Posted on 03/22/2005 8:23:42 AM PST by Brian Mosely
The IRS has notified a Liberty City church that it is under investigation for possibly engaging in political activity -- putting its tax-exempt status into question.
The probe is related to an appearance last October by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and several black leaders, including U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek of Miami, the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
The reason for the investigation, an IRS official wrote in a 10-page letter obtained by The Herald, is that ``a reasonable belief exists that Friendship Missionary Baptist Church has engaged in political activities that could jeopardize its tax-exempt status as a church.''
(Excerpt) Read more at miami.com ...
What about individuals that are income tax exempt because they earn less than the minimum taxable income? Can they not talk politics, either?
The more one considers a taxation/political sppech connection, the more ludicrous it becomes. Well, for some folks, anyway.
Churches better stop letting government use their facilities as voting precincts, too.
Why can't the church say anything about it?
You are mis-applying the confusing IRS code. It says that churches automatically qualify as "tax exempt" similar to a non-profit 501(c)(3). Unless the church specifically APPLIES as a 501(c)(3) is is only a "non profit religious organization" that qualifies as tax exempt. People are misreading the code, which the IRS isn't going to complain about.
I am glad that someone else here understands the IRS rules. Thanks for your posts!
As has pointed out numerous times on this thread, everyone - whether they are 501(c)(3) or not - can talk politics.
I believe you mean can they electioneer? Of course they can. They are not 501(c)(3) orgs.
The more one considers a taxation/political sppech connection, the more ludicrous it becomes. Well, for some folks, anyway
The IRS regs are narrowly tailored for 501(c)(3) orgs. It's not broad enough to encompass *every* situation where someone or something is tax exempt.
There is no arguement. The church, like any other business, should pay taxes. But for religeous reasons, the government set up provisions to allow for tax exempt status conditioned upon a few rules (one of which is that the church can't play politics). When the church agreed to take the tax exempt status, they agreed to abide by the conditions precedent. How hard is it to understand? They can't have their cake and eat it too.
Coleman and the Porn star might have the least of the problems from that group.
I would certainly be tempted, believe me,
Wait a minute...
Churches = tax exempt
527 orgs = tax exempt
but
Churches who make political statements like a 527 = non-exempt?
I still think churches should be taxed but I don't like how the above equation works out.
There is no law banning them from being political. BUT, if you want to be a tax-free church, you need to stay out of politics.
That's more than fair enough for me.
Not really. These churches are receiving a government benefit that involves some rules that need to be followed. If they find these rules to be too onerous, they can refuse the benefit.
No they should not. There is no Constitutional Amendment which prohibits the government from regulating the establishment of Businesses. It seems Churches are tricked into filing into a status that allows the IRS to regulate them. Churches are inheriently exempt from federal taxes under our Constitution and should not need a special filing status.
Ping.
OK.
What's the basis for non-taxation in return for political silence, particularly about candidates, and the threat of taxation should an organization endorse a candidate?
And, how can that square with tax-exemption for purely political organizations (527's)?
A link on 501(c)(3) lobbying: http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=120703,00.html
Liberty City is, without a doubt, the WORST ghetto neighborhood in the United States. NW 79th Street makes Springfield Avenue in Newark look like Rodeo Drive.
Are we really saying anything different? You are correct in saying that a church automatically qualifies as tax exempt, and this predates the establishment of the 501-C-3 part of the tax code. Churches do not have to be 501-C-3's, but many have thought they did have to do that. And the IRS cannot take away the church tax exempt status, though they threaten and scare us into thinking so.
Are we really saying anything different? You are correct in saying that a church automatically qualifies as tax exempt, and this predates the establishment of the 501-C-3 part of the tax code. Churches do not have to be 501-C-3's, but many have thought they did have to do that. And the IRS cannot take away the church tax exempt status, though they threaten and scare us into thinking so.
I beg to differ with you. Only 501(c)(3) churches are limited.
Dude, all of the laws established by Congress are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. That does not mean the laws are unconstitutional. You won't find a 65 MPH speed limit listed in the Constitution. That does not mean that a highway with a posted 65 MPH limit is unenforceable.
Under the commerce provisions of the Constitution, Congress has regulatory powers. Along the way, they established businesses would pay taxes. Churches are no different, but in order to give churches and worshippers a break, the conditional non-profit status was implemented. So, either churches play by the rules, or give up their non-profit status. It really is as simple as that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.