Homosexual Group’s IRS Complaint is ‘Bogus,’ Maine Catholic Diocese Says

CNS News ^ | 5/26/2009 | Pete Winn

[markomalley]

A San Diego-based homosexual activist group has filed a formal complaint with the Internal Revenue Service charging the Roman Catholic diocese of Portland, Me., with violating federal tax rules by taking part in a referendum campaign aimed at repealing the state's new same-sex marriage law.

Tyler Davis, media director for the Empowering Spirits Foundation, told CNSNews.com that the complaint was filed at the IRS office in Dallas last Wednesday.

The group wants the Church's nonprofit tax status revoked.

“The problem is, Marc Mutty, who is the public affairs director for the Catholic diocese of Portland, Me., went onto public television stating that the church itself would be behind – and this is his own quote, ‘the largest grassroots movement in Maine’s history,’ to overturn same-sex marriage in Maine,” Davis said.

“When he did that we had a lot of members who started calling our organization, concerned,” Davis added. “Obviously in most cases where a church may overstep its bounds, we’re not going to get involved, but in this case, it’s at the core of our mission because it affects every LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered) person potentially within the state of Maine.”

[markomalley]

This is going to be the next battleground.

I hope the Catholic bishops don't bow down in order to keep their tax exempt status (but, unfortunately, I'm not holding my breath)

[markomalley]

ping

[Maelstorm]

File a complaint against Homosexual organizations. Don’t be intimidated fight back.

[goldstategop]

The Gaystapo fears losing the referendum so its trying to intimidate people of faith off the battlefield. They cannot win in the arena of ideas.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[PetroniusMaximus]

Gays are such.... sissies.

[cranked]

Sore losers ping.

[OneWingedShark]

Could it be a flash-point for CWII?
I mean that would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, it seems to me: Government mandating church docterines via the extortion of tax-exemption.

[xzins]

Mark, the state cannot establish a religion, nor can it restrict free exercise.

I believe that the loss of non-profit status would mean that individuals from that church would be unable to deduct donations to their religious group.

For the state to say that this diocese cannot, but this diocese can is for the state to determine that the Maine diocese is separate from the Catholic church.

Individual’s donations are to the Catholic Church, and the state would have to impose some arbitrary percent that the state would determine as Maine’s percent of the Catholic Church.

That sure sounds like imposing a state authorized organizational chart on the Catholic Church.

[markomalley]

Mark, the state cannot establish a religion, nor can it restrict free exercise.

Agreed. I seem to recall a couple of examples in the past where religious organizations lost their tax-exempt status for unauthorized political activity (supporting or opposing a specific candidate). Don't ask specifics, though, please as, if I could remember an example, I'd have cited it here.

I believe that the loss of non-profit status would mean that individuals from that church would be unable to deduct donations to their religious group.

That's exactly right.

For the state to say that this diocese cannot, but this diocese can is for the state to determine that the Maine diocese is separate from the Catholic church.

Actually, that is exactly the way it would happen. The way that the Catholic Church is organized, each diocese is it's own "particular" church. The diocesan bishop is the one who owns all the property in that diocese and is the employer within that diocese. That precedent was actually legally set during the priest scandal a few years ago.

Individual’s donations are to the Catholic Church, and the state would have to impose some arbitrary percent that the state would determine as Maine’s percent of the Catholic Church.

The way I make my donations in church are to the individual parish, to a specific cause, or to the Archdiocese directly -- in the case of the Archbishop's fund. I have never made a donation to the "Catholic Church" as an entity, nor am I sure how I would actually go about doing so if I was so inclined. (What happens is that the diocese taxes the parish a certain percentage to cover its operating expenses and to support mission churches within the diocese -- and likewise, the diocese pays a tax (I think the actual term is a levy) to the Vatican and to the USCCB)

That sure sounds like imposing a state authorized organizational chart on the Catholic Church.

Actually, no. There is one Catholic diocese within Maine: the diocese of Portland (Maine), so, in this case, it would be really easy. Where it would be difficult would be someplace like Maryland. Three dioceses (Baltimore, DC, and Wilmington), and two of them cover multiple states.

[Almondjoy]

The IRS just recently said that Churches have every right to engage in activities that mimic their believes.

[markomalley]

The IRS just recently said that Churches have every right to engage in activities that mimic their believes.

Wow. That's Hugh. Series.

[Balding_Eagle]

This threat is just nonsense, and is going nowhere.

A church has every right to campaign on behalf, or against any issue it wants to. It is only prohibited from endorsing specific candiate.

It can, however campaign for ‘the candiate that best respresents the Christian ideals of our church’ for example. It just can’t name names.

This is simply harassment, and is unlikely to even get to any court.

[pray4liberty]

Time to be rid of the “tax exempt status” if it’s being used as blackmail.

[Balding_Eagle]

This will put your mind at ease:

“Pastors win challenge to political involvement”

IRS rules voter education on moral issues, registration permissible

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97938

WND has many other articles on the same subject.

[Verginius Rufus]

“The power to tax is the power to destroy.”

[Balding_Eagle]

Here is another one, nearly identical, that involved MT and the 9th circuit: “Court: State trashed church’s 1st Amendment rights”

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90178

[Dumb_Ox]

So's the power to file frivolous lawsuits unchecked.

Given enough sympathetic journalists and judges, all a group needs to do is tie up the diocese's lawyers by filing suit after suit.

If that happens, it'll be a big sign that the worst is en route.

[Kolokotronis]

“Individual’s donations are to the Catholic Church, and the state would have to impose some arbitrary percent that the state would determine as Maine’s percent of the Catholic Church.”

The entity is a not for profit corporation called “Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland”. It is a “corporation sole” (no pun intended, its a common law corporate form), rather like a single member LLC, where the corporation is fully embodied in the person of the current bishop of Portland. That, padre, is what would lose its 501(c)(3) status if this homosexual group prevails, which I am confident it won’t.

[markomalley]

IRS rules voter education on moral issues, registration permissible

IRS rules …

The IRS is part of the US Department of the Treasury (run by Geithner, who was appointed by whom?

When the IRS has made a finding, it's strictly administrative, which means that it can be overturned or ignored by the next administration (look at the Mexico City policy that flips and flops with the party controlling the executive branch).

And, by the way, IRS rules (how they interpret the tax law...which is the important criterion here) are administrative rules and are made by the Executive Branch (under Ø); they are not laws passed by Congress (under Stretch).

For example, 26 U.S.C. &501(c)(3) says:

(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

The interpretation of that portion of law is up to what's written in the Code of Federal Regulations. The corresponding part of the CFR for this paragraph is 26 CFR §1.501(c)(3)-1:

One other little thing: if you don't like how your taxes are assessed, you can take it to court. The US Tax Court. BTW, the US Tax Court is not a real court (i.e., under the provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution), it is actually part of Stretch Pelosi's Congress. Its members are appointed by the Bammer and confirmed by Harry Reid's Senate. So I'm sure we can count on them to provide genuine neutrality.

[xzins]

I’m sure there are reasons for organizing a corporation that way, but I always thought it was ONE universal church.

Guess I was wrong.