Posted on 09/21/2006 1:12:12 PM PDT by SmithL
Pasadena -- A liberal church that has been threatened with the loss of its tax-exempt status over an anti-war sermon delivered just days before the 2004 presidential election said Thursday it will fight an IRS order to turn over documents on the matter.
"We're going to put it in their court and in a court of law so that we can get an adjudication to some very fundamental issue here that we see as an intolerable infringement of rights," Bob Long, senior warden of All Saints Church, told The Associated Press.
He said the church's 26-member vestry voted unanimously to resist IRS demands for documents and an interview with the congregation's rector by the end of the month.
The church's action sets up a high-profile confrontation between the church and the IRS, which now must decide whether to ask for a hearing before a judge, who would then decide on the validity of the agency's demands.
Religious leaders on the right and left have expressed fear that the dispute could make it more difficult for them to speak out on moral issues such as gay marriage and abortion during the midterm election campaign.
An IRS spokesman did not immediately return a call for comment.
Under federal tax law, church officials can legally discuss politics, but to retain tax-exempt status, they cannot endorse candidates or parties.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Must not be a dim-leaning church.
You're wrong.
If you engage in "advocacy" speaking out for/against a candidate/party/legislation, you have violated your tax status. Democrats do it all the time. They are rarely called on it (and it happens under a large number of organizations, not just churches).
If you want FREE SPEECH, then don't ask for a government exemption on taxes. It is why left wing talk radio (NPR and Pacifica) are not permitted the same freedom in discussion campaigns that "right wing talk radio" has. The for profit right wing talk radio stations have not entered into an agreement to limit their own speech in exchange for tax benefits.
Is this exactly what the Dims were bitchin about a few months back? I guess they forgot who is in office.
When I read "26 member vestry", I knew it was a whacko-lib assemblage.
As much as I disagree with the church's opinion on the war, unless they are officially a 501(c)(3) they have violated no law. The IRS should butt out and go after the black churches that consistently endorse Democratic candidates.
Not unless you have filed to be recognized as a 501(c)(3). This is the most common mistake churches make. A "religious non-profit" organization is NOT REQUIRED to file for 501(c)(3) status. Most do, in complete ignorance of the IRS rules, because some lawyer wants them to give him their money.
I agree. If a church is opposed to war, they should be able to speak about what they believe from their pulpit. It is no different than speaking against abortion, gay marriage, murder, or adultery. Being political should be defined as endorsing a political candidate or party or speaking against a political candidate or party.
2. Churches should not be punished - i.e., taxed - for speaking out on policy and political issues. Churches (and synagogues, etc.) are about plugging us into the divine, and that means listening (and passing along) the divine perspective, as they understand it, on how people should behave individuall and collectively. The voices of churches - whatever their viewpoint - should not be silenced.
You must have missed that first sentence.
They are not currently taxed. So what is your point?
2. Churches should not be punished - i.e., taxed - for speaking out on policy and political issues. Churches (and synagogues, etc.) are about plugging us into the divine, and that means listening (and passing along) the divine perspective, as they understand it, on how people should behave individuall and collectively. The voices of churches - whatever their viewpoint - should not be silenced.
Churches are free to discuss their beliefs and make statements on such. If they have filed incorrectly as a 501(c)(3) they have given up that right, however. They should be more careful when dealing with lawyers who mistakenly advise them to file as such. Posting HTML
I agree.
"A "religious non-profit" organization is NOT REQUIRED to file for 501(c)(3) status."
They are still a 501(c)(3) regardless of whether they file or not and are still subject to the rules of the Internal Revenue Code, including 501(c)(3).
No, they are not. They are given the SAME TREATMENT as a 501(c)(3) but they are not officially seen as such. Only if the IRS sends a letter stating that, however. I have set up several churches that are recognized by the state and federal tax authorities without this being an issue.
Common sense says that to keep out of of the IRS scrutiny, don't be blatant in endorsements. Any idiot should know how to avoid that.
All churches are 501(c)(3) organizations. The fact that they don't have to file an IRS Form 1023 has nothing to do with whether they are a 501(c)(3) organization. All churches must meet the requirements of 501(c)(3) to be tax exempt.
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.