For analysis of this page's highlights and links to other pages and years, CLICK to go to bottom of page.
This is an interesting explanation for a small lobbying expense. If you know what was going on in 1995-1996 that Pacifica would label "misinformation about Pacifica that had been circulated to congressional representatives," please let me know.
< Previous Page Next Page >
Analysis: Highlights of This Page
From a tax perspective, Pacifica may have been overly cautious in labeling this a lobbying expenditure. If Pacifica was not advocating specific legislation, it would not likely have been considered lobbying. Moreover, a nonprofit organization is given some latitude when lobbying on issues that affect the organization directly, such as legislative action that targets the nonprofit or the class of nonprofits to which it belongs.
The page related to this statement may be found by clicking below:
Part IV-B, line gPages of this Return:
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
Pacifica Returns Online:
1995-1996 | 1996-1997This analysis prepared by Steve Freedkin.