Gee. I have found myself fascinated by the soap opera unfolding in the comments section of this blog since last night. One little mention on a controversial Democrat's blog and it's High Noon on ConservaChick! (Yes, I'm laughing while I type this.)
For those of you who have no idea what's happening in the ever-expanding comments section, join the club! Here's what I know about Mark Nickolas from bits and pieces I've read on his blog, and from a local news report: Nickolas likes to sneer at Republicans and call them snide little nicknames as he provides his "Unfiltered and Candid Look at Politics, Politicians and the Media in Kentucky;" he raised a ruckus within the Democrat party here in Kentucky by filing a suit against the chairman of the party, Jerry Lundergan; and he will be appearing on the same panel with yours truly on Thursday night. That's about it. You now have the benefit of my not-so-extensive knowledge on this subject.
Nickolas posted the Louisville Courier-Journal's notice about the panel discussion on his blog. His readers dropped by for a visit to ConservaChick and all hell broke lose. Evidently, there's some trouble brewing in tax land...
Why do I not know more about Nickolas and his blog? Well, frankly, I don't like his style of writing. Very possibly he's an intensely clever and highly intelligent writer and human being. I don't know because the acidic tone with which he presents information grates on my nerves. That's fine. He serves his target audience well and that's all that should matter. I simply prefer to get my updates on the Democrats via their national websites like Progressive Policy Institute and others that leave the name-calling and vitriol to the local hometown boys.
My visit to the Louisville chapter of the SPJ meeting on Thursday is shaping up to be high drama at this point. Nickolas has become a controversial figure in the Kentucky blogosphere so, I suppose, his presence was bound to come with some drama attached. Call me an optimist but I hold out hope that there will actually be a stimulating discussion on blogging (the medium, the messages, the differences) at some point Thursday evening. Ah well. We'll see, I suppose.
For those of you who have no idea what's happening in the ever-expanding comments section, join the club! Here's what I know about Mark Nickolas from bits and pieces I've read on his blog, and from a local news report: Nickolas likes to sneer at Republicans and call them snide little nicknames as he provides his "Unfiltered and Candid Look at Politics, Politicians and the Media in Kentucky;" he raised a ruckus within the Democrat party here in Kentucky by filing a suit against the chairman of the party, Jerry Lundergan; and he will be appearing on the same panel with yours truly on Thursday night. That's about it. You now have the benefit of my not-so-extensive knowledge on this subject.
Nickolas posted the Louisville Courier-Journal's notice about the panel discussion on his blog. His readers dropped by for a visit to ConservaChick and all hell broke lose. Evidently, there's some trouble brewing in tax land...
Why do I not know more about Nickolas and his blog? Well, frankly, I don't like his style of writing. Very possibly he's an intensely clever and highly intelligent writer and human being. I don't know because the acidic tone with which he presents information grates on my nerves. That's fine. He serves his target audience well and that's all that should matter. I simply prefer to get my updates on the Democrats via their national websites like Progressive Policy Institute and others that leave the name-calling and vitriol to the local hometown boys.
My visit to the Louisville chapter of the SPJ meeting on Thursday is shaping up to be high drama at this point. Nickolas has become a controversial figure in the Kentucky blogosphere so, I suppose, his presence was bound to come with some drama attached. Call me an optimist but I hold out hope that there will actually be a stimulating discussion on blogging (the medium, the messages, the differences) at some point Thursday evening. Ah well. We'll see, I suppose.
Comments
His style is a disgrace to democrats. I hope he is asked about his bookkeeping on Thursday night.
But you should overlook that stuff. Mark is a good guy. He means well and his agenda in getting his message across is just a little harsh and unconventional.
Sometimes you have to make up a juicy story or even add juice to the truth to underscore a point. That's all Mark is doing when he publishes things that aren't well founded. He is just adding juice to spur debate.
I will continue to enjoy Mark's blog and will continue to support Mark. If there is any issue between him and the IRS I am sure it is all just a misunderstanding and will get cleared up.
Did it ever occur to anyone that Mark is so busy he doesn't know the address of record is wrong? Did it ever occur to anyone that Mark doesn't know that the IRS has no records of his group? Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe the postman didn't leave the certified mail in the PO Box long enough for Mark to see it? I bet Mark will be surprised to learn this information and will be more than happy to clear it up. Even though he may print things that are not well founded Mark would never, EVER, break the law.
I wish the posters who are so "bent" on asking Mark on Thursday would try to call him - 502-418-6499.
Sam Wise
kyguy, who knows if it is a IRS stalker or stalker(s). Sounds like there are more than one anonymous poster looking for Mark to explain some things. Isn't the real question, why won't Mark answer his mail? Why is there an invalid address?
I don't know anything about taxes except I pay taxes. I don't like to pay taxes but I do it because it is the law. It bothers me greatly when a public figure, Mark Nickolas or not, appear to be in tax violation?
I don't get your question on how posting questions, that are public information, are weakening any questions regarding Mark Nickolas and his "hide the address, $$" game? If anything, and to use Sam Wise's word, it "underscores" the silence from Mark Nickolas.
It doesn't matter to me if these posters are from the IRS or not. It doesn't matter to me if there are one, two, three or one hundred different posters. With the no names, we won't know will we?
However, whoever the posters are they bring up valid questions and I am curious about the whole $$ thing.
I have a question for you Kyguy and all Mark Nickolas posters. If Mark Nickolas won't come clean with his bookkeeping is that alright by you? Seems like there are posters that are asking for simple information and the only thing Mark Nickolas posters want to do is "eat that poster" as if Mark is an untouchable and above the law? The questions I have read from the anonymous posters seem to be factual, well researched and alarming. Are you not bothered by the notion that there is a possibility that Mark Nickolas would be in violation of breaking tax laws? I am bothered and alarmed. Surprised more people are not, especially more democrats?????
Daniel
I don't know if Mark is breaking or has broken any laws tax or otherwise, but with the amount of information provided thus far, it sure smells funny from where I read.
As far as speculation on who the anonymous informant is, who cares? For a democrat who runs a democratic blog to be dismissive when people are asking direct questions about his tax information is a disgrace! Mark is so quick to judge people and throw stones at them, yet it is becoming clear that Mark may have a glass house himself?
I also drove by the address of record and there is only a dentist there. Nothing complex about it. He isn't there.
I don't understand your very casual attitude. Do you think if I tell the IRS their Forms are too complex to understand they'll tell me I don't have to report my income?
If he's going to run a corporation as tax exempt or anything else, he should have hired a lawyer to make sure he stays in compliance with all tax laws. All corporations, tax exempt and for profit, pay lawyers just to make sure they stay within the laws. Are you suggesting that Mark Nickolas get a free pass because you read his blog?
I don't care what Mark's ideas are, but if he is not in compliance with the tax code he should not get a free pass in my book.
If someone is evading Uncle Sam that is hardly "petty." The tax man would probably disagree that those who do not report income are involved in a "petty" offense. Do the men who have gone to jail for violating tax codes think this is "petty?" Not reporting income is not a "petty" crime.
Mark has had enough people chatting about excuses as to why he should not have to follow the tax code. Enough excuses, the rules in the IRS publication that have already been quoted in Dawn's blog are very clear, not complex, clear as a bell. I suggest you read them.
The problem here is your reptilian brain cannot fathom complex issues or questions- your world is black or white, up or down, left or right. So let me make it clear that we're are going to start talking about these issues in a very clear way- but in our terms, not yours. If you or the you all or the IRS don't like too bad!
The readers on Dawn's blog have just witnessed a political party "flip flop." All these years I thought the democrats were the ones complaining that Republicans are bad because due to the Republican congress Corporations weren't paying taxes.
Now, Mark Nickolas, the Democrat with a Corporation, has his friends come on this Republican conservative blog and say, the "tax laws are too complex" so NOW a Corporation that may or may not be reporting income is nothing more than a "petty" discussion?
Is it "petty" because it is a democrat not wanting to disclose information that is clearly set out in the tax code. If a republican blog was set up as a tax exempt corporation blog and the director of the blog was suspected of not reporting income because the IRS had no information on the corporation and the director refuses to disclose information that is required, would you democrats say, "tax laws are too complex" and the issue is a "petty" one? HAHAHAHAHAHA Kyguy, you sound a lot like Al Cross now ... hahahaha
I'll start a tax exempt corporation tomorrow. Kyguy, make sure you drop in and deposit some money.
Now the democrats think it's ok for Corporations to withhold money from Uncle Sam? I guess next we're going to hear them say, "there really were WMD."
In the words of Neal Young .... "Flip - Flop"
I have to echo Flip Flop on this one ... It's NOW ok for Democrats to set up tax exempt corporations that the IRS has no record of....hahahahaha.....
I'd like to ask Mark's friends why they think paying taxes is so "petty" all of the sudden. Isn't that one of the HUGE differences between the democrats and republicans? Democrats want to tax and Republicans do NOT want taxes. Now this big mouthy Democrat, that calls all kinds of people to the carpet for being corrupt, even has the nerve to file lawsuits and other legal complaints AGAINST people who he claims are CORRUPT, through HIS silence, appears to NOT want to pay taxes or report contributions of a tax exempt corporation....hahahaha... side-splitting it is.
Are you NEW-WAVE tax free Democrats going to demand from our newly elected Democrats in Congress that ALL Corporations should NOT have to report income because the tax laws are too complex! hahahahahahaha.... I really am laughing right now.
The eyes are not off the ball here. If this Mark Nickolas guy is on the up and up we would have heard from HIM by now. Republicans are clearly not blind followers like Mark's Democrats. We still remember our platform. You Democrats have done a HUGE flip flop on your platform.
Either this guy Nickolas is a republican at heart or he has no idea what the democratic platform he stands for is. After Mark reads the democratic party platform (and learns what they stand for) he should read the IRS tax code that was mentioned earlier on this blog (and learn the laws).
From the mark nickolas democrats:
Taxes are too complex!hahahahaha
Taxes on Corporations are a "petty" discussion. .hahahahahahaha
Ah this made me laugh so hard!!!!
With all those surfers of Mr. Nickolas' offering up an opinion my Educated Guess is that Mr. Nickolas has been made aware of the discussion on your "peaceful" blog. Yet, Mr. Nickolas has not offered up any information to clear the matter up.
I don't believe anyone has accused Mr. Nickolas of "breaking" tax laws what I read is that people are asking valid questions regarding registered agent address, IRS exemption status etc., all very valid questions since he is claiming his corporation tax exempt. While no one has accused him suspicion is rising with every silent moment from Mr. Nickolas.
If these discussions were taking place about me or my corporation I would speed over and clear up all the answers as soon as possible. The tax laws of this country may be complex, which is why I hired a lawyer to keep me in compliance. However, the tax laws as complex as they are, they are the LAW and they MUST be followed or risk jail time. That is not petty. That is serious. Tax laws are not petty they are serious.
I would be amazed if Mr. Nickolas is not aware of these discussions due to the number of friends of his that has offered a defense, lame defense but still a defense. I think it is very "odd" behavior from Mr. Nickolas to not clear this matter up.
My educated guess number 3, since he most likely knows of this topic, and is keenly aware of the discrepancies in his tax exempt corporation, and he has not offered any response on this website or his own, there is a bigger reason why he does not clear this up and remains silent. Bigger reason??? But, what would that reason be? It isn't because this is "petty" because democrats KNOW that taxes are NOT petty. It isn’t because this is tiresome. The only thing that is tiresome in my view is someone who willingly does not comply with laws regardless of the laws complexity. What an excuse Kyguy offered. Petty, tiresome, and too complex for a Corporation to stay in compliance.
Educated guess number 4: kyguy is no business man.
If I didn't think this blatant silence were so obvious, I too would be laughing at the fact that the “big mouthy Democrat” thinks Corporations paying taxes is petty because tax laws are too complex.
I shall await the Nickolas-Democrat next epiphany when they say, "let's stay the course in Iraq."
The tax laws for 501(c)4 tax exempt corporations is not complex. I will agree with the poster that said, filing out tax Forms is complex. Tax Exempt tax laws are the easiest to follow. There is a black and white list of what you can and cannot do. No ambiguity.
As one other poster on your blog pointed out, the Public Disclosure rules are NOT complex either and they are very clear to read. I too read the IRS Publication 557 pages 13-15 as one of the anonymous posters suggested. The law speaks for itself and is clear. No ambiguity. Public Disclosure laws are so easy to follow that anyone can walk into the address of record and simply ask to view the tax documents and, even photo copy the documents at the cost of the requestor. Simple to follow. No ambiguity. No choice on the part of the Corporation it is the LAW as has been pointed out by previous posters.
Therefore, not only should Mark Nickolas clear this up based off common business sense. More importantly, he should clear this up because it is required by law that anyone, anyone at all, that asks a tax exempt corporation for those documents the corporation has NO CHOICE - they must be turned over.
Dawn, if you get the opportunity to read that tax code obtained from irs.gov, Publication 557, I would be interested to get your views. I always enjoy your insightful and intelligent comments.
First of all, thank you all for the kind words and support for my wee little blog. It does my heart good to see that, even though this began more as a complaint about Mr. Nickolas's tax records, most commenters have managed to remain civil and congenial. That means a lot to me since I don't moderate this area at all. It says a lot about the quality of people who read this blog and who participate in the discussions here.
Now to my current thoughts on the Nickolas tax mystery:
There's only one person who knows what's going on and that would be Mr. Nickolas himself. I feel quite sure, as was pointed out in an earlier comment, that he's been made aware of the discussion here. There are too many faithful followers of his blog who have offered a defense on his behalf for him not to have been alerted. It even crossed my mind to email him from his blog to inform him of it as a courtesy to a fellow blogger. However, I did not follow through on that. It seems, after re-reading several of the comments here that this issue has been brought to his attention multiple times through multiple means. I felt no need to get directly involved in this. And, of course, we've had no direct word from him here either.
It is quite possible that someone has used the phone number posted by Sam Wise to contact him directly. If that happened, the mystery or the misdeed may have been resolved by now. If not, he will certainly be aware of the urgent need to be prepared for a very specific question tomorrow night during the SPJ meeting.
Will he make his scheduled appearance on the panel knowing this controversy awaits him? Will he have cleared up the mystery by filing the right papers and providing valid information to the IRS? Only Mr. Nickolas knows for sure and obviously he's not telling.
If I were in his shoes -- they wouldn't fit me, mind you; I pay taxes on my shoes -- I would absolutely have this mystery cleared up before my appearance at the meeting tomorrow night. Otherwise, he simply continues to gain notoriety for flaunting the tax laws and loses whatever credibility he had with Dems and his blog audience.
Oh what a tangled web...
As for the complexity of the tax laws for non-profit organizations, I am familiar with them. I acted as Director for a start-up 501(c)3 a few years ago. We had problems meeting all of the requirements and getting the thing off the ground so the project folded. So, I'm familiar with this scenario. The laws are quite straight forward for non-profits. We had an attorney at that time but it was not as complex as one might think. Even I understood the requirements and I'm no attorney.
As I reviewed the 557 publication, I ran across a curious paragraph:
"Harassment campaign. If the tax-exempt organization is the subject of a harassment campaign, the organization may not have to fulfill requests for information. For more information, see section 301.6104(d)–3 of the regulations."
What in the world is a "harrassment campaign?" I had trouble locating the regulation named to figure this out.
If it means what it seems to mean, then Mr. Nickolas may have an easy way out of providing information on his tax exempt application and filings, right?
Curiouser and curiouser...
E. Tax-Exempt. Orgs. Subject to Harassment Campaign. "... Allows an organization to request a "determination BY the IRS that requests are part of a Harassment Campaign. It is not, however, a means for a tax-exempt org. to PREVENT disclosure of either its annual returns or application for exemption.
A tax-exempt org. may APPLY for determination that it is the subject of a harassment campaign by submitting a SIGNED application to the Key District Director for the Key District where its principal office is located. The application must contain a WRITTEN statement giving the organizations name, address, employer ID number and the name, address and telephone number of the person to contact regarding the application, and describing IN DETAIL the facts and circumstances that the organization believes support determination that it is subject to a harassment campaign.
The ORGANIZATION MUST PROVE that the requests are designed to disrupt the operations of the organization. Relevant facts and circumstances include:
1. Evidence that the organization has already provided the requested documents to a member of the PURPORTED harassing group; AND
2. A demonstration BY the tax-exempt organization that it ROUTINELY provides copies of its documents upon request; AND
3. Direct evidence of bad faith by organizers of the purported harassment campaign; AND
4. Requests that contain language hostile to the organization; AND
5. Evidence of a purpose to deter significantly the organization's employees or volunteers from pursuing the organization's EXEMPT PURPOSE; AND
6. An extraordinary number of requests made through form letters or similarly worded correspondence; AND
7. A sudden increase in the number of requests.
--- That is the summary from irs.gov
Mr. Nickolas will have a tough time proving a harassment campaign if the IRS does NOT have his corporation set up as tax-exempt organization. The claim that the address of record is NOT that of the corporation could be a HUGE problem for Mr. Nickolas as well.
Item 1 & 2 above would be additional large hurdles for Mr. Nickolas since allegedly he has NOT provided the documents routinely or otherwise and allegedly has REFUSED to accept certified mail at his PO Box. Item 5 will also be hard to prove for two reasons, 1) The organization is a blog, photocopying the documents and posting them on the world wide web or his blog would not constitute a "disruption of the operations;" AND 2.) In order to disrupt the PURPOSE for the exempt organization the organization MUST be recognized by the IRS as tax-exempt and apparently the IRS has no record of the Foundation for Kentucky's Future Inc.
Therefore, I doubt it would be wise for Mr. Nickolas to submit documents to the IRS for THEIR determination. Remember, Mr. Nickolas does NOT make the determination the IRS does that. To repeat, if someone were to ask Mr. Nickolas tonight for the documents to be present at a convenient location it would be advantageous for him to holler "harassment campaign" BECAUSE then Mr. Nickolas would have to explain ON STAGE why the IRS has no record of his corporation and WHY his address of record is not that of the Corporations.
"it would {NOT} be advantageous for him to holler "harassment campaign" BECAUSE then Mr. Nickolas would have to explain ON STAGE why the IRS has no record of his corporation and WHY his address of record is not that of the Corporations."
New thought: In a way, it would be interesting if he did say that. I would love to hear a Democrat say - in public - that the reason the IRS has never heard of my corporation is because the "tax laws are too complex" so I thought it "petty" to file for exemption.
Sam Wise, kyguy and dgky(dean) AND Mark Nickolas for that matter do NOT, I repeat DO NOT represent the Democratic Party I believe in. I do NOT believe that the means outweighs the end when it comes to the "means" being an illegal act. Unfortunately I think the scenario you point out applies to both parties. These people are certainly NO exception to blindly following a person, even if that person may or may not be committing an illegal act right in front of their noses. I have NEVER understood that logic.
This deal with Foley, if people in his staff knew what he was doing - how HORRIBLE to not compel Foley to comply with the laws and expose him. As a matter of fact, even if his staffers had a suspicion he was a pedophile (legally what he did was not a gay thing), then they should have exposed him to the top guy, which they claim they did -- so -- if they are telling the truth GREAT I am proud of them.
These Nickolas-Democrats that slander people with malice intent yet blindly sit back while the odds that Nickolas has been evading Uncle Sam are pretty good. UNBELIEVABLE! AND NO, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME TYPE OF DEMOCRAT THAT I OR MY PARTY STANDS FOR.
I am aghast at the stunts that Mark Nickolas did this election cycle all under the auspice of a tax-exempt (c)4 organization. Not to mention Mark Nickolas collected donations while his tax-exempt organization had NO federal ID Number. Where DID all those donations end up? I mean, if there was NO federal ID Number then that means there was NO bank account for the Foundation for Kentucky's Future Inc SOOOO Whose bank account did all those donations go in? Ut oh, I guess my questions here will "light" the path as I will no doubt be accused of "carrying a torch" as a previous Nickolas poster claimed of anyone who asks Nickolas to come clean on his bookkeeping.
Why are the democrats on his blog not saying a word? Simple. They are simpletons. Simpletons that follow a man and jump off the empire state building because that man told them to. Simpletons that follow Nickolas' instructions to "Charge" the KDP (so Mark Nickolas can put his female friend Jennifer Moore in) YET, Mr. Mark Nickolas did NOT show up and gave a lame excuse, in advance, for not attending the "CHARGE." As I read on HIS blog, that's like the cheerleader NOT showing up for the game. The blind followers of Nickolas are also such simpletons that they feast on anyone that PROVES a thread of Mark's is false. Yes, it is all over his blog. In threads where the article is blatantly FALSE and is pointed out, the simpletons ATTACK the poster that points out the falsehood and DEFENDS Mark for posting false stories about people. AMAZING - blind, simpleton followers have ALWAYS amazed me and we are witnessing their blind, simpleton behavior by their written words on Dawn's website.
I hope Dawn does not shake Mark Nickolas hand (unless she has sanitizer with her) .... You know what they say about touching a dog with fleas?
By the way, if anyone ever decides to post a logical comment on Mark's blog, expect a thrashing AND then expect to be DELETED and BANNED from posting ... which is another (c)4 violation.
In my humble opinion, the blog has grown beyond what he can manage interactively. Unfortunately, the focus appears to be more on funding and not on discussion. Given his current focus, those of you who seek any interactivity with Mark would probably fare better initiating discussion with him via email or phone rather than with comments on his blog.
As for ConservaChick, this blog is all about interactivity and the sharing of ideas. It's wonderful that I can do what I love and have it spark discussion with others. Please feel free to continue to comment here knowing that I pay attention to my comments section and will participate. This goes for all commenters -- not just with which I will likely agree. The broad base of experience that a variety of readers bring to this blog via comments is never to be ignored; it brings thought to higher levels and is to be highly encouraged!
After a few email exchanges with our "anonymous" tipster on Mark's tax mystery, it was my hope that he/she would choose a different venue for that confrontation. Evidently, that was the case as there was no showdown at the SPJ meeting. My thanks to our anonymous commenter for choosing a better venue for airing these questions.
The atmosphere at the SPJ program was very congenial and focused solely on blogging. The audience was small at under 30 people in attendance so any direct confrontations with a single panelist would have been very unwelcome. Most likely it would have reflected badly on anyone who tried to divert the program from its original intent.
I do wish our anonymous commenter all the best in his/her quest for the truth behind the IRS's lack of records on Mr. Nickolas's non-profit organization. It's probably fair to say that many of us would like to know how this turns out. I encourage our anonymous commenter to write to me or to post a comment here with updates as appropriate. My suspicion is that our friend with the questions will be painted in a very unflattering light by the local media and by Mr. Nickolas should this become public. If that happens, I want to be sure that this person's true intent and his/her attempts to get answers are presented accurately here. Fair-mindedness is not absent here.