Slashdot Mirror


X.Org Foundation Loses 501(c)3 Non-Profit Status

An anonymous reader writes "The X.Org Foundation, which drives the X.Org Server projects, Mesa, and Wayland open-source programs, had its tax-exempt status revoked by the IRS. It turns out the X.Org Foundation had put in quite a lot of work to become a non-profit organization, with guidance from the Software Freedom Law Center. They got in trouble after failing to routinely file their taxes on time. There's also been a host of other X.Org accounting errors in recent years. There was also the recent news of the IRS going after open-source projects, too."

208 comments

  1. No one to blame but themselves by barlevg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously. How hard is it to file your taxes on time? Or to hire someone to do it for you?

    1. Re:No one to blame but themselves by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Funny

      How hard is it to file your taxes on time?

      How hard is it to deliver your release on time?

      Hey, we're software folks . . . we just don't deliver on time. The IRS should know this, and cut all software folks some slack on that April 15th date.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:No one to blame but themselves by Gerzel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      software folks if working with money of sufficient amounts should hire an accountant.

    3. Re:No one to blame but themselves by QuasiEvil · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, no sympathy here. I sit on the board of a local historic preservation society, and we're 501c3. We pay our accountant something like $1000/year (some of her rate is counted as an in-kind donation, but nothing we do is really that complicated) and she keeps the paperwork current and straightened out. I'm relatively sure that X.org runs with a bigger budget than we do and could find accounting services, so this is just gross incompetence on their part.

    4. Re:No one to blame but themselves by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly, I love all the woe is me, big brother is out to get me. While you fail to play by the rules set in place.

      You want Tax Exempt status, good, make sure you follow the rules to keep it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:No one to blame but themselves by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Well, organizational taxes are substantially more complex. Lacking a full-time accountant(or at least a part time one on retainer) would make it really easy to get overwhelmed.

    6. Re:No one to blame but themselves by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Informative

      No really a couple thousand a year would likely cover it. They are not that huge an organization.

    7. Re:No one to blame but themselves by JWW · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is a scam from the IRS.

      They are doing this to many, many non-profit organizations. Quite a few non-profit organizations are being hit by this and the IRS is taking advantage of the general disorganization and small size of a lot of non-profit groups to pocket themselves a tidy sum.

      The scam goes like this. New policies enacted by the IRS now require non-profits to fill out a card verifying their non-profit status every three years. Now this is simple and easy to do, but its also simple and easy to forget to do. Its even easier to forget when your organization turns over its treasurer every year or two. Also if your organization is part of a larger national organization, it doesn't matter, the IRS is targeting the smallest unit of every non-profit organization. Membership in larger state and national groups of your non-profit do not cover your smaller group.

      The IRS's solution if you forget to register is to allow you to re-register at a later date and pay a FINE.

      So that's how the shakedown goes. The IRS is making good money with this enforcement racket that they've created.

    8. Re:No one to blame but themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, if only there was some sort of reminder software they could use, so they won't forget to file the appropriate forms on time.

      But naw, that's just crazy pie-in-the-sky talk. How could a group of software professionals be expected to know how to set a reminder for themselves so they don't forget about filing their fucking taxes on time.

    9. Re:No one to blame but themselves by njnnja · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The problem is that the rules are phenomenally complex. It's easy to say that they should have just followed the rules, but IRS rules are a serious PITA to satisfy. It is quite likely that no matter what Xorg had done, the IRS could have found some error in their compliance that would enable them to revoke 501c3 status.

      So the real issue is that by making it so hard to comply with the rules, regulations, and laws, it raises the question of whether the government is using "selective enforcement" to punish people, organizations, and views that they don't like. Did this happen because of a general review of nonprofits, in which case this was a simple case of good enforcement, or are "hackers" being targeted by the government (for lots of reasons, e.g. resistance to NSA monitoring), and any one of a number of technical violations would have led to the IRS' actions? In that way it is similar to the Aaron Schwartz case, and is something that should be noted, if not actively resisted.

    10. Re:No one to blame but themselves by mark-t · · Score: 2
      Okay.... so if you forget to reregister in a timely fashion, you pay the fine, reregister, and get your status back.

      It seems not terribly unlike letting your driver's license expire... if you forget about it and end up needing it for something (say you were in an accident or something), you'll pay a rather nasty fine... but you can still renew it and get a new one, as long as the time period since it expired hasn't been too long.

    11. Re: No one to blame but themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Filing a tax return on time is a complicated rule that's too hard to follow? Drop the tinfoil hat...LOL at X.org being a victim of political persecution. Nobody knows what X.org is.

    12. Re:No one to blame but themselves by ShaunC · · Score: 5, Informative

      > software folks if working with money of sufficient amounts should hire an accountant.

      They have one, but he apparently didn't do his job. FTFA:

      Stuart Kreitman, the X.Org Foundation accountant and Oracle employee, wrote during the Board of Directors' IRC meeting this week, "The status of the 501c3 is lost because we (me) failed to file the 3 past years' tax returns on time. Note that we've Never filed returns since our first re-organization to the LLC in 2005. I was taken by surprize that the IRS hit us so rudely. I've had little issues with my own returns and have always found them to be reasonable and friendly."

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    13. Re:No one to blame but themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BULLSHIT. If you're U.S. based, and you don't pay your taxes, you can expect the IRS to make you hate your life.

      Bottom line: hire a tax accountant who isn't an incompetent fool and make sure you pay your fucking taxes on time.

    14. Re:No one to blame but themselves by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...Oracle employee...

      I should have known.

    15. Re:No one to blame but themselves by dpilot · · Score: 1

      The same timely delivery issues could be said of defense contractors and weapons systems.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    16. Re:No one to blame but themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Gross incompetence from X developers, what a surprise?!

    17. Re:No one to blame but themselves by nairnr · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the rules are phenomenally complex. It's easy to say that they should have just followed the rules, but IRS rules are a serious PITA to satisfy. It is quite likely that no matter what Xorg had done, the IRS could have found some error in their compliance that would enable them to revoke 501c3 status. So the real issue is that by making it so hard to comply with the rules, regulations, and laws, it raises the question of whether the government is using "selective enforcement" to punish people, organizations, and views that they don't like. Did this happen because of a general review of nonprofits, in which case this was a simple case of good enforcement, or are "hackers" being targeted by the government (for lots of reasons, e.g. resistance to NSA monitoring), and any one of a number of technical violations would have led to the IRS' actions? In that way it is similar to the Aaron Schwartz case, and is something that should be noted, if not actively resisted.

      They can't be so complex... If you don't understand them you get someone who does understand. Put away the tinfoil hat about selective enforcement of a software group. Enforcement of the rules is a good thing. Just because you may support the group that had the action taken against them doesn't mean it wasn't correct. It is 100% their fault for not maintaining compliance with the requirements if they valued that status...

    18. Re:No one to blame but themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think they "run[s] with a bigger budget"?
      Unlike your "local historic preservation society" they drive no functions, make no appeals to the public or city hall, and produce no physical goods of any kind.

      For all I know, X.org is all in the cloud; Just passing down the torch from one bored hacker whose willing to put together the patches, to the next. A 6 digit password to a mailing list and another pass to the main repository... Doesn't take much more then that :D

    19. Re:No one to blame but themselves by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      So they couldn't find a GNU Tax software. So it must be a political reason.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    20. Re:No one to blame but themselves by shentino · · Score: 1

      Harder than it looks.

      The Gentoo Foundation ran into the same kind of trouble don't forget.

    21. Re:No one to blame but themselves by shentino · · Score: 1

      You suspect sabotage?

    22. Re:No one to blame but themselves by shentino · · Score: 0

      It could also be corporate lapdogging, considering that open source in general is an unwelcome thorn in the corporate side.

    23. Re:No one to blame but themselves by shentino · · Score: 0

      The whole point of being non profit is that you don't OWE taxes in the first place.

      Paperwork fees, sure. But not taxes.

    24. Re:No one to blame but themselves by sunderland56 · · Score: 0

      Hey, cut them some slack.... they wanted to use Linux-based income tax software to file their return, and were just waiting for some to be released.

    25. Re:No one to blame but themselves by shentino · · Score: 1

      Which is why all fines collected by an agency of the government should be deposited in the general fund.

      However, given that the IRS is a child agency of the treasury itself a conflict of interest might be unavoidable.

    26. Re: No one to blame but themselves by iamgnat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Filing a tax return on time is a complicated rule that's too hard to follow?

      No, but the way they keep moving April 15th to a different day of the week every year sure is hard to keep up with!

    27. Re:No one to blame but themselves by Xwild · · Score: 1

      It's not hard to file that little card. Unless your 501c3 is actually defunct. Which is the purpose of the little card. To cleanup the ranks of the 501c3s to just those organizations that ARE alive, and cut down on the fraud.

    28. Re:No one to blame but themselves by miroku000 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the rules are phenomenally complex.

      They are phenomenally complex in the same way that programming "Hello World" is phenomenally complex. They should pay someone to do it for them.

    29. Re:No one to blame but themselves by Tokolosh · · Score: 2

      The default status should be that you pay no taxes. It is up to the government to prove that you should pay.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    30. Re:No one to blame but themselves by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the rules are phenomenally complex. It's easy to say that they should have just followed the rules, but IRS rules are a serious PITA to satisfy.

      So, hire a qualified accountant -- it's not like other entities don't do their taxes properly and on-time to retain their charitable status.

      But "they got in trouble after failing to routinely file their taxes on time" implies more than once, and something of their own doing.

      So, before we ponder such things as the IRS cracking down on people, the NSA, or a tenuous connection to Aaron Schwartz ... did they 'routinely' fail to file their taxes on time? Because if they did, then we don't need to look at alternate reasons other than "failure to follow the rules", and I'm sure that charitable status is worth spending some effort on keeping your taxes up to date.

      This sounds more like something self inflicted than any grand conspiracy. If you don't feel like doing the paperwork to keep your status you might lose it. That is a completely unsurprising thing to me.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    31. Re:No one to blame but themselves by matrim99 · · Score: 1

      But you still have to *file*. They hadn't filed at all for several years, and it finally caught up to them.

      --
      Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.
    32. Re: No one to blame but themselves by njnnja · · Score: 1

      I'll drop the tinfoil hat when the government stops spying on me (oops, I mean collecting my metadata) and IRS employees enforce the rules evenhandedly to all types of organizations. 2 years ago I would have thought this position was crazy too, but given all of the stuff that has come out recently, I think that the a priori assumption should be that the government is abusing its power and it should have to show that it is not. For example, if the IRS came out with a statement that said "We looked at a sample of 10,000 registered 501c3's, and found that 53 of them had not filed a return in the last 2 years. We revoked the 501c3 status on 51 of them, and are looking into assertions by 2 of them that they did file and we [the IRS] must have lost them." I'd look upon this action a lot more favorably.

    33. Re:No one to blame but themselves by matrim99 · · Score: 1

      That's what the W-4 is for. Income tracked under your W-4 is proof that you made money that might be taxable. You don't pay taxes if you made no money that year.

      --
      Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.
    34. Re:No one to blame but themselves by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      Or incompetence, more likely.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    35. Re: No one to blame but themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect Oracle!

      Though I'm not seeing why they would care whether X.org loses status or not....

      Gonna go ahead and attribute this one to stupidity, instead of malice.

    36. Re:No one to blame but themselves by shentino · · Score: 1

      What gets me is that the IRS chose to wait for 3 years to nail them for a late return.

    37. Re:No one to blame but themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, once you renew, you go to court and show the renewed license and it is thrown out. No fine. Unless you live somewhere really shitty. Maybe the south?

    38. Re:No one to blame but themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "accountant" is a guy who when the (non-profit) company is having trouble argues that "i've had little issues with my own returns" and is surprised the IRS is going after companies not doing the required paperwork.

      Why didnt they hire someone who have an idea about what they are doing? like a highschooler.

    39. Re: No one to blame but themselves by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 1

      For example, if the IRS came out with a statement that said "We looked at a sample of 10,000 registered 501c3's, and found that 53 of them had not filed a return in the last 2 years. We revoked the 501c3 status on 51 of them, and are looking into assertions by 2 of them that they did file and we [the IRS] must have lost them." I'd look upon this action a lot more favorably.

      They have

      This isn't some mustache-twirling conspiracy. X.org failed to file the paperwork and it caught up with them. The IRS does this to any organization "for failing to file an annual information return or notice with the IRS for three consecutive years". It wasn't as if IRS was turning a blind-eye to X.org until they were politically motivated to crack down on open source projects; three years is the default leeway granted. X.org screwed up their paperwork and it caught up with them, end of story.

    40. Re:No one to blame but themselves by PRMan · · Score: 1

      And if they had sent them in any time during that 3 years, the IRS probably would have sent them a letter instead asking them to be on time next year.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    41. Re:No one to blame but themselves by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Seriously. Every small church in the Midwest can follow these rules easily (or find someone who can) and some of the pastors are high school dropouts. But a group of smart programmers can't be bothered to figure out how to do it?

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    42. Re:No one to blame but themselves by tibit · · Score: 1

      Sounds about as lame as lame can get :(

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    43. Re: No one to blame but themselves by bberens · · Score: 2

      I own a small business and considered opening a 501c3. I asked my accountant and his advice was "DO NOT DO THIS. IT'S A HUGE PITA." He recommended I just form an LLC that spends all the income because the processes to get and maintain your tax-free status were so onerous that it wouldn't be worth it.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    44. Re:No one to blame but themselves by tibit · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the rules are phenomenally complex.

      So, which 501c3 do you run, so that you're oh so on the forefront of teh rulez? Because I think you're just making it all up.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    45. Re:No one to blame but themselves by shentino · · Score: 1

      My point is that it appears the IRS did nothing *at all* for 3 years, then ambushed them all at once.

      Surely the IRS should have given them *some* kind of notice about failure to file?

    46. Re:No one to blame but themselves by Americano · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Section 6033(j) of the Internal Revenue Code automatically revokes the exemption of any organization that fails to satisfy its filing requirement for three consecutive years. The automatic revocation of exemption is effective as of the due date of the third required annual filing or notice.

      ( Source )

      This isn't an "ambush." What accountant doesn't realize the importance of filing taxes on time? What accountant fails to realize this *three years in a row*? What board trusts their financial matters to an accountant who doesn't realize these things?

      This is standard procedure - they failed to file properly 3 years in a row, and so they had their tax exemption revoked. The IRS isn't "springing" anything on them. The IRS isn't "ambushing" them. The IRS is following it's standard procedure - if you want special tax exempt status, there are a few requirements you have to meet. One of these is filing your tax returns in a timely and complete manner. If you fail to do this, you will automatically be de-listed, and you'll receive a polite letter indicating that that has happened. They shouldn't be chasing after people. The agreement when you're granted tax-exempt status is that you will file properly and on time. That's your notice. Failing to do so results in revocation.

    47. Re:No one to blame but themselves by Americano · · Score: 2

      There's no evidence that this was the result of some sort of "dragnet" focusing on an organization that drew the ire of the IRS. Organizations which fail to file completely and on time AUTOMATICALLY have their status revoked after 3 years of failure to file in such a fashion. (See this page: http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Automatic-Revocation-of-Exemption)

      If they wanted to avoid the long arm of the IRS, they should have... filed their taxes on time, and met the requirements of their tax-exempt status.

    48. Re: No one to blame but themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not being evil, it is hard for most people tho understand the machinations of the mind of someone like Larry Ellison. Disrupting the X.Org foundation plays into his grand scheme somehow.

    49. Re:No one to blame but themselves by Americano · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's the "ridiculously complex" terms they're expected to comply with:

      1) File a Form 990 on time each year.

      I'm guessing that X.org would be eligible for a 990-N (< $50,000 gross receipts each year), also known as an 'e-Postcard,' because it can be filed online. Here's the ridiculously complex information required on a Form 990-N:

      1) Employer identification number (EIN), also known as a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN).
      2) Tax year
      3) Legal name and mailing address
      4) Any other names the organization uses
      5) Name and address of a principal officer
      6) Web site address if the organization has one
      7) Confirmation that the organization’s annual gross receipts are $50,000 or less
      8) If applicable, a statement that the organization has terminated or is terminating (going out of business)

      If by some stroke of fundraising genius, they managed to take in more than $50,000, they'd need to file a 990 or 990-EZ (EZ can be filed as long as < 200,000 per year is collected). The EZ is 3 pages, and looks pretty much like a standard Federal 1040-EZ, just with questions related to income sources for the foundation, instead of an individual.

      Some tax laws are stupidly complex. These rules aren't, nor are they particularly burdensome to comply with.

    50. Re:No one to blame but themselves by shentino · · Score: 1

      You completely evaded my point (not missed, but deliberately dodged) that the IRS chose to remain silent about it.

    51. Re:No one to blame but themselves by Americano · · Score: 1

      Go read the Board of Director IRC logs for the week of 08-08-2013.

      SFLC was the address they listed for the foundation on their tax filing; SFLC says "we didn't receive any warnings." That everybody claimed "not to have received anything" doesn't mean the IRS said "we're not going to follow our standard process, which indicates we send notices when we fail to receive Form 990 filings" - and failure to receive the IRS notice in no way exempts them from their affirmative duty to file their tax forms required to maintain their tax exempt status.

      Reading through the conversation, basically, it seems like the board of directors didn't exercise due diligence in their management of the foundation - HSBC apparently silently closed their checking account due to repeated overdrafts, and then the IRS terminated their tax exempt status due to failure to file for 3 years, despite the fact that somebody mentions "turns out they're really easy." That's just sloppy management - it's not the IRS' fault that they seem to be perpetual 'victims' who seem to only respond to crisis events.

    52. Re:No one to blame but themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the case of personal income tax, typically your employer sends the IRS with your implied permission (part of the shitload of paperwork with any job you start), thus you effectively volunteered to them already that you owe taxes.

    53. Re:No one to blame but themselves by njnnja · · Score: 1

      You are correct, I don't run a 501c3. But in another life I worked on the calculation of tax deductibility for (among other entities) several 501c9's so I have a pretty good idea about how complex tax rules for nfp's can be, and how someone whose business is something other than filling out IRS paperwork can fail to have the information necessary to fill out a 990. The "Oh crap, can you help us recreate the last 3 year's books?" scenario, while rare, does occasionally happen.

    54. Re:No one to blame but themselves by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The IRS can be slow. It's not uncommon to get a notice for mistakes from 1 or 2 years prior. 3 is a bit much but not enough so that it's a conspiracy.

    55. Re:No one to blame but themselves by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Even if you pay no taxes you normally still have to file if there was any income or benefits. A friend of mine who is a priest who took a vow of poverty, still has to file taxes.

    56. Re:No one to blame but themselves by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Makes me thing X.org is not all that large. A lot of these non profit organizations really are very tiny, a staff of 5 or less, they just seem larger because there are a lot of interested people.

    57. Re:No one to blame but themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like they're trying to run for Congress...

      http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20130823/NEWS01/308230045/tom-reed-taxes

    58. Re:No one to blame but themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Which is why all fines collected by an agency of the government should be deposited in the general fund."

      Esp. asset theft, uh, forfeiture seized by the Gestapo, uh, police, FBI, DEA, LSD... etc.

    59. Re:No one to blame but themselves by shentino · · Score: 1

      Keeping the spoils OUT of the war chest of the seizing agency would go far to reducing the incentive for corruption.

      It's not quite as tempting to steal something when the proceeds won't give your budget a boost.

    60. Re:No one to blame but themselves by doccus · · Score: 1

      My point is that it appears the IRS did nothing *at all* for 3 years, then ambushed them all at once.

      Surely the IRS should have given them *some* kind of notice about failure to file?

      Yup.. standard IRS practice

    61. Re:No one to blame but themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NOBODY ever gets a "friendly notice" from the IRS saying.. :""hey, we noticed you havent filed your taxes on time.. but we're not going to do anything about it this year. Be a good boy now, so we don't sak you for money next year"

    62. Re:No one to blame but themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you were so surprised you misspelled?

    63. Re: No one to blame but themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Low revenue 5013cs file a postcard sized return. (30000 annual revenue) Also the rules now give somone a very easy to get 5013c status which the irs does not evaluate for three years.

  2. Failing to file taxes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Why do you have to file taxes if you are tax-exempt?

    1. Re:Failing to file taxes? by dicobalt · · Score: 5, Informative

      To prove that you are still in a position of being tax exempt?

    2. Re:Failing to file taxes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To prove that you are still in a position of being tax exempt?

      To prove that you are in a position to NOT have to pay taxes. And yes, you better believe they're going to audit that, as you better have a damn good reason to NOT pay taxes year after year when the other 99% have to.

    3. Re:Failing to file taxes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except according to brother Mitt, 47% don't pay any taxes.

    4. Re:Failing to file taxes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the 47% get a net govt. benefit.

    5. Re:Failing to file taxes? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Primarily so that they know who you are, they know you're still claiming tax exempt status, they know where you are and your contact information, etc. Filing taxes does not mean paying taxes. If you want to be given special status by the IRS then a tiny bit of work filing a one page form each year is not too much to ask for.

  3. Solution by Cypher,+Lou · · Score: 0

    Abolish the IRS and return to the days of ERS or external revenue service.

    1. Re:Solution by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 5, Funny

      "We should tax all foreigners living abroad." - Monty Python

      The British Empire did this successfully for hundreds of years. It's a pretty good revenue model, don't knock it.

    2. Re:Solution by xaxa · · Score: 2

      "We should tax all foreigners living abroad." - Monty Python

      The British Empire did this successfully for hundreds of years. It's a pretty good revenue model, don't knock it.

      The US is one of the few countries that tax it's own citizens while they live abroad. My (half) American friend has to fill out a US tax return every year, although since he lives in the UK the tax he already paid here counts towards (and exceeds) the US requirement.

    3. Re:Solution by Gerzel · · Score: 1

      And start how many trade/real wars by breaking a multitude of treaties?

    4. Re:Solution by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Actually that is pretty common and your friend can deduct that tax if the UK is a tax treaty member and I am almost sure they are.

      This is for a very simple reason, without it all the big earners would simply have their pay given to them in another nation.

    5. Re:Solution by Dputiger · · Score: 1

      There's no such thing as a half-citizen of a country. You are a citizen, a permanent legal immigrant, a temporary visitor with a visa, or an illegal immigrant. Taxation varies accordingly. There may even be a category or two in between those, like dual citizenship, but if you're a dual citizen, you aren't automatically assessed taxes in both locations -- other factors come into play.

    6. Re:Solution by xaxa · · Score: 2

      If I move to Bermuda I'd pay no tax to the UK.

      http://rt.com/usa/americans-refuse-citizenship-tax-317/ "The United States is the only country out of 34 in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that continues to tax citizens regardless of where they live around the world."

    7. Re:Solution by xaxa · · Score: 1

      As I just wrote above -- America is an exception when it comes to taxation of citizens living abroad: http://rt.com/usa/americans-refuse-citizenship-tax-317/

      (I meant "half" in the usual British sense, i.e. one parent is American.)

    8. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that wouldn't work, they'd have to physically move there not just have their pay land in a bank account in a foreign nation.

    9. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet he meant Dual Citizen.

    10. Re:Solution by shentino · · Score: 1

      At least the IRS is reasonable in allowing foreign taxes to count against domestic taxes.

    11. Re:Solution by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      This is for a very simple reason, without it all the big earners would simply have their pay given to them in another nation.

      Uh, no.

      I believe there are three or four nations on the planet who try to tax their citizens no matter where they live, and America is the only first-world nation on the list. It's one reason why the US government have made renouncing American citizenship so hard.

    12. Re:Solution by tibit · · Score: 1

      For tax purposes, the immigration status matters very, very little. You're either nonresident or resident for tax purposes. That's *it*. You can be a resident for tax purposes but illegally present from the point of view of immigration law, for example.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    13. Re:Solution by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Only if the revenue was earned in a country with a Double Taxation Agreement in place.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  4. Re:that crazy old IRS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    OK, I understand people don't like to TRFA, but did you not even RTF summary? What tricks? The "trick" of revoking tax exempt status for orgs that fail to properly file the required paperwork?

  5. First by cookYourDog · · Score: 1, Insightful

    they came for the tea party. I didn't care because I wasn't in the tea party.

    1. Re:First by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      I don't even like tea. Now, Islay malt whisky on the other hand...

    2. Re:First by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Indeed. A Top Shelf Single-Malt Party is Change I Can Believe It.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  6. what this means by jbolden · · Score: 5, Informative

    OK the article should have said what this means and didn't. The IRS reinstates 501c3 status pretty easily once you clean up your paperwork. You can apply for retroactive reinstatement but that requires a good explanation of why they didn't file, and if X.org's reason is some variant of "we forgot" that won't cut it. This means they are liable for corporate income taxes but I'm sure their expenses easily kill any income. The big problem is often state taxes apply during the period where they are off the 501c3 rolls. But here they might be able to do OK on an appeal.

    My guess is that this is not going to be too expensive but it will be annoying.

    1. Re:what this means by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      The big problem is often state taxes apply during the period where they are off the 501c3 rolls. But here they might be able to do OK on an appeal.

      I suppose that might depend on whether or not they actually made any profit. I have a suspicion that if they did, the tax in question might involve little more than a couple of people dropping a few days' coffee money on a counter.

    2. Re:what this means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      501(c)(3) status isn't about the company having to pay taxes. You can be non-profit and not pay any taxes, and still be 501(c)(3).

      501(c)(3) is about the DONORS being able to take deductions while filing THEIR TAXES.

    3. Re:what this means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, many states have minimum corp. taxes and asset taxes.

  7. They're not the only ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Tax-exempt status revoked for hundreds of area organizations (If you get a paywall you can get past by saving the site source to your hard drive and opening that up.

  8. X.org forfeits agreement. IRS does job. News at 11 by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So X.org applied for and received 501(c)3 status, and then failed to live to its end of the bargain, resulting in the IRS revoking its status.

    Someone please tell me why this really newsworthy? Is it only because its a company related to software? (Of which I bet the majority of /.ers don't even use - and I said majority .. not vocal individuals)

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  9. First they came for the Tea Party by Gothmolly · · Score: 1, Redundant

    And I didn't say anything, because I'm a liberal.
    But now they're going after Open Source ? Color me outraged. ...oh wait, it doesnt matter since I already sold my freedom for security

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:First they came for the Tea Party by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Informative

      First they came for the Tea Party

      Except, really, they didn't. They "came for" -- i.e., put on their "be on the lookout" list -- several different classes of non-profits, including "Open Source", "Occupy", "Free Palestine", and "Tea Party" groups, all at the same time. No "first they came for" about it.

      But since Tea Party groups were essentially created by Fox "News", you heard a hell of a lot about that. Not so much about Palestinian rights groups having the exact same problem.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    2. Re:First they came for the Tea Party by Nail · · Score: 1

      "Tea Party groups were essentially created by Fox "News""

      Crazy talk undercuts credibility, and "Palestinian rights group" is singular.

      --
      ...yellow number five, yellow number five, yellow number five...
    3. Re:First they came for the Tea Party by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2

      Crazy talk undercuts credibility

      Yes, it does. Pointing out that the "Tea Party" phenomenon was created and hyped by Fox, however, is not "crazy talk", it's the only conclusion anyone paying attention can reach.

      Chuck Todd admits FOX News created and hypes the Tea Party Movement

      How Talk Radio and FOX News created the Tea Party

      The Tea Party: Populism of the privileged: "This must be the first "populist" movement driven by a television network: Sixty-three percent of the Tea Party folks say they most watch Fox News "for information about politics and current events," compared with 23 percent of the country as a whole."

      Fox News spent weeks promoting apparent tea party scam: "Fox News heavily promoted the Tea Party Express; the Our Country Deserves Better PAC even used Fox's promotion in a fundraising email. Then Fox's Griff Jenkins hit the trail with the Express, following that bus around the country, throwing journalistic integrity aside as he declared its riders "the America that Washington forgot.""

      Tea Party Promotion by Fox News

      And there's the usual beautiful job by The Daily Show showing Fox clips puffing up the teabagger protests.

      and "Palestinian rights group" is singular.

      Not really significant to the overall point, but yes, it does seem that complaints from only one Palestinian rights group have been covered in the news to date.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    4. Re:First they came for the Tea Party by Nail · · Score: 1

      Only where "paying attention" equals "gullible and stupid", and throwing in a "Daily Show" link (after a bunch of links that ill support your "created" crazy talk) is very close to admitting that becoming "gullible and stupid" was your goal.

      --
      ...yellow number five, yellow number five, yellow number five...
  10. Fuck off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    They didn't file their taxes. It has nothing to do with politics.

    1. Re:Fuck off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell is "filing taxes"? Is it some southern North American ritual related to filing tax return documents?

  11. X.org tea party front? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean the X.Org is really a Tea Party front?

    I ask this because according to the Tea Partiers, Libertarians, and Fox News, those were the people the IRS was singling out for investigating their non-profit status.

    1. Re:X.org tea party front? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's a front for the Lemon Party. Everybody knows that.

    2. Re:X.org tea party front? by Americano · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I ask this because according to the Tea Partiers, Libertarians, and Fox News, those were the people the IRS was singling out for investigating their non-profit status.

      So, counselor, in your estimation - is the IRS Inspector General a Tea Party Libertarian employed by Fox News, as well?

      Because the IG report basically confirmed what you're trying to hand-wave away - that organizations were targeted for "special" processing which imposed unnecessary burdens on them - for no other reason than their name, or chosen policy positions (e.g., a focus on "government spending").

      From the report:

      WHAT TIGTA FOUND
      The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management:
      1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months,
      2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and
      3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued.

      Although the processing of some applications with potential significant political campaign intervention was started soon after receipt, no work was completed on the majority of these applications for 13 months. This was due to delays in receiving assistance from the Exempt Organizations function Headquarters office. For the 296 total political campaign intervention applications TIGTA reviewed as of December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied, and 160 were open from 206 to 1,138 calendar days (some for more than three years and crossing two election cycles). More than 20 months after the initial case was identified, processing the cases began in earnest. Many organizations received requests for additional information from the IRS that included unnecessary, burdensome questions (e.g., lists of past and future donors). The IRS later informed some organizations that they did not need to provide previously requested information. IRS officials stated that any donor information received in response to a request from its Determinations Unit was later destroyed.

      The lesson? Sometimes, the government really *is* wrong when Fox News reports they did something wrong.

  12. Re:Fuck off ( score:+9000, troll) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    You've got to expect a little scrutiny from the taxman if you explicitly name your organization after a group that didn't like paying their lawful taxes.

  13. WOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they thought that X.org was supporting the the Tea Party? I know I use it on my computer. :-)

  14. Re:X.org forfeits agreement. IRS does job. News at by jbolden · · Score: 2

    X.org is the group writing X11. So, no I'd say a large chunk of /.ers if not a majority will use their software during any given decade.

  15. Re:X.org forfeits agreement. IRS does job. News at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The only software that an absolute majority of /.ers use would probably be Windows and maybe Office. Does that mean that the only software company worth reporting on is Microsoft?

  16. not worth it by Skapare · · Score: 1

    I though text-exempt status also meant you didn't have to file all that paperwork once you had it. Lot of good it does to have tax-exempt status for a non-profit that makes no money, anyway.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:not worth it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, tax-exempt means you don't pay any taxes but you make up for it by filing about fifty times as much paperwork.

    2. Re:not worth it by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I though text-exempt status also meant you didn't have to file all that paperwork once you had it. Lot of good it does to have tax-exempt status for a non-profit that makes no money, anyway.

      First off... Non-Profit does not mean they don't make money, only that any money and assets they acquire do not belong to someone or a for profit entity. Non-Profits can and do make money, sell things and services at a profit, pay employees and all the same things other businesses do, but they cannot acquire cash and assets which end up owned by an individual or other for profit entity.

      Second, the filing requirements for tax returns are not that involved for a 501c3. For most non-profits it amounts to filing out a form similar to a 1040Ez. The IRS generally wants to know where your money came from so they can cross reference donors deductions with receipts, at least in the general sense. I don't believe that a non-profit has to report who is giving to it, just how much they received. I also don't think that they would be required to pay taxes, only file the report.

      The real problem here is that the organization that can't be bothered to file the yearly reports is likely going to be a problem for someone wanting to give money and take the tax deduction. If the organization doesn't supply a receipt a donor will be limited to $250 and if they cannot supply the IRS with the yearly return, I'm sure they won't be bothered to send out receipts either.

      Seems that this organization doesn't really care about the money side of things. This is a shame, because the accounting is NOT that hard and the risks of not having proper controls in place is pretty big.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:not worth it by Slamtilt · · Score: 1

      It does in fact do a lot of good. For example, you can attract more donations if you're a c3, because you can deduct those donations from your income. Also, a lot of vendors and service providers will give a large discount for c3s when they buy their stuff.

      You still have to file your paperwork.

  17. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They must conservative. Give 'em hell Barry!

  18. Re:Fuck off ( score:+9000, troll) by Bartles · · Score: 1, Troll

    Spoken like a true fascist who doesn't care that lawful != just.

  19. Re:X.org forfeits agreement. IRS does job. News at by jonsmirl · · Score: 4, Informative

    X.org is not a company. It is is a group of volunteers, either individuals or corporate employees begin donated by their employers. The group writes and maintains the Xserver which is in use on almost every Linux desktop and many embedded systems. This code is given away for free to benefit all who use Linux.

    If that doesn't qualify as a 501(c)3 I don't know what would qualify. The group has no revenue, they rely on donations to function and everything they make is given away for free -- to anyone who asks with no restrictions other than some minor licensing terms. And the licensing terms are really minor, like give proper attribution to the authors of the code. The benefit from being a 501(c)3 does not accrue to X.org, the tax benefits goes to the companies donating to the organization since those donations are now tax deductible. Hopefully that means X.org will get more donations.

    I do agree that a few companies seem to be abusing 501(c)3 and open source. Those companies are making captive open source projects which basically only benefit themselves. But that's more of a marketing gimmick than a tax avoidance one. The resources being given to the captive 501(c)3 were deductible to the parent corporation anyway. So if the IRS dissolves these captive 501(c)3s they aren't going to get any more revenue. They'll just move where the deductions are being taken.

  20. I smell Microsoft by kurt555gs · · Score: 0, Troll

    This is the type of dirty trick their lobbyists would do.

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
    1. Re:I smell Microsoft by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      This is the type of dirty trick their lobbyists would do.

      I doubt Microsoft even knows X.org exists or what they do.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    2. Re:I smell Microsoft by Tr3vin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, Microsoft sent lobbyists to X.Org to prevent them from filing their paperwork on time.

    3. Re:I smell Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I smell an idiot.

    4. Re:I smell Microsoft by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

      The new Slashdot. Where truth is modded to troll. This is exactly the kind of thing Microsoft engages in. Anything that is good, and "free" software enrages them to having fits. They can't stand the idea.

      Look back on funding SCO to try and cripple Linux. Taking over Nokia to kill off Maemo. And I think they had their filthy hands in this.

      What is really sad is that Slashdot is now filled with those that can't see the calculated evil that Microsoft as a company really is.

      And being modded down on Slashdot for pointing out even potential Microsoft evil doing shows how things here have changed.

      Sad.

      --
      * Carthago Delenda Est *
    5. Re:I smell Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their accountant worked for Oracle. You're whining about the wrong evil entity here.

    6. Re:I smell Microsoft by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      The new Slashdot. Where truth is modded to troll. This is exactly the kind of thing Microsoft engages in. Anything that is good, and "free" software enrages them to having fits. They can't stand the idea.

      Look back on funding SCO to try and cripple Linux. Taking over Nokia to kill off Maemo. And I think they had their filthy hands in this.

      What is really sad is that Slashdot is now filled with those that can't see the calculated evil that Microsoft as a company really is.

      And being modded down on Slashdot for pointing out even potential Microsoft evil doing shows how things here have changed.

      Sad.

      I agree the moderation was unfair. I don't agree with you, but you weren't trolling.

      Microsoft funded SCO because Linux as a server platform is and remains a credible threat, and SCO did a good job of convincing a lot of people that Linux contained violations of their IP. Not anyone that mattered, in the end, but if that had been true their investment would have been very lucrative.

      Microsoft "took over" Nokia because there was no one left to partner or buy in the handheld computing space. HP destroyed Palm, Apple is Apple, and everyone else went Android. You think they were at all concerned about something like Maemo in the face of that?

      Microsoft does not perceive X as a credible threat on the desktop, because it isn't.

      Look, just take a step back and get some perspective. Microsoft is certainly _capable_ of doing the things you accuse them of here, but that isn't the same thing as _interested_. They certainly can't be bothered with competitors whose market shares can only be measured in tenths or hundreds of a single percent.

      The final nail in this tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory of yours is the non-profit in question failed to file their taxes. It does not take lobbyists to get the IRS to take action in that scenario. Try it yourself sometime if you doubt me.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

  21. X.org is a religion! by erroneus · · Score: 0

    Seems to me that it is a spiritual quest more than a software project. Let's decide what the spiritual focus is and file some paperwork forgetting this ridiculous tax crap.

    1. Re:X.org is a religion! by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that it is a spiritual quest more than a software project. Let's decide what the spiritual focus is and file some paperwork forgetting this ridiculous tax crap.

      This! It's already had a schism, so what else does it need in order to qualify for the benefits religious groups enjoy without the annoying rigmarole of actually filing numbers?

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
  22. Re:X.org forfeits agreement. IRS does job. News at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    X.org is not a company. It is is a group of volunteers

    You may want to look up the word company. Also, all they had to do to remain 501(c)3 was to apparently file their paperwork in a timely manner. It would seem that the IRS is more picky about this kind of thing that open source fans are.

  23. Re:X.org forfeits agreement. IRS does job. News at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux is best enjoyed in the terminal ;) (true story)

  24. Re:Fuck off ( score:+9000, troll) by h4rr4r · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What part of scrutiny is not lawful?

    I want the IRS to investigate 501c organizations of all stripes, frankly many of them are likely frauds.

  25. Re:Fuck off ( score:+9000, troll) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't like the law, change the law.

  26. Re:Fuck off ( score:+9000, troll) by Bartles · · Score: 1, Troll

    My point went right over your head. Scrutiny can be both lawful and unjust. As can taxes, laws, and punishment for crimes. A fascist who supports the state does not understand this or is entirely willing to overlook this defect.

  27. But the NFL is Non-profit by Terry+Pearson · · Score: 5, Informative

    Meanwhile, no one has a problem with the National Football League being considered "non-profit" by IRS standards ( http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2013/05/29/nfl-sports-leagues-irs-tax-exemption/2370945/ ). I am not saying that X.org did not screw things up, but we certainly have some strange qualifications to benefit from non-profit status. X.org sounds like they had some trouble filing, but I am sympathetic to non-profits in general having difficulty filing. Oftentimes, they really are run by people who are passionate about their cause, but not necessarily familiar with the accounting standards needed to remain in good standing with the IRS. Compliance with reporting requirements can cost you a lot in accounting fees and time.

    1. Re:But the NFL is Non-profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they're "passionate enough" about their cause to incorporate as a non-profit foundation and apply for tax exempt status, then they should be "passionate enough" about their cause to seek legal and accounting advice to ensure they are in compliance with the relevant laws to maintain their tax exempt status.

      Compliance with reporting requirements can cost you a lot in accounting fees and time.

      So? Compliance with driving laws cost me a lot in wasted time and tolls. That doesn't give me the right to simply ignore them and start turning the highway into a demolition derby.

    2. Re:But the NFL is Non-profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are passionate enough to organize, find someone passionate enough to keep your accounting/legal straight. At least to the point of someone that can make sure your accountant is decent.

      What is the IRS supposed to do? Say "These are the rules, but you really mean well, so we won't apply them to you" but say to the NFL "you setup yourself to follow the rules, but you're probably not legit because you are a bunch of money-grubbers"

    3. Re:But the NFL is Non-profit by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Oh I have a problem with it. My point of view is that those with money like the NFL can always find a way not to pay taxes. Corporations do it all the time. At the same time, politicians want to make you believe that any one trying to correct these disparities will come into town looking for your women and children for blood sacrifices.

      While I don't think the IRS is a benign entity, their hands are tied in both cases. Tax-exempt organizations have to file on time. Even though the NFL might make billions a year, they do qualify for exempt status according to the laws Congress passed. As for the IRS "going after" open source, that wasn't remotely what it appeared to me. Open Source organizations were on a watch list. Most likely because the IRS just doesn't understand them. I mean non-profit organizations sometimes funded by huge corporations would raise some concerns with me about whether they were tax dodges if I didn't know anything about software. As such the IRS paid more attention to them. "Going after" implies there was some sort of campaign.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:But the NFL is Non-profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we should get rid of all those churches, with their "feed the hungry, clothe the naked, uplift the poor" rhetoric.

      They do nothing but harm.

    5. Re:But the NFL is Non-profit by jbolden · · Score: 3, Informative

      The NFL is not a good example. In 1966 it was explicitly allowed to file as a 501c6. That's black letter law, not the enforcement of a regulation. Congress not the IRS is who you should be complaining to.

    6. Re:But the NFL is Non-profit by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, no one has a problem with the National Football League being considered "non-profit" by IRS standards

      What does the NFL as an organization make for profit? Each individual team is owned by someone (or a group) that pays taxes on their team's profit (in theory, at least). The NFL itself, though, doesn't have an owner or shareholders. Of course you can argue about how much the top-level executives get paid, but they should be paying taxes on their salaries just like any other full-time employee of a non-profit.

    7. Re:But the NFL is Non-profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we should get rid of all those churches, with their "feed the hungry, clothe the naked, uplift the poor" rhetoric.

      They do nothing but harm.

      If it's just rhetoric, then yes, they do nothing but harm.

    8. Re:But the NFL is Non-profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That has fuck all to do with this. If the various NFL entities didn't file on time, the IRS would be a long way up their asses about it.

    9. Re:But the NFL is Non-profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And of course, it's trivial to demonstrate that just about every church, everywhere, actually walks their talk: they DO engage in charity programs, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, uplifting the poor, comforting the sick.

      There is a vast difference between a politician playing up his "religious values" to earn votes, and an actual church behaving as an actual charitable organization and doing actual good works in the world. MOST (probably ALL) churches do this to some degree. There are plenty of reasons to dislike dogmatic fundamentalist ideologies. But that doesn't mean that every organization associated with them is intrinsically evil.

      Here's something to consider: why is it every time somebody says something about "islamic terrorism," they get shouted down for missing the point of islam, the religion of peace, yet when some fucktard on Slashdot says "Some churches advocate against abortion, therefore all churches, and every follower of any christian religion anywhere, is irredeemably evil, and should be destroyed," it gets modded insightful?

      Why is it doubleplusungood bellyfeel to generalize erroneously about Islam, but doubleplusgood bellyfeel to generalize erroneously about Christianity?

    10. Re:But the NFL is Non-profit by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      501c corporations are nonprofits-- and they are exempt from certain kinds of taxes. All sorts of organizations, from sports leagues, to labor unions, to advocacy groups to cemeteries can organize themselves as nonprofits.

      A subset of these are 501c3 groups-- groups organized specifically and operated exclusively for certain religious, charitable, scientific, educational, cultural or other societally beneficial purposes enumerated in the tax law.. If you donate to a charity, your donation is tax deductible. In return, charities don't engage in other activities.

      Although certain groups would like to blur the backgrounds--"Yes, we operate exclusively for the purpose of educating the public about the benefits of voting for our political candidates and voting against our enemies---GIMME those tax deductions and don't let the mean old FEC anywhere near our books"-- these distinctions serve a useful societal purpose.

    11. Re:But the NFL is Non-profit by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      At least the NFL doesn't harm anyone.

      Aside from sports related brain injuries...
      Aside from stadium boondoggles...

    12. Re:But the NFL is Non-profit by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      If it's just rhetoric, then yes, they do nothing but harm.

      I have a absolute religious right to behave as hypocritically as my $deity desires, you inconsiderate clod!

    13. Re:But the NFL is Non-profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is not "black-letter law." It was a law passed by Congress, Act of Nov. 8, 1966, Pub. L. 89
      800, 6(a), 80 Stat. 1515. "Black-letter" law is law or or principles of law respected because it is so common sense - having existed from days of yore when print was black letter - that it does not need to be codified to be used. Or practice codified and so established in precedent that thinking about arguing it is moot.

      You are right, though, that Congress is where the complaint should be lodged - they passed the dumb-assed law that allows certain big-business sports leagues to be recognized as non-profit.

  28. Re:X.org forfeits agreement. IRS does job. News at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone please tell me why this really newsworthy? Is it only because its a company related to software? (Of which I bet the majority of /.ers don't even use - and I said majority .. not vocal individuals)

    It's newsworthy because if you donate to X.Org, you can no longer get a tax deduction out of it. So we should know they're no longer 501(c)3.

    They don't want the status so they can avoid paying taxes. I would seriously doubt they're making any profits to be taxed. They want the status to encourage donations.

  29. Oh come off it by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is not hard to remember, in particular because with an organization of any reasonable size you'd want to hire an accountant to do your taxes. If you are a non-profit, you'd hire an accountant who knows how to deal with that.

    Any business taxes, profit or non-profit, are a bit complex and this isn't unique to the US. So you hire an accountant. Just part of doing business. My parents used to run a small business in Canada, about 5 employees including themselves. They hired an accountant to do their taxes. It wasn't that expensive and the accountant made sure everything was in order and the Canadian government was happy.

    Well same shit here. X.org should have paid someone (or some firm) a couple of grand a year to do their tax accounting.

    1. Re:Oh come off it by JWW · · Score: 1

      Small, all volunteer organizations with virtually no budget are being hit by this as well. They really can't afford accountants.

      I know that these rules are easy to comply with, but they're also easy to miss. Much like rebates and other consumer programs, the system is designed with the idea that many will miss/skip/forget to do the easy tasks that the program requires, and enable the IRS to make money.

    2. Re:Oh come off it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ridiculous, anyone that is employed knows that April 15th is tax day. The form they have to file is a 990, all they have to do is log onto Guidestar (free) and they can look at thousands of 990s. Pick an org that is like them, and figure it out.

      If you want the benefit of non-profit status, then you should be able to complete the form. BTW, in order to get the status, they had to file a pretty detailed application. If they could manage that, they could manage the 990 (or hire a part time accountant). Million dollar orgs don't even need full time accountants.

      This is not about the IRS "making money". It is about ensuring people don't abuse the non-profit system.

    3. Re:Oh come off it by Xwild · · Score: 1

      It's not hard for any 501c3 to afford an accountant. Since it costs a significant amount of money to even get through all the paperwork to GET 501c3 status, the organization obviously has the income to do so. On top of that, being as they are a 501c3, they can probably negotiate a deal with a local accountant to give them a reduced fee, writing off the remainder as an in-kind donation. So leave the whining at home. If you want to be a 501c3, buck up.

    4. Re:Oh come off it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they shouldn't have become a non profit in the first place.

      This was clear incompetence and nothing more.

    5. Re:Oh come off it by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      This doesn't really need much of an accountant. The form to file is not difficult, the numbers are small, the math is trivial. It sounds like they either forgot for 3 years running, or the accountant mistakenly thought it wasn't necessary.

      It's not that difficult for an accountant, which x.org had, to think "I just mailed my own taxes in, now is there any other thing I'm responsible for that also needs to have taxes filed?"

  30. same thing happend to an outdoors club I was in by peter303 · · Score: 1

    It was not that IRS had any "hate" for this kind of activity. It was just a series of sloppy club treasers failed to file the necessary paperwork.

  31. Tax exempt isn't magic by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You don't get awarded tax exempt status and then are allowed to do as you please. If that were the case, every company ever would start out as a charity, get tax exempt status, and then change over.

    So you have to file and show that your activities still warrant tax exempt status, that you aren't violating the rules for it. For example suppose you run a non-profit and you get a massive donation, some billionaire leaves you a billion dollars. You decide cool, you'll pay all of it to yourself as salary for that year. I mean the entity is still "non-profit" right? Your salary is a cost, so no profit was made!

    Ummm... no. You'd get in all kinds of trouble for that. Doesn't matter what kind of games you tried to play. Hence, you have to file taxes to show that your operations are indeed non-profit, that the money you receive goes to pay for the operation of your organization, not to enrich yourself.

    If you want an organization to enrich yourself, that's fine, but that is called a business, and you have to pay taxes on that.

    1. Re:Tax exempt isn't magic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you want an organization to enrich yourself, that's fine..."

      Or, it's called a Church, and you don't pay taxes (or social security/FICA) on that.

    2. Re:Tax exempt isn't magic by shentino · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that you would *personally* owe income taxes on that brand new salary of yours even if the organization got away with paying it to you in the first place.

      Also, arranging to have the organization pay you such an obscene salary just so you could skim off a donation would probably be malfeasance on your part against the organization, and is tantamount to embezzling.

    3. Re:Tax exempt isn't magic by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Pastors absolutely pay taxes. I took a class on it in college (needed 1 unit and that's all they offered that fit my requirements).

      Pastors can get a housing allowance, which doesn't count as taxes (because of parishes and the like), but it's limited to a certain percentage of their salary. Other than a couple other minor extras, they pay taxes just like you and me.

      I know because the professor had been audited 7 years in a row by the IRS and was found even or got paid all 7 years (he used every available tax shelter, but never cheated). After that, he invoked a harassment law against the IRS and they are unable to audit him any more, because he was found clean 7 times.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    4. Re:Tax exempt isn't magic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just need better lawyers and accountants. Why do you think George Soros promotes higher tax rates (he's paying less than his secretary) but never mentions a wealth tax?

  32. X.Org getting out of the X Window business? by px2 · · Score: 1

    Hmm. X.Org must have seen the writing on the wall and decided to get out of the X Window business. I hadn't heard that they were driving Wayland project. Good exit strategy. Likewise Mesa.

  33. xorg / their accountant at fault by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

    I have to side with the IRS on this one. BTW, I'm a software developer

  34. Re:that crazy old IRS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    OK, I understand people don't like to TRFA, but did you not even RTF summary? What tricks? The "trick" of revoking tax exempt status for orgs that fail to properly file the required paperwork?

    It's one wierd trick.

  35. They could kepe by Firethorn · · Score: 2

    The problem is that the rules are phenomenally complex.

    Sure they are, but that doesn't stop 90% of people from filing on time, or at least filing for the automatic extension. For that matter, nearly every church in the country manages to do the same.

    I get the idea that the IRS doesn't revoke the status for 'simple' mistakes, they revoke it for major things like not filing for 3+ years. If they're acting within the rules of an exempt organization, even an audit isn't going to turn up more than minor fines at most, and at best it'd amount to IRS agents helping to fix the paperwork.

    FTA:

    "The status of the 501c3 is lost because we (me) failed to file the 3 past years' tax returns on time. Note that we've Never filed returns since our first re-organization to the LLC in 2005.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:They could kepe by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      >> The problem is that the rules are phenomenally complex.
      >
      > Sure they are, but that doesn't stop 90% of people from filing on time,

      Most people have taxes that are trivial because they have no money to speak of and do nothing interesting financially.

      Is that you Joe?

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:They could kepe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No church pays taxes. They get special treatment. You and me pay the churchs share taxes, or American tithe whatever you want to call it.

    3. Re:They could kepe by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2

      Sure they are, but that doesn't stop 90% of people from filing on time, or at least filing for the automatic extension. For that matter, nearly every church in the country manages to do the same.

      Actually, churches are an exception. Churches that have been granted 501(c)3 status as a church under 170(b)(1)(A)(i) are not required to file information returns with the IRS. They get special treatment.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    4. Re:They could kepe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure they are, but that doesn't stop 90% of people from filing on time, or at least filing for the automatic extension. For that matter, nearly every church in the country manages to do the same.

      Actually, churches are an exception. Churches that have been granted 501(c)3 status as a church under 170(b)(1)(A)(i) are not required to file information returns with the IRS. They get special treatment.

      The problem is that they keep violating the terms of that agreement by engaging in politics. The only reason the IRS doesn't go after them is due to the inevitable backlash.

  36. Re:X.org forfeits agreement. IRS does job. News at by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

    If that doesn't qualify as a 501(c)3 I don't know what would qualify.

    I think you are misunderstanding what is going on here. X.org qualified as a 501(c)3 corporation. They lost the qualification because they didn't file the required income taxes. This is completely X.org's fault.

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  37. Re:X.org forfeits agreement. IRS does job. News at by rtaylor · · Score: 1

    The group has no revenue, they rely on donations to function and everything they make is given away for free

    Prove it. Show me the paperwork.

    That is the core of the issue. X.org is required to submit proof of this belief on an annual basis to IRS. They didn't do that.

    --
    Rod Taylor
  38. Re:Of course, they go after Free Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you really think a tax examiner thinks like this? They don't understand open source software development, they understand tax code. They understand that X.org filed a document asking for non-profit status, and was granted that status. All they care about now is that the org files their taxes in a timely manner. At this point they could care less what the org is doing, all they want is a simple tax return.

  39. Re:Fuck off ( score:+9000, troll) by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    Not everyone who supports a state is a fascist.
    Lots of things can be unjust but being asked to prove you are supposed to be exempt from taxation is not.

  40. Re:that crazy old IRS by iamgnat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So the "powers that be" infiltrated X.Org's finance/accounting groups and made them not follow the rules for non-profits?

    This is no different than the spun up fiasco a few months ago about the IRS investigating non-profits that appeared to be fronts for political organizations (and contrary to the Fox spin, it was not just targeting the Tea Party). To be a non-profit there are some specific rules you have to follow to maintain the status. It is the IRS's job to investigate to make sure you are following those rules.

    So the real news here is "IRS does their job and idiots get upset about it and make up conspiracy stories".

  41. Re:X.org forfeits agreement. IRS does job. News at by JWW · · Score: 1

    I love how everyone here is basically hammering on the point that non-profit companies should by default be required to file taxes, even though they never have to pay them.

    I understand that tax policy requires forms. What I'm railing against is that theres always a form and the government keeps asking for more and more forms.

    Forms.... the lifeblood of bureaucracy.....

  42. Re:Of course, they go after Free Software by Lithdren · · Score: 1

    It is pretty messed up, when people cant get off their soap box long enough to read what actually happened.

    Or even worse, you did and still think this somehow reflects reality. In either case, you need a reality check. Just make sure you notify the IRS about it after you cash it.

  43. Re:X.org forfeits agreement. IRS does job. News at by shentino · · Score: 1

    It's newsworthy on slashdot because a nerdy site was involved. And I think that an organization responsible for a pervasive technical standard qualifies as nerdy.

  44. Re:X.org forfeits agreement. IRS does job. News at by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

    I love how everyone here is basically hammering on the point that non-profit companies should by default be required to file taxes, even though they never have to pay them.

    It's the cost of accepting donations. How will the government or even the donors know that everything is above board without regular filings of income statements and tax forms?

    "Trust us" isn't good enough.

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  45. What's more about the subject? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    Many open source projects and organizations aren't a business, and it can be challenging for nerds to keep track of tax rules for various organization types. Depending on where you have your base the rules may differ, and there may even be rules that exempt you from filing the taxes at all.

    Maybe it's time to look around for another home for some non-profit organizations where the political climate is better.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    1. Re:What's more about the subject? by maccodemonkey · · Score: 2

      Many open source projects and organizations aren't a business, and it can be challenging for nerds to keep track of tax rules for various organization types. Depending on where you have your base the rules may differ, and there may even be rules that exempt you from filing the taxes at all.

      Which is why you get an accountant.

      If you accept money, prepare to get an accountant. No one made X.Org accept money.

  46. Re:X.org forfeits agreement. IRS does job. News at by jonsmirl · · Score: 1

    I'm not an insider but I suspect this has to do with Oracle's acquisition of Sun. Sun used to take care of X.org. Now that Oracle has swallowed Sun a lot of things that Sun used to do have been cut. So X.org needs some new friend with a legal and tax department to keep everything in order. Groups of volunteer programmers are known not to be competent in these matters.

  47. Re:that crazy old IRS by shentino · · Score: 1

    I was actually talking about the IRS itself, not X.org's accountants.

  48. The Power of Bill Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill Gates works hand in glove with the NSA, via back-doors in Skype, back-doors in every version of Windows and associated technologies and applications, his obscene every child tracked database vie inBloom, and most recently the Xbox One. You think Gates doesn't demand some pay-back for his efforts?

    Gates has openly declared open-source to be the greatest threat to Microsoft, and the traditional IT business. He has pushed this line with every powerful politician he rubs shoulders with (ie., bribes). Ex Bill Gates hires are some of the most vicious patent trolls on the planet (I wonder where Ballmer will end up next?).

    X.Org is NOT a victim of its own mistakes, no matter how many of these it made. X.Org is a victim of "war by every means possible" strategies by its non-open-source enemies. The IRS goes where Bill gates and other directs it. Meanwhile, no companies abuse the tax system in the USA, Europe and the greater world than the big commercial IT companies. "We pay bribes, not taxes" is their combined motto.

    PS strike back. Warn friends, families and associates about the horrors of always-on NSA spying when people are foolish enough to buy the Xbox One and connect the Kinect sensor bar (motion tracking, high definition cameras and a microphone array that can usually hear conversations in adjoining rooms). Google inBloom and when you stop vomiting at the thought of Bill Gates partnering with Rupert Murdoch to spy on EVERY aspect of your children's lives, start warning as many people as possible about this system, and get it kicked out of your local school district.

    Ballmer is already history because the people have spoken with regards to Microsoft's long recent history of abusing its customers. But the obscene actions of Bill Gates allows the reputation of Microsoft to be pushed so much lower. When they come after open-source, they come after all of us. The main power we have is to say as individuals "enough is enough".

  49. Re:Fuck off ( score:+9000, troll) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a fucking stretch, grow the fuck up.

  50. Re:Of course, they go after Free Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a snivelling ass-licker, sitting on the side of an unjust tax. You make me sick you mendacious fuck.

  51. Re:X.org forfeits agreement. IRS does job. News at by JWW · · Score: 1

    "Trust us" isn't good enough.

    Funny, the NSA seems to think it is...

  52. Re:X.org forfeits agreement. IRS does job. News at by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

    That is funny, but has no relevance to the current topic.

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  53. disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As one who knows the arduous process of gaining 501 (c) 3 status, I'm disappointed that no one at X.Org kept on top of required filings.

  54. Re:that crazy old IRS by iamgnat · · Score: 2

    I was actually talking about the IRS itself, not X.org's accountants.

    Your claim was that there is a conspiracy against OSS organizations, but this wasn't some obscure rule or gray area that they used to revoke the status. The X.org accountant also admits that he screwed it up so unless you have evidence that he is a plant by the IRS or "the powers that be" there is no conspiracy evidenced by this case.

    The IRS's job is to collect taxes according to the tax law (convoluted though it may be). Part of that job is to make sure that people and businesses are paying what they should be (loopholes aside). This is a clear case of X.org's status was reviewed and the IRS found that they weren't meeting the requirements of the non-profit status. It's really not any different than if you had consistently filed your taxes late, they decide to audit you for it, and they turn up evidence of your unreported eBay store that you are supposed to be paying taxes on. Just because you don't like taxes or don't agree with some particular tax law doesn't make what happens in cases like this wrong.

    I'm not denying that there are abuses and things aren't enforced uniformly, but the fact is that they failed to follow the law and were punished for it according to the law.

    People complain when a government agency isn't doing their job and you're complaining about them actually doing it. There is no conspiracy here. There is no trampling of freedoms. This is exactly what is supposed to happen in such cases.

  55. IRS+USPS by dfsmith · · Score: 2

    I was treasurer of a small non-profit ($200k/yr) and our Form 990 filing ran about 60 pages. That's tedious, but was normally straightforward. The interesting part came when filing for the automatic 3-month extension* (Form 8460?) in the mail. The USPS seems to tuck these forms behind the counter, and wait till the deadline passes. Then the IRS would take a month to tell us that the extension was received 3 days late, and we owed them a fine of $1000/day for 40 days. Then we'd appeal, say we were sorry and it won't happen again and "procedures have been put in place". That would normally appease them. The "procedure" is to use registered mail, or file for the extension immediately at the close of the financial year.

    Anyway, my point is that the filing was not trivial. There were many things that could go wrong.

    Also, donations over $5000 must be tracked and reported individually. You'll get a big smile from your 501(c)3 accountant if you donate $4999.

    * We always filed the extension because, by and large, our books were not stable until well after the regular filing deadline---mostly people "forgot" to cash checks we wrote, so we had to let the checks expire, which took 6 months.

  56. Re:that crazy old IRS by shentino · · Score: 1

    My allegation was that the IRS chose to be stricter with X.org than it is with other nonprofits.

    3 years of silence and then a sudden tax exempt revoke is a very cagey response to 3 years of not filing any tax returns.

    The IRS shouldn't have waited that long without sending notice.

    The fact that the feds and the corporations are in bed elsewhere is also a good reason to at least suspect underhandedness on the IRS's part.

  57. Re:X.org forfeits agreement. IRS does job. News at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right. Just a few million vocal individuals...

  58. I use open source software all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the biggest uses I have for LibreOffice Calc is to make a look-alike version of all of the Canadian Tax forms I need to file my taxes. I code the smarts into the spreadsheets, test them and then file my taxes (in Canada its April 31) early (usually the first week in April). Its all open source software, and all my taxes are filed on time. Because I file early, I usually get a return early, and usually don't get audited. I only have to fill out about 5 pages of stuff. Seriously, how tough is it to file on time? The logic on those forms is very trivial. The math is basically arithmetic, no group theory, no ring theory, no homomorphisms or isomorphisms, no graph theory, no set theory, no curl or divergence, no Fourier or Laplace Transforms, no Jacobian products. Its usually just a few forms. It might take an hour or two. Its just arithmetic. Simple questions. File.On.Time.

  59. Targeting OSS projects? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Ummmm, they didn't file on time and *should* pay the price ... hardly targeted.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  60. Time to get even with those Libertarian OS coders by xtronics · · Score: 1

    Probably someone on the team donated to the Ron Paul campaign..

  61. The IRS is Simply Following the Law Here by pbnagel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Prior to 2006, certain 501(c)(3) organizations that normally had gross revenues less than $25,000 were not required to file any tax returns at all. One problem that created is that the IRS had no way of knowing whether organizations that weren't filing returns (1) had gone out of business, (2) had gross revenues less than $25,000, or (3) were supposed to file returns but were failing to do so. So, in the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Congress amended Section 6033(i) to require all Section 501(c) organizations (except churches) to file at least a very abbreviated return (containing six items of information), and it amended Section 6033(j) to provide that any organization, whatever its size, that fails to file a return for three consecutive years would automatically lose its exemption.

    Section 6033(j) doesn't give the IRS any discretion in the matter. Failure to file a return for three consecutive years means that tax-exempt status is automatically revoked, whether the IRS takes any formal action or not, and there is no procedure for appeal, either within the IRS or in the courts. Because this is such a draconian penalty, in 2009 and 2010, as the third full year following the 2006 Act began to run out, the IRS was very aggressive (and creative, at least for such a bureaucracy) in trying to get the word out to the nonprofit community, including using podcasts, YouTube videos, radio PSAs, and so on, encouraging them to file returns to avoid losing tax-exemption. It even posted a list of all the organizations that had failed to file for three consecutive years and then allowed them a further grace period to file the necessary returns to avoid revocation. There were something like 400,000 - 500,000 organizations on that list, and probably 90 percent of them did nothing and ended up having their exemption revoked.

    Since then, the IRS has announced procedures for getting tax-exempt status reinstated, but that requires filing a new exemption application. Some 50,000 or so organizations that did lose their tax-exempt status have reapplied in the past several years, and that extraordinary, additional workload on the Cincinnati office that processes exemption applications is one reasons why it now seems to take the IRS forever to rule on new exemption applications and is part, but not the only reason for the highly publicized delay in processing Tea Party applications.

    1. Re:The IRS is Simply Following the Law Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Informative, thanks from someone who doesn't live in the US (and so doesn't understand anything about the US tax system) and who loathes and detests having to work with money at the best of times (and doesn't understand his own country's tax system).

      I'm posting AC to avoid clearing my moderations (I hope).

      Two real questions : I understand the benefits of not having to submit more than very minimal paperwork if you've got the [arcane number classification], but if the [arcane number classification] is lost, then so what? Does that then have any effect other than meaning that there are more bits of paper buried in shallow peat graves in the tax office?

      And, why are they registered in a country with such complex tax laws? The "arcane number" has at least three decimal (or hexadecimal?) digits in it, implying in the order of 1000 (base 10 or base 16?) different laws and regulations in the tax code. Which is complex. Can't they just be registered in a country with a simple tax system - like "$50/ year/ company registration ; cash ; pay in advance." 3 regulations ; job sorted. I gather that there is a lot of opposition to such "tax havens", but there's a lot of benefits to it as well.

  62. Re:that crazy old IRS by arkenian · · Score: 1

    My allegation was that the IRS chose to be stricter with X.org than it is with other nonprofits.

    3 years of silence and then a sudden tax exempt revoke is a very cagey response to 3 years of not filing any tax returns.

    The IRS shouldn't have waited that long without sending notice.

    The fact that the feds and the corporations are in bed elsewhere is also a good reason to at least suspect underhandedness on the IRS's part.

    Actually, that's pretty normal for the IRS. The IRS is not, actually, much in the habit of giving warnings. It takes them a while to get around to things, and once they do, its pay-up-or-else (or revocation or whatever). They aren't well enough funded to bother with warning notices, or hearings, etc. If you disagree with their finding, there are things one can do and an appeals process, but generally they don't initiate such things except in certain categories of audit issues.

  63. Re:Of course, they go after Free Software by Kalriath · · Score: 1

    What tax? They failed to file a form saying they don't owe any tax!

    --
    For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  64. Re: that crazy old IRS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I know they targeted both groups.
    Just about 95% conservative and 5% liberal.
    But I see what you're saying.

  65. Re:Fuck off ( score:+9000, troll) by Bartles · · Score: 1

    Look at the lists of questions the IRS has been asking of certain 501c applicants, and tell me they are within the realm of just scrutiny.

  66. Re:Fuck off ( score:+9000, troll) by Bartles · · Score: 1

    Troll? Seriously?

  67. Re:that crazy old IRS by doccus · · Score: 1

    It's one wierd trick.

    Nope, one wired trick ;-)

  68. Re:that crazy old IRS by doccus · · Score: 1

    Or.. one wider trick

  69. Accountant to blame! by CHIT2ME · · Score: 1

    I hope their accountant has very deep pockets. I would think he would be liable for such a stupid mistake/sabotage!

    --
    My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!