Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

IRS Warns Churches to Avoid Campaigning
AP ^ | 7/18/06

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."

--


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: churchandstate; elections; firstamendment; irs; politicking
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-149 next last
To: ancient_geezer

Fair enough. I don't have an issue with that. The purpose of taxes is to raise money to run the government, not to control people's behavior.


121 posted on 07/18/2006 5:19:37 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
"My responsibility as a citizen is to keep government in check and under control."

You're not armed are you Geezer?

LOL! You're doing a pretty good job so far! Props!
122 posted on 07/18/2006 7:39:08 PM PDT by StJacques (Liberty is always unfinished business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: StJacques

I live up in the mountains of Colorado.

Certain varmits have committed the error in thinking that I am not armed, to their disadvantage ;O/


123 posted on 07/18/2006 7:44:49 PM PDT by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy; xzins; jude24; blue-duncan
Oh please the income tax doesn't violate free speech.

If you grant a tax exemption and then threaten to take it away if you engage in "political" speech, then that is a deterrent to speech and hence an infringement.

Now read this carefully:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now if the government can, though its tax policies, prohibit churches from making speeches that encroach on political issues, or prohibit them from making judgments about politicians from the pulpit, then this policy violates both the free exercise clause and the free speech clause. And if they prevent churches from handing out voting guides which endorse certain candidates, then it also violates the free press clause.

Now congress could get away with this if the 16th Amendment actually supersedes the first amendment. But unless the 16th Amendment actually supersedes the prohibitions in the first amendment, any attempt to silence a church by threat of losing a tax status is a clear violation of the first amendment. If they are going to grant a tax exempt status to a church, they have no business using that status as a Sword of Damocles to regulate the free exercise of religion in that church or to silence the pastors or priests so that they will not attempt to interfere in the political process.

You are right that an income tax does not violate free speech. But an income tax policy which punishes people for making political statements certainly does. That cannot be denied.

124 posted on 07/18/2006 8:27:28 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Almondjoy; xzins; jude24; blue-duncan

Excellent takedown there, PM.

It is also my contention that any taxation of a church violates my free exercise of religion, in that it takes a part of what I have given as an act of worship to God.

If they take 25% of my act of worship, then they have curtailed my worship by 25%. It is, then, no longer "free," but is curtailed.


125 posted on 07/18/2006 8:40:50 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Supporting the troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: StJacques; ancient_geezer; xzins; jude24; blue-duncan
If the law says they should lose their tax-exempt status for doing that, then the law should be enforced.

Let's say that there was a $25,000 standard deduction that all Americans were entitled to take provided that they did not make any public speeches or write any published editorial, letter to the editor, or political pamphlet condemining any sitting member of Congress or the president of the united states or any specific decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and that they do not make any monetary contributions to any political campaign which is opposed to the reelection of any sitting congressman or the president.

Now, suppose that anyone who violated that provision lost that $25,000 exemption. Would you think maybe that provision might be a clear violation of the first amendment? Would you want that enforced?

Now, in 25 words or less, explain how such a law would differ from the current law which threatens to remove a tax exempt status for churches which engage in any kind of political speech or activity?

126 posted on 07/18/2006 8:54:44 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Uh huh.

It's the church leadership we are talking about.. not people IN the church.


127 posted on 07/18/2006 9:11:01 PM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Nobody said they can't forgo their tax exempt status that I know of.

Any Church can freely pay taxes so that they may excerise that right to free speech.

Therefore it is not possible to say that they are prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Duh.


128 posted on 07/18/2006 9:12:41 PM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Depends on how that Church is run. If the Church is run like a business they it can freely be taxed.


129 posted on 07/18/2006 9:13:31 PM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: ARA

Good. If parishioners don't like it they can leave or get rid of the pastor. The government has no right telling pastors or rabbis what they may speak from behind a pulpit.


130 posted on 07/18/2006 9:15:20 PM PDT by streetpreacher (What if you're wrong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy

The definition of Church is "called out people."

The free exercise right, though, is initially to individuals, and by extension to them when they group together.


131 posted on 07/18/2006 9:24:31 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Supporting the troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy; StJacques; ancient_geezer; xzins; jude24; blue-duncan
Nobody said they can't forgo their tax exempt status that I know of.

Nobody is saying you can't forego your $25,000 deduction. Just don't engage in criticizing any sitting congressman unless you are willing to do so.

Therefore it is not possible to say that they are prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

What a laugh! What if you lost a $25,000 tax deduction every time you publicly criticized Bill Clinton? Would you not think that it was an abridgment of your free speech? The IRS is yielding the Sword of Damocles in order to prevent Churches from having any significant political influence. The fact of the matter is that politics and religion have always been inseparable. By threatening those who in any way attempt to mix the two with the loss of a valuable tax exemption, they are regulating the free exercise of religion. The free exercise of religion must necessarily include include the right to speak on all issues touching on religion from the pulpit without encumbrance or threat of punishment.

It is amazing to me how many people are blind to this issue. But there are "none so blind as those who will not see."

Take a close look at the first amendment and tell me how this Sword of Damocles does not violate it.

132 posted on 07/18/2006 9:27:30 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy
forego their tax exempt status

Their tax exempt status is not a privilege granted by the IRS. It is a right granted by the 1st Amendment.

You cannot tax my acts of worship and pretend that I'm freely practicing.

"Well, sir, the Congress has decided that the prayer tax will be $50 a month this year."

133 posted on 07/18/2006 9:30:26 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Supporting the troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

I'm not sure it's blindness.

I'm afraid it's either learned or personal antipathy toward Christianity.

Most of them don't know what "no law" means, either.


134 posted on 07/18/2006 9:33:30 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Supporting the troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Almondjoy

how about: "You get to keep your mortgage deduction on your house, provided you don't discuss politics inside it."


135 posted on 07/18/2006 9:36:22 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Supporting the troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Almondjoy; StJacques; ancient_geezer; jude24; blue-duncan
how about: "You get to keep your mortgage deduction on your house, provided you don't discuss politics inside it."

Exactly! We have a winner!

136 posted on 07/18/2006 10:28:42 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy
Depends on how that Church is run. If the Church is run like a business they it can freely be taxed.

We live in a constitutional republic. We also live in a privately-held economy. Any use of this economy including collection and use of its script (copyrighted dollar certificates) by a church would ordinarily make it liable for the economy use fees. If the privately-held economy extends its services to churches for free, isnt that its own business?

137 posted on 07/18/2006 11:08:27 PM PDT by allrightythen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
I have already agreed that the use of taxation policy against churches is unconstitutional, so I hope no one continues to believe that I argue it is.

I tried to make an argument which essentially stated that, given that the law is on the books and is being enforced, then it should be enforced fairly; but I have found myself instead forced to defend the constitutionality of a law I frankly do find unconstitutional.

I apologize to anyone who feels that I have insulted the meaning of the constitution which is clearly violated in the IRS tax policy with respect to churches and political campaigns. I never should have attempted to argue that, in coming to grips with the reality that a law I consider unconstitutional is actually being enforced that there should be some correct and/or fair way to enforce it. I have slipped in this instance. There can never be a fair way to enforce an unconstitutional law.

But I am still ticked off that it is not enforced according to the way it is written.

You've done a fine job on this P-Marlowe. I commend you for your unyielding stance on constitutional principle.
138 posted on 07/18/2006 11:21:36 PM PDT by StJacques (Liberty is always unfinished business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: StJacques; xzins; Almondjoy; ancient_geezer; jude24; blue-duncan
But I am still ticked off that it is not enforced according to the way it is written.

The fact that it is subject to "selective enforcement" makes it all the more insidious. It then becomes a tool of the ruling party.

Historically Black Churches have been free to ignore the law with no consequences provided that they are not Jesse Peterson's church. IOW they are free to express whatever political views they want provided that the political view is in accordance with the views of those who are charged with enforcing the law or they are "politically correct".

I am hopeful that some of the churches who are being selected for this enforcement will take it to the wall. I would really like to see some Church like the First AME Church of Los Angeles caught in the crossfire. I will be more than happy to contribute to their defense fund. If it is a liberal black church that is the target of the IRS, then we will soon see an end to this stupidity. As long as the IRS targets white conservative churches, there is little chance of the courts taking much of an interest in protecting the first amendment on this issue.

139 posted on 07/18/2006 11:48:54 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

The joke is that you don't get it. They have the Privledge of living tax free.

If you don't like the tax code then fight for that. Until then don't claim it's hurting free speech because it's not.


140 posted on 07/19/2006 12:21:56 PM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-149 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson