Overview
Title
An Act To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to terminate the tax-exempt status of terrorist supporting organizations.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 6408 is a new rule that says if a group in the U.S. helps bad guys called terrorists, the group will lose its special no-tax status. This means the group won't get to avoid paying taxes anymore if they are caught helping terrorists.
Summary AI
H.R. 6408 proposes to amend the Internal Revenue Code to revoke the tax-exempt status of organizations that support terrorism. This means that any organization designated by the Secretary as having materially supported terrorist groups within the past three years would lose their tax-exempt status. The bill outlines a process for notifying organizations of their designation, offering them a chance to rectify the issue, and allows for administrative and court reviews of the designation. The change would apply to designations made after the law is enacted in taxable years that end after this date.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Overview of H.R. 6408
H.R. 6408 is a legislative proposal aimed at modifying the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to terminate the tax-exempt status of organizations deemed to support terrorism. If enacted, the bill would empower the Secretary of the Treasury to designate certain organizations as "terrorist supporting" based on their involvement in providing significant aid to terrorist organizations within the last three years. The bill specifies procedures for notifying these organizations, gives them an opportunity to dispute the designation, and outlines processes for rescinding the designation. It also includes provisions for administrative and court reviews of such designations.
Key Issues
One of the most pressing issues is the provision for reviewing a designation using classified information in a manner that may limit transparency. Organizations may not fully know the evidence against them, potentially infringing on their ability to defend themselves. This raises concerns over fairness and due process.
Moreover, the language defining what constitutes "material support or resources in excess of a de minimis amount" lacks clarity. This vagueness could lead to inconsistent application and leave organizations unsure of compliance requirements, potentially resulting in unintentional violations.
The procedures for designation, including the 90-day period for an organization to refute the claim, may be overly burdensome. This could complicate compliance efforts and impose significant operational challenges within a tight timeframe.
Further, the requirement for organizations to demonstrate noninvolvement or to retrieve support already given, especially if utilized, might not be practically feasible. Organizations could be unjustly penalized if they cannot reverse past actions, despite implementing corrective measures.
In addition, the bill includes a clause that invalidates a certification if the organization has previously made another such certification in the prior five years. This could discourage efforts at remediation or penalize organizations with multiple incidences over time, even after genuine corrective actions.
Finally, the delineation between classifications by the Secretary and the possibility of an IRS Appeals process adds complexity to legal proceedings, potentially prolonging litigation and increasing costs for organizations.
Public and Stakeholder Impact
Broadly, if enacted, the bill might affect public confidence in nonprofit organizations. On the positive side, it could enhance vigilance against organizations that are misusing tax-exempt status to support terrorism. Conversely, there is a risk of legitimate organizations becoming ensnared in lengthy, costly, and complex legal proceedings to contest the designation, which might tarnish reputations unjustly.
From the perspective of nonprofit organizations, particularly those working internationally or with complex funding sources, the bill could necessitate more rigorous compliance measures to avoid inadvertently falling afoul of the law. The prospect of being labeled a “terrorist supporting organization” could, understandably, be daunting and damaging.
For the government, this bill represents a tool to enhance national security through fiscal regulation. However, it necessitates careful implementation to ensure that it targets only those entities truly deserving of such designation based on robust and clear criteria.
Ultimately, the complexity and potential for ambiguity in this bill might necessitate additional guidance or subsequent legislative amendments to address any unforeseen consequences, especially those impacting civil liberties or operational fairness for legitimately compliant nonprofits.
Issues
The provision allowing review of a designation based on classified information ex parte and in camera may raise significant concerns regarding transparency and fairness. This could lead to potential legal challenges questioning the rights of organizations to defend themselves against designations without full knowledge of the evidence used against them. (Section 1, Paragraph F)
Ambiguity in the language regarding what constitutes 'material support or resources in excess of a de minimis amount' could lead to inconsistent application and interpretation of the law. Organizations may find it difficult to understand compliance requirements, leading to unintended violations. (Section 1, Paragraph B)
The administrative procedure outlined for designation, including the notice and the 90-day cure period, may be overly complex and difficult to navigate for organizations. This could impose significant operational burdens on organizations to demonstrate compliance or cure purported violations within a potentially impractical timeframe. (Section 1, Paragraph C)
The requirement for organizations to demonstrate that they have not provided support or have retrieved support given, especially if already utilized, may not be feasible in practical terms. This could unjustly penalize organizations unable to reverse past actions even after adopting corrective measures. (Section 1, Paragraph C)
The clause that invalidates a certification if a similar certification was made in the preceding 5 years could penalize organizations despite genuine corrective actions. This could discourage organizations from attempting remediation if faced with multiple incidences over time. (Section 1, Paragraph C and D)
The distinction between classifications made by the Secretary versus the IRS Appeals process adds an additional layer of complexity to the legal proceedings, which could lead to prolonged litigation and increased legal costs for organizations. (Section 1, Paragraph E)
The effective date clause might result in retroactive application issues, leading to potential non-compliance where organizations may be unaware of designations that affect their tax-exempt status. This could complicate alignment with current enforcement practices. (Section 1, Paragraph B)
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Termination of tax-exempt status of terrorist supporting organizations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines amendments to the Internal Revenue Code allowing the Secretary to designate certain organizations as "terrorist supporting" if they have provided significant aid to terrorist organizations in the past three years. It details procedures for notifying such organizations, opportunities for them to refute the designation, possibilities for rescinding the designation, and rights to administrative and court reviews of the decisions.