Posted on 07/18/2006 2:58:24 PM PDT by aceintx
Edited on 07/18/2006 3:04:41 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
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."
But I will admit this might have started out a political ploy -- but it is a good rule, if evenly applied.
All I have to say is:
"STAY OUDDA BUSHES!
OK, you lost me...
White churches I suppose . They won't dare go after a black church I bet . . .
During the 2000 campaign Jesse Jackson was filmed at a Black Church screaming "Stay Oudda Bushes!" It was all over the MSM.
The church nor his organization had their tax-free status affected.
And no doubt there are plenty on the left who would love to see even more churches PACIfied.
The excise tax is the most ergregious part.
Not only must the church pay back-taxes (with interest and possible penalties) on all of its earnings going back several years, the IRS also slaps an additional 10% "excise" tax against the church's future offering-collections at the plate that lasts for up to three additional years. Outrageous.
However, there is pressure to construe the restrictions more broadly than endorsing a candidate, and to speak out on issues generally, like same sex marriage if there is a referendum. I would hope the tax restrictions would be construed narrowly so as not to eviscerate the rights of churches to speak out substantively on moral issues of the day without fear of losing tax exemption.
Since When did the 1st Ammendment take away the free-speech rights of PASTORS, and other church workers...
"Churches should look after people's souls and leave politics alone": THAT IS ABSURD!
No such right has been taken away. This is about taxation, not free speech.
"Churches should look after people's souls and leave politics alone": THAT IS ABSURD!
Absurd how? I guess my idea that churches should look after souls is pretty radical after all.
Let them pay taxes and talk all they want.
NAACP Chairman Julian Bond "condemned the administration policies of George W. Bush on education, the economy and the war in Iraq" in a July 11 speech.
Tax law prohibits charities organized under section 501(c)(3) from taking sides in political campaigns. The law restricts these organizations because donations are tax-deductible for the donor and in effect are subsidized by the government.
Frances Hill, an authority on non-profit groups at the University of Miami Law School, called it "amazing" that the IRS would audit a group based on a public speech.
"Usually you would look for some activity other than disagreeing with policies," she said.
http://tinyurl.com/6woft
I think the issue is freedom of religion actually. Only certain ones are free these days.
I have been consistent in calling for even treatment -- NO church should be calling for a specific candidate, breaking the Nation's laws, endorsing or refuting oridnances/propositions, etc.
You want to be a lobbyist, file accordingly. You want to be a church, stay out of it and look to saving souls.
Seen this one? Ties in nicely with your "Vote Early, Vote Often" thread.
The new First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, aside from prohibited activities; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, unless John McCain says so; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, except for when they shouldn't, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, so long as the content of the petition is approved by the Attorney General and the courts.
Part of the IRC:
It should be noted, however, that many types of political activities that are not
“campaign activities” are permitted to some extent. The key distinction is that non-campaign political activities cannot support or oppose a particular candidate.
Permissible political activities under the IRC, so long as no candidate is endorsed or opposed, include: educational activities, such as conducting public forums at which social, political, and
international questions are considered; compiling voting records of Members of Congress, so long as the record is not widely distributed to the general public during an election campaign; publishing candidate responses to a questionnaire on a variety of subjects; issuing report cards that indicate whether legislators support or oppose the organization’s views; issue advertising(this is usually considered lobbying); nonpartisan public opinion polling; non-partisan voter registration drives meeting the requirements of IRC § 4945(f);
Thanks -- seems reasonable to me. It is clear the statute intent is to limit the "political" aspect.
For example, the Church's stance on abortion is based on pure moral grounds. But that is inextricably tied to the political world. That makes sense.
But for a Cardinal to tell people to break the law on supposed moral grounds is pure politics.
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.