this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
102 points (99.0% liked)

United States | News & Politics

1934 readers
438 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Im_Him@lemmy.world -5 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Reading the comments here make me sad. People are so opposed to reading the underlying material and don't see that media making claims like "nonprofit killing bill" is tricking them into clicking on the website.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/9495/text/rh

  1. Administrative Review by the IRS Independent Office of Appeals (Subparagraph E):

If the Secretary of the Treasury designates an organization as a terrorist supporting organization (e.g., under tax-related laws), the organization has the right to challenge this designation within the IRS's Independent Office of Appeals. This process will follow procedures similar to how disputes involving IRS decisions are generally handled, as governed by Section 7803(e) of the Internal Revenue Code.

This section allows for an independent review of the dispute by a body separate from the original decision-makers.

  1. Jurisdiction of U.S. District Courts (Subparagraph F):

Exclusive Jurisdiction: U.S. district courts are granted exclusive jurisdiction to review a final determination about an organization's designation as a terrorist supporting organization.

Lemmy let's be better and have some substantive arguments against this bill. Instead instantly being anti establishment/government.

My arguments for the bill: seemly good determination of a terrorist organization and obviously nonprofits that support terrorist organizations should be tax-exempt.

[–] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

It's funny you accuse us of not reading when it's obvious you didn't read the article or Raskin's criticism of the law. Hint: what you posted is covered and does not obviate the criticism.

[–] Garibaldee@lemm.ee 4 points 7 hours ago

What the fuck are you talking about?