BThe White House is weighing an executive order. Nonprofits tied to terrorism could lose tax exemption.
AWalter Bloomberg posted on X that The Wall Street Journal has the story.
BThat's a big hammer. Question is whether it hits actual terrorists, or groups they don't like.
AThe post says accused of terrorist ties. Section 501 P only triggers after a formal designation.
BFine, but the September memo told the IRS to target groups financing domestic terrorism. That's not theoretical.
AIt is exactly theoretical. Federal law defines terrorism; the tax code doesn't define domestic terrorism.
BOh come on. If a nonprofit is funding a designated outfit, you want the IRS to keep writing them checks?
ANo, I want the law applied as written. 501 P was built to suspend a nonprofit's tax-exempt status once it is formally designated as terrorist, not merely accused.
BSo the IRS should wait until a domestic group blows something up before it can touch their exemption?
AThat's not what I said. Domestic groups don't fit that box.
BWhich is why the White House wants an executive order. They're trying to force speed.
ABut Bloomberg Tax points out that domestic terrorism has no enforcement mechanism in the statute. Lawyers question whether 501 P even applies.
BSo we've got a law that can stop foreign terror money but goes limp at the border? That's backwards.
AThe border distinction exists because constitutional rights here are stronger. The government can't revoke a nonprofit's status because it dislikes the group's views.
BNobody is saying they should go after views. They're saying follow the money. If a group is laundering funds to a terror network, it shouldn't be tax-exempt.
ABut Senators Warnock and Wyden opened an inquiry saying exactly that.
BI'm less moved by two Democratic senators' press release. I want to know what the IRS actually finds.
AThat's fair. But the legal question is whether the executive order can even use a foreign-terrorism law for domestic actions.
BThen fix the law. Don't mourn the process while money moves.
AI'm not mourning process. I'm saying the statute they're leaning on suspends tax exemption only after a formal terrorist designation. Not for political nonprofits.
BLook, if they overreach, courts will block it. But I'd rather see the IRS too aggressive than asleep.
AAnd I'd rather see them obey the law while being aggressive. Those aren't opposites.
BSpeaking of unusual classifications — Zero Hedge posted on X a question from Michael Hartnett.
AShould Nvidia be covered in 2027 by a tech analyst or a financials analyst?
BThe balance sheet is becoming a bigger part of the bull case. That's why it's being asked.
ABut it's still a chipmaker. The core business is designing silicon, not taking deposits.
BWhen investment income starts mattering to earnings, the analyst question gets blurry.
AThat's exactly my point! You cover the business, not the bank account. A car company with a big treasury isn't suddenly a bank.
BUnless the treasury is big enough to move markets. Then your analyst better understand liquidity.
ANext thing you know, we'll have a consumer staples analyst covering Berkshire because it owns Dairy Queen.
BThe point isn't ridiculous. Nvidia is becoming a capital allocator, not just a chip designer.
AFair. But if I'm the research director, I'd rather have someone who knows the chips than someone who knows credit default swaps.
BThen you'd better hope the next product cycle doesn't depend on the repo market.
ANow you're just trying to get me to say something insane.
ADifferent corner of banking. Jason Bassler posted on X that a group of banks plans a joint dollar stablecoin.
BCitigroup, Wells Fargo, Deutsche Bank, Goldman. That's not a startup stablecoin. That's the existing plumbing trying to own the rails.
ACouldn't confirm that from any official source. It's a claim, and it's a big one.
BBut it makes sense. Banks have watched stablecoin volumes explode, and they don't want to be left behind while Tether and Circle run the highway.
AMy problem is the timing. Banks spent years calling crypto lawless, and now they want to issue one.
BComplaining was the business plan. Keep the threat out until the rules are written, then walk in with a license.
ASame gatekeepers. New stablecoin. What could go wrong?
BPlenty. But if it's collateralized and audited, it might actually be safer than the current crop.
AMaybe. But I'd like to see the charter, the reserves, and the regulator before I hand over a dollar.
BSkepticism isn't advice. It's self-defense.