IRS denies tax exempt status to group for linking Christianity to politics

have to pay to play.. their choice

 

no they are not, Obama and Biden are Christians, much more so then Trump imo

 

I know, ignore the IRS response for some feewings.

 

In this case, they were hoping to generate donations by telling their donors they could deduct their donations from their taxes, i.e. a scam trying to pretend being a charity or a church.

 

C Street got in trouble too

"It's official: The C Street house is not a church"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/17/AR2009111703700.html

 

There's no evidence that they are a PAC.
Apparently you don't understand the difference.

What they are doing is no different from the numerous Democrat non-profit groups that try to turn out more voters. These groups are almost essential to Democrat Party election victories.

Then that combined with the activities of any religious institution or church.

I mean what they are doing is the same as a non-profit group trying to turn out more voters, combined with the activities of normal religious group.

What they are doing is encouraging people to vote. But they are also encouraging people to vote based on religious beliefs.

Should that disqualify them from having tax exempt status?

If so, then you'd have to take away the tax exempt status from most churches and religious groups to remain consistent.
Most religions see at least some connection between religious beliefs and how individuals should vote.

The distinction is they are not directly telling them to vote for one specific candidate or political party.

 

That was a different situation.

A quote from the article you linked to:

The famous rowhouse on C Street SE [...] has begun paying D.C. real estate taxes, according to city officials. Several members of the House and Senate live there, renting upstairs rooms from a group apparently affiliated with the "Fellowship," a secretive group that organizes the National Prayer Breakfast. [Sen. John] Ensign [R-Nev.], who recently moved out, lived in the tidy brick home. Sanford, when he was a member of Congress, used to come by for what he called "a Christian Bible study."

The Capitol Hill house is valued at $1.8 million. The downstairs is used for meals and prayer meetings, while the upstairs houses residents that recently included three House members as well as Ensign and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), our colleague Manuel Roig-Franzia reported in June.

This summer, the tax records show, the house paid no taxes because it received an E1, or religious, exemption. The property now is classified "TX-Taxable" and is listed as a residential property.
​

They were obviously abusing the religious non-profit tax exemption, since the house was mainly being used to house Republican congressmen while they were staying in the capital, as well as serving somewhat as a recreational club for them.

This obviously is not relevant to the story in the opening post.

So I believe it was very disingenuous of you to even bring that up.
It required so much of my time and effort to make this post to show how your quick mention of that was misleading and actually not really relevant.

 

Rubbish. They clearly state they're political lobbyists, and not a charity or a church. They're non-profit status is covered under other statutes; they aren't being denied tax exempt status, they're being denied status under 501.c3. They're just attention whoring or stupid. They're just trying to sell donors a tax deduction is all.

Donors to the Democrats or the GOP can't deduct those donations from their tax returns, and neither should these people. As I've said before, pastors and church congregations have every right to speak out on political issues where their religion is involved; just because assorted deviants and loons politicize some fetish or other doesn't restrict free speech from a pulpit,a pastor or anywhere or anyone else, but churches are not full time PACs, and these people clearly state they are. This isn't rocket science, and they aren't being 'oppressed n stuff'. And, those 'numerous non-profit groups' are perfectly legal, and their donors don't get to deduct their donations from their tax returns either.

 

More rubbish. Again, they weren't denied 'tax exempt status', they were just denied a 501.c3 exemption. which would make donations to them tax deductible. And no, churches don't have political lobbying as their primary functions; you're just making up crap now. The left tied using these same bullshit arguments when they went after Falwell, Jefress, and that Houston pastor; they all lost their case because they didn't have one. The Civil Rights movement started in churches; go ask let wingers if they think all those black churches should lose their 501,c3 status.

 

Your merely assert. I don't believe your assertion.

 

This group is not making donations to a specific political party.

If they were, they would obviously ineligible for that non-profit tax exemption.

You don't seem to be making a convincing case why this group is not like a church.

I drew an analogy to how this group is like other non-profit groups which encourage people to vote (even when everyone knows their efforts are to benefit one side), and they get tax deductions.

A "PAC" would be giving money to specific candidates or political parties, or doing advertising explicitly and overtly supporting one political candidate, wouldn't you agree?

 

The IRS is just exerting its power over the pulpit as the 501c3 designation was designed to do from its inception. Now we get to find out how devoted Christians Engaged is to its cause. Will they keep on their good works despite the hit to their income, or will they hand over their conviction to get their tax money back?

I only attend churches that do not craft their message to fit on the alter of 501c3, which afaic is their true god. And unfortunately, this means I do not attend church.

 

Do you care to explain exactly why they should be denied status under 501.c3 ?

In case you were not aware, there are many other groups under 501 that have political bents (most of them on the Left) and get tax exempt status.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think 504 gets tax exempt status. 504 is for groups that get too specifically political.

Even if you are trying to make the argument that the law should be interpreted in a certain way, there would still seem to be some clear double standards here.

 

I already explained exactly why. You just don't know what is going on as usual. Read the guidelines, or stay stupid, doesn't matter to me.

 

Read them again; they aren't a church, they aren't a charity. If you can't grasp that simple fact, you have comprehension problem or you're just bandwagoning over fake news, no different than the left wing loons who do that all day as well. These people specifically claim they formed to engage in political activities, not form church or a charity.

 

No, it doesn't do anything, except prevent crooks from claiming to be a 'religious' group or a charity. Churches are not required to incorporate at all, and never have been. 'Christians Engaged' is neither of those. The difference is obvious; their donors don't get to deduct their donations from their income taxes as a political action lobby group. They can incorporate as a non-profit and be 'tax exempt' from paying taxes on the donations they take in as revenue same as any other non-profit can.

 

While the bandwagoning conspiracy types continue to play stupid, some more info here:

The IRS Manual:

https://www.irs.gov/irm/part7/irm_07-025-001.html#d0e187

“7.25.1.3 (09-26-2014)
Applications for Exemption: IRC 508 and IRC 505 Requirements

• IRC 508(a) and the regulations require organizations described in IRC 501(c)(3) that are organized after October 9, 1969, to apply for recognition of exemption on Form 1023, Application for Recognition of Exemption. Form 1023 is also the way an organization described in IRC 501(c)(3) gives the required notice that it is not a private foundation. Excepted from this requirement by IRC 508(c) are churches and organizations that are not private foundations and that normally have not more than $5,000 in gross receipts each taxable year. “

Now, an example of some half-wit with high self-esteem who is probably violating the rules:

Humanist. Jan/Feb2011, Vol. 71 Issue 1, p28-31. 4p.

Only one church has been taken to court over the rule against partisan political activity, out of some 400,000 congregations in the U.S., Branch Ministries, after taking out four page ads in USA Today and The Washington Times four days before the 1992 election urging people not to vote for Clinton while at the same time soliciting contributions to pay for them. Even the NAACP has been investigated for the same type of activity, a Julian Bond speech in 2004, where Bond had stated to the Convention:
"We know that if whites and nonwhites vote in the same percentages as they did in 2000, Bush will be re-defeated by 3 million votes.”

 

Personally I think partisan political activity, as in endorsing and campaigning for individual candidates should be considered a violation, but then there are few ways to enforce it. Political activity such as opposing abortion, the 'Gay Rights' hoax, all that stuff, is clearly fine and no violation of any rules with respect to churches or tax exception status. They can speak out for or against city ordinances, legislation, foreign policy, lobby, etc., etc., to their little hearts' content, they just shouldn't run around endorsing specific candidates

Any pastor or minister can personally endorse whoever they want to like anybody else can as a citizen, they just shouldn't do it from the church pulpits. If they want to organize and run campaigns for candidates, then they should incorporate as a non-profit under a different section of the Code and register like any other partisan political organization, that's all.




All the BS about 'incorporation' and the like is just hysterical nonsense put out by morons and those who are obviously trying to manipulate their congregations by fear mongering and conspiratorial gibberish. Very few churches are incorporated; they don't have to be and even if they are they aren't forced to comply with any regs any other 501.c3 isn't. Filing a Form 1023 with the IRS isn't 'incorporating', it's merely getting a determination letter from the IRS charities can copy and give to certain donors, like corporations, for their tax records and legal needs, like for instance a drug company who wants to donate drugs to a missionary operation or free clinic, or an airline who will give discounts or free seats to such people and charities, all that sort of stuff.

 

No one here is arguing that is not the law.

I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about then, or why you seemed to think this group should not be eligible for tax exempt status.

 

Donations to PACs should not be tax deductible. They aren't a church or a charity, and why you think they are is the mystery here. Just because they tack the word 'Christian' on their title doesn't give them special rights no other PAC has.

 

I'm not sure what what you're claiming. That law seems like it could be read two different ways. Either churches are exempted, or only churches that have less than $5000 in annual receipts are exempted.

 

I don't understand why you claim they are a PAC.

That type of political activism does not make them a PAC.

I don't know, some of this seems to be a logical equivocation fallacy, depending on the semantics of what a PAC is exactly referring to. (Maybe we can discuss this without using the word "PAC"?)

 

Rubbish. Of course you don't like the word 'PAC'; it doesn't fit the propaganda ploy being played out here.

The Peanut Gallery can read the letter these people claim they got.

https://firstliberty.org/wp-content...Engaged-IRS-Determination-Letter_Redacted.pdf

Relevant parts are they are Republican activists forming a PAC and trying to market themselves as a tax deductible organization. They don't conform to 501.c3 exemptions, same as the GOP or the Democrats don't conform or qualify as a church or a charity. Sorry to bust your bubble but just tacking 'Christian' on a title doesn't automatically make them 'tax exempt'.

 

That's still irrelevant.

If that's what you're basing your argument on, I don't think you understand the situation.

There's plenty of Democrat activists that form similar groups and get tax exempt status. It's pretty normal.

The caveat is just that they can't explicitly and overtly endorse specific candidates or a specific political party.

 

What is 'irrelevant' to your fantasy conspiracy is your concern, not mine. I'm not at all interested in whether or not I don't get to go sit in some treehouse club with some peer group or other.