The fine print on the bottom of my NRA membership renewal form says:
I can deduct money that I donate to a church or to a charity, but not the NRA? Why not?
Because the NRA has not registered with the government to be a 501© non-profit organization. This is probably due to the fact that they are explicitly an organization to champion legislative activity (or the lack of it). Even religious groups that engage in active political campaigns or lobbying are prevented from filing as non-profit organizations.
What tom said, as well as “The NRA is not a church or a charity”.
-lv
Jesse Jackson certainly engages in active polictical campaigns and he is a charity. I don’t want to venture to far into GD’s territory but what exactly constitutes a charity?
By giving money to the NRA, I am not getting any personal benefit. Wouldn’t this be a charity?
Is the boy scouts a charity? How about the NAACP? Or the ACLU?
Charity is not the only operative word.
The issue is non-profit. Museums and other groups provide no “charitable” works and are still covered under 501©. Similarly, even churches must file with the IRS and demonstrate with audits that they are non-profit. As to Jackson’s organizations, I suspect that they have separate corporations to engage in non-profit activities and political campaignng. Jackson’s personal activities are irrelevant as long as the corporations follow the IRS guidelines.
Exemption Requirements Overview - IRS
Actual Tax Exemption Regulations (Publication 557) (It’s an Adobe .pdf file.)
You can donate money to any person or organization you wish. The action of doing so is being charitable, on your part. However, the person or organization you give your money to may not be a charity under the law.
So, be charitable. Got a spare quid? Cash only.
Sorry, it’s not tax deductible.
The ACLU maintains two separate organizations, one tax exempt and one not tax exempt. They explain it about half-way down the page.
While less explicit in their explanation, the NAACP appears to have a similar setup, as this Memebrship Tax Table (another .pdf) mentions.
The BSA does not appear to be a tax-deductible organization. (Whether this is a recent change due to their policies toward atheists and gays or has always been the case, I do not know.)
Well, it looks like the NRA has a foundation that is tax exempt.
So, if you wanted to make a large donation to them that would be a tax break for you, they have this set up as a way to do it.
Based on the description, it looks like the foundation does all the stuff the NRA does, except for anything political related.
QED
Exactly. The NRA lobbies. Organizations that lobby cannot be tax-exempt.
If the NRA did want to become tax-exempt, all they’d need to do would be to stop lobbying. Since that’s not a bit part of their efforts, I’m sure they’ll be doing it soon. 
Ooooo… a bit on the simplistic side there.
The NRA was certainly not founded as a political organization. And in large part, the NRA is today a “non-profit” organization. Its lobbying branch, NRA-ILA, is most definitely a political animal, and it’s true that large chunks of the NRA’s money is expended through NRA-ILA. And it’s also true that the ILA activities are those prominently reported in the media. (When was the last time you saw Eddie Eagle on NBC Nightly News?) But to characterize the NRA as being “explicitly an organization to champion legislative activity” falls wide of the mark.
Your blanket characterization applies MUCH more accurately to Debaser’s example, Jesse Jackson. He and every facet of his organization(s) engage in purely political activities, specifically toward advancing a liberal socialist agenda. It’s difficult for me to imagine that anything the man has ever touched could be tax-exempt.
Jesse Jackson isn’t a socialist. Several years ago, he and his son (of the same name) wrote a book pushing the idea of investment for blacks. Clearly not socialist stuff. He may be more biased toward government spending than you are, but he’s not a socialist.
I won’t engage in a brogan-wetting match over the word ‘socialist.’ My point was that practically nothing Jackson(s) does, including his preaching, is without political aim. Thus, *tomndebb’s characterization is more accurately applied to JJ than to the NRA.
Hey, am I good with those tags, or what?:eek: :smack:
I’m not quite sure why you’re trying to turn this into a debate. The NRA is not, itself, a 501© non-profit, so it seems that they have no issue with my statements. They have, indeed, done the same thing that other groups have done and established a foundation that is non-profit to handle their non-political activities. Since I am not an opponent or critic of the NRA, I’m not sure why you are taking umbrage with my factual assessment.
Similarly, responding to Debaser’s comments regarding Dr. Jackson, I noted that “I suspect that they have separate corporations to engage in non-profit activities and political campaignng.” In point of fact, it appears that they recognize that they are basically a political outfit as I can find no indication that Rainbow Coalition/PUSH even has an auxiliary 501© non-profit corporation, so they are certaily not engaging in duplicitous practices. Thus, I have neither defended Jackson inappropriately nor spoken calumny against the NRA. Perhaps we might leave unsupported charges against both other posters and public figures out of GQ?
Tom, I’m no more interested in turning this thread into a debate than you are. I cringed a bit when I read your depiction of the NRA as “explicitly an organization to champion legislative activity (or the lack of it).” As I pointed out, the NRA was certainly not founded as a political organization; rather, it has found itself thrust into that role over the past few decades essentially by default. Today, parts of the NRA are indeed engaged solely in political activity. But your description, without any qualification, is no better than what I’d expect from Tom Brokaw or the New York Times.
And it was Debaser’s suggestion that Jesse Jackson’s machinations are tax-exempt, not mine. The very idea struck me as ludicrous, and I said so. If it mollifies, I’ll say that your blanket characterization of the NRA applies to Jackson equally. How’s that?