SERIOUS issues in Soros Open Society IRS filings - Criminal Exposire?

[commonsense101]

Serious Issues in Soros’ Open Society IRS Filings – Criminal Exposure?





Hi all,

I’ve spent 25 years building and managing mid-sized companies with complex financials—and recently, I turned that scrutiny toward the Open Society Institute’s (OSI) public IRS filings. What I found just a few pages into their 2021 Form 990-PF is shocking enough to merit IRS revocation of tax-exempt status and potential criminal prosecution.


I’ll break down one key example—this is just from the first two dozen pages of a 660-page document.

What’s the Issue?


In 2021, OSI (EIN: 13-7029285) reported over $14.5 million in spending on a program called Open Society–U.S., claiming it as its largest charitable activity. The program’s stated aims include:

• Legislative advocacy
• Criminal justice reform
• Voting and election policy
• Civil rights campaigns
• Public policy influence (national, state, local)

Yet, on Part VI-A of their 990 filing, OSI checked “No” to the following:

• Line 1a: “Did the foundation attempt to influence any legislation?”
• Line 1b: “Did it participate or intervene in any political campaign?”
• Line 4: “Did the foundation spend more than $100 on political purposes?”

How is that possible? These denials directly contradict the program’s description. Under IRS law, these are statements made under penalty of perjury.

What Makes This More Concerning

• Open Society–U.S. isn’t a separate entity; it’s described like one, but it’s just a label within OSI—helping them avoid transparency.
• It’s framed as a direct charitable activity, which means no grant-level disclosure (Schedule I or F).
• The result: $14.5 million toward domestic political influence without any itemized accountability.

This looks like a calculated attempt to conceal political funding under a charitable umbrella.


What Needs to Happen


I believe there’s more here than a paperwork mistake. This warrants:

1. Full investigation by journalists and watchdogs.
2. A formal IRS review for:
   • Misuse of 501(c)(3) funds
   • False reporting
   • Failure to disclose political expenditures
3. 
   
4. Possible criminal referrals for those who signed the return.

I Have Supporting Docs Ready


I’ve compiled:

• The original 990-PF (public)
• Highlighted contradictions
• Archival descriptions of the program
• A breakdown of IRS standards that may have been violated

I’m continuing to dig—this is just the beginning. Happy to share more with anyone interested in financial accountability, nonprofit law, or IRS enforcement.

Thoughts? Have others seen this kind of setup before?

Let’s hold these institutions to the same standard the rest of us live under.


Let me know if you want variations for specific platforms (like Reddit, Substack, or a watchdog site), or if you’d like a more concise version.

 

[commonsense101]

Far more to come, I’m just digging in. There is a LOT more in this one filing alone. I’m shocked that the things I’m seeing haven’t been uncovered by the IRS already.

 

[Mr Person]

You're spamming CT stuff right out of the gate...

 

[Middleground]

Serious Issues in Soros’ Open Society IRS Filings – Criminal Exposure?





Hi all,

I’ve spent 25 years building and managing mid-sized companies with complex financials—and recently, I turned that scrutiny toward the Open Society Institute’s (OSI) public IRS filings. What I found just a few pages into their 2021 Form 990-PF is shocking enough to merit IRS revocation of tax-exempt status and potential criminal prosecution.


I’ll break down one key example—this is just from the first two dozen pages of a 660-page document.

What’s the Issue?


In 2021, OSI (EIN: 13-7029285) reported over $14.5 million in spending on a program called Open Society–U.S., claiming it as its largest charitable activity. The program’s stated aims include:

• Legislative advocacy
• Criminal justice reform
• Voting and election policy
• Civil rights campaigns
• Public policy influence (national, state, local)

Yet, on Part VI-A of their 990 filing, OSI checked “No” to the following:

• Line 1a: “Did the foundation attempt to influence any legislation?”
• Line 1b: “Did it participate or intervene in any political campaign?”
• Line 4: “Did the foundation spend more than $100 on political purposes?”

How is that possible? These denials directly contradict the program’s description. Under IRS law, these are statements made under penalty of perjury.

What Makes This More Concerning

• Open Society–U.S. isn’t a separate entity; it’s described like one, but it’s just a label within OSI—helping them avoid transparency.
• It’s framed as a direct charitable activity, which means no grant-level disclosure (Schedule I or F).
• The result: $14.5 million toward domestic political influence without any itemized accountability.

This looks like a calculated attempt to conceal political funding under a charitable umbrella.


What Needs to Happen


I believe there’s more here than a paperwork mistake. This warrants:

1. Full investigation by journalists and watchdogs.
2. A formal IRS review for:
   • Misuse of 501(c)(3) funds
   • False reporting
   • Failure to disclose political expenditures
3. 
   
4. Possible criminal referrals for those who signed the return.

I Have Supporting Docs Ready


I’ve compiled:

• The original 990-PF (public)
• Highlighted contradictions
• Archival descriptions of the program
• A breakdown of IRS standards that may have been violated

I’m continuing to dig—this is just the beginning. Happy to share more with anyone interested in financial accountability, nonprofit law, or IRS enforcement.

Thoughts? Have others seen this kind of setup before?

Let’s hold these institutions to the same standard the rest of us live under.


Let me know if you want variations for specific platforms (like Reddit, Substack, or a watchdog site), or if you’d like a more concise version.

When you're done all that, can you take a look at Trump and Musk? Please and thanks.

 

[commonsense101]

You're spamming CT stuff right out of the gate...

Not at all… happy to send you the highlighted sections of the tax filings if you want?

 

[commonsense101]

When you're done all that, can you take a look at Trump and Musk? Please and thanks.

I’m more focused on this I’ll leave that to others for now.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Anyone else interested in this boring tripe?

 

[BitterPill]

Far more to come, I’m just digging in. There is a LOT more in this one filing alone. I’m shocked that the things I’m seeing haven’t been uncovered by the IRS already.

Well, good luck!

Though the danger to our nation from 'globalists' is widespread, I expect the head 'globalist', Soros, could very well direct his foundation to plagiarize this The Heritage Foundation denial:

The Heritage Foundation Open Society Foundations remains fully compliant with all legal requirements and regulations governing 501(c)(3) organizations. Think tanks and research institutes across the policy spectrum have continuously operated under this non-profit status. The Heritage Foundation Open Society Foundations has never engaged in political campaign intervention, and it has not, and will not, endorse, support, or oppose a political candidate. We provide nonpartisan expertise to policymakers and remain dedicated to advancing conservative principles through comprehensive research.​

Not only are 'globalists' devoid of any appreciable moral standard, they are also very smart, so please be careful.

You Can Challenge Heritage Foundation's Tax-Exempt Status with This Form?

"As a 501c3 corporation, the Heritage Foundation is not allowed to participate in politics, let alone publish political manifestos," a poster claimed.

www.snopes.com

MAGA.

 

[commonsense101]

Anyo

Anyone else interested in this boring tripe?

Anyone who wants to challenge the validity of this, just take my post into AI and ask if what I’m saying looks illegal, based on the facts I’ve presented so far.

 

[Redress]

In 2021, OSI (EIN: 13-7029285) reported over $14.5 million in spending on a program called Open Society–U.S., claiming it as its largest charitable activity. The program’s stated aims include:

• Legislative advocacy
• Criminal justice reform
• Voting and election policy
• Civil rights campaigns
• Public policy influence (national, state, local)

Yet, on Part VI-A of their 990 filing, OSI checked “No” to the following:

• Line 1a: “Did the foundation attempt to influence any legislation?”
• Line 1b: “Did it participate or intervene in any political campaign?”
• Line 4: “Did the foundation spend more than $100 on political purposes?”

So, whoever gave you this claim does not understand how things work. OSI donated to OS-US(among others). Those groups, including OS-US advocate for legislation etc. So OSI was honest and correct in their answers according to the law.

A little advice for you: do not believe every single conspiracy theory you find on the internets.

 

[BitterPill]

Anyone else interested in this boring tripe?

You are only denigrating this as boring tripe because you are a globalist supporter.

That makes me sad.

MAGA.

 

[Middleground]

I’m more focused on this I’ll leave that to others for now.

Why Soros?

 

[multivita-man]

Question: Does Soros have his own space laser?

I wouldn't mess with him if he does. Just sayin...

 

[commonsense101]

So, whoever gave you this claim does not understand how things work. OSI donated to OS-US(among others). Those groups, including OS-US advocate for legislation etc. So OSI was honest and correct in their answers according to the law.

A little advice for you: do not believe every single conspiracy theory you find on the internets.

That’s not factually correct in this instance. OSI-US is NOT a separate entity. It operates as a program division of Open Society. This was done intentionally and specifically to skirt the disclosure regulations

 

[beancounter]

Trump and his cronies are crooks, comrade

You're feeble attempt at distraction/diversion is pathetic.

 

[BitterPill]

Anyo

Anyone who wants to challenge the validity of this, just take my post into AI and ask if what I’m saying looks illegal, based on the facts I’ve presented so far.

Apparently, according to my above Snopes (which naturally makes me suspicious) link, we can use your evidence and attach it to IRS Form 13909 to file complaints, so I'm going to find and download that IRS form in question while you, hopefully, post the evidence, and I'll round-up some other MAGA faithfuls to do the same.

Together, we can take down the globalists!

MAGA.

 

[commonsense101]

So, whoever gave you this claim does not understand how things work. OSI donated to OS-US(among others). Those groups, including OS-US advocate for legislation etc. So OSI was honest and correct in their answers according to the law.

A little advice for you: do not believe every single conspiracy theory you find on the internets.

in addition to my last reply, I’ll point out how easy it is for you to verify your mistake. If OSI-US was a separate entity, they would have been required to file a form 990 and disclosed the political activist work. They did not, because they are not a separate entity.

 

[commonsense101]

Apparently, according to my above Snopes (which naturally makes me suspicious) link, we can use your evidence and attach it to IRS Form 13909 to file complaints, so I'm going to find and download that IRS form in question while you, hopefully, post the evidence, and I'll round-up some other MAGA faithfuls to do the same.

Together, we can take down the globalists!

MAGA.

Yes we can. I’ll work on that. Where do you want the documents sent? Here?

 

[BitterPill]

Yes we can. I’ll work on that. Where do you want the documents sent? Here?

I suggest you consider starting a blog on this sight, maybe call it the Take Down Soros Blog!

It is easy, and it keeps all the data on one thread.

MAGA.

 

[commonsense101]

I suggest you consider starting a blog on this sight, maybe call it the Take Down Soros Blog!

It is easy, and it keeps all the data on one thread.

MAGA.

Sounds good. Obviously new to this site, still learning the ropes. Ill do that.

 

[bomberfox]

Anyo

Anyone who wants to challenge the validity of this, just take my post into AI and ask if what I’m saying looks illegal, based on the facts I’ve presented so far.

Thats kinda a bad idea.

 

[commonsense101]

Thats kinda a bad idea.

I’m not at all suggesting AI is infallible, or even that it should be relied on without proper context. Theres a lot of nuance to this, but it’s far more than just what I stated in the initial post. This is systemic over a period of years and more so than this isolated incident.