# Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 7, 2017, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994 "2017-04-07T17:15:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/221 "2017-04-27T14:22:56Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Sure, rest your hat on a fleeting omission - I should have said ‘for-profit business’. Or, actually make an argument and distinguish a church from a for-profit business based on actual facts and behavior. Like one might do in a debate. Great, or otherwise. The law has already been referenced. If you don’t understand it, GQ is that way. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/222 "2017-04-27T14:31:58Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > The law has already been referenced. If you don’t understand it, GQ is that way. And as previously stated, I think the law is premised on tradition and not fact - the correctness of the law is the very matter being questioned. You can’t use the law to prove the law is suitable, that’s circular reasoning. If you don’t understand logic, IMHO is THAT way. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/223 "2017-04-27T14:38:56Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > And as previously stated, I think the law is premised on tradition and not fact - the correctness of the law is the very matter being questioned. You can’t use the law to prove the law is suitable, that’s circular reasoning. > > If you don’t understand logic, IMHO is THAT way. Which clauses do you disagree with? ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/224 "2017-04-27T15:27:53Z")
Are you two even discussing the case that is the topic of debate here? If not, the “New Thread” button is -------------\> that way. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/225 "2017-04-27T15:38:21Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Are you two even discussing the case that is the topic of debate here? If not, the “New Thread” button is -------------\> that way. 😃 Law should be applied equally to all non-profits –\> churches are different –\> clarification of why they are different and something like a credit union is not But I asked the mods to let us know if we’re too off track ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/226 "2017-04-27T15:50:38Z")
Yeah, that might be best in a new thread. I encourage you to make one. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/227 "2017-04-27T15:59:06Z")
Thanks **JC**. I’ll leave that to **CandidGamera** , given that I don’t fully understand the position being taken. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/228 "2017-04-27T16:07:36Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > First things first- a non-profit organization is one that doesn’t distribute excess income to shareholders. There are lots of different sorts of non-profits (something like 29 under 501(c)and others under different sections) and your group will almost certainly qualify under one of them (probably 501(c)(7)which covers social clubs and doesn’t require a lodge/parent system). As far as I have ever been able to tell,the main differences between qualifying as a 501(c)(3) and qualifying under a different section are whether contributions are tax-deductible for donors and whether/how much lobbying the organization can engage in. I thought the 501c7 required “It must provide for the payment of life, sick, accident, or other benefits to the members of such society, order, or association or their dependents.”, which sounds less like a church, and more like some sort of co-op. the 501c10 did not have that requirement, so that’s why I went with that one, and I didn’t quite understand “It must operate under the lodge system or for the exclusive benefit of the members of a fraternal organization itself operating under the lodge system.” to be not requiring a lodge system, not that I really get what a lodge system is. > [@](#): > > I think the only real difference between religious organizations and non-religious ones is that religious organizations automatically qualify under the same section as charities, educational organizations etc. I’m not sure how much of a difference that actually makes , since many (although surely not all) religious organizations would qualify as charities even if it weren’t automatic. And that’s my point, I think. If I want to set up some organization that provides some charity work and stuff, then I have to file a bunch of paperwork, and prove that my actions are philanthropic in order to get the exemption. I need to keep track of my expenditures and donations to ensure that all monies are appropriately used, and none are used for non-exempt uses. A church does not have to do all of that. Their tax exempt status is assumed by the declaration of their accepted religion, and their expenditures are assumed to be used for the furthering of that religious activity. Now, IANAL, and IANACPA, so I could be way off, and there could be much more similar set up and reporting requirements between the two than I think, and if that is the case, then it makes sense that the be treated the same. However, if my impression is correct, then it does seem as though the religious entity is getting a benefit the secular entity is not, and that would very well justify treating them differently in terms of state sponsored programs and contributions to which they would be eligible. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/229 "2017-04-27T17:04:28Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I thought the 501c7 required “It must provide for the payment of life, sick, accident, or other benefits to the members of such society, order, or association or their dependents.”, which sounds less like a church, and more like some sort of co-op. That’s a different section ( I think 501(c)(8)- fraternal benefit society) -according to this [Examples of Tax Exempt Social and Recreational Clubs | Internal Revenue Service](https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-non-profits/examples-of-tax-exempt-social-and-recreational-clubs) , some example of social clubs are : College social/academic fraternities and sororities Country clubs Amateur hunting, fishing, tennis, swimming and other sport clubs Dinner clubs that provide a meeting place library, and dining room for members Variety clubs Hobby clubs Homeowners or community associations whose primary function is to own and maintain recreational areas and facilities > [@](#): > > the 501c10 did not have that requirement, so that’s why I went with that one, and I didn’t quite understand “It must operate under the lodge system or for the exclusive benefit of the members of a fraternal organization itself operating under the lodge system.” to be not requiring a lodge system, not that I really get what a lodge system is. The lodge system means there is a national organization with local chapters- like American Legion post 2217 or the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks Lodge 822. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/230 "2017-04-27T17:59:24Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > That’s a different section ( I think 501(c)(8)- fraternal benefit society) -according to this > [Examples of Tax Exempt Social and Recreational Clubs | Internal Revenue Service](https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-non-profits/examples-of-tax-exempt-social-and-recreational-clubs) , some example of social clubs are : > > College social/academic fraternities and sororities Country clubs > Amateur hunting, fishing, tennis, swimming and other sport clubs > Dinner clubs that provide a meeting place library, and dining room for members > Variety clubs > Hobby clubs > Homeowners or community associations whose primary function is to own and maintain recreational areas and facilities > > The lodge system means there is a national organization with local chapters- like American Legion post 2217 or the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks Lodge 822. So, some of the requirements to be a social club are > [@](#): > > To be exempt, a social club must meet the following requirements— > The club must be organized for exempt purposes . > Substantially all of its activities must further exempt purposes > If the club exceeds safe harbor guidelines for nonmember and investment income, the facts and circumstances must show that it is organized substantially for exempt purposes. > The club has de minimis income from nontraditional sources (i.e., from investments or from activities that, if conducted with members, would further the club’s tax-exempt purposes). > For a discussion of the effect of nonmember and “nontraditional” income on the tax-exempt status of social clubs under section 501(c)(7), see Tax Issues for Tax-Exempt Social Clubs. > The club must provide an opportunity for personal contact among members, and membership must be limited. > The club must be supported by membership fees, dues, and assessments. > The organization’s net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any person having a personal and private interest in its activities. > The club’s governing instrument may not contain a provision that provides for discrimination against any person on the basis of race, color, or religion. > The club may not hold itself out as providing goods and services to the general public. > [@](#): > > Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(7) prohibits exemption if any part of the organization’s net earnings inures to the benefit of any person having a personal and private interest in the organization’s activities. Inurement is not limited to overt distributions; even undistributed earnings may benefit members by decreasing membership dues or increasing the services the club makes available to its members without a corresponding increase in dues or other fees paid for club support. > [@](#): > > Evidence that a club’s facilities will be open to the general public (persons other than members, their dependents or guests) may cause denial of exemption. and > [@](#): > > A social club must be organized for pleasure, recreation, and other similar purposes. A club will not be recognized as tax exempt if its charter, by laws, or other governing instrument, or any written policy statement provides for discrimination against any person based on race, color, or religion. A club may, however, in good faith limit its membership to members of a particular religion in order to further the teachings or principles of that religion and not to exclude individuals of a particular race or color. I do not see corresponding requirements to qualify as tax exempt if you are a church. All this is a bit complicated to me, and this is why I usually let my CPA or attorney deal with such matters, but it does seem to me that there are very distinct advantages to calling your social club a church, in that they do not seem to have nearly as many restrictions to qualify for tax free status. In that organizing a group for the purposes of religion is distinctly easier than organizing for a social club, or nearly any other non-profit, I do see a difference in how they are treated both in their creation and their running, and so do not see a problem with them being treated differently when it comes to eligibility for state funds. Once again, I could be wrong, I’ve never set up either a church or a social club, so I could be completely off the mark, and if it’s just one more form to fill out for the social club, then no biggy. But from what I am seeing, they are treated very differently by tax code already. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/231 "2017-04-27T19:49:46Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > If you a receive restricted government grant you must spend from that account only on allowed costs. I can’t charge a supply for my iridium catalyst project to my directed evolution account, even if they use the same stuff. I must keep separate books for each account and not mingle them. A renewal of one grant does not free up funds for the other. The funds are restricted and not fungible. Likewise I need to not pierce the veil between LLC and personal finances if I want to preserve limited liability, even if I own all the assets in question. If there is some law that requires you to keep separate accounts that’s one thing. Do you have a cite for the notion that I cannot use money from my general account to pay for iridium catalyst and then later use an equal amount of money to buy bubble gum for the lab assistants? That this would land me in jail? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/232 "2017-04-27T19:50:57Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The money is still fungible. The fact of the matter is that as long as unrestricted money exceeds abortion expenses, keeping two sets of books is entirely a function of optics and not actual economic effect. > > Similarly, as long as the cost of the playground improvement that the grant is supposed to fund exceeds the amount of the grant, it is irrelevant whether the church keeps an extra set of books to keep track of where the grant money went. It is decidedly not fungible since the money cannot flow from one account to the other in all cases (which it could if it were fungible). Sure, as long as donations keep up they can provide abortions but if they fall short on the abortion side they cannot move money from their other services to cover the shortfall. That is more than optics. It like saying what MF Global did when they tapped segregated customer funds to cover trading shortfalls was fine…it’s all just optics right? Just moving some money around on paper right? Nope. It was against the law and they got caught and that ended the company. The money was on separate books and was to remain that way. Same for PP. Separate accounting books is not some flim flam smoke and mirrors thing. It has real meaning and real effects to their business. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/233 "2017-04-27T21:10:56Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If there is some law that requires you to keep separate accounts that’s one thing. Do you have a cite for the notion that I cannot use money from my general account to pay for iridium catalyst and then later use an equal amount of money to buy bubble gum for the lab assistants? That this would land me in jail? If I’m reviewing your charges and you submitted the bubblegum as bubblegum I’d mark it as an unallowable expense under 2 F.A.R. §200.400 and request reimbursement (or short-pay). If you spent the money out of the grant account on bubblegum and reported it as catalyst I’d refer it to the contacting officer and counsel for review under 31 U.S. Code § 3729. Although IME for something small like that they’d just tell you to shape up. Closest I found back when I suffered through this stuff was someone buying bathroom supplies “by accident” and they just fixed and resubmitted. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/234 "2017-04-27T21:33:26Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If there is some law that requires you to keep separate accounts that’s one thing. Do you have a cite for the notion that I cannot use money from my general account to pay for iridium catalyst and then later use an equal amount of money to buy bubble gum for the lab assistants? That this would land me in jail? They would ask for the money back. If you did not give it to them, they would demand the money back. If you did not give it to them, they would file a lawsuit against you, to get the money back. If you still don’t give it to them, then you are in contempt of court, and yes, that could land you in jail. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/235 "2017-04-27T21:47:09Z")
Where **DA** may find more traction is how they handle indirect costs. If those are a thing here; I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/236 "2017-04-27T21:58:55Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > If I got together with a bunch of my atheist friends, and we bought some land and a building, and we gathered there once a week to sing songs and socialize, and we decided to become a fraternal society that does all the things a church does, except you know, believe in god, would there be any difference in my applying for a 501(c)(3) status than a church has? IIRC, the Church of Humanism is a 501(c)(3) organization. And the various atheist Sunday Assemblies are 501(c)(3). Here is the Donate page of the Silicon Valley Sunday Assembly: [http://sundayassemblysiliconvalley.org/?q=donate](http://sundayassemblysiliconvalley.org/?q=donate) ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/237 "2017-04-28T13:20:29Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Thanks **JC**. I’ll leave that to **CandidGamera** , given that I don’t fully understand the position being taken. Well, at least we agree on something. I think the discussion is very much on topic with this thread, but since a moderator has indicated otherwise, I will just drop the matter, as I don’t see it as likely that I’ll get any useful responses in a new thread. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/238 "2017-04-28T13:38:24Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It is decidedly not fungible since the money cannot flow from one account to the other in all cases (which it could if it were fungible). > > Sure, as long as donations keep up they can provide abortions but if they fall short on the abortion side they cannot move money from their other services to cover the shortfall. That is more than optics. > > It like saying what MF Global did when they tapped segregated customer funds to cover trading shortfalls was fine…it’s all just optics right? Just moving some money around on paper right? Nope. It was against the law and they got caught and that ended the company. The money was on separate books and was to remain that way. Same for PP. Separate accounting books is not some flim flam smoke and mirrors thing. It has real meaning and real effects to their business. This is simply not true. Let’s say that the budget for Planned Parenthood is (completely made up): General operating costs: $85 Million Abortions: $15 Million This fiscal year, the federal government gives Planned Parenthood $50 million and they receive other unrestricted funding of $50 million. I agree that the federal $50million may not be used for abortions. However, but for the federal funding, Planned Parenthood would only have $50 million and would have to make difficult decisions about how to allocate the money. Suppose that $50 million is bare bones to operate the remainder of the organization and if they only had $50 million, they would have to cut all abortion services. Now that they get $50 million from the feds, they can simply place that money in the general fund and use the unrestricted funds for abortions. In this scenario, but for the federal funding, there would be no abortion services. It would be like if my well meaning neighbor gave me $100 but told me to only use it for food: no booze or smokes! If I otherwise would have starved and used my only money for food and not had anything left for booze and smokes, my neighbor’s gift could rightly be seen as allowing me to free up my other meager funds for booze and smokes. He _caused_ the purchase by his well meaning gift. Even if I took the neighbor’s gift directly to the grocery store and bought good wholesome food with it, his gift directly freed up my other money for the things he didn’t want me to have. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/239 "2017-04-28T14:18:23Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > This is simply not true. Let’s say that the budget for Planned Parenthood is (completely made up): > > General operating costs: $85 Million > Abortions: $15 Million > > This fiscal year, the federal government gives Planned Parenthood $50 million and they receive other unrestricted funding of $50 million. > > I agree that the federal $50million may not be used for abortions. However, but for the federal funding, Planned Parenthood would only have $50 million and would have to make difficult decisions about how to allocate the money. Suppose that $50 million is bare bones to operate the remainder of the organization and if they only had $50 million, they would have to cut all abortion services. > > Now that they get $50 million from the feds, they can simply place that money in the general fund and use the unrestricted funds for abortions. In this scenario, but for the federal funding, there would be no abortion services. > > It would be like if my well meaning neighbor gave me $100 but told me to only use it for food: no booze or smokes! If I otherwise would have starved and used my only money for food and not had anything left for booze and smokes, my neighbor’s gift could rightly be seen as allowing me to free up my other meager funds for booze and smokes. He _caused_ the purchase by his well meaning gift. > > Even if I took the neighbor’s gift directly to the grocery store and bought good wholesome food with it, his gift directly freed up my other money for the things he didn’t want me to have. Your analogy would be better if your neighbor (neighbor “a”) gave you the $100 to spend on your other neighbor’s (neighbor “b”) food. You would not buy neighbor “b” food, if you did not get that $100. So, this money does not free up any money, or allow you to do something else with the money. The only way that neighbor “a”'s money is used to free up monies for your own personal use is if you do not use that money to buy neighbor “b” food. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/240 "2017-04-28T14:31:50Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > This is simply not true. Let’s say that the budget for Planned Parenthood is (completely made up): > > General operating costs: $85 Million > Abortions: $15 Million > > This fiscal year, the federal government gives Planned Parenthood $50 million and they receive other unrestricted funding of $50 million. > > I agree that the federal $50million may not be used for abortions. However, but for the federal funding, Planned Parenthood would only have $50 million and would have to make difficult decisions about how to allocate the money. Suppose that $50 million is bare bones to operate the remainder of the organization and if they only had $50 million, they would have to cut all abortion services. > > Now that they get $50 million from the feds, they can simply place that money in the general fund and use the unrestricted funds for abortions. In this scenario, but for the federal funding, there would be no abortion services. But you are leaving out an option - the one where Planned Parenthood loses the $50 million from the Feds and cuts or eliminates the \*non-abortion services. \* [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994.md?page=13)