Why is Jesse Jackson left alone by the IRS?

Jesse Jackson has taken in millions of dollars from many different companies. Is organization is a so-called profit free. Yet the IRS does nothing to stop this. Jesse Jackson also gets companies to host his rallys, most recent, Microsoft. To make things worse for the IRS, they allowed many people to get slavery reperations in their tax returns. I’m a big fan of Bill O’Reilly, and I support everything he says about Jesse Jackson and the failure of the IRS to stop this from happening. This is in my mind freud, and it needs to be stopped. Can anybody give any suggestions to how the IRS is to stop this. Or does anybody disagree with my point of view. I except all opinions, as long as their is no profanity or people play the race card on my point of view. Please, express your feelings on the manner.

Welcome to the boards, pipsqueak!

…and while I’m at it, You’re the first one to play the race card here.

You are ranting about Jesse Jackson, a high-profile Afro-American, and his supposed abilities to evade the IRS. You then just happened to add the part about slavery reparations.

In my mind, you just brought racism into the debate.

…and since I’m personally alergic to watching Mr. O’really?, perhaps you would recap

My kids won’t allow me to stay up and watch his rantings.

Gee, Sam, you’re way ahead of me–you see a “debate” here for racism to be brought into? :smiley: I just see a rather disconnected rant about Jesse Jackson.

But–God knows why :rolleyes: --I’m going to help the OP along a bit, by assuming that this–

–is in reference to this column.

I think that actually it’s Bill O’Reilly who “played the race card” first.

[climbs into foxhole]
[puts head out of foxhole for a minute]

I will also point out that this is a column from nearly a year and a half ago, making it kinda old news. Still, Jesse’s been around for 30 years, and I suppose he’s always good for a rant

[climbs back into foxhole]

Jackson is the epitome of what you fear about being labeled a racist. Jackson is not afraid of scandal. He thrives on it. On the other hand if action where taken against Jackson then many liberals would get thier panties in a knot and more than likely people would be fired. Jackson would be maybe the least effected in the ordeal.

But your right. With all of the accusations pointed at him he shoudl at least be audited. People are audited for alot less. And not doing so just shows either the fear they have of him, or the power he actually has in the government.

The Rainbow Coalition is (I would suppose) a 501© non-profit organization. As such, it probably submits to periodic audits to ensure that its income is used in ways that do not accumulate a profit. Its expenditures include the various tasks listed on this web page (from which you an select the RPC Programs drop-down for a closer look at a few of their expenditures). The reason that the IRS “does nothing” about them is that they are a very visible organization that probably is very careful to stay within the laws. If Dr. Jackson’s recently divulged extra-marital affair and child have been funded illegally from RPC funds, then the IRS may very well be investigating him, but they are not under any obligation to reveal to Rush-Wannabe O’Reilly what they have discovered in their investigation. (Conversely, if it turns out that no laws have been broken, then they would be foolish to have announced an investigation that looked like persecution.)

The money that Jackson has received from various corporations has been spent (sometimes foolishly) on the programs noted on the link I provided, above. As long as the money is spent on the projects for which it was solicited, then there is no reason to shut down RPC or Jackson.

While Dr. Jackson is flamboyant (and is quite capable of being excessively irritating), many of his speeches and several of the RPC projects are aimed at getting inner city kids to shape up, stay in school, act responsibly, and become good citizens. Since this is exactly the sort of thing that O’Reilly and company claim that they want to see the black community doing, I find it interesting that you and O’Reilly allow yourselves to get caught up in Jackson’s (admittedly grating) personality and look for ways to hamper his actual efforts–unless your actual goal is to prevent the bootstrapping that you presumedly prefer?

See… While Tom didn’t call you a racist it’s bad medicine to mess with the man. But I appluad whoever has the balls to tackle that bear.

Last I heard, Microsoft doesn’t pay any federal taxes either, because of some creative bookkeeping on the part of their accountants. Something about counting the stock options that the employees have as losses, or somesuch.

Does that mean the IRS is turning a blind eye towards Redmond (Hey, why not, the Justice Department is)? Can I play the pasty-white Anglo-Saxon geek-monopolist race card here?

cite, please?

In fact, it appears to be just the opposite: the IRS is disallowing slavery reparation claims, and in cases of repeated claims, issuing fines:

This quotation is from this site, which provides links to the IRS’s own statements. (Since the IRS statements are in .pdf, I’ve not linked directly to them.)

Welcome to the Board, huffing. I’m also a fan of O’Reilly. Illegitimi non carborundum.

Clearing away the underbrush, I do not think slavery reparations are a part of this debate. The IRS got a lot of negative publicity a couple of weeks ago for paying $32 million to people claiming slavery reparations. Apparently this was intentionally done a one or two IRS employes. The IRS has faced this problem and is dealling with it.

rjung’s comment helps make your point. Microsoft may have paid no tax (or low tax), but the IRS surely audited their return. However, the IRS has NOT audited Jackson’s returns, despite many warning signs.

O’Reilly says the reason is cowardice on the part of the IRS.

And your internal source at the IRS (or public statement from the IRS) that states they have not audited Jackson’s returns would be found where?

IOW, cite?

(This, of course, also ignores the change of attitude (rather extensively documented in the news a few years ago) by the IRS in the wake of the revelation of the Nixon abuses that the IRS makes a point of avoiding audits of “political personalities” (of all persuasions) so as to avoid getting slapped around for “persecuting” members of the Left or the Right. The “scandal” at that time was that billionaires were being ignored while the IRS focussed on Mom & Pop operations where their intimidation tactics would be more successful while not exposing them to bad press.)

Re: IRS Audit of Jessie’s non-profits

What tomndebb said.

There is a tendency on the part of some people to want to use the IRS to hammer people they don’t like. I know of at least one ass’t. U.S. atty who tried that and was abruptly transformed into a social security administrative judge because of it. It is not nice to sic the IRS on political opponents.

Of course a fair amount of the O’Rilley op/ed piece was balderdash calculated to whip the faithful into a froth. Especially telling is the implied claim that there is something improper about submitting a State tax return without attaching receipts for expenditures. To those who do not itemize deductions or do a Schedule C that may sound like an alarm bell in the night, but it isn’t. The only time the IRS looks at receipt and business records is when they do an audit.

The real question is just why our friend, huffing, in his capacity as ventriloquist’s dummy for scream and shout TV political entertainment, thinks that Jackson’s outfits deserve tax auditing (other than Jessie’s political positions).

Only problem I have with this quote is that the guy was “transformed into a social security administrative judge.” If he was to be kept at the public expense, it should have been into a highway technician – you know the kind that makes big ones into little ones!

What can I tell you? It happened. At least they got the guy down off his white horse and put him in a place where his discressionary power to beat up on people was substantially reduced.

[ul][li] Only one debate should be contained in an OP[/li][li] Either debate was fairly heavy stuff for someone’s second post, but not against the rules.[/li][li] There was a plausible link between the two debates albeit not a convincing one.[/li][li] ** tomndebb** made an informative post in response to the main subject without mentioning race.[/li] IMHO it would have been better to give the OP more rope to hang himself before playing the race card.[/ul]

The point was made (not just made – hammered home) on O’Reilly’s TV show. There was quite a campaign a few months ago. O’Reilly and various tax-expert guests seemed to make a strong case that Jackson’s organization deserved an audit, but hadn’t had one.

Among the points I recall are

– Failure properly to account for expenitures
– A so-called “edication charity” with almost no money classified as educaiton
– Unreasonably high consulting fees
– Unreasonably high travel expense

My memory is pretty inadequate. I wish someone could find a written site with the full detail.

I don’t think that Rainbow Push Coalition is 501©(3). On their website I couldn’t find any sort of articles of incorporation or anything, so I can’t verify; but they’re not listed at www.guidestar.org , and I think all 501©(3) organizations are. Unless they use a different name, I’d guess they have a different tax structure.


On O’Reilly’s show he interviewed Kenneth R. Timmerman who has written a book Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson

The Editorial Review gives many of the facts that were covered in that interview.

Northern Poper quoted http://www.taxes.com/slavery_reparations.htm as saying:

Apparently, a few of these slavery reparation claims managed to sneak under the IRS’s radar and actually were paid out: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/04/12/irs-reparations.htm