IRS Audits of gun clubs

[SmokinJoe]

Would appreciate hearing from gun club officers as to whether your club was audited in the past year or so. Ours was audited mid 2011 for no good reason & absolutely no issues were found, however, the audit cost us $750 that we didn't have to burn. With the IRS harassment of tea party entities hitting the fan just lately, I am wondering if gun clubs were another target, since the great "O" doesn't like us either. Thanks, Joe

 

[jonbearman]

This should be interesting.If this issue comes up call the news stations and try to get it out there in the publics eye.

 

[BaconFat]

There are quite a few pieces of information left out of the news media stories which makes them a little one-sided favoring the tea party folks.

One vital piece is the fact that these tea party groups were requesting to be treated as a non-profit organization which means that they would pay no taxes. Do you think the IRS is just going to hand out a tax exempt certificate to anyone without a very through investigation. This also happened to pop up at the same time as when the IRS was taking a renewed interest in non-profits because they were finding some organizations were actually for-profit.

Another thing is depending on the tax code that the non-profit organization falls under, they will not be allowed to engage in any type of political activity.

SmokinJoe, you do realize that every person, club, business that pays taxes can be subjected to an audit. It's just the luck of the draw. And as far as being out $750. If I was running your club I'd charge a special, one-time assessment to each club member to recoup the money.

 

[Outrider27]

BaconFat, you are correct that a lot has been left out about the IRS attention to organizations having or applying for tax exempt status in media reports. Are you aware of some of the questions asked of these organizations during the IRS investigations? They went WAY beyond normal investigation questioning, into areas that are against IRS regs, against federal law or outright violations of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, plus questions which were not possible to answer without exposing the organization to possible future violations of IRS regulations (how do you know if one of your board members will run for public office in the future? We don't have reliable crystal balls). They asked for member lists (gross violation of IRS regs), political views of members, association of the organization with named individuals (individuals with which the organization had no association), information about family members and friends of board members and a baker's dozen other questions that aren't asked of other outfits applying for tax exempt status, and which, in fact, the IRS is not permitted to ask in an audit. And this little witch hunt has been acknowledged by the IRS, as the coverup of who actually organized it and how high up the chain of command went seems to be starting. In view of of information that has been made public today (5/13, a little belated interest by the press; they must spell blood) about incidents prior to the first admitted incidents and incidents involving the tax status of US based Jewish organizations whose views on Isreal do not necessarily coincide with the view of the current administration, a little healthy skepticism with regard to the IRS's motives with regard to any organization having to do with firearms ownership and use is not out of place. It certainly is not the first time the IRS has abused firearms related organizations (remember their antics during the Clinton administration?). And attacking firearms organizations at the local club level makes sense - they don't have the $$$ to fight back that national level organizations like the NRA have, so they are easier to damage or eliminate using the IRS steamroller approach. The current admissions by the IRS would not have been forthcoming without someone asking questions like that asked by the OP and then others beginning to connect the dots. It's not the audit, because, as you said, any individual or organization can be subject to an audit by the IRS, it's the process used to select the individuals/groups to be audited and how the audit is conducted and it's actual scope, as opposed to what federal regulations and laws define should be the selection process and the audit process and scope that is the question here. I would not be too quick to absolve the IRS of wrongdoing with regard to ranges and gun clubs before a survey, however informal, of those audited is completed. They have proven in the last week that at least a significant portion of the IRS does not deserve such trust, and it is not the first time that the IRS has behaved this way, regardless of the political party that was in power. Under the circumstances, OP's question makes sense as a place to start with regard to proving bias or lack of it in IRS processes with regard to gun clubs.

 

[ddkearney]

Bacon,
So, you're saying that most all environmental and other left-leaning progressive organizations went through the same detailed scrutiny during this time period - that EVERYONE was treated fairly/equally? Somehow, I've missed that vital fact of this eye-opening investigation.
Don

 

[M-61]

Outstanding OUTRIDER. The IRS may have bigger problems than gun club audits!

 

[Outrider27]

And the plot thickens, lol. Now that the mainstream press has decided that this issue can't be ignored, we have learned that (a) the IRS illegally gave a private liberal watchdog outfit (Pro Publica) private information on 31 conservative organizations applying for tax exempt status, (b) IRS offices in California and Washington DC participated in the harassment of conservative outfits applying for tax exempt status, and (c) today (5/15) it has come to light that while the AVERAGE time conservative organizations spent getting tax exempt status was 27 months, a tax exempt formed by Barack Obama's half brother got its tax exempt status approved in less than a month (note that there is to this day no evidence that the money they have collected has gone to the promised projects), and that a month after that approval, when the IRS discovered that this outfit started by Obama's half brother had been collecting money for two years previous illegally by claiming to have tax exempt status, the IRS made that approval retroactive for 2 years. And they still claim there is no political bias involved? You couldn't prove that by appearances.

So this evening the acting director of the IRS resigns. Whoop-dee-doo. Lot of good that does. And remember, this IRS is the outfit that is responsible for all of the financial side of running Obamacare. In my opinion, there are major public trust issues here, and the resignation of the acting director of the IRS (undoubtedly at the request of POTUS to help the image of the administration) isn't even a small beginning. When is someone getting fired, and when is someone facing criminal charges for the illegal release of private information and other criminal acts that have occured? And the President needs to understand that, as captain of the ship, he is responsible for the actions of his subordinates whether he makes himself aware of them or not, a concept that he hasn't seemed to grasp, even with one full term behind him. As this continues to unfold, it would not surprise me to find out that singling out conservative groups for IRS harrassment is only part of the iceburg, so, given the administration's actual biases (as opposed to their public statements to the contrary), actions by the IRS to harrass organizations based on or sympathetic with firearearms ownership would not come as a surprise. The OP has reason for concern, even if, in the end, it turns out that gun clubs are not deliberately being targeted (sorry, no pun intended) for extra "attention" by the IRS. It has reached the point where the administration can no longer hide behind a simple "we didn't mean to and we're sorry" line, and we no longer need to prove that both highly improper and outright illegal actions are being taken by the IRS, the administration needs to prove to us that it really intends to do something about the actions and assure that they will not be extended to other areas where people disagree with them, and that such actions never happen again.

The more the media fills in the details and pieces that were left out the more interesting (and horrifying) this story gets, Mr. BaconFat. I'll ride with the OP on this one until the administration proves otherwise conclusively; they're in too deep for any benefit of the doubt now.

 

[jonbearman]

If anyone thinks this administration is not capable of breaking the law has his head in the sand.

 

[Beau]

Here's a link to ONE letter to ONE conservative organization out of about 500 that were given the full cavity search by the IRS.

Read the questions.
Do you think all of these questions are relevant to a tax status determination?
What do you think of the IRS singling out an individual?

http://www.ohiolibertycoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/IRS_Letter_Liberty_Twnship-see-no-26.pdf

0bama promised "under-the-radar executive action" to attain the goals he couldn't legislatively attain. Does this not fit that description?

 

[jonbearman]

Did they ask if the questions were to invasive.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Everytime you turn around this hole just gets deeper. All roads seem to lead to the White House.

 

[4xforfun]

I have done nothing to confirm this..take it for what it is worth.

According to Rush Limbaugh on Wed, Obamas Half brother was in charge of one of Obamas "non profits". He applied for the 501-c-4 tax exempt status and was grantind tax exempt status in less than a month. A MONTH....when the other side of things had to wait up to 2 1/2 years!!!!AND...AND..since he had already been collecting donations for two years previous to his even applying, the good old IRS made his tax exempt status retro active for the two plus years that he was illegally accepting tax exempt donations.

Chew on that, BaconFat.

 

[dorothydaily]

think they are not one sided{irs} 55k to democrats in last election by employees to 21k to the good guys. damn right i am bias, but i am not an irs employee.