Posted on 07/18/2006 6:51:34 AM PDT by Mr. Brightside
Today: July 18, 2006 at 6:30:28 PDT
IRS Warns Churches to Avoid Campaigning
ASSOCIATED PRESS
LOS ANGELES (AP) - The Internal Revenue Service has been warning churches and nonprofit organizations that improper campaigning in the upcoming political season could endanger their tax-exempt status.
In notices to more than 15,000 tax-exempt organizations, numerous church denominations and tax preparers, the agency has detailed its new enforcement program, called the Political Activity Compliance Initiative, the Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday.
Under the initiative, the IRS plans to expedite investigations into claims of improper campaigning, no longer waiting for an annual tax return to be filed or the tax year to end before launching a probe. A three-member committee will make an initial review of complaints and then vote on whether to pursue the investigation in detail.
"While the vast majority of charities and churches do not engage in politicking, an increasing number did take part in prohibited activities in the 2004 election cycle," IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson said in a statement. "The rule against political campaign intervention by charities and churches is long established. We are stepping up our efforts to enforce it."
Since 2004, the IRS has investigated more than 200 organizations, including All Saints Church in Pasadena.
Two days before the 2004 presidential election, the Rev. George F. Regas, the church's former rector, delivered a guest sermon that pictured Jesus in a debate with George W. Bush and John Kerry. Although Regas didn't endorse a candidate, he said Jesus would have told Bush that his pre-emptive war policy "has led to disaster."
The church drew national attention when the Rev. Ed Bacon, rector of All Saints, disclosed the IRS investigation and later said the agency believed the church had violated federal tax code barring tax-exempt organizations from intervening in political campaigns and elections.
Church leaders have not heard from the IRS since October, when the agency said the investigation was being taken to a higher level, according to Regas. The IRS has not confirmed whether the investigation is still ongoing.
Of the 62 organizations determined by the IRS to be in violation, three lost their nonprofit status and 59 received warning letters. The three who lost their status were not churches, and some of those warned were ordered to pay an excise tax.
Federal law prohibits the IRS from releasing the names of those under investigation, but the agency said it has more than 100 cases pending and 40 of them are churches.
This month, OMB Watch, a Washington-based nonprofit government watchdog group, issued a report criticizing the IRS enforcement program and said the program could prompt retaliatory and harassment complaints unless the agency develops clear guidelines.
"I don't think this is a case of bad faith," said Kay Guinane, author of the report. "I just think it's a poorly structured program."
--
The politicians will respond quicker to denominations dumping huge amounts of money into campaign coffers and delivering votes come election day.
You are a free citizen of a self governing nation. You are Ceasar.
Great, I don't need to send anything into the IRS with that last tax return package the IRS sent me.
I'll just mail my check to myself, then give the proceeds to God as a free citizen in a self governing nation.
And what is your estimation of the survival of a self-governing nation of such citizenship?
only organizations that support republicans need worry.
If the law says they should lose their tax-exempt status for doing that, then the law should be enforced.
Where a provision of statute is clearly unconstitutional, remembering that those entrusted to the enforcement of such are under oath to protect and defend said Supreme Law of the land, such a statute cannot be lawfully enforced.
A statute which has merely the overlay and color of law is no law at all where provisions clearly abrogate the protections and prohibitions of the Constitution.
Our greatest failing is in not enforcing the Constitution upon those that have been charged,under oath, with its protection and act in accord with its requirements restricted to its clear boundries.
| MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
In some cases then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read, or to obey? There are many other parts of the constitution which serve to illustrate this subject. It is declared that 'no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.' Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour; and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the constitution, and only see the law. The constitution declares that 'no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.' If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the court condemn to death those victims whom the constitution endeavours to preserve?
Here the language of the constitution is addressed especially to the courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act? From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the consti- [5 U.S. 137, 180] tution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature. Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support! The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: 'I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.' Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him. If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime. It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank. Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. |
And what is your estimation of the survival of a self-governing nation of such citizenship?
Nil.
However, it is your claim that citizen is a self governing nation and that the citizen is Caeser paying himself taxes.
The logical absurdity of that claim is self demonstrating. A statement based in a logical fallacy doesn't survive inspection.
Code section 1.
The Swagert decision was unanimous.
Oh please the income tax doesn't violate free speech. It may be argued that it is outside of the POWERS assigned the federal government.. but certainly not free speech.
So therefore even if you wanted to say the income tax is beyond federal powers the states DO have a right to tax anyone they please and can certainly put whatever exemptions they want on whether or not they pay that tax.
It doesn't matter.
It's illogical and defies common sense.
You can't make me pay the Fed for the act of worshipping my God and then tell me it's free.
Abortion is supposed to be in the constitution, too, and I don't believe that, either. Not one word in there about it at all.
There is something, however, about LIFE...without which none of the other "rights" make any difference whatsoever.
Only if you are a white church.
So, their telling me that I can't say "Jeb Bush is da man" at church is not a violation of free speech? And the penalty is I lose my "tax exemption" if I do, as based on the income tax. The income tax is the vehicle of threat by which they coerce me not to speak of Jeb Bush in church, and it's not a violation of free speech?
Do you honestly think that John Hancock & George Washington sat around in church saying, "Sure not better say anything about King George in here; we might lose our tax status."?
How does a Christian decide that they should be exempt from the tax laws?
It's not about paying taxes. It's about your responsibilities as a citizen.
All negros are exemt there protected doncha know.
Pres. Bush doesn't have time to see that our laws are enforced just like immigration.
I have never understood, FRankly, why non-profits, particularly churches, aren't the largest and most vocal FairTax supporters and prostelyzers.
There are an incredible number of reasons for churches, in particular, and non-profits in general to support the FairTax, and FRee speech is only one of them.
Gotta be a way to get them on board with us!
Government has only the power that citizens allow. As long as we keep turning the other cheek, government will keep slapping us.
It's not about paying taxes.
Look closer, paying taxes is not my issue, government excess and exercise of power in unconstitutional modes is. Using the tax system as the means of defacto regulation of free speech and religous exercise under the 1st amendment is not a tax issue it is an issue of abuse of authority.
It's about your responsibilities as a citizen.
My responsibility as a citizen is to keep government in check and under control. It is not my responsibility to support or enable government in unconstitutional activity such as impairment of the 1st amendment for example.
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.