![]() ![]() But information provided in portions of IRS Form 990 other than Schedule B already serves these interests by providing a highly-detailed view of potential conflicts of interest, payments to officers and directors, organizational finances, the dollar amount of reported contributions, whether each was a non-cash contribution, and a description of any in-kind property contributed. Enforcement of laws concerning self-dealing, excess benefit transactions, transactions with interested persons, and the like are important government interests. Plainly, the IRS does not need donor information to enforce tax law. The proposed revisions acknowledge these principles. ![]() ![]() As the Supreme Court has explained, “n the First Amendment context, fit matters.” Simply asserting a generalized law enforcement interest, for instance, is not sufficient. It is not enough for the government to simply invoke a general interest it must show that its disclosure regime is properly tailored to that interest. Under exacting scrutiny, the government must justify its disclosure demand, not force citizens to explain why the vast accumulation of private, constitutionally-protected information is harmless. Alabama, the Supreme Court has held that unjustified “state scrutiny” of a private organization’s membership is inconsistent with all Americans’ right “to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in so doing.” Indeed, the Supreme Court has “repeatedly found that compelled disclosure, in itself, can seriously infringe on privacy of association and belief guaranteed by the First Amendment.” “t is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters … state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.” After all, “n individual’s freedom to speak, to worship, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances could not be vigorously protected from interference by the State unless a correlative freedom to engage in group effort toward those ends were also not guaranteed.” Īccordingly, when the government seeks to obtain private donor information from organizations, it must pass the “strict test” of exacting scrutiny. When the government compels disclosure of a private organization’s financial supporters, it intrudes on the First Amendment’s protection of free association. The IRS should be commended for this action.Ĭompelled disclosure of donors to civil society groups offends the First Amendment. Amending tax regulations so that only section 501(c)(3) and section 527 organizations must continue to provide the names and addresses of contributors on their tax filings is a positive step for the freedoms of speech and association. In this matter, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has the opportunity to protect the privacy of American citizens exercising their First Amendment rights without compromising the agency’s mandate to enforce federal tax law. ![]() On behalf of the Institute for Free Speech, I respectfully submit the following comments in support of the proposed rule updating the information reporting regulations under Section 6033. RE: Comments on REG-102508-16: Guidance Under Section 6033 Regarding the Reporting Requirements of Exempt Organizations (Employee Benefits, Exempt Organizations, and Employment Taxes) ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |