html
Comments
Customary conservative claptrap. Sec. 6104 applies to the IRS and how it may share information with states. Harris is not trying to obtain the information from the IRS. She is seeking it directly from applicants and third parties. That kind of access is not regulated by the IRC. It is similar to parties in litigation with each other who try to obtain each other's tax returns. The IRC does not apply to such situations. So keep calm and vote for Ted Cruz. It will make you feel better, but it probably won't do anything. Harris is neither breaking the law nor overreaching.
Posted by: Publius Novus | Mar 10, 2016 10:28:34 AM
It's time to do away with the idea of anything tax free or exempt as no longer part of our system of government.
Posted by: Teapartydoc | Mar 10, 2016 8:41:12 AM
Kamala "L'Etat C'est Moi" Harris overstepping the law? I am SHOCKED!
Posted by: mojo | Mar 10, 2016 7:59:03 AM
So what is her reason for needing this information, how was her office able to perform their responsibilities in past years when they didn't have it, and how is she going to be held responsible for any misuse of this information by her or her proxies?
Until she can answer those questions to everyone's satisfaction, the answer should be a resounding denial of those records. The potential for abuse is too high.
Posted by: ruralcounsel | Mar 10, 2016 7:20:33 AM
Publius, you make procedural arguments about a substantive problem. Weak, very weak.
Posted by: ruralcounsel | Mar 11, 2016 4:56:46 AM