Can a Tax Attorney or Accountant Explain, Please?

[Barbara]

How can a donation to a legal defense fund be tax deductable?

***************

Last week, a Federal Appeals Court overturned Washington D.C.'s long-standing restrictions on handguns — a decision that endangers all of America's gun laws.

This case is most likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court and we have a tidal wave of work to do before it gets there.

This battle — to its very core — is the most important battle we have ever waged. We need your help today to build a strong Brady Gun Law Defense Fund to save America's gun laws.

This fight is so critical to the safety and sanity of our nation that an anonymous donor has extended his challenge and will match dollar for dollar all gifts to this Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Your gift will be fully tax deductible.

The threat to all our gun laws is truly unprecedented. The hypocrisy of the ruling is astounding.

What is at stake for you and your community? An emboldened gun lobby will use the ruling to challenge strong local, state and federal gun laws.

We must prepare for an onslaught of lawsuits in which gun laws will be challenged under this new reading of the Second Amendment — a strategy the gun lobby rarely used because of past legal decisions … until now. And, if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses itself and adopts the "individual right to bear arms" view approved by the Federal Appeals Court, all good gun laws everywhere could be at risk …

... from the long-standing machine gun ban … to the 1968 Gun Control Act … to the Brady Background Check Law.

… to your local and state laws … like the ones in California and New Jersey banning Assault Weapons … and many more.

These and many other life-saving laws promoting public safety are at risk. And we need to be ready for an immediate onslaught of challenges and fight them tooth and nail. We need your help today with a tax-deductible gift!

Why is this ruling so radical? Because the decision defies almost 70 years of legal precedent. All courts before this — save one — have ruled that the Second Amendment is not an individual right to bear arms, and this is the first Federal Appeals Court ever to declare a gun law unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment.

In her dissent, Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote that Second Amendment rights relate to "Those militia whose continued vitality is required to safeguard the individual state." Unlike Judge Henderson, the two judge majority ruled against decades of legal precedent…

… And completely disregarded the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia, depriving D.C. citizens of a strict handgun law enacted thirty years ago.

Talk about judicial activism! We can't help but note the unbelievable hypocrisy here too. Conservatives cry and gnash their teeth about activism from the bench. This decision is judicial activism at its worst.

Judge Silberman, who wrote the majority opinion, is well-known for his close ties to the right-wing. Now — with quintessential judicial activism from the bench — the gun lobby threatens to achieve through the courts what it has been unable to do in Congress.

This is going to be a long, hard fight, but with your help we will save our nation's gun laws. We will keep you up-to-date as we confront this extraordinary threat to our efforts to reduce gun violence. But right now, we need your support to build our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Remember that right now your gift to this fund will be doubled! Please act now.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Barbara, I don't know. The tax code is so complicated that none of us peons can figure it out.

The NRA's Civil Defense fund is a 501(c)3, so I guess Sarah & Co. can do it ,too.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I get a kick out of this:

Talk about judicial activism! We can't help but note the unbelievable hypocrisy here too. Conservatives cry and gnash their teeth about activism from the bench. This decision is judicial activism at its worst.

This decision is judicial activism at its best! This is the "activism" the Court is supposed to engage in - protecting our rights, supporting the Constitution, and yielding to the Supreme Law of the Land.

Woody

"It is contended, that this article of the code, is in violation of the constitution of the United States, and of this state. The clause in the constitution of the United States, that it is said to be in violation of, is the 2d article of the amendments: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." O. & W. Dig. 7. The clause in the constitution of this state, which it is said to violate, is the 13th section of the bill of rights: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state." O. & W. Dig. 14.

The object of the clause first cited, has reference to the perpetuation of free government, and is based on the idea, that the people cannot be effectually oppressed and enslaved, who are not first disarmed. The clause cited in our bill of rights, has the same broad object in relation to the government, and in addition thereto, secures a personal right to the citizen. The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power." - Texas Supreme Court Decision, Cockrum vs State of Texas, ---- 1859

Seems some of the states did consider the 2A binding upon the states. Some still do.

 

[RS2]

Hi Barbara!

I don't know why there is a distinction, however, according to their own websites, there is apparently a difference between the Brady Center and the Brady Campaign in terms of the tax deductibility of donations. It appears to be based upon the lobbying activity of the latter.

The Brady Center site says ...

Your entire gift to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is fully tax-deductible since no goods or services were provided. If you wish to support our legislative activities, go to www.bradycampaign.org.

The Brady Campaign site says ...

Because we lobby for sensible gun laws, contributions to the Brady Campaign are not tax deductible for federal income purposes. If you wish to make a tax-deductible gift, please visit the Brady Center web site.

Ron

 

[glockman19]

The NRA's Civil Defense fund is a 501(c)3...So any contribution is Tax deductible.

 

[cpaspr]

Two pockets

in the same pair of pants.

Odds are, if someone were able to dig deep enough they could probably find where funds are flowing from the deductible to the non-deductible. However, while the tax return of the 501(c)3 might be public records, the underlying source docs aren't. And if they call it office supplies or fund-raising expenses, you can't prove it's not.

 

[mak380]

According to Give.org, the Brady Campaign is a 501(c)4. The Brady Centeris a 501(c)3. The IRS does allow deductibility of donations to 501(c)3 corporations. I can't find where it states what type of corporation the Brady Gun Law Defense Fund is. The IRS does specifically allow 501(c)3's to engage in litigation and gifts to them are tax-deductible, provided they play by Uncle's rules. So they set up one for legislation, another for "education", a third for litigation, and so on and so on.

Another reason for forming so many entities - they can say "Look how many organizations support anti-righ...er..gun control! (Nevermind that many of them are all the same folks-just with different colored hats)."


Wikipedia does have an article about 501(c) entities, and what the various subchapters mean. Hope this helps.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Let's not jump on Sarah too hard. After all, she could come back at us.

There's the NRA. The same old NRA that teaches firearms training, and all that other good stuff.

Then there's NRA/ILA. ILA lobbyists must register with state as well as federal ethics/lobbying boards.

Then there's NRA/PVF, which is a political action committee to raise contributions for candidates, both state and federal.

There's also subsets of these divisions, and the rules are very strict about crossing the line. For example, the NRA field rep here in WI who advises ranges about safety cannot talk about politics, nor can the NRA/PVF people talk about specific legislation.

Thank you, Senator McCain, for screwing up the First Amendment.

 

[Barbara]

Yeah, I have a pretty firm grasp on it, although I'm not an expert by any means. I'm not surprised a non-profit can have a legal defense fund..I'm surprised that donations to it can be tax deductable..this goes for the NRA, too, to be honest.

 

[Henry Bowman]

I'm not surprised a non-profit can have a legal defense fund..I'm surprised that donations to it can be tax deductable..this goes for the NRA, too, to be honest.

Barbara - It really is like two pockets in one pair of pants. The IRS requires them to keep the money completely separate. The 501(c)(3) records must be completely open for public scrutiny. All contribution to SAF, however are tax deductable because they do not do any lobbying. One exception, however, is allowed by law -- self preservation. If Congress proposes a law to ban organizations of its type, it is allowed to engage in lobbying against that.

 

[Dan from MI]

Barb, it's similar to how the PAC has to be seperate from SAFR itself. Legal reasons.

There's the 501(c)3 - usually an education fund. Non political, tax deductable.

There's the 501(c)4 - Basicaly what SAFR is, non tax deductable, allowed to have a PAC as a seperate segregated fund.

There's the PAC.