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."
A review of the IRC 501 c-3
Click on:
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:JTl709ypEZMJ:fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/24677.pdf+congressional+law+for+tax+free+churches&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4
What bothers me is that issues such as gay marriage gets little response from the pulpit.
You are making a fool out of yourself. You need to read the first amendment before you type.
"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."
I parsed that and still don't see anything about taxation. Perhaps you can be so kind as to show me which word has "tax" in it. Or be thought the fool yourself.
Are you suggesting that freedom of speech only applies if it is with in the law?
Because it doesn't feed the bottom line. Most churches are more interested in their fiscal health than the moral health of their congregation.
You're a little slow on the uptake today. This isn't a freedom of speech issue. This is a subsidized speech issue.
I see your comprehension skills are very low. I will not help you.
IOW, you can't see it either. Because it isn't there.
I know your type. Invent "rights" that don't exist because they fit your theological agenda.
I know your type. We even have a name for you: Liberal.
Why is this difficult?
You can NOT tax a freedom.
Why is this difficult?
It does NOT say "Congress will tax subsidize such religion." Why is that so difficult? Do you understand the difference between taxation and speech?
Any church can say anything it wants. No one will be coming to take a preacher away for supporting a candidate or supporting law-breaking (although that breaks a different law). But there is nothing in that passage that says they get to be paid for that.
Let a church pay its taxes like everyone else and they can say anything they want (except for when they cross the truly unconstitutional McCain/Feingold crap). The only sanction is paying the taxes we all pay.
Do you pay taxes? Under what circumstances should someone NOT pay taxes?
When you ask for tax exemption you voluntarily give up rights. Just like when you join a company and sign a non-disclosure agreement.
Rights CAN be signed away.
If you don't like the rules, don't ask for the exemption.
You don't know much about Constitutional Law do you? I can provide some great starter links if it will help.
Thr priniciple you seem to have missed is: a church that attends to its members' spiritual life is entitled to a tax exemption.
A church that takes up politics as an activity is not.
There's a difference between telling your flock what Jesus said to the moneylenders, to Pilate, or to the faithful at the Sermon on the Mount, and telling your flock what candidate Jesus would oppose.
I seem to recall some famous religious cat saying "My Kingdom is not of this World." If pastors want to take up the worldly burden, they can jolly well pay the worldly tax like the rest of us sinners.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
It says just the opposite actually.
If you are on the "we shouldn't be offering tax subsidies to churches at all" then grab a hand and climb on board. We have more in common that we thought.
Rights CAN be signed away.”
I agree with that. That doesn’t change the point. I also agree you can make rules but the rules can’t be abridging freedom of speech.
OK, you are starting to confuse me. My point is that the Tax Exemption is essentially a self-imposed gag rule. If a church doesn't want to follow the agreed-upon rules, they have oly to give up the associated tax exemption.
But the government can't directly coerce them into saying or not saying anything.
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.