# Would you be in favor of a religion taxed at 90%? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 5, 2013, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-religion-taxed-at-90/668099 "2013-09-05T18:24:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-religion-taxed-at-90/668099/61 "2013-09-06T16:06:52Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > Seriously, what on earth are you talking about tuition for? You aren’t making any sense. It has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. > > Nobody said, or even implied, that paying tuition is the same as making a charitable donation. Ok. I’m going to try _one more time._ I said that I didn’t think paying to build a gym at a church for the member’s use should count as a charitable donation\*. Ok? With me so far? That was countered by someone saying that not all donations need to be for the benefit of the less fortunate. For example, donations to a university are not generally going to help the poor. THEN I said that it’s true that not all donations need to go to the poor, but I think they ought to be used to benefit someone other than oneself. For example, a person may donate to a university, but paying one’s tuition to said university is not a charitable donation. Ok? Do you understand the link between these things now? See, in one case the money given benefits others. In that instance it is a tax-deductible charitable donation. In the other case the money benefits oneself, and is NOT considered a charitable donation. I am comparing the second situation to my earlier pet peeve, where a church member considers the money they give to build a gym for their own use to be charity. I do not believe such an act (morally) counts as charity. I believe it is akin to paying your own tuition at a university; in other words it’s an act that primarily benefits yourself. Have I cleared it up for you? for the benefit of **Munch** : I realize it _does_ count, I don’t think it _should_ count. Fact and opinion. I know these concepts trouble you. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-religion-taxed-at-90/668099/62 "2013-09-06T16:16:57Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > Ok. I’m going to try _one more time._ > > I said that I didn’t think paying to build a gym at a church for the member’s use should count as a charitable donation\*. Ok? With me so far? > > That was countered by someone saying that not all donations need to be for the benefit of the less fortunate. For example, donations to a university are not generally going to help the poor. > > THEN I said that it’s true that not all donations need to go to the poor, but I think they ought to be used to benefit someone other than oneself. For example, a person may donate to a university, but paying one’s tuition to said university is not a charitable donation. Ok? Do you understand the link between these things now? I understand what you’re saying, but I have no idea why you felt obligated to include a non-sequiter. Nobody gives a damn about tuition, as it has nothing to do with this discussion, and isn’t analogous to charitable donations to a church. > [@](#): > > See, in one case the money given benefits others. In that instance it is a tax-deductible charitable donation. In the other case the money benefits oneself, and is NOT considered a charitable donation. I am comparing the second situation to my earlier pet peeve, where a church member considers the money they give to build a gym for their own use to be charity. I do not believe such an act (morally) counts as charity. I believe it is akin to paying your own tuition at a university; in other words it’s an act that primarily benefits yourself. > > Have I cleared it up for you? You’ve certainly cleared up what a terrible argument you’ve made. An enormous amount of money that is donated to churches goes to other people. Paying tuition is a payment for a service received. Donating to a gym that hundreds of children will use for many years, and that your chldren are welcome to use even if you don’t donate, is not payment for a service received. You didn’t make your analogy at all clear, and it was so terrible that nobody could ever be expected to know what you were talking about. ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-religion-taxed-at-90/668099/63 "2013-09-06T16:18:45Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > There’s a vast difference between an opinion and an informed opinion. Actively avoiding information that could get you closer to the latter doesn’t speak well to the former. What you don’t seem to grasp is that it doesn’t matter what the law says. I’m not interested in what the law says. I know I disagree with where the law draws the line between for-profit and non-profit organizations. I don’t need to understand every detail of it to disagree with it, because my disagreements aren’t small and detail based. I also don’t care a particular lot about this issue. I have other things which I care about that fill my time. I educate myself on those policies, because they matter more to me. My opinion isn’t deeply informed, but then, since I’m only posting it in the opinion section of a message board, I don’t think it needs to be. Were I out, advocating for changing the tax laws or something, you are right that it would be good to educate myself further. But I’m not doing that. I’m spouting off on how I’d structure the tax system if I were made emperor tomorrow, and in such a discussion you don’t need a lot of knowledge of the system as it stands. How you couldn’t figure that out, based on the ludicrous and deeply hypothetical OP, is beyond me. I thought it seemed obvious that this discussion wasn’t particularly fact-based. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-religion-taxed-at-90/668099/64 "2013-09-06T16:25:33Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > So who are the shareholders? Who owns a church? Churches and other non-profits are fundamentally different from businesses in this way - I’m sorry, but your statement is completely 100% incorrect. _Heartland Presbytery v. Gashland Presbyterian Church._ In that case: _First–the deed clearly named the local church as owner of the property with no expression whatsoever of any intent to hold in trust for the district Presbytery or the national denomination (Presbyterian Church of the United States–”PCUSA”). Indeed, the 1948 deed named “Gashland Community Church, Gashland, Missouri” as the sole owner._ Keep flailing though, it’s funny to watch. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-religion-taxed-at-90/668099/65 "2013-09-06T16:48:08Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > _Heartland Presbytery v. Gashland Presbyterian Church._ > In that case: > _First–the deed clearly named the local church as owner of the property with no expression whatsoever of any intent to hold in trust for the district Presbytery or the national denomination (Presbyterian Church of the United States–”PCUSA”). Indeed, the 1948 deed named “Gashland Community Church, Gashland, Missouri” as the sole owner._ > Keep flailing though, it’s funny to watch. Awesome, thanks for the cite. In other words, the church owns itself, and there are no shareholders. Or did you think that somehow contradicted anything I’ve said? Please do elaborate, I cannot wait to see how you think I’m flailing. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-religion-taxed-at-90/668099/66 "2013-09-06T16:53:30Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > _Heartland Presbytery v. Gashland Presbyterian Church._ > In that case: > _First–the deed clearly named the local church as owner of the property with no expression whatsoever of any intent to hold in trust for the district Presbytery or the national denomination (Presbyterian Church of the United States–”PCUSA”). Indeed, the 1948 deed named “Gashland Community Church, Gashland, Missouri” as the sole owner._ Obviously a church is the owner of the church property. Likewise, countless other non-religious non-profits are the owners of their properties. Hence you have provided evidence that a church functions exactly like a non-profit, and undermined your own claim that “churches are businesses”. There is no rational reason to consider a church as a business. > [@](#): > > Keep flailing though, it’s funny to watch. It’s you who’s flailing. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-religion-taxed-at-90/668099/67 "2013-09-06T17:02:35Z")
miss\_elizabeth, I’d love your opinion on what I think you’re tying to say: A donor provides funds for a university gym: a-ok. A donor provides funds for a community center gym: a-ok. A donor provides a church funds for a gym: TAX EVASION!!! Is that right, or would you like to tell me how an IRS agent is going to determine if my donation ever has the slimmest of chances of ever benefitting me? If I donate an expensive painting to an organization, should I have to avert my gaze should I ever visit? ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-religion-taxed-at-90/668099/68 "2013-09-06T17:14:58Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > miss\_elizabeth, I’d love your opinion on what I think you’re tying to say: > > A donor provides funds for a university gym: a-ok. > A donor provides funds for a community center gym: a-ok. > A donor provides a church funds for a gym: TAX EVASION!!! > > Is that right, or would you like to tell me how an IRS agent is going to determine if my donation ever has the slimmest of chances of ever benefitting me? If I donate an expensive painting to an organization, should I have to avert my gaze should I ever visit? OH MY FUCKING GOD WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOUR BRAIN? Do you understand this is a hypothetical situation? No, you obviously don’t. You must be super fun to watch movies with, holy hell. If a donor provides funds for a university gym, I do not think that should be tax deductible. For a community center, yes, because everyone gets to use it. For a church, no. And I think donating expensive paintings to decorate some offices of an organization shouldn’t be tax-deductible either. If you are donating it to be auctioned, and the money from the auction is going to basic overhead and charity, then it should be. p.s. there’s no underscore in my name. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-religion-taxed-at-90/668099/69 "2013-09-06T17:16:08Z")
On the **stpauler/ITRChampion** discussion: Whether an entity is a corporate “legal person” or some other such kind of entity that can own and hold property is not a determinant of whether it is “a business”, and vv. . Meanwhile, in this thread some people are using “business” to mean a for-profit merchant which is not always accurate either. ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-religion-taxed-at-90/668099/70 "2013-09-06T17:21:39Z")
And I know it isn’t tax evasion! I’ve said that, like, 15 different ways already. _I understand the law as it stands is VASTLY different from how I think it ought to be_. I get that. I am not a delusional person. I realize church donations, and paintings, and donations to university gyms are considered charitable, and are tax deductible. I just disagree. If I were in a position to make my whims law (_as was the premise of the OP_) I would structure it differently. Which is precisely why I don’t need to understand the nuances of American tax law as it stands. I just (hypothetically) dumped the whole thing and started over. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-religion-taxed-at-90/668099/71 "2013-09-06T17:23:10Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > OH MY FUCKING GOD WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOUR BRAIN? Do you understand this is a hypothetical situation? No, you obviously don’t. You must be super fun to watch movies with, holy hell. It’s pretty obvious to me that he undertsands the hypothetical, and is trying to expand on it to better understand your point. Maybe we should all take a step back for a moment. ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-religion-taxed-at-90/668099/72 "2013-09-06T17:26:12Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > It’s pretty obvious to me that he undertsands the hypothetical, and is trying to expand on it to better understand your point. > > Maybe we should all take a step back for a moment. It’s not at all obvious to me, since he keeps bringing up current tax law and IRS agents. He seems to believe that the law as it stands has bearing on my fantasy land. Hey **Munch** , maybe you should check out this thread: [Tell us how you'd commercialize one of this fantasy-tech inventions. - In My Humble Opinion - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=701449) It’s all about time travel and ant armies and shrinking people! We all know that doesn’t exist! You better hurry up and educate these dummies about science before they have a fun discussion! ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-religion-taxed-at-90/668099/73 "2013-09-06T17:29:29Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > It’s not at all obvious to me, since he keeps bringing up current tax law and IRS agents. He seems to believe that the law as it stands has bearing on my fantasy land. No, he’s trying to understand where you draw the line, using hypotheticals that expand on the first one you presented. Your statments are very foolish, and I can’t believe you honestly think he’s taking any of these hypotheticals literally. It’s almost as if you’re having a very difficult time following what is a very, very basic exchange. The last part of your post is just embarrassing. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-religion-taxed-at-90/668099/74 "2013-09-06T17:35:06Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > If a donor provides funds for a university gym, I do not think that should be tax deductible. For a community center, yes, because everyone gets to use it. For a church, no. Just for the record, you do realize you’re drawing a nearly indistinguishable line here, right? > [@](#): > > And I think donating expensive paintings to decorate some offices of an organization shouldn’t be tax-deductible either. If you are donating it to be auctioned, and the money from the auction is going to basic overhead and charity, then it should be. “Decorate some offices”? Do please stop putting words in my mouth, or at least stop resorting to really sad strawmen. There are plenty of arts organizations out there that serve as free to the public galleries, and rely strongly on donated pieces of art. Many pieces of public art are donated pieces - should those donors avoid those particular public areas in your fantasyland lest the tax man come a-knockin’? > [@](#): > > If I were in a position to make my whims law (as was the premise of the OP) I would structure it differently. And I’m simply pointing out that what you think is “structure” is, in fact, a jumbled mess of nonsense. I’m not asking you to understand subtle nuances here - it’s clear you’re just having a hard time with the basic concepts. > [@](#): > > It’s not at all obvious to me, since he keeps bringing up current tax law and IRS agents. He seems to believe that the law as it stands has bearing on my fantasy land. In your fantasy land, the world would be riddled with IRS agents running around trying to delve deeply into your private life trying to determine whether any particular donation had any benefit to you, rather than just relying on easy to understand guidelines that seem to be completely incomprehensible to you. But since you seem to think that “if it benefits the donor, it’s not tax deductible” is simple, then a few easy to follow hypotheticals that illustrate the absurdity of that opinion shouldn’t be too out of bounds. ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-religion-taxed-at-90/668099/75 "2013-09-06T17:46:54Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > In your fantasy land, the world would be riddled with IRS agents running around trying to delve deeply into your private life trying to determine whether any particular donation had any benefit to you, rather than just relying on easy to understand guidelines that seem to be completely incomprehensible to you. In my fantasy land, the world would be riddled with dragons who roasted anyone who disagreed with me. But I do think it’s funny that you said tax law is “easy to understand”. Yeah, there’s never been any confusion or controversy about what should qualify as a non-profit. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > But since you seem to think that “if it benefits the donor, it’s not tax deductible” is simple, then a few easy to follow hypotheticals that illustrate the absurdity of that opinion shouldn’t be too out of bounds. If it _ **primarily** _ benefits the donor(s), it shouldn’t be tax deductible. And I’m done. Like I said, I don’t care about this, and I’m not coming back here to fight about it anymore. Argue with the other people who think churches aren’t charitable-- this thread is full of them. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-religion-taxed-at-90/668099/76 "2013-09-06T17:50:22Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > But I do think it’s funny that you said tax law is “easy to understand”. Sorry, I did not say that. Your confusion is overflowing. > [@](#): > > If it _ **primarily** _ benefits the donor(s), it shouldn’t be tax deductible. Ah - so church gyms that only one person uses are out, the rest are in. Got it. You’re so good at explaining things! ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-religion-taxed-at-90/668099/77 "2013-09-06T17:52:08Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > But I do think it’s funny that you said tax law is “easy to understand”. Yeah, he didn’t say that. He said the NFP qualification guidelines are easy to understand. You can go to the IRS website and see how clear they are. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-religion-taxed-at-90/668099/78 "2013-09-06T17:57:07Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > If a donor provides funds for a university gym, I do not think that should be tax deductible. For a community center, yes, because everyone gets to use it. For a church, no. The idea that charities must serve everyone in a community in order to be tax exempt seems fraught with problems. That would mean you couldn’t have a woman’s shelter run by a charity if you follow it to the logical conclusions. Charities can benefit the community without being open to all. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-religion-taxed-at-90/668099/79 "2013-09-06T18:16:50Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Obviously a church is the owner of the church property. Likewise, countless other non-religious non-profits are the owners of their properties. Hence you have provided evidence that a church functions exactly like a non-profit, and undermined your own claim that “churches are businesses”. There is no rational reason to consider a church as a business. > It’s you who’s flailing. Hmm, looks like my quoting got cut off and I didn’t get the other parts in: > [@](#): > > **With the deed supporting ownership by Gashland** , the court then looked to the Articles of Agreement adopted by Gashland in 1948, and its amended By-Laws of 1987. Here too the Articles pointed to ownership by Gashland free of any trust in favor of the denomination as Article VII provides that title to property acquired by Gashland “shall vest in the Gashland Community Church of Gashland, Missouri,\*\* in its corporate capacity.” \*\* [Here’s a different instance re: Catholics:](http://www.arcc-catholic-rights.net/who_owns_the_church.htm) > [@](#): > > Universal Church Canon Law states, " **Under the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, ownership of goods belongs to that juridical person which has lawfully acquired them"** (c. 1256). Parishes, established under this same law, are such juridical persons (c. 515.3). They have ownership of their property and goods and must have a finance committee to help in the administration of their resources. Moreover, church authorities are obliged to honor the wishes of donors (c. 1267.3), and the envelope system used in most parishes clearly establishes the intentions of donors. While canon law seems clear, it is interpreted in the U.S. as meaning that parishes CAN, under civil law, legally acquire and administer their own property but they are NOT OBLIGED to do so (and a few are actually allowed to do this). By this circumvention of universal church law, U.S. bishops, with very few exceptions, continue to make themselves the civil owners (and hence the targets of civil litigation) of all Church properties. [Or take a look at what’s going on with the Episcopals:](http://www.religionnews.com/2013/02/18/all-eyes-on-texas-s-c-church-property-fights/) > [@](#): > > Both cases involve conservative dioceses that voted to leave the Episcopal Church over homosexuality, among other issues. In South Carolina, congregations representing about 22,000 people are suing the Episcopal Church for control of real estate worth some $500 million and rights to the diocese’s identity. In Texas, the national Episcopal Church is suing about 60 breakaway congregations in the Fort Worth area for properties estimated to be worth more than $100 million. And since \*\*Munch \*\*can’t wrap his head around what a “business” is, [let me help:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business) > [@](#): > > A business (also known as enterprise or firm) is an organization involved in the trade of goods, services, or both to consumers.[1] **Businesses are predominant in capitalist economies, where most of them are privately owned and administered to provide service to customers for profit. Businesses may also be not-for-profit or state-owned. A business owned by multiple individuals may be referred to as a company, although that term also has a more precise meaning**. So please explain, **Munch** , if you can, how a church is not a business. You keep making that claim and failing to show any proof. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2013, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-religion-taxed-at-90/668099/80 "2013-09-06T18:27:02Z")
As compelling as wikipedia is, I’ll just go by what the [IRS says](http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exemption-Requirements-Section-501(c)(3)-Organizations): > [@](#): > > To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. For these purposes, the IRS defines “[inurement](http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Inurement-Private-Benefit-Charitable-Organizations)” as: > [@](#): > > A section 501(c)(3) organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator’s family, shareholders of the organization, other designated individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such private interests. No part of the net earnings of a section 501(c)(3) organization may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. A private shareholder or individual is a person having a personal and private interest in the activities of the organization. Businesses have shareholders or private owners. Non-profits (specifically to this topic, 501(c)(3) non-profits) do not (in fact, they are specifically prohibited from this). This is a clear, precise and fundamental difference. Your examples only illustrate that fact, despite your blindness to that. I believe you are stumbling upon the use of the word “corporate” in your first example - in this instance, “corporate” refers to the organization that was formed as part of an Articles of Incorporation, which all registered non-profits are required to do. This does not, however, mean that that corporate entity is a business. Edit: Maybe you could just show me where the IRS mentions non-profits in its [business section](http://www.irs.gov/Businesses).That’d be pretty definitive, I’d think. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-religion-taxed-at-90/668099.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-religion-taxed-at-90/668099.md?page=5)