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.
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
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.
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.
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
and
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. *
