A FLAME

[andyfox]

FLAME is the acronym for an organization called Facts and Logic About the Middle East. It is a tax-exempt educational 501 (c)(3) organiztion whose purpose is "the research and publication of the facts regarding developments in the Middle East and exposing false propaganda that might harm the interests of the United States and its allies in that area of the world."

In today's L.A. Times FLAME talks about "A Homeland for the Palestinians? Why they? How about all those others?" FLAME says that "There is no such thing as a 'Palestinian people'" and that "never at any time in history did the 'Palestinians' have a homeland, nor did they ever demand one."

A curious "fact." If one reads through any eighteenth- or nineteenth-century account of travels in "the Orient," one reads accounts of Arab inhabitants on the land of Palestine. In fact, Palestine bcame a predominantly Arab and Islamic country by the end of the seventh century. In 1931, for example, there were over one million Palestinians.

But, according to FLAME, these people did not exist. But then, later in their ad, they say that "the Israeils would probably be glad to get rid of those bothersome and rebellious people." So I guess they do exist. The problem is that they're "bothersome" and "rebellious."

There are many problems with education in our country today. That this organization can qualify as an "educational" organization is one of them.

[player24]

[ QUOTE ]
There are many problems with education in our country today. That this organization can qualify as an "educational" organization is one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

FLAME is a public relations organization which promotes a narrow politcal cause. They write letters to newspaper editors, purchase newspaper advertisements and have a website and news letter. I'm afraid I don't understand your attempt to draw a paralell between FLAME and legitimate educational organizations.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are many problems with education in our country today. That this organization can qualify as an "educational" organization is one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

FLAME is a public relations organization which promotes a narrow politcal cause. They write letters to newspaper editors, purchase newspaper advertisements and have a website and news letter. I'm afraid I don't understand your attempt to draw a paralell between FLAME and legitimate educational organizations.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is saying they are not legitimate

[player24]

Of course they are "legitimate". They are a legitimate public relations organization - not an "educational" organization.

Whether you agree with their cause or not...why try to portray their existence as evidence of "problems with education in our country today"? I just don't see the connection.

[KellyRae]

In fairness, and the OP can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's questioning their ability to obtain special treatment under the tax code as being an educational institution.

The reality, though, is that MANY organizations avail themselves of this loophole in the tax code, including those which, for example, continue to espouse Marxism as something viable as an economic system.

I don't know if the solution is to eliminate the election under the tax code altogether, and that may, in fact, be a good idea; but it strikes me as a bad idea to allow what would ultimately be government beauracrats make determinations as to which organization's "truths" are in fact "truths" so as to allow for special treatment under the tax code.

In short, if I am correctly understanding the OP's concern (and I may not be), I'd be curious as to what his proposal would be to deal with the issue at hand.

[player24]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't have to be an educational organization to qualify for tax exemption under IRS Section 501 (c)(3). I'm assuming that FLAME qualifies as a nonprofit organization, but not because it is an educational organization. Nonprofits can have a wide array of agendas - even the National Rifle Association qualifies (not an education organization?)

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
Nonprofits can have a wide array of agendas - even the National Rifle Association qualifies (not an education organization?)

[/ QUOTE ]

The NRA sponsors quite a few gun safety programs and other such things.

[andyfox]

FLAME, according to what they say in their ads, qualifies as a tax exempt organization because it is an educational organization. It is definitely not an educational organization, it is a propagandistic organization. The ad in today's paper particuarly struck me because it is filled with out-and-out falsehoods and the reference to the Palestinians as "those bothersome and rebellious people," I find particularly objectionable.

[KellyRae]

I understand where you are coming from, but you did not answer my question. There are gazillions of propaganda organizations that qualify for the same type of tax emempt treatment. Do we get rid of the exemption or do you have an alternative proposal?

[andyfox]

Here is what the ad said after the text:

"FLAME is a tax-emempt, non-profit 501 (c)(3) organization. Its purpose is the research and publication of the facts regarding developments in the Middle East and exposing false propaganda that might harm the interests of the United States and its allies in that area of the world. Your tax-deductible contributions are welcome. They enable us to pursue these goals and to pubish these messsages in national newspapers and magazines. We have virtually no overhead. Almost all of our revenue pays for our educational work, for these clarifying messages, and for related direct mail."

The IRS website describes 501(c)(3) organizations:http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html and refers you to IRS publication 557.

Publication 557 is entitled "Tax Exempt Status for Your Organization" is sixty-three pages. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p557.pdf The section on educational organizations begins on page 22. The relevant passages seem to be:

"Advocacy of a particular position or viewpoint may be educational if there is a sufficiently full and fair exposition of pertinent facts to permit an individual or the public to form an independent position or conclusion. The mere presentation of unsupported opinion is not educational.

The method used by an organization to develop and present its views is a factor in determining if an organization qualifies as educational within the meaning of 501(c)(3). The following factors may indicate that the method is not educational:

1) The presentation of viewpoints unsupported by facts is a significant part of the organization’s communications.

2) The facts that purport to support the viewpoints are distorted.

3) The organization’s presentations make substantial use of inflammatory and disparaging terms and express conclusions more on the basis of emotion than of objective evaluations.

4) The approach used is not aimed at developing an understanding on the part of the audience because it does not consider their background or training.

The following types of organizations may qualify as educational:

[4 types are listed, including:]
An organization whose activities consist of conducting public discussion groups, forums, panels, lectures, or other similar programs."

[KellyRae]

I don't see anything remotely resembling a suggestion as to what should be done here in that response.

[andyfox]

I'm neither a lawyer nor a tax expert. But it seems to me FLAME shouldn't qualify as an educational institution. The IRS regulations are clear and it's clear to me FLAME is violating several of the guidelines.

[KellyRae]

Good post and a fair point. The problem I see with your suggestion goes beyond legal and tax matters, though. What you are suggesting (i.e. that certain organizations not be entitled to maintain their exemption status under the tax laws) runs into the problem of who makes these determinations - I see a large potential for abuse if government beauracrats make determinations as to which organizations are worthy of maintaining an ability to utilize the exemption. Your point regarding the regulations is a good one, but I don't think I'd be far off the mark in guessing that a large number of entities utilizing the exemption do not fully comply with the 63 page booklet you described. Maybe it would be a good thing to make sure that all of such entities are in compliance; my guess, though, is that selective enforcement would result if rigorous compliance was required - i.e. those entities which espoused views antithetical to the institution charged with monitoring compliance would come under the greatest scrutiny.

Further problems arise, also, with respect to what constitutes proof for assertions that are made - e.g. would FLAME's contentions regarding the Palestinians being a "rebellious people" be satisfied through inclusion of data which establishes that the number of suicide bombers who have come through their ranks and blow up school buses is proportional greater than other groups of people - i.e. who will be the arbiter of "truth" here.

Unless someone is proposing a repeal of the tax exemption altogether, I think broad latitude should be afforded to entities who utilize the exemption to avoid the possibility of abuse and suppression of ideas. In my view, faulty ideas can be met with rebuttal from those, such as yourself, who take issue with claims that are made.

[andyfox]

Good points.

I was surprised when I read the IRS publication because, indeed, as you indicate, who is to determine the things they talk about? Many are certainly subjective evaluations and while I'm generally don't like the slippery slope argument, this seems a siuation that invites the term. And I certainly agree with your judgment that we should err on the side of giving broad latitude rather than on the other side.

My original point in making the post was to counter FLAMEs questionable assertions, but then it occurred to me that it was incredible that this organization had an "educational" tax exemption status. You have certainly given me cause, though, to reexamine my original somewhat flippant remarks; thanks.

[Gamblor]

n/m

[andyfox]

One would have thought that, of all posters here, you do.

[The Dude]

"The problem with Scotland, is that it's full of Scots."

[The Dude]

Is there a reason why FLAME should not be tax-exempt but the ACLU should?