Does your organization support the existence of the land of Israel?Describe your organization’s religious belief system towards the land of Israel.
Friday, May 17, 2013
Why did IRS go lenient on terrorist groups and tough on pro Israel?
Why did IRS go lenient on terrorist groups and tough on pro Israel?
Posted: 14 May 2013 08:15 AM PDT
(Paul Mirengoff)
Josh Gerstein
at Politico reports that the same Internal Revenue Service office that
singled out Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny also challenged
Israel-related organizations, at least one of which filed suit over the
agency’s handling of its application for tax-exempt status.
The
group in question is called Z Street. It alleges that one of its
attorneys was told that its application for tax exemption was delayed
and sent to a “special unit…to determine whether the organization’s
activities contradict the Administration’s public policies.”
As
Gerstein explains, Z Street sought the 501(c)(3) status applicable to
most charities, allowing for tax deductible donations. Most of the Tea
Party groups that have come under scrutiny applied for 501(c)(4) status,
which allows advocacy groups to avoid federal taxes on their operations
but doesn’t render donations to the groups tax deductible. However,
both kinds of applications are processed in the same Cincinnati office.
What
is the IRS’s explanation for investigating Z Street? It admits that
applications mentioning Israel received special attention, but says this
was because “Israel is one of many Middle Eastern countries that have a
higher risk of terrorism.”
This
is absurd. Israel may have (or have had) a high risk of being
victimized by terrorism. But this fact should create no presumption
that groups concerned about, or connected with, Israel are linked with
terrorism. And absent that concern, what is the justification for extra
scrutiny? Under the IRS’s logic, maybe it should now consider
providing extra scrutiny to charitable groups headquartered in Boston.
Under
President Bush, the IRS cracked down on “charitable” groups that
support or sympathized with terrorists — an outgrowth of the fact that
Muslim charities funneled money to Islamic terrorists. But, says
Gerstein, President Obama has backed away from this approach, declaring
that he thought government rules were unfairly impeding Muslims from
carrying through on their religious obligation to donate to charity.
How
ironic that the Obama IRS now seems focused instead on a tiny
pro-Israel group that questions the president’s approach to the Middle
East.
The IRS’s response to Z
Street’s lawsuit raises more questions than it answers. The concern,
according to the IRS, was not whether pro-Israel groups contradict Obama
administration policy, but rather whether they violate “public policy.”
One doubts the ability of
bureaucrats to distinguish Obama policy from “public policy.” Giving
IRS the benefit of the doubt (but why would we at this point), the
stated public policy in question is that the government shouldn’t bestow
a benefit on an individual or organization engaged in illegal activity
like terrorism, or in an officially disfavored activity such as racial
discrimination.
But why would a pro-Israel advocacy group be suspected of engaging in terrorism or racial discrimination?
And
how do some of the questions posed to pro-Israel groups relate to
terrorism or racial discrimination? Among the inquiries sent to at
least one group were:
The proper answer to the second inquiry is, none of your damn business.
It’s
too early to reach firm conclusions about the allegations in Z Street’s
suit against the government. But the matter warrants our close
attention.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment