IRS Exempt Organization Unit Chief Officer Violated U.S. Laws

[From article]
When Lois Lerner, the former IRS chief of the Exempt Organization unit and figure at the center of the targeting scandal, transferred 1.25 million IRS documents to the Justice Department in October of 2010, she almost certainly broke the law, according to new documents unearthed by the group Cause of Action in a FOIA suit.
The documents contained tax returns and other private tax information from non-profit groups. The transfer was done in advance of a meeting between IRS and Justice Department officials to discuss prosecuting non-profits for illegal political activity.
But federal law prohibits the transfer of tax returns to any agency without following set procedures. Lerner's transfer was thus highly illegal.
[. . .]



Documents suggest that Lerner’s massive document transfer to the DOJ didn’t meet any of those exceptions, including one that allows the agency to disclose returns for use in criminal investigations — if they’ve been requested in relation to “an actual investigation about a person to whom the investigation is related,” says O’Connor. Both Lerner and the DOJ were interested in figuring out how to prosecute non-profit groups they believed were engaging in improper political activity, and Lerner sent the documents over to the department days before an October 8 meeting with several of her IRS colleagues, an FBI agent, and attorneys from the DOJ’s public-integrity section.
[. . .]
A lawful transfer of the documents would have required a formal request from the DOJ to the IRS, but DOJ trial attorney Stephanie Sasarak told Cause of Action in a March 9, 2016, letter that the department did not make any requests to the IRS for the documents it received. Alternatively, the secretary of the Treasury could have turned the documents over to the DOJ. In either case, section 6103 requires the Treasury secretary to disclose the transfer to the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, which releases publicly a list of disclosures each year. But the Joint Committee on Taxation’s 2010 disclosure report does not show a transfer to the Department of Justice that matches the one Lerner sent in October of that year.
[. . .]



Thousands of non-profit groups had their tax returns transferred illegally, while the IRS and Justice deliberately kept Congress in the dark.
The FBI closed its investigation of the Tea Party targeting scandal in October of 2015 without indicting anyone.
It doesn't get any clearer than this. Procedures set down by law on how taxpayer info can be disclosed were discarded, and a cover-up of the transfer to DoJ was initiated. What's worrisome is, if they are covering up disclosure violations like this, how many more taxpayers are in the cross hairs of the IRS and DoJ without knowing it, and is there any way to find out?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/new_docs_show_irss_lois_lerner_broke_the_law.html

June 30, 2016
New docs show IRS's Lois Lerner broke the law
By Rick Moran

Victims With Closed Minds Dominate Campuses

[From article]
Even President Barack Obama recently lamented the declining state of affairs on America’s college campuses. Essentially, a doctrinaire sense of victimology has descended upon campuses such that free speech, critical thinking, and debate are all but abolished in favor of “Safe spaces.” The complaints are extensive and well-founded. Allan Bloom’s concern in the 1980s about the “Closing of the American Mind” is profound, real, and upon us at today’s university campuses
[. . .]



The public poorly understands how dire the communication culture is on college campuses -- especially in election years like this one. We must seek dramatic reforms to prevent the painful reality check that must await the students of Coddle University. Here are the steps that should be taken:
State legislatures should convene hearings to examine the tax-exempt statuses of universities.
[. . .]



2. 15% of student fee moneys should be spent on student activities that encourage open dialogue and debate: debate teams, public debates, mock trial, and similar student advocacy activities. Most universities raise between $250,000 and $500,000 a year in student fees. In Ohio, I worked at a school where fees went to clubs such as: the masturbation club, the X-box club (they bought gaming consoles), and the California appreciation club.
[. . .]



At issue here are our paramount civil rights found in the First Amendment. Colleges and universities are creating intellectually stifling environments comparable to Jim Crow America. Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition must flow from the citadels of critical thinking that should be American colleges and universities. The reactionary ideology against individual rights that corrodes the minds of our young people since the 1960s must be confronted and reversed.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/reforming_academia_in_2016.html

April 23, 2016
Reforming Academia in 2016
By Ben Voth

Is Tax Exempt Harvard University Status Used For Political Activity Contrary to Local, State and US Tax Laws?

Remarkable, the kind of ethics promoted at the Safra Center. First founder and law professor Larry Lessig used the center and Harvard's tax exemption for political activity running his own campaign. Now this professor at the ethics center maybe also used her equipment, Harvard University email, computer, word processor, to conduct political activity in violation of US tax laws. See e.g., "Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one 'which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.'" If true it is a recurring example of abuse of state, local and US tax privileges by Harvard University ethicists in violation of the university's tax exemption. Maybe someone should show back bone and see how many other abuses there are by the Harvard ethicists and the unethical ones.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/2/24/professor-denounces-trump-piece/

Professor’s Op-Ed Calls For Unity Against Trump Campaign
By NIKITHA B. REDDY, CONTRIBUTING WRITER
Harvard Crimson
February 24, 2016

Use of Corporations For Boycotts

Does that mean that when Macy's and Amazon boycotted Donald Trump a stockholder can sue them? When employees of universities, tax exempt corporations, use their property for similar political activity isn't that too a violation of IRS, Treasury Department tax laws and state revenue laws? And what about the PR flack for the White House stating in unequivocal terms that Trump is not qualified to be president while the flack was working in the White House. Isn't that an illegal use of public property, an act defined as political activity? Not that violating laws is any concern to this lawless administration? 

[From blog]

On December 2, The Wall Street Journal published an Op-Ed by law school professors Eugene Kontorovich and Steven Davidoff Solomon, “Those Israel Boycotts Are Illegal.” In it, the professors take on the increasingly frequent boycott resolutions under consideration at –and approved by many– academic associations such as the American Anthropological Association and the American Studies Association. They note:
The moral myopia and academic perversity of these boycotts have been widely discussed. Less well understood is that in many cases they also are illegal. Under corporate law, an organization, including a nonprofit, can do only what is permitted under the purposes specified in its charter.
Boycott resolutions that are beyond the powers of an organization are void, and individual members can sue to have a court declare them invalid. The individuals serving on the boards of these organizations may be liable for damages.
[…]
Saying that organizations cannot act beyond the purposes specified in their charters is no mere legal nitpicking. The charter is an explicit contract with members, declaring that their money will be dedicated to agreed-upon goals and that their group will not turn into a motorcycle club or a political party.
On its face, an academic boycott undermines academic freedom, a broad-based education and the exchange of ideas. That’s stupid. Holding only Israel to some imaginary standard and holding Israeli academics responsible for Israeli policy, whatever one thinks of it, is clearly immoral. Academic associations don’t seem to care about this. A couple of well-prosecuted lawsuits might, however, make them take notice.

Posted by SC at December 3, 2015 12:28 PM

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2015/12/academic_boycotts_of_israel_no.html

December 03, 2015
Academic Boycotts of Israel Not Just Stupid and Immoral, Also Illegal

Harvard Crimson Shows Support For Troubled Law School Ethics Professor's Presidential Campaign

Good citation of credentials certifying that Professor of Ethics "On Leave" Lessig is a bona fide member of the beautiful elite people. That provides him with an exemption from inconvenient laws, and from rectitude. Harvard University, his employer, enjoys property and income tax exemptions, from the City of Cambridge, the state of Massachusetts and the United States government. Prof. Lessig wants to be President so he can as Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires, the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” He asserts his motivation is to end campaign finance corruption of elections or something. The IRS tax code and US Department of the Treasury laws strictly prohibit tax exempt corporations from conducting political activity using its not for profit corporate status. Professor of Ethics at the Safra Center, Mr. Lessig, uses his office for his campaign, an example of "political activity," as defined in the laws. State and city exemptions follow US standards, which means he may be violating those exemption criteria too. 



Not to worry, Harvard University, a tax exempt corporation (charity, Ahem!) operating as a not for profit educational institution, has an endowment of $37 billion. Whatchu gonna do about it? Huh? The IRS selectively enforces laws against conservative not for profits. Harvard University a vigorous promoter of academics who approve of violence against white people, a vigorous supporter of diversity has no need to worry. The IRS will overlook any of their violations. So too will the Cambridge City government, which is in awe of the university. Likewise for the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, which is likely run by a Harvard University alumni, like the current and previous governors. If you are one of the beautiful people, and are largely endowed you too can ignore laws if they are a bother. Cheers.



http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/9/24/lessig-2016-scrut/



Lessig 2016
Harvard Law School professor Larry Lessig is an unlikely presidential contender. But his sudden leap into the 2016 race means that he’s serious about it.
BY MEG P. BERNHARD,

Harvard Crimson STAFF WRITER
SEPTEMBER 24, 2015

Harvard Law School Professor of Ethics, and Campaign Finance Corruption Fighter, Ignores IRS Laws

"Campaign finance reform," blah, blah, blah. "democracy has been 'bought' by big campaign donors" You mean like Harvard University ($36 billion endowment), who allows Prof. "on leave" Lessig to use the University's not for profit incorporation status for his campaign in violation of IRS, Treasury Department, city and state tax laws?



[From article]
his commitment to campaign finance reform and equalizing voting rights.
[. . .]
Lessig repeated that America’s democracy has been “bought” by big campaign donors and that “this is not a democracy anymore.”
[. . .]
[sounds like more of the fairy dust used at the White House]
his one-policy plan: to pass a referendum aimed at reforming campaign finance and then immediately give up his presidential powers to his vice president.



http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/9/10/lessig-campaign-new-hampshire/

Lessig Kicks Off Presidential Campaign in New Hampshire
By MEG P. BERNHARD,

Harvard CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
September 10, 2015

Tax Laws Are For The Weak, The Republicans, The Little People

James J. Kerasiotes

Photo: Nancy Lane
Sharpton and Democratic pols enjoy two exemptions from tax laws. (1) As an FBI informant. not incarcerated, laws are optional (Think e.g., a New York James Bulger); (2) The Obama-Holder doctrine allows selected persons to ignore inconvenient laws. Sharpton and his fellow Dems are selected. Tax laws are rejected.

[From article]
I never asked Jim Kerasiotes about his political affiliations, but now it’s clear that whatever he is, the former Big Dig boss is NOT a Democrat.
We know this because Thursday he was sentenced to six months in prison for failing to pay the IRS $31,448 in back taxes.
Thirty-one grand and you go to Club Fed — are you kidding me?
At last count the Rev. Al Sharpton owed $4.5 million in back taxes, and he goes to the White House.
What could possibly explain why Obama and Eric Holder treat the reverend with kid gloves and then bring down the iron fist on Jimmy the K?

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/howie_carr/2015/02/carr_only_dems_skate_on_tax_raps

Carr: Only Dems skate on tax raps
Sunday, February 8, 2015
By: Howie Carr
Boston Herald

Cambridge City Manager Is Very Well Paid

Robert Healy, Cambridge City Manager 

Property tax exemptions for universities and other not for profit corporations do not extend to for profit uses. There are abuses but in Cambridge the outgoing City Manager "negotiated " agreements with Harvard and MIT for PILOTs which last for up to 50 years. In addition if the City petitions for eliminating the tax exemption, the agreements are void. The City Manager negotiated away rights of the city to petition the state legislature. Like much of what Cambridge City government does it is of questionable legality.   

http://wgbhnews.org/post/cambridge-city-manager-has-well-paid-graying-company-misunderstood-job

Cambridge City Manager Has Well Paid, Graying Company in Misunderstood Job
6:00 AM WED APRIL 3, 2013
By JAMES EDWARDS

Harvard's Tax Exemption And Candidate Warren

In addition to the misadventures mentioned herein, Harvard Law School enjoys a tax exemption from city property taxes. If law professors use their offices for "for profit" activities that negates the tax exemption. Though I've spoken publicly about this several times before the Cambridge MA City Council there was no effort to end any such abuses by law professors or others using tax exempt property for profit-making activities. It is one of many unlawful activities found on the Harvard University campus. Their faculty and students become accustomed to violating local, state and US laws with no penalties. Thus Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder with a little help from their friends. 

[From article]
Elizabeth Warren [. . .] practiced law for years in Massachusetts out of her law school office

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/on_the_road_to_benghazi.html

September 30, 2012
On the Road to Benghazi
American Thinker

Harvard Sells Watertown Arsenal

That purchase provoked a state law to compensate cities and towns
which lost more than a percentage of their tax base to be reimbursed
by the non profit taking the property off the tax rolls. Harvard's
agreement with Watertown was for about $50 million over a period of
time. Watertown got more money than Harvard gives to Cambridge.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/12/5/sell-arsenal-charles-watertown/

University To Sell Arsenal on the Charles
By SAMUEL Y. WEINSTOCK,
Harvard CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
Published: Wednesday, December 05, 2012

Harvard's Tax Exemption and Candidate Warren

In addition to the misadventures mentioned herein, Harvard Law School enjoys a tax exemption from city property taxes. If law professors use their offices for "for profit" activities that negates the tax exemption. Though I've spoken publicly about this several times before the Cambridge MA City Council there was no effort to end any such abuses by law professors or others using tax exempt property for profit-making activities. It is one of many unlawful activities found on the Harvard University campus. Their faculty and students become accustomed to violating local, state and US laws with no penalties. Thus Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder with a little help from their friends. 

[From article]
Elizabeth Warren [. . .] practiced law for years in Massachusetts out of her law school office 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/on_the_road_to_benghazi.html September 30, 2012

On the Road to Benghazi
American Thinker
by Clarice Feldman
September 30, 2012

US Law Requires Universities to Reveal Conflicts of Interest

Even with disclosure of any conflicts of interest how does this policy requirement of US law address the use of taxpayer funds for private profit? Are the standards of the NFL and Solyndra being imported into the university now? When private for profit activities take place on campus how does that affect the property tax exemption. I know it does not matter in Cambridge where laws are optional but for the rest of humanity.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/2/8/harvard-revising-coi-policies/

Harvard COI Policies Being Revised
By Radhika Jain and Kevin J. Wu,
Harvard CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS
Published: Wednesday, February 08, 2012

Harvard Exploits Tax Exemption With No Jeopardy

About using Facebook and email during class, "Students and professors seem to accept this as a routine part of Harvard life.
[. . .]
Their professors are leaders in their fields and senior advisers to governments and corporations."
Has this too become a routine part of Harvard life? Using tax exempt property for for profit enterprises contrary to law? A recent article about US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren revealed she was doing consulting work too.


[From article]
"Students and professors seem to accept this as a routine part of Harvard life.
[. . .]
Their professors are leaders in their fields and senior advisers to governments and corporations."


http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/10/24/facebook-class-phenomenon/

Combating the Facebook Index
By Hemi H. Gandhi,
Harvard CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
Published: Monday, October 24, 2011

Harvard Medical School's Internet Company

[The print edition stated that the cost was "more than $300,000."] Nonetheless this paragraph raises more problematic issues. From where were these Harvard Medical School psychologists working? If they work from their medical school offices they are employed in a for profit endeavor on tax exempt property. Under usual circumstances, i.e., with individuals held accountable for legal transgressions, Harvard Medical School would lose its tax exemption. But in Massachusetts, and especially in Boston and Cambridge where Harvard dominates the economy, laws are optional.

[From article]
"For more than $100,000 for three months, it offers the latest in therapy: interactive Skype group sessions between a Harvard Medical School addiction-treatment psychologist and the pampered patients."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/insidedeluxe_detox_OLpsId036LN91MuUy8z7sJ

Inside deluxe detox
Secret Hamptons rehab for high society
By KIERAN CROWLEY
New York Post
Last Updated: 6:53 AM, September 12, 2011
Posted: 2:20 AM, September 12, 2011

Senate Candidate Earns more than $350,000

Professor and candidate Elizabeth Warren joins a long line of Harvard professors who use tax exempt property for profit making enterprises. Nothing unusual. In Cambridge laws are optional. Criticism of the abuses is not tolerated.

[From article]
"According to Politco, Warren has collected a salary of $347,000 from Harvard plus $53,428 in royalties, $116,000 in legal consulting and $25,000 for research."

http://bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/2011_1010warren_leaves_us_wondering/

Warren leaves us wondering
By Holly Robichaud
Boston Herald
Monday, October 10, 2011

For Ending University Endowment Tax Exemptions

[From article]
"Under US tax law, most philanthropic organizations are required to distribute a minimum of 5 percent of their assets per year in order to retain their not-for-profit tax breaks, but university endowments have lobbied Congress hard and have no such requirement to spend anything.
[. . .]
Professors and teachers, the bedrock of these institutions, are not the problem. They are fairly compensated; many are middle class themselves. It's about the greed of the endowments.
[. . .]
the nation's elite universities game the system and sit on tens of billions of dollars that they refuse to use to make college affordable? These are educational institutions, right?
[. . .]
Educational endowments should not be permitted to hide behind their not-for-profit status while running massive portfolio management operations in their "trust" departments and not be required to give back."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/well_endowed_gQ4pkrnMj1eSnMK50oideP

Well endowed
Feds should make private college trusts pay
By JONATHON M. TRUGMAN
New York Post
Last Updated: 4:12 AM, July 3, 2011
Posted: 11:25 PM, July 2, 2011

PILOTS for Boston


Boston Municipal Research Bureau Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research
A Vision for Boston:
Questions for the 2009 Mayoral Candidates
Day 1: PILOTs

What is the basis by which nonprofit institutions should make payments-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOTs) to Boston in a way that provides a reasonable payment for city services without harming the economic benefits of the institutions?

Nonprofit institutions play a significant role in the growth and vitality of the Boston economy. However, their tax-exempt status in a city highly dependent on property tax revenue puts more pressure on taxable property. In addition, exempt institutional development in Boston can result in a loss of property tax revenue.

To help offset lost revenue to Boston, many institutions make payments-in-lieu-of-taxes as part of what has been described as one of the most effective PILOT programs in the country. Nevertheless, some observers have called for larger and more standardized sources of payment. In fiscal 2009, PILOTs to the city amounted to$32.5 million and the budget for fiscal 2010 is $34 million. Last year, Massport made Pilot payments of $16.1 million which represented close to half of the total $32.5 million. Medical institutions contributed $4.5 million and educational institutions contributed $8.2 million in PILOTs in fiscal 2009.

However, on a land area basis, private non-profit institutions account for a relatively minor part of the city's tax exempt property. While, 51% of the city's landmass is occupied by tax-exempt owners, 78% of exempt property area is publicly owned by the City, the Commonwealth and its authorities and the federal government. Educational and medical institutions represent less than 5% of the City's land area. Religious institutions also represent a large share of private exempt area.

A mayor must balance his or her desire to fund city services at an adequate level, charge users of the services appropriately, and spread the cost of government over the widest possible base. Yet, it is vital to acknowledge the pivotal role that educational and medical nonprofit institutions play in producing jobs and anchoring our economy. For example, universities and hospitals alone account for almost 20% of the jobs in Boston and a recent report of the Conference of Boston Teaching Hospitals set the economic benefit that Boston's hospitals generate for the City at greater than $8 billion. Additionally, teaching hospitals dedicated nearly $175 million to community benefit programs as defined by the state's Attorney General's Office.

It is a challenge for a mayor to determine how best to achieve a fair level of cost sharing without damaging the city's ability to preserve its current base of nonprofits, encourage their expansion within the city, and attract new entrants.

What is the basis by which private nonprofit institutions should make payments-in-lieu-of-taxes to Boston? What do you believe is the appropriate level of payments in lieu of taxes by non-profits? What is your strategy for achieving that level without making Boston unfriendly to non-profits?

Contact:

Liam Day at 617-723-2277 ext. 203, 617-721-1341 or lday@pioneerinstitute.org
Elaine Beattie at 617-227-1900 or ebeattie@bmrb.org