Who do you think could have standing to sue the IRS for not following the Law as written

[Bandit]

when it comes to (501)c regulation. I don't believe Congress or the Administration will do anything about this, so in my opinion the ONLY way for the IRS to follow the LETTER of the LAW is to file a lawsuit against them, but I have no idea who could have standing to do so.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. I suppose that the case could be made that any taxpayer has standing

since all of our taxes, and social benefits derived from taxes, are affected by improper enforcement.

But then, I'm not a lawyer.

[geek tragedy]

2. no one would have standing unless they could show that they had been harmed by the

failure to follow the law.

[pipoman]

3. What is it that is said about 'picking your fights'?

The political shitstorm which would pursue cracking down on 501(C)3's particularly...it is the most used and abused I would bet of the 501(c) designations. I assume you are talking about the prohibition on 501(c)3 from participating in partisan politics? If so, there are many violators on both sides of the political spectrum..it wouldn't be good for either side..it will be left to acting on reported violations...they won't be looking for trouble..

[JaneyVee]

4. First the law itself needs to be clarified.

[Bandit]

5. The LAW itself is quite clear without any ambiguity.

It is the regulation that contorted the LAW into something that it was not intended to be...

[JaneyVee]

6. Not really. It's open to many interpretations. It needs to be reformed.

[Bandit]

7. How do you interpret "exclusively"?

The LAW says very unabiguously that to be tax exempt as a (501)c you must use the funds "exclusively" for social and "NOT POLITICAL" purposes. The IRS wrote their regulations to say "Primarily" instead of "Exclusively" and there is very much a difference between the two words and their consequences.