Seeking Tax Exempt Status By Lessening The Burden Of Government

Let’s introduce Captain Obvious: if you want charitable tax-exempt status from the IRS, you need to have a charitable purpose.

Let’s look at New World Infrastructure Organization’s application for tax-exempt status.

It starts with two individuals: Scott and Pam Johnston.

They owned a business called The Pipe Man Corp (TPMC). Scott was the president and Pam the vice-president

TPMC was organized to develop a portable pipe manufacturing system, working and shaping pipe in larger-than-usual sizes. Combine these pipes with road infrastructure and a business opportunity was created.

TPMC never got started. I guess it needed angel investors, and the investors never appeared.

The Johnstons then organized a nonprofit corporation called New World Infrastructure Organization (New World).  Scott and Pam were its only officers and directors. TPMC granted New World permission to use its copyrights and patents, whatever that meant, given that Scott and Pam were the only two officers and were on both sides of the equation.

New World submitted an application for tax-exempt status, stating that its …

… ultimate purpose and core focus will be charitable, with … [its] main beneficiary being Federal, State and Local Government Agencies.

OK, its purpose has something to do with government.

… our research will result in encouraging Economic Development throughout the United States. It will save time, money and lessen the burden of government. The prototype machinery, after testing, will be placed into service making very large corrugated metal pipe. The pipes need to make a Highway Overpass can be made and arched in less than a week. The cost of these pipes represent a fraction of the cost of traditional methods.”

Lessening the burden of government can be a charitable mission. For tax-exempts, this generally means that a governmental unit considers the organization to be acting on its behalf. The organization is freeing up resources – people, material, money – that the governmental unit would have to devote were it to conduct the activity itself.   

It would be helpful to present a prearranged understanding with one or more government units, especially since New World was hanging so much of its hopes on the lessening-the-burden-of-government hook.

Helpful but not happening.

I am not clear how New World was lessening anything.

According to the narrative description, … [New World] intends to fulfill its charitable purpose by working with governmental agencies, engineering firms, and businesses to reduce the cost of infrastructure projects to ‘as little as one fourth current costs.’”

Wait a second. Is New World saying that its exempt purpose was to reduce the cost of projects to the government? That is not really an exempt purpose, methinks. Let’s say that you start a business and guarantee the government that you will beat a competitor’s price by 10%. That may or may not be a good business model, but you are still in business and still for-profit. Maybe a little less profit, but still for-profit.

How about if New World provided its services at cost?

… while petitioner has suggested … that it would be willing to enter into an exclusivity agreement … to sell its product at cost, it has not established through its bylaws or otherwise that it would in fact do so.”

Seems that New World wanted a profit. It is not clear what it would do with a profit, although there is the old reliable saw of paying-out profits via salaries and bonuses to its two officers and directors.

The Court saw a failed business effort slapped into a tax-exempt application. The supposed charitable purpose was to offer a lower price on infrastructure projects, which was not quite as inspiring as clothing the poor or feeding the hungry. It appeared that no governmental unit had asked to have its burdens reduced. It further appeared that there was a more-than-zero possibility of personal benefit and private inurement to the Johnstons.

Why even go to all this effort?    

I suppose the (c)(3) status would have allowed New World to obtain the funding that its predecessor – TPMC – was unable to obtain. TPMC would have issued stock or borrowed money. New World would have raised capital via tax-deductible charitable contributions.   

The Tax Court said no dice.

Our case this time was New World Infrastructure Organization v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-91. 

IRS Rejects A Religious Organization’s Tax-Exempt Application

 

We have a nonprofit application for exempt status that has gone off the rails.  

The reviewing (IRS) officer wanted them, for example, to recharter under a different category of nonprofit status.

I considered it arbitrary, but if it made him happy….

He called this week threatening to terminate his review altogether. I called him back immediately.

What happened, I asked

You have not forwarded all the information I asked for, he explained.

I faxed you several documents in early June. I said. I am unaware of having omitted anything.

I need state certification of the amendment to the charter, he replied.

Which he had not requested previously.

Fine. I called the secretary of state’s office, explaining my situation. They were very helpful and by the end of the day I received a verification that I could forward to the IRS.

The nonprofit, by the way, is a high school booster club. The IRS is treating them like they were Amazon. Folks, these are parents selling pop and snacks at high school games. All they are trying to do is buy bleachers and build restrooms nearer the athletic fields. The IRS overkill here is ridiculous.

My previous exempt application, on the other hand, went smoothly. I had one conversation with the reviewing officer and that was it.

Yes, one’s experience with the IRS can vary greatly depending on whom one is working with.

I am looking at IRS response to an application by an organization called Christians Engaged. It caught my attention for two reasons: first, the response came out of Cincinnati; second, the organization got turned down. I get curious when an application is rejected. I remember, for example, an application rejected for being little more than a masquerade for sending family members to college on a tax-deductible basis.

Let’s set this up:

(1)  The organization was organized in Texas in 2019.

(2)  The founder and president is a former Republican Congressional candidate and a preacher.

(3)  The vice president is a former Promise Keepers prayer coordinator and a homeschool mom.

(4)  The secretary is a millennial managing Republican field teams in Collins county, Texas.

Sounds 2021-ish.

The organization’s mission statement includes the following:

a.    Regular prayer for the nation

b.    Impact culture by voting every election

c.    Encourage political education and activism

d.    Educate Christians on the importance of prayer, voting and nonpartisan political engagement

Got it. There is noticeable call-to-action here.

So what are the activities of Christians Engaged?

(1)  Hold weekly prayer meetings for state and federal leaders, including distribution of program outlines to participating churches.

(2)  Maintain a website and social media providing educational materials and connections for Christians to become politically active.

(3)  Educate believers on issues central to biblical faith, such as the sanctity of life, the meaning of marriage, private versus governmental ethics, religious liberty, and so on.

(4)  Conduct educational activities, including a course in political activism, with a basis in Biblical and Christian value systems.

(5)  Educate on how to select between imperfect candidates as well as political party impact on elected officials.

Tax-exempts have to be careful when they approach political activities.  The type of exempt we are discussing here is the (c)(3) - the most favorable tax status, as contributions to a (c)(3) are tax-deductible.

As a generalization, a tax-exempt is permitted to advocate on issues affecting them, the community, society and the nation. Think environmental protection or domestic abuse, for example, and you will get a feel for it.

What it cannot do is lobby (at least, not to any significant extent).

What is lobbying?

An obvious example is direct lobbying: contacting an elected or government official with the intent of influencing new or existing legislation.

Less obvious is indirect lobbying, sometimes referred to as grassroots lobbying. Rather than contacting an elected or government official directly, the goal is to influence and motivate the public to do so.

To me this definition is soapy water. A tax exempt is allowed to advocate, and obviously it will advocate on behalf of its mission statement. An early education (c)(3) will, for example, advocate with the goal of getting someone to leave the couch and take action on early education matters.  

We have to tighten-up the definition of grassroots lobbying to make it workable.

How about this:

Attempt to influence the general public through communications that:

·      Refer to specific legislation

·      Reflect a point of view on said legislation, and

·      Include a call to action

Better. It seems that a general education or exhortation mission – and leaving specific legislation or candidates alone - will fit into this definition.

What did the IRS reviewing officer see in the Christians Engaged application?

(1)  The activities approach that of an action organization, involving itself with political campaigns and candidates.

How, me asks?

The organization involves itself on issues prominent in political campaigns, instructing what the Bible says about the issue and how the public should vote.

(2)  The issues discussed are more commonly affiliated with certain candidates of one political party rather than candidates of another party, meaning the organization’s activities are not neutral.

(3)  The organization itself is not neutral, as it instructs people on using and voting the Bible. 

(4)  The organization serves the interest of the Republican party more than incidentally, meaning it serves a substantial nonexempt purpose.

 Huh?

Let’s just quote the IRS: 

Specifically, you educate Christians on what the Bible says in areas where they can be instrumental including the areas of sanctity of life, the definition of marriage, biblical justice, freedom of speech, defense, and borders and immigration, U.S. and Israel relations. The bible teachings are typically affiliated with the [Republican] party and candidates.”

That took a turn I did not expect.

I expected an analysis of applying soapy-water standards of grassroots lobbying to societal reality in the 21^st century.  

We got something … else.

The matter is being appealed, of course.

Setting Up A Museum

Have you ever wondered why and how there are so many private art museums in the United States: The Brant Foundation, The Broad, The Warehouse?

Let’s posit the obvious immediately: wealthy people with philanthropic objectives.

This however is a tax blog, meaning there is a tax hook to the discussion.

Let’s go through it.

We already know that the tax Code allows a deduction for charitable contributions made to a domestic corporation or trust that is organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes.  There are additional restrictions: no part of the earnings can inure to the benefit of a private individual, for example.

Got it: charitable and no sneak-arounds on the need to be charitable.

How much is the deduction?

Ah, here is where the magic happens. If you give cash, then the deduction is easy: it is the amount of cash given, less benefits received in return (if any).

What if you give noncash? Like a baseball card collection, for example.

Now we have to look at the type of charity.

How many types of charities are there?

Charities are also known as 501(c)(3)s, but there several types of (c)(3)s:

·      Those that are publicly supported

·      Those that are supported by gifts, dues, and fees

·      The supporting organization

·      The nonoperating private foundation

·      The operating private foundation

What happens is that the certain noncash contributions do not mix will with certain types of (c)(3)s. The combination that we are concerned with is:

 

·      Capital gain property (other than qualified stock), and

·      The nonoperating private foundation

 Let’s talk definitions for a moment.

 

·      What is capital gain property?

 

Property that would have generated a long-term capital gain had it been sold for fair market value. Say that you bought $25,000 of Apple stock in 1997, for example, when it traded at 25 cents per share.

 

By the way, that Apple stock would also be an example of “qualified stock.”

 

·      What is not capital gain property?

The easiest example would be inventory to a business: think Krogers and groceries. A sneaky one would be property that would otherwise be capital gain property except that you have not owned it long enough to qualify for long-term capital gains treatment.

 

·      What is a nonoperating private foundation?

 

The classic is a family foundation. Say that CTG sells this blog for a fortune, and I set up the CTG Family Trust. Every year around Thanksgiving and through Christmas the CTG family reviews and decides how much to contribute to various and sundry charitable causes.  Mind you, we do not operate any programs or activities ourselves. No sir, all we do is write checks to charities that do operate programs and activities.

Why do noncash contributions not mix well with nonoperating foundations?

Because the contribution deduction will be limited (except for qualified stock) to one’s cost (referred to as “basis”) in the noncash property.

So?

Say that I own art. I own a lot of art. The art has appreciated ridiculously since I bought it because the artist has been “discovered.” My cost (or “basis”) in the art is pennies on the dollar.

My kids are not interested in the art. Even if they were interested, let’s say that I am way over the combined estate and gift tax exemption amount. I would owe gift tax (if I transfer while I am alive) or estate tax (if I transfer upon my death). The estate & gift tax rate is 40% and is not to be ignored.

I am instead thinking about donating the art. It would be sweet if I could also keep “some” control over the art once I am gone. 

I talk to my tax advisor. He/she tells me about that unfortunate rule about art and nonoperating foundations.

I ask my tax advisor for an alternate strategy.

Enter the operating foundation.

Take a private foundation. Slap an operating program into it.

Can you guess an example of an operating program?

Yep, an art museum.

I set-up the Galactic Command Family Museum, donate the art and score a major charitable contribution deduction.

What is the museum’s operating program?

You got it: displaying the art.

Let’s be frank: we are talking about an extremely high-end tax technique. Some consider this to be a tax loophole, albeit a loophole with discernable societal benefits.

Can it be abused? Of course.

How? What if the Galactic Command Family Museum’s public hours are between 3:30 and 5 p.m. on the last Wednesday of April in leap years? What if the entrance is behind a fake door on an unnumbered floor in a building without obvious ingress or egress? What if a third of the art collection is hanging on the walls of the CTG family business offices?

That is a bit extreme, but you get the drift.

One last point about the deduction if this technique is done correctly. Let’s use the flowing example:

                  The art is worth             $10,000,000

                  I paid                            $          1,000

We already know that I get a $10,000,000 charitable deduction.

However, what becomes of the appreciation in the art – that is, the $9,999,000 over what I paid for it? Does that get taxed to me, to the museum, to anybody?

Nope.

Walk The Walk, Talk The Talk

We have another not-for-profit story.

Spoiler Alert: it failed.

Why did it fail?

Sometimes there is a great story, the churning of technical arcana and the tease of suspense.

This is not one of those times.

Our homespun protagonist this time is the Community Education Foundation. It had changed names several times over its life, but that appears to have been its last nom de jour.

It began life as a doe-eyed and enthusiastic 501(c)(3) back in 2001. It was going to change the world:

The …. is a conservative research and educational institute focusing on public policy issues that have particular impact on African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans and heritage groups (the ‘Target Groups’).”

                COMMENT: “Heritage” groups?

Anyway …

The Foundation’s guiding principle is to encourage open inquiry about public policy issues that are of particular interest and educational values for the Target Groups and the public in general and to provide programs that highlight and educate the Target Groups and the public about these germane subjects and/or public policy issues.”

Wow. Good thing someone jumped on “educating” all those “target” groups on “germane” subjects.

The (c)(3) obviously had to do stuff to bring enlightenment to the benighted and wretched, including:

(1) Town hall meetings

(2) National workshops

(3) Congressional forums

(4) Billboards, radio, television, and other media, such as town criers, bodypainting and soothing rap music drifting through open car windows while waiting at a traffic light.

Fast forward. To 2012. Eleven years later. The IRS took a look at said (c)(3). It wanted to know how it was doing.

The IRS revoked the (c)(3).

Whoa. That seemed a bit strong.

What pray tell provoked such a response?

The Community Education Foundation had done nothing – zip, zero, the square root of nada – for 11 years.

The (c)(3) disagreed and took the matter to Tax Court.

It did have an argument: it turns out that it tried but failed to do some things in 2009 and 2010, including a “Presidential Inaugural Ball” to honor veterans.

COMMENT: I too have no idea what one has to do with the other.

The Tax Court pointed out the obvious: if you want to be a (c)(3), you have to …

·      Talk the talk, and

·      Walk the walk

In eleven years, the organization had performed none of the activities it had said it would when it applied for exempt status.

There was no walk to the talk.

The (c)(3) status was revoked.

Can A Coffee Shop Be Tax-Exempt?

I have been spending quite a bit of time over the last few days working on or reviewing not-for-profit returns.

It may surprise you, but – with a few exceptions – not-for-profit organizations are required to file paperwork annually with the IRS.

There is a reason for this: the tax Code recognizes some organizations as “per se” not-for-profit – churches are the classic example. Churches do not need to be told by the IRS that they are tax-exempt; they simply are. A large part of this is church:state separation, although church programs that begin to look uncannily similar to for-profit businesses are supposed to file an income tax return (known as Form 990-T) and pay tax.

Then we have the next tier: the education, charitable, scientific, etc. entities that also comprise not-for-profits. These are not “per se” and have to apply with the IRS to have their exempt status recognized. The application is done via either Form 1023 or Form 1024, depending upon the type of exempt status desired.

We talking about the March of Dimes, Doctors Without Borders or your local high school boosters club.

One thing this tier has in common is that they have to explain to the IRS what their exempt purpose is.

And there are tax subtleties at play. For example, can your exempt purpose be less than 50% of what you do? What if it is more than 50% but you have a significant (but less than 50%) non-exempt purpose? What if you start out at a more-than-50% exempt purpose but – over time – your non-exempt purpose goes over 50%?

This becomes its own field of specialization. I have met practitioners over the years whose only practice is tax exempts.

I am looking at the IRS response to a recent exempt application. I will give you a few facts and flavor, and let’s see if you can anticipate the IRS decision on the matter.

(1)  A minister had an idea for a coffee shop. The shop would be separate from the church (hence the exempt application). Being separate however would allow (and maybe encourage) other churches and religious groups to participate.

(2)  The coffee shop would allow believers and non-believers to interact. There would be religious activities, but the activities would not be organized by the shop. They would instead be organized by the patrons. By the way, the shop could also be used for non-religious activities. One could leave a donation for the use of the space.

(3)  There are no similar businesses where the shop is located, hence it is not taking commercial opportunity from a profit-seeking business.

(4)  The shop affords a gathering space that is open late, as well as provide safe space for residents to gather.

(5)  The shop takes part in a job-skills training program to help underserved youth by placing them in an actual job for a six-week internship.

(6)  The shop participates in a project for the children of incarcerated parents. Patrons can share gifts with the kids, such as for their birthdays and Christmas.

(7)  The shop does not want to turn away anyone for inability to pay. There is a program where a customer can pay for a certain amount of coffee in advance. When a not-able-to-pay patron enters, he/she is served from those advance payments.

(8)  The shop sells coffee, teas, smoothies and so forth. There are also baked goods, as well as salads and desserts.

(9)  The shop roasts its own coffee, which is sourced directly from coffee farmers. This allows the farmers to earn more than other conventional means of distribution. The coffee is also available for sale, and there are plans to sell the coffee online in the future

(10)        The shop uses some volunteers, but its largest expense is (understandably) wages and related payroll costs.

(11)        The shop intends to give away its profits - that is, when it finally becomes profitable.

What do you think? Would you give this shop exempt status?

Here goes the IRS:

(1)  To be exempt, an organization must be both organized and operated exclusively for an exempt purpose. The test has two parts: the paperwork and what is actually going on.

(2)  The IRS has defined the word “exclusively” to mean “primarily.”

(3)  Hot on the heels of that definition, the IRS has also said that non-exempt activities must not be “more than an insubstantial part” of activities.

OBSERVATION: You can see the evolution of law here. A non-tax specialist would anticipate that an activity is exempt if the exempt activity is 51% or more of all activities. The flip side is that a non-exempt activity should be as much as 49%.

The IRS however states that a non-exempt activity cannot be “more than an insubstantial part” of all activities.

Does “insubstantial” mean as much as 49%?

If not, then the IRS is changing definitions all over the place.

(4)  The IRS has previously decided that the operation of a grocery store to provide on-the-job training to hardcore unemployed represented two purposes, not one. Each purpose has to be reviewed to determine whether it is exempt or not.

(a)  And now it gets tricky. If the store is staffed principally by a target group (or volunteers) AND the store is no larger than reasonably necessary for achieving the exempt purpose, the IRS has said that the store is exempt.

(b)  Conversely, if the store is not staffed by the target group (or volunteers) or larger than necessary, the IRS has said that the store is non-exempt.

(5)  While the coffee shop intends to donate its profits, its main activity is the operation of a coffee shop in a commercial manner.

(6)  And that activity is “more than insubstantial.”

The IRS rejected the application. The coffee shop will have to pay taxes.

Doesn’t it matter that they are giving away all profits? Isn’t there a vow-of-poverty-thing that one can point to?

And there is a key point about tax law in the world of exempts. Giving away money will not transform a for-profit activity into a not-for-profit activity. Granted, you may get a charitable deduction, but you will be taxable. The IRS has been steadfast on this point for many years. The activity itself has to be exempt, not just the monies derived from said activity. To phrase it differently, gigantic donations will not make Microsoft a tax-exempt entity.

The IRS decided the shop was too similar to a Starbucks or Caribou.    

And giving away any profits wasn’t enough to change the answer.

Does the shop do great work?

Yes.

Is it tax exempt?

Nope.

Z Street Decision Will Force IRS To Disclose How It Reviews – And Delays - Tax-Exempt Applications

I am reading things that make me wonder what is going on at the IRS. It repetitively appears that the agency – or at least influential partisan players – think that the job of the IRS is to take sides in political issues.

I am looking at Z Street v Shulman. It is a Court decision from the District of Columbia. There are some interesting points in here, embalmed in yawn-inducing legalese.

Let’s talk about this case.

Z Street is a non-profit corporation. It comes out of Pennsylvania, was organized in 2009 and immediately applied for tax-exempt status. Its purpose is to educate the public about Zionism; about facts on the formation of the Jewish state; and about Israel’s right to refuse to negotiate with terrorists.

We know about that the IRS instituted a policy of 501(c)(4) suppression prior to the 2012 presidential election. The 501(c)(4)s are a different animal from a (c)(3), the “traditional” charity. A (c)(4) may engage in an unlimited amount of lobbying, as long as it stays within the issues for which it was organized. If someone felt strongly about blue M&Ms, for example, I suppose that someone could organize a (c)(4) and lobby nonstop – as long as they stayed within the issues concerning blue M&Ms. A (c)(4) can also engage in some partisan political activity, as long as it does not become its primary activity. There is a price however for this freedom to till so close to political soil: deductions to a (c)(4) are not deductible.

Contrast that to a (c)(3), contributions to which are tax-deductible. As a trade-off, there are severe restrictions on lobbying activities of a (c)(3).

Anyway, Z Street applies for (c)(3) status. It wants that tax-deductible status, understandably. It is possible that – in the future – it will spin-off a (c)(4). 

Here are some quick dates:

·       12/29/09 - applies for exempt status with IRS

·       5/15/10 – IRS send a letter requesting additional information

·       6/7/10 – Z Street provides additional information to the IRS

·       7/10/10 – Z Street’s attorney tracks down the IRS person (Dianne Gentry) handling the file.  Agent Gentry tells the attorney that she has two reservations:

o   Z Street is engaged in “advocacy” activities that are not permitted under Section 501(c)(3)

o   The IRS has special procedures for applications from organizations whose activities relate to Israel, and whose positions with respect to Israel contradict the current policies of the U.S. government. She further stated, “these cases are being sent to a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the Administration’s public policies."

I am stunned.

I immediately pick up on the issue of a (c)(3) and advocacy. I expected that issue, and frankly, I wonder why Z Street didn’t organize a (c)(4) instead.

But “special procedures” and the “Administration’s” current policies? My tax-exempt application is to be judged on whether the Administration “likes” me and whether I say “politically correct” things? Good grief, bring on Kristallnacht.

Z Street brought a lawsuit. They alleged that the IRS maintains a special policy when it comes to Israel and to (c)(3)s whose stance does not agree with the Obama Administration, and that such applications are subject to special procedures not applied to other organizations. 

What does Z Street want?

·       A declaration that policy is unconstitutional, and

·       An injunction forcing the IRS to disclose the policy and barring the IRS from employing the same.

The IRS stalled this thing almost long enough to put your kid through college. I am disturbed that the IRS core argument seems to be “we can do whatever we want.” Here are their arguments:

(1)  The Anti-Injunction Act

The AIA was first enacted in 1867, and states that ”no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax is assessed.”

The IRS argued that the AIA barred the Court from granting injunctive relief.

(2)  Code Section 7428

Code Section 7428 already provides remedy for organizations that seek to challenge IRS determination of their (c)(3) status.

(3)  The IRS also argued that the case should be dismissed on “sovereign immunity” grounds.

The Court goes to work:

(1)  The D.C. Circuit had already decided a case (Cohen) rejecting  that the AIA’s “assessment and collection” language bars any and all lawsuits that might ultimately impact revenue to the Treasury. It has to be so, otherwise one could pass virtually any law and render it unreachable by calling it a “tax.”

(2)  By its terms, Section 7428 applies when there is controversy concerning qualification of an organization as a (c)(3). The only available remedy under Section 7428 is a “declaration with respect to … initial qualification or continuing qualification.”

The Courts points out that Z Street is not asking the Court for (c)(3) qualification. Rather it is asking the Court to force the IRS to follow a “constitutionally valid process” – nothing more and nothing less.

(3)  The Administrative Procedure Act expressly waived sovereign immunity for lawsuits such as this. The APA waives sovereign immunity for suits for nonmonetary damages that allege wrongful action by an agency or its officers or employees.

The Court points out the obvious: that is exactly what Z Street is doing.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson observed:

Defendant struggles mightily to transform a lawsuit that clearly challenges the constitutionality of the process that the IRS allegedly employs when it determines the tax-exempt status of certain organizations into a dispute over tax liability as a means of attempting to thwart this action’s advancement.”

In legalese, this is like being punched in the face.

The Court decided that the Z Street’s lawsuit could proceed. After the IRS files its response, the case will go to discovery. The IRS will have to pony up what it has been doing with tax-exempt applications these last few years. Anticipate that Z Street attorneys will seek depositions from other groups similarly treated by the IRS.  

Good.

If proven, this type of behavior by the IRS is thuggish and needs to be punished. People need to lose their jobs, if not their freedom for a while. Perhaps we could build a Lois Lerner wing at a prison somewhere. Perhaps somewhere near the District of Columbia so these people would not have to travel far.

Why do I say this? Our taxation system relies – to an overwhelming extent – on voluntary compliance. The function of the IRS is to administer and collect taxes and process records of the same. Whatever our political stance, we can have common ground on the assessment and collection of tax. We can all hate the IRS equally.

If we disagree on tax law, however, we take that disagreement into the legislative arena. Allow elected representatives to hash it out. At least the representatives have to run for reelection occasionally, so there is some chance for an accounting of their decisions and actions. This is greatly preferable – and healthier for our system of governance – than partisan berserkers bending whatever lever of government they can access to impose their dogma du jour.

Remember: there will be a future White House with very different attitudes and values than the present one. If this behavior goes unpunished, those now in power will then be out of power, and it will be their views and causes that will be handed to the tender mercies of the partisan berserkers then in power.

Don’t come crying then.