Ed Brown Thinks I Have A Staff – Go Figure
The only critique that I am going to present is that Mr. Brown makes it clear that he was being just a bit disingenuous when he managed to get his supporters to say that he just wanted someone to show him the law that required him to pay income tax. The law is in Title 26 of the United States Code (The Internal Revenue Code) and for all the talk about how complicated and confusing the law is, the basic requirement illustrated by Sections 1, 61 and 6102 are not complicated.
What Mr. Brown apparently wants is to be shown a law that is in his view, as a United States Constitution Ranger, is valid.
Thomas More Law Center Victory Over California AG – Big Win For Free Speech Or Dark Money?
It does seem to me that this litigation is much ado about not much. The contributors are still disclosed to the IRS. And if people are attached to their anonymity, they now have the much better option of donor advised funds. The biggest player in that field now is probably Fidelity Charitable. When they accept your recommendations to give to particular not for profits, it us up to you whether your identity is disclosed to the recipient organization. If you run all your controversial contributions through Fidelity Charitable or some other donor advised fund, the only report going to the IRS (and by extension the California AG) will show that you made a contribution to Fidelity Charitable or some other donor advised fund. The recipient organization will report that it received money from the donor advised fund.
Follow Me
Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one’s affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.