Pastors Will Challenge IRS Rules Prohibiting Political Endorsement

[Monty]

@Ambrosio_Spinola

to a “church” which simply exists as a party organ

Not that I’m interested in subscribing to your newsletter, but here goes anyway: What the heck are you talking about? Are you speaking of a specific church or are you flailing about in general?

[Frylock]

@Bricker

There is an overarching rule that says churches are tax-exempt, and an addendum that says, “…unless they engage in politics.” The claim here is that the addendum is unconstitutional.

That explains it.

If the IRS doesn’t act in response, would some church that played by the rules have standing to sue the IRS as a result?

[Frylock]

@adaher

Congress may not use the tax power to regulate something they can’t otherwise get at with their legislative power.

Didn’t the SC just say otherwise in the ACA hearing?

-KR

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@adaher

Very. It’s pretty cut and dried. Congress may not use the tax power to regulate something they can’t otherwise get at with their legislative power.

Perhaps if being non-political had been a condition from the beginning it might be seen differently by the courts, but adding it on after churches have come to depend on it is clearly trying to use the tax power to compel behavior.

One of the other things a 501(c)(3) can’t do is make a profit. By your logic, would you be okay if a church opened a chain of box stores–to promote, say, their Prosperity Gospel or some other such folderol–and claimed the box stores ought also to be tax-exempt?

[Frylock]

@adaher

It’s much easier to just organize your campaign as a non profit rather than specifically a religious non profit.

I’d also like to add that for the purposes of the income tax it would actually be discriminatory to make churches pay income tax. churches are non profit. For profit corporations only pay corporate taxes on their profit. Since churches don’t make a profit, there’s nothing to tax, unless you treat them differently from other organizations.

This doesn’t make sense. If, as you say, it’s literally impossible to tax a non-profit (because they make no profit and you can’t tax something that makes no profit) then all of this is a moot issue. It doesn’t matter if they are political or not–you can’t tax them either way.

[Frylock]

BTW did you guys know the NFL is a non-profit organization?

Strikes me as odd.

[Oakminster]

@adaher

Very. It’s pretty cut and dried. Congress may not use the tax power to regulate something they can’t otherwise get at with their legislative power.

I disagree. Congress can clearly eliminate all tax exempt privileges if they so choose. There is no constitutional right to be exempt from taxes.

[adaher]

They can eliminate them. But I don’t think they can eliminate them as punishment for political activity. Bill of attainder. I also don’t think you can give a benefit, then turn around 150 years later and attach a new condition to that benefit that asks an organization to surrender its rights. For example, let’s say everyone gets free health care in the future. The government passes a law 20 years after enactment, when there are no private alternatives available, saying that anyone who gets an abortion can no longer qualify for free health care. Since no one is entitled to free health care, how can anyone object to this rule? What the government did in 1954 was tell churches they had to surrender their 1st amendment rights to keep their tax benefits.

I also think there’s a reason the IRS almost never enforces this rule. Their own lawyers probably think it would get struck down once you had a defendant with standing.

[Der_Trihs]

@adaher

I also think there’s a reason the IRS almost never enforces this rule.

Because it’s as full of believers as the rest of the country and they are reluctant to enforce the law if it means hampering shoving conservative Christianity down people’s throats.

[Zakalwe]

@adaher

I’d also like to add that for the purposes of the income tax it would actually be discriminatory to make churches pay income tax. churches are non profit. For profit corporations only pay corporate taxes on their profit. Since churches don’t make a profit, there’s nothing to tax, unless you treat them differently from other organizations.

Churches aren’t worried about paying tax themselves, they’re worried about the congregation losing the right to deduct their donations. That’s the tax-exempt status that make it worthwhile since, as you said, most churches have little to no profit.

[stpauler]

@Zakalwe

Churches aren’t worried about paying tax themselves, they’re worried about the congregation losing the right to deduct their donations. That’s the tax-exempt status that make it worthwhile since, as you said, most churches have little to no profit.

Or prophet (ba-dum-tish!).

Frankly, I still don’t completely grasp why churches should be allowed charity status unless they are doing something explicitly and secularly charitable. (Running a homeless shelter, feeding the poor, etc). Then and only then should that part be set up as a separate business than the church itself and run as a charity. The church itself should be treated as any other business and taxed as such. Giving tax relief or exceptions to the church would seem to create an integration of church and state where the state is working to give exceptional considerations to church thereby removing any separation.

[Chronos]

Quoth adaher:

Problem is, nonprofits used to be tax exempt unconditionally.

Yes, exactly, that is the problem. And as soon as the government realized that that was a problem, they solved it.

And silenus, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that churches are sitting on huge piles of wealth. I’m not sure where one could get this impression, and so am unsure of the best way to counter it.

[CurtC]

@adaher

Since churches don’t make a profit, there’s nothing to tax, unless you treat them differently from other organizations.

As Zakalwe pointed out, income tax on their profits isn’t the question. The question is whether their members/supporters can deduct the donations from their taxes. Without the deduction for donations, members would likely contribute a lot less.

@adaher

Problem is, nonprofits used to be tax exempt unconditionally. The political activity strings came later, after they were dependent. That’s a clear example of using the tax power to restrict something you can’t otherwise restrict.

So is it OK to have organizations for which donations can be deducted by its supporters? If it is OK, we have to have restrictions on what kinds of organizations this applies to. For example, if I give money to Exxon-Mobil, I don’t get to deduct that contribution from my taxes. Why not? You have to draw the line somewhere. If the restriction is just on non-profits, then what about the years when Big Evil Corportation showed a net loss on their taxes (no profit)? Can I contribute then with a deduction?

How do you draw a line for charitable organizations so that they get this benefit, and someone couldn’t apply it to Big Evil Corportation? We have restrictions on what these organizations can be, and I don’t see it as an unconstitutional restriction, just to have those rules.

@stpauler

Frankly, I still don’t completely grasp why churches should be allowed charity status unless they are doing something explicitly and secularly charitable.

I’m with you here, except that you run into practical problems. I hate to see a giant megachurch erect a stadium-sized opulent building with tax-free dollars, but other non-profits have to have a building to operate in, which I think should be exempt. I think the difference, to me, is that a purely charitable organization will spend the vast majority of its tax-exempt dollars on actual charity, while churches spend the vast majority of their dollars on the churches themselves, and only a tiny percentage goes to charity. Maybe we could make donations tax-exempt only in proportion to the amount that organization spends on charitable work? That seems like it would have practical problems.

[Skammer]

I for one will be fascinated to hear the mental gymnastics that the pastors will perform to use the actual gospel of Jesus to advocate for conservative candidates. If you toss all the stuff the Bible says about giving to the needy, protecting the widows and children, and the condemnations of wealth… there’s not much left to go on. Homophobia and probably abortion are the only issues I can really see them being able to support biblically.

[adaher]

@Chronos

Yes, exactly, that is the problem. And as soon as the government realized that that was a problem, they solved it.

And silenus, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that churches are sitting on huge piles of wealth. I’m not sure where one could get this impression, and so am unsure of the best way to counter it.

The tax exempt nature of nonprofits wasn’t the problem, it was outside organizations “interfering” in elections. There is a price for opposing an incumbent if you fail to beat him. And LBJ was more vindictive than most.

The real problem was political advocacy. The government would love to discourage it, but there’s that pesky 1st amendment. LBJ found a creative way around that.

[Gagundathar]

@Oakminster

I’ll throw out a cite to the IRS exemption requirements for 501 (C) (3) organizations with links to relevant definitions therein.

I think this is a foolish move on the part of the churches. I think the rules for acquiring/maintaining tax exempt status are constitutional, and the churches should lose the lawsuit and their exemptions.

I don’t believe the First Amendment prevents the government from conditioning a privilege on adherence to reasonable regulations. A tax exemption is a privilege, not a right. The churches may choose to be taxed normally and undertake all the political activity they wish, or they may choose to be exempt and refrain from such activity like any other exempt organization.

I agree. Churches hold a unique position in many people’s lives and the power of the pulpit should not be used for political purposes. Yes, it has been used so many times in the past and will be again in the future, but it is not a good idea. Conflating faith with politics abuses both concepts.

[amarinth]

Are they trying to open up political endorsement to all 501©(3) bodies? or better yet, make all political endorsement donations tax deductible and all lobbying groups tax exempt? Because that would interesting.

Surely, they don’t think churches alone should have special status to have their cake and eat it, too.

[steronz]

@Bricker

From the link I provided in the OP:

They want the IRS to act. If the IRS does not act, they cannot challenge the restriction in court.

Also from the link in the OP:

Last year hundreds of pastors participated in the special Sunday event, preaching about American politics and hot-button issues including same-sex marriage and abortion, according to The New York Times. The politically charged sermons were recorded and sent to the IRS to prove the pastors’ violations of a 1954 tax code amendment banning such discourse.

What I’m saying is, they can already get extremely political on the pulpit. Apparently, they even tried this same stunt last year, although it doesn’t say if they endorsed specific candidates. But the point is, they were able to preach about politics, send those sermons to the IRS, and I’m guessing nothing happened. That means they very nearly have all the power they’re looking for. They can continue to carry on like they want and nobody’s going to bother them.

If they force this to go to court, they essentially stand to gain nothing if they win; they get confirmation of a right that they already have by fact, albeit not one coded in law. If they lose, however, they lose their tax exempt status. It’s quite a gamble for… well, I’m not sure what.

Maybe they want to force the issue to the courts because they’re worried about the IRS selectively enforcing the rule, but a case only needs one plaintiff, right? So as soon as the IRS enforces the rule against any one single church, they have grounds for their lawsuit. I don’t see why they don’t just carry on, business as usual, and wait for the day that maybe the IRS decides to act. I don’t know why they’d be so eager to force the issue.

[Ambrosio_Spinola]

@Monty

Not that I’m interested in subscribing to your newsletter, but here goes anyway: What the heck are you talking about? Are you speaking of a specific church or are you flailing about in general?

I wasn’t trying to flail, nor was I trying to talk about a specific church as things are currently constituted. What I’m saying has been stated by several other posters - currently, political donations aren’t tax exempt. If churches can engage in explicit political donations and maintain their 501(c)(3) status, then overnight the political donation system in the US will be upended. If you’re well heeled and wanting to make a $1 million donation to a political action committee, for instance, and you have a choice between making it tax deductible or not, it’s a no brainer.

So you have the potential for every political donation to be funneled through a church first. Maybe I’m just being overly cynical, but I would expect there to be at least some churches where electioneering became the majority or even almost entirely the focus of their budgets. At that point we’ll have to be asking if it is still a church if 90% of the money that comes in goes out to campaigns and PACs. And if it isn’t a church, what it is. No newsletter subscription necessary!

[Boyo_Jim]

@steronz

… I don’t know why they’d be so eager to force the issue.

Perhaps as a hot-button issues just before the election? I can see the headlines - “Obama’s jack-booted IRS thugs attacking our churches and our way of life.”

Stir up the base = get the vote out.