America's independent, non-partisan advocate for overburdened taxpayers.

 

Blog Contributors

Brandon Arnold
Vice President of Government Affairs 

Dan Barrett
Research and Outreach Manager 

Demian Brady
Director of Research 

Christina DiSomma
Communications Intern 

Timothy Howland
Creative Content Manager 

Curtis Kalin
Communications Intern 

Ross Kaminsky
Blog Contributor 

David Keating
Blog Contributor 

Douglas Kellogg
Communications Manager 

Sharon Koss
Government Affairs Intern 

Richard Lipman
Director of Development 

Joe Michalowski
Government Affairs Intern 

Diana Oprinescu
Communications Intern 

Austin Peters
Communications Intern 

Kristina Rasmussen
Blog Contributor 

Lee Schalk
State Government Affairs Manager 

Pete Sepp
Executive Vice President  

Nan Swift
Federal Government Affairs Manager 


Government Bytes

Another Tax Day Gone...
Posted By: Douglas Kellogg - 04/17/14

“Man is a creature that can get used to anything.”

That’s Dostoyevsky, thought he’s not the only person to express that sentiment.

After another tax season, as the federal government vacuums up record revenues while the economy sputters, that seems to be the appropriate theme. Though one might add, “especially if he cannot see or understand it.”

Last year I wrote on a few topics related to Tax Day and NTU’s study of tax complexity: A Taxing Trend. Unfortunately, from the challenges faced by overseas taxpayers, and the spike in the cost of tax complexity in the ‘10s, to the IRS tracking of your digital footprint, nothing has really changed.

There are more stories about the IRS’ monitoring of social media presences, overseas taxpayers still have to deal with FATCA, and we still lost north of $200 billion to tax complexity.

Though for the cost of tax complexity, that is quite noteworthy… This year the hour cost of tax complexity seems to have come down a bit, and, while that has brought the dollar cost down ever so slightly, that second figure has not come down much.

In fact, it is still in the stratosphere at $224 billion this past year. The charts illustrate just how divorced the hour cost of tax complexity is from the overall cost burden. (Though perhaps the cost takes time to react to the hour burdens changes.)

tchbtccb

The story is a familiar one as our tax code remains a huge burden, and the agency enforcing it looks for more ways to track your every move, but perhaps it’s not that much of a problem?

It might seem anathema to consider such a question, yet, the Associated Press asked whether filing taxes was truly difficult in a recent poll, headline: “Most Americans Say Filing Taxes Easy.”

How could something that is costing the economy 6.1 billion hours be “easy”? How could it take the average taxpayer 15 hours and $280 out of pocket to get it done? Maybe we just aren’t that bright.

Well the AP found that 58 percent of respondents thought filing a tax return was easy. Sad to say, that relief you’re feeling will be short lived.

The poll’s other findings undermine their own lead finding. First of all, they peg the number of taxpayers using assistance of some type (from Turbo Tax to an accountant) at 91 percent!

That’s right, practically everyone gets help with their taxes, and then claims filing them is “easy.” Something is amiss…

This is like saying changing your oil is easy because you take your car to Jiffy Lube. By this logic I have no problem flying a plane, just look how many times I’ve flown on airplanes! One could go on and on.

AP also needles simplicity by asking: “Would you be willing to pay more in federal taxes if the process of filling out a tax return were easier, or not?”

Of course only 7 percent of respondents said yes. It is very disappointing this loaded question was asked, as if paying more is somehow a feature of simplifying the tax code.

Maybe if they had told them how much they are losing just due to tax complexity those polled would have had some math to do.

This poll does show that the convenience tax filing products have brought to the table is now obscuring the true pain of complying with the tax code for almost everyone. We are all glad to have this arduous process made easier on us, but when you combine this situation with the real cost of tax complexity as shown by A Taxing Trend, you have the worst possible situation: A complex tax code that costs our economy billions, and remains hidden from view.

Similar to how automatic withholding and deficit spending can obfuscate what you pay in taxes, when everyone has help filing their taxes, the inefficiencies and burdens of the system are not clear to individuals.

0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts


A State-Based Federal Tax System?
Posted By: Dan Barrett - 04/14/14

If you’re following HBO’s Game of Thrones, winter’s always coming. The problem for taxpayers is that our winter comes every year in mid-April and it’s increasingly becoming a game with only losers. Around this time of year, I hear from citizens and even policy experts not only complaining about their tax burden but wondering why the system itself is in such dire straits. There are many reasons (NTUF recently laid out some of the problems and solutions in The Taxpayer’s Tab -- seriously, if you’re not subscribed to the Tab, you’re missing out) but some Americans see no hope for our graduated progressive-income tax system and are looking to completely replace it.

One such reform was pointed out to me by Tom, whom I met at NTU and Foundation’s CPAC 2014 booth. His idea is to streamline America’s tax system in a way similar to what the Founding Fathers originally created. I later found a short description of what Tom calls the Neutral Tax on his website:

[The Neutral Tax] eliminates all federal taxes on citizens and businesses (including federal income, payroll, personal income, unemployment, corporate, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, self-employment, gasoline, etc.) and replaces them with a singular flat tax on the gross revenue of each state government (including all local taxes & fees.)

In short, the new system would transfer the requirement of collecting federal revenues from individuals, households, businesses, and corporations to state governments. State governments tend to be more efficient in costs and accountability when collecting taxes because they are made up of much smaller jurisdictions than the entire country. Dealing with a smaller pool of people means lower operating and enforcement costs. Though there are still horror stories coming out of state Departments of Revenue, taxpayers are better able to walk down the street or travel to their state capitol to dispute their tax burden compared to traveling all the way to Washington, D.C. and/or dealing with examiners of a large and oftentimes cumbersome agency, such as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

The new system would take the responsibility of collecting taxes away from the federal government, leaving the states to decide the methods and parameters to tax citizens. Bringing the notion that states are laboratories for democracy into play, governments could choose to merely expand existing systems or choose to reform to collect the necessary funds. The goal is to allow states to have the freedom to reform their systems without having to also conform to the federal income tax-based framework. For example, today, taxpayers in Florida (and six other states) don’t pay state income taxes (and generally pay higher sales or use taxes) but still must pay federal income taxes. This system makes having a comparatively more efficient sales tax system less advantageous because people are a part of two systems. Having a Neutral Tax system might increase efficiencies by decreasing compliance costs for households and businesses. Of course, the tax system that states would adopt is all dependent on the Governor and state legislators.

With the basic concept out of the way, let’s delve down into what a Neutral Tax system might look like, how it would affect taxpayers, and how it might change the federal budget.

Calculating the Neutral Tax: As it appears in Tom’s document, the Neutral Tax would be revenue-neutral, meaning that the system would collect the same amount of revenue as before the fundamental reform. At the federal level, tax rates would be set at zero. Each state would calculate the state, local, and federal tax makeup of its citizens to determine how much it would need to increase its own collections to offset the federal income tax repeal.

For 2014, total projected federal revenue ($3.0 trillion) is divided by total tax revenue ($5.7 trillion – federal, state, and local total) to reveal that 52.6 percent of taxes paid go to the federal government. To be compliant in the new system, state revenue departments would need to increase average collections by 52.6 percent, which would not change the taxpayer’s tax burden (just the method of collection). It would be up to the Department of the Treasury and Congress to determine what percentage of the tax mix would go to federal accounts.

The Neutral Tax & Taxpayers: At least initially, taxpayers would likely not see a change in their tax burden. States would have the freedom to decide how to collect revenues and how much to collect, which would also leave it to state officials to decide who collects taxes. For example, it’s possible that one state could adopt a more progressive income tax while its neighbor could have a Fair Tax system.

The policy document also notes that “it cannot be argued The Neutral Tax inherently falls more heavily on one group or another. It will be up the states to determine how they modify their existing tax/fee structures to collect the additional federal tax… .”

A Different Federal Budget: Even with the same amount of revenue coming in, the Neutral Tax would not necessarily lead to similar spending levels. Enacting the new system would mean refundable tax credits would no longer be in effect. These credits are payments given to households in excess of their tax liability and are counted by both the Congressional Budget Office and NTUF’s BillTally project as spending, not revenues. Without these credits, federal spending would be reduced by $86.4 billion if the Neutral Tax was enacted this year. This line of reasoning is also found in our scores of the flat tax and Fair Tax proposals.

I took a similar view of the Neutral Tax as with the Fair Tax with respect to the IRS. With the elimination of most of the Tax Code, the IRS would be significantly downsized. The agency is approved to spend $12.1 billion this year, which would be counted as savings if the Neutral Tax is passed and the IRS is eliminated. BUT, a couple of further details: The IRS would need a multi-year wind-down to finalize remaining tax cases and to transfer data and authority to a smaller entity, comparable to the Treasury’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. They spend $96 million last year (page 1070 of the Budget Appendix) on operations and so I would credit that figure against the total IRS deauthorization.

Changes to FY 2014-2018 Federal Spending Under a Neutral Tax System
(in millions of dollars)

 
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
Total
Repeal Refundable Tax Credits
-$86,743
 
 
 
 
-$86,743
IRS Wind-Down
 
 
 
 
-$12,106
-$12,106
Tax and Trade Bureau
$96
$96
$96
$96
$96
$480
Total
-$86,647
$96
$96
$96
-$12,010
-$98,369

Note: NTUF's BillTally system only tracks changes in budget outlays.

Much like other fundamental tax reform measures, this proposal also has a slim chance of passing a divided and pro-establishment Congress. In this proposed system, as with other reforms, the decision making power of how much to tax Americans rests with Congress and the Treasury Department. This then relies on individuals, local taxpayer associations, and national organizations to push for changes in the overall rate. It is difficult to tell if taxpayers would organize to keep rates low or if we could face a situation similar to today where rates are often times arbitrarily increased. However, it is good to keep the ideas coming for taxpayers to consider how best to fund the government in challenging economic times. Thanks to Tom for stopping by our CPAC booth and helping me add another alternative to the growing list of reforms!

Have an opinion of the Neutral Tax or another tax reform? Let us know in the comments.

1 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts


IRS Scandal Grows, Tax Simplification Poll, House Budget Breakdown with NTUF - Speaking of Taxpayers
Posted By: Douglas Kellogg - 04/14/14

Subscribe to NTU's podcast via iTunes!

NTUF's Dan Barrett joins the podcast to analyze all the budgets the House has been analyzing this week. Pete & Doug discuss all the smoke billowing from the IRS scandal, and an AP poll on the "ease" of filing taxes. Plus a smelly Outrage of the Week!

0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts


Broad Coalition Sends Message to Congress: Oppose Internet Access Taxes
Posted By: Brandon Arnold - 04/11/14

NTU is proud to be among the 29 groups from across the political spectrum that signed a letter urging Congress to block potential tax hikes on Internet access. Specifically, the letter calls upon the House and Senate to pass the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (H.R. 3086) or the Internet Tax Freedom Forever Act (S. 1431), bills that would make permanent the moratorium on multiple and discriminatory taxes on the Internet.  The current moratorium is scheduled to expire on November 1, 2014. 

As the letter explains:

Internet taxation affects all Americans from all political views and all walks of life. From healthcare to education, small business entrepreneurs to Fortune 500 companies, the Internet has dramatically transformed the way everyone lives, works, and learns. In 2010, the Internet accounted for an estimated $684 billion, or 4.7 percent of all U.S. economic activity. While the Internet was a nascent technology when the current moratorium was established in 1998, it has become the economic engine driving innovation and growth in our 21st century economy. Throttling that engine at a time when our economy is struggling hurts not only those trying to invest in America’s future, but also those who can least afford it and have the most to gain from the Internet’s potential.

Let’s hope Congress heeds the letter’s advice and works to reduce barriers to Internet access.

1 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts


High-Frequency Trading and the "Transaction Tax"
Posted By: Michael Tasselmyer - 04/11/14

When most of us think of trading on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, images of traders frantically running across the room as they take orders over the phone come to mind. Many Americans also trade at home, relying on internet services or financial advisors to relay the latest information on the stocks and funds that they're interested in.

However, there is growing concern that automated "high-frequency trading", which utilizes computer algorithms and software to make split-second decisions as trading conditions change in real-time, might give some traders an unfair advantage over others. The problem stems from the idea of marginal profit -- that is, even very small profits on minor trades can accumulate into larger ones so long as the trader conducts enough transactions. Software and computer algorithms are already capable of trading at exponentially higher speeds than the every-day financier, yet some firms spend hundreds of millions of dollars to cut down on communication time even further in order to get their hands on a stock first, then immediately resell it at a marginally higher price.

Author Michael Lewis has chronicled the debate in a recent book and several media appearances. The issue has gotten the attention of some lawmakers on Capitol Hill, too, who are pushing a national transaction tax in response. That tax would be levied on every financial transaction that investors make, which, according to Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN), could serve as a deterrent for firms who are supposedly gaming the system by conducting thousands of small transactions at a time and rely on the very small marginal profits made on each one.

Ellison's idea -- which he has dubbed the "Inclusive Prosperity Act" -- attempts to counteract the effect of "Wall Street speculation" that "is currently subject to zero sales tax on its trillions of dollars of annual transactions- while consumers regularly pay sales taxes even on daily necessities." It has been proposed before in previous sessions of Congress.

NTUF featured an even broader transaction tax proposal in a 2012 edition of The Taxpayer’s Tab. Congressman Chaka Fattah's (D-PA) Debt Free America Act proposed to eliminate the personal income tax, virtually all tax credits, and the Alternative Minimum Tax and replace them with a one-percent fee on each and every cash, credit, debit, and stock or bond transaction. While it's unknown whether the bill would have any administrative costs associated with tracking every financial transaction Americans make, Rep. Fattah claims that his legislation will generate enough revenue to pay down the national debt in just ten years. Variations on that proposal include a 0.35 percent tax on all transactions, which proponents argue would simplify the current tax system and expand the revenue base.

Since our feature on Rep. Fattah's legislation, NTUF has offered a preview of other tax reform proposals -- including the Fair Tax and a flat tax -- that have been proposed in Congress. You can read our analysis here.

0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts


RSC and House GOP Alternative Budgets for FY 2015
Posted By: Michael Tasselmyer - 04/10/14

In the newest edition of The Taxpayers Tab, National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF) compared some of the alternative budget proposals put forth by several Congressional caucuses, including the Republican Study Commission (RSC), the House Republicans, the House Democrats, the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), and the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). We compared the top-line budget numbers from each proposal relative to the Congressional Budget Office's baseline projections for 2014 to give taxpayers an idea of how each of these budget alternatives differ.

This first of two posts will focus on each of the GOP alternatives.

FY 2015 Republican Budget Proposals
(in billions of dollars)
 
Defense
$514
$521
$521
Other Discretionary
$524
$429
$492
Mandatory
$2,116
$2,1572
$2,2103
OCO1
$92
$85
$85
Total
$3,246
$3,192
$3,308
Change from FY2014
N/A
-$54
+$62
Notes:
Totals may not add due to rounding.
Figures are in budget authority, except where noted.
BillTally does not track changes in debt interest servicing and so they are not included in these figures.
1Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding is not subject to budget caps.
2NTUF assumes that the Back to Basics budget reported mandatory spending in outlays. NTUF therefore must compare their outlay figures with the budget authority figures of the other entities. This may not reflect the caucus's budgetary intent.
3The Path to Prosperity budget reported mandatory spending in outlays. NTUF therefore must compare their outlay figures with the budget authority figures of the other entities. This may not reflect the caucus's budgetary intent.

Some notable points:

  • Both the RSC and Ryan budgets eventually balance, but the RSC's does so within four years, compared to the ten year goal in the Ryan proposal.
  • Both GOP budgets maintain Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding at $85 billion, and propose $521 billion in discretionary defense budget authority.
  • The RSC plan proposes deeper cuts to non-defense discretionary programs than does the Ryan plan, but a simplification of the current tax code is a stated priority for each group.

While the two GOP budgets are similar in that their ultimate goals are balanced books, the RSC plan would try to achieve that within a much shorter timeframe. In both cases, emphasis is placed on cutting discretionary spending rather than any wholesale or fundamental reforms of mandatory entitlement programs.

For more, check out NTUF's full analysis in The Taxpayer's Tab.

1 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts


Democratic Caucuses' FY 2015 Alternative Budget Plans
Posted By: Michael Tasselmyer - 04/10/14

In the newest edition of The Taxpayers Tab, National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF) compared the alternative budget proposals put forth by Congressional caucuses including the Republican Study Commission (RSC), the House Republicans, the House Democrats, the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), and the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). We looked at each budget's top-line numbers relative to the Congressional Budget Office's baseline projections for 2014 to give taxpayers an idea of how each of these budget alternatives differ from each other and the current budgetary forecast.

There were several alternatives offered from the Democrats:

FY 2015 Democratic Budget Proposals
(in billions of dollars)
 
Defense
$514
$549
$521
Unknown
$574
Other Discretionary
$524
$516
$492
Unknown
$596
Mandatory
$2,116
$2,458
$2,728
Unknown
$2,763
OCO1
$92
$85
$85
$49
$29
Total
$3,246
$3,608
$3,826
$3,492
$3,962
Change from FY2014
N/A
+$362
+$580
+$246
+$716
Notes:
Totals may not add due to rounding.
Figures are in budget authority except for the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) (see below).
BillTally does not track changes in debt interest servicing and so they are not included in these figures.
1Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding is not subject to the budget caps.
2The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) does not provide a breakdown of discretionary or mandatory spending. NTUF included CBC's OCO outlays to its FY 2015 budget authority total for a more complete spending total.
3CPC reported their budget proposal only in outlays. NTUF therefore must compare their outlay figure with the budget authority figures of the other entities. This may not reflect the caucus's budgetary intent.

They differed in a few key ways:

  • Both the CBC and CPC budgets explicitly state that under their plans, Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) will end after FY 2015. The CBC provides $85 billion in budget authority for that function in 2015, but projects only $49 billion in outlays (with the rest spread out over the next ten years). CPC limits OCO funding in FY 2015 to amounts needed for immediate wind-downs.
  • The House Democrats' budget sticks to the spending caps proposed in the Ryan-Murray budget compromise; the President's budget acknowledges those amounts in its formal request, but also offers policy proposals that adjust those caps and thus allow for higher discretionary spending levels.
  • Each of the Democratic plans emphasize increased support for economic stimulus and job development programs, and thus would increase discretionary spending above baseline levels. However, they also grow mandatory spending largely by way of expanding eligibility for certain entitlement programs.

The Democrats' budgets focus primarily on responding directly to the country's poor economic conditions, both by increasing eligibility for entitlement programs and providing increased funding for job training and development. In general these proposals would be offset by more and/or higher taxes, but none of these plans project a balanced budget within the next ten years.

For more, check out NTUF's full analysis in The Taxpayer's Tab.

0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts


Latest Taxpayers Tab: Budget Alternatives
Posted By: Michael Tasselmyer - 04/09/14

Taxpayer's Tab Update

As tax day approaches, lawmakers in various Congressional caucuses have been unveiling their own alternatives to the President's Fiscal Year 2015 budget proposal. In this week's edition of The Taxpayer's Tab, NTUF looked at proposals from the Republican Study Commission (RSC), House Republicans, House Democrats, the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), and the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) -- in addition to President Obama's own budget -- to see what their policy priorities could mean for taxpayers.

  • RSC: The RSC budget attempts to balance the federal budget within four years by offering lower spending caps than the ones currently on the books, as well as freezing discretionary spending at $950 billion in every year that the budget does not balance. The RSC budget also calls for a simpler tax code and cuts to non-defense discretionary programs.
  • House Republicans: The Path to Prosperity put forth by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and the GOP House Budget Committee would also balance the budget, but within ten years instead of four. It would defund President Obama's signature Affordable Care Act and attempt structural reform of several mandatory entitlement programs.
  • House Democrats: The Democrats' alternative represents a renewed focus on economic stimulus, offering additional funding for infrastructure & education projects as well as expanded unemployment benefits. The new spending would be offset by additional taxes.
  • CPC: The CPC's Better Off Budget increases discretionary spending in order to achieve its goal of creating 8.8 million jobs by 2017. The budget would discontinue Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding, and expand long-term unemployment benefits, education grants, and public works projects.
  • CBC: The CBC budget emphasizes social welfare programs and anti-poverty initiatives with $3.4 trillion in budget authority for FY 2015. It would also discontinue OCO funding, and provides significant investment in community development and job training programs.

For more on these alternative budget proposals and how they compare to each other and the President's proposals, check out the online edition of The Taxpayer's Tab.

0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts


New Report on State and Local Tax Burdens
Posted By: Lee Schalk - 04/04/14

The good folks at the Tax Foundation have released another eye-opening report with their Annual State-Local Tax Burden Rankings, which “estimates the combined state and local tax burden shouldered by the residents of each state.”

Not surprisingly, New York placed first, with taxpayers shelling out 12.6 percent of their income to pay for state and local taxes, while Wyoming replaced Alaska at number 50 with a burden of 6.9 percent.

Other key findings, according to the Tax Foundation:

  • During the 2011 fiscal year, state-local tax burdens as a share of state incomes decreased on average. This trend was largely driven by the growth of income in all states.
  • In 2011, the residents of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut had the highest state-local tax burdens as a share of income in the nation. In these states, residents have forgone over 11.9 percent of income due to state and local taxes.
  • Residents of Wyoming paid the lowest percentage of income in 2011 at just 6.9 percent. They replaced Alaska, which had previously been the least-taxed for multiple decades, as the lowest-burdened state in the nation. After Wyoming and Alaska, the next lowest-taxed states were South Dakota, Texas, and Louisiana.
  • State-local tax burdens are very close to one another and slight changes in taxes or income can translate to seemingly dramatic shifts in rank. For example, the twenty mid-ranked states, ranging from Oregon (16th) to Georgia (35th), only differ in burden by just over one percentage point.
  • On average, taxpayers pay more to their own state and local governments (73 percent of total burden). Taxes paid within states of residence decreased on average in 2011, while taxes paid to other states increased, leading to a slight decrease in total burden. Some states deviated from these national trends, however.

The report serves as an excellent reminder for taxpayers to continue the push for tax reform and decreased spending at state and local levels of government. For more from the Tax Foundation or to read the entire report, click here.

0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts


Taxpayers Claim Big Win in Fight Against IRS Free Speech Silencing Rule
Posted By: Nan Swift - 04/04/14

NTU members deserve a pat on the back for their hard work in the on-going fight against IRS-overreach. For months, NTU and other grassroots organizations (categorized under section 501(c)(4) of the Tax Code) have been engaged in an uphill battle against an oppressive new IRS rule proposal that would significantly restrict our ability to educate citizens and hold elected officials accountable. Thanks to your help however, this silencing of free speech has been thwarted...for now.

After concerned citizens filed an overwhelming number of comments with the IRS to oppose the rule – thousands of which came from NTU members – IRS Commissioner Koskinen announced yesterday that the rule will not be finalized this year. So, it’s clear that taxpayers have won the first round.

According to Koskinen:

During the comment period, which ended in February, we received more than 150,000 comments. That’s a record for an IRS rulemaking comment period. In fact, if you take all the comments on all Treasury and IRS draft proposals over the last seven years and double that number, you come close to the number of comments we are now beginning to review and analyze.

It’s going to take us a while to sort through all those comments, hold a public hearing, possibly repropose a draft regulation and get more public comments. This means that it is unlikely we will be able to complete this process before the end of the year.

As you can see from Koskinen’s comments, this fight is far from over. Largely developed behind closed doors, the new ruling would have constituted a profound infringement of the First Amendment rights of NTU and each of our members. It would have made it difficult – if not impossible – for NTU to hold elected officials accountable for their actions and ensure that the voice of the taxpayer is heard in the nation’s capitol.  It should come then as no surprise that imposing this rule was a major priority for the Obama Administration to finalize ahead of 2014 Congressional elections. (Click here for more background information).

 It’s important that we use the time we have to keep up the pressure on our legislators to oppose this terrible rule!

Here’s how you can help:

  1. Take Action and urge your Senators to support S. 2011, the “Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act of 2014” – this would impose a statutorial one-year delay of the proposed rule.
  2. Give generously to ensure we have the tools and resources we need to stop the IRS’s bullying of grassroots organizations.

0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts


Items 1 - 10 of 300  12345678910Next