Atheist Lawsuit would Force Churches to Report to the Government
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
An atheist group has taken direct aim at the free exercise of religion, attempting to subject churches to the rule of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), enabling the exact kind of targeting experienced by tea party groups under President Obama. A Washington, D.C. church is fighting back, defending the central constitutional principle that religious freedom is not subject to the whims of government control.
"This is nothing more than just a naked attempt to harm churches and religion because FFRF believes that religion is bad," Erik Stanley , senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), told PJ Media on Monday. His organization filed a motion to intervene on behalf of New Macedonia Baptist Church in the case NonBelief Relief v. David J. Kautter .
NonBelief Relief sued Kautter, acting commissioner for the IRS, in October. The IRS had revoked the organization's tax-exempt status after NonBelief Relief refused to file a Form-990 for the third year in a row. The IRS requires non-profit organizations to submit the form — which documents the internal finances and efforts of the organization in question — every year, unless the organization is a church or other religious body.
It seems natural that NonBelief Relief might demand the same exemption given to churches should also apply to them, but that's not what they argue for in this lawsuit. Instead, they claim that churches should not be exempt. They support the Form-990 so much, they want everyone to have to fill it out, and they'll protest by not filling it out until they can force everyone to fill it out. Make sense?
Stanley, the ADF lawyer, connected the dots. First, NonBelief Relief is effectively an arm of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), a notorious atheist group that consistently targets religious speech and exercise in the public square.
"They created this non-profit organization, NonBelief Relief, for the sole purpose of launching this lawsuit, and it's because they don't have a comparable 'church' that they can argue should be exempt," Stanley explained. Indeed, FFRF took aim at the church exemption in the 2014 case Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Koskinen . When that case was dismissed, FFRF created NonBelief Relief in 2015.
While the plaintiff in this case is legally distinct from FFRF, ADF argues in its motion that "Nonbelief and FFRF are essentially one and the same," because: "Nonbelief's sole member is FFRF; its presidency is specifically reserved for FFRF's president; FFRF co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor currently serves as Nonbelief's president; FFRF co-president Dan Baker serves as vice-president; FFRF's director of operations doubles as Nonbelief's secretary and treasurer; and certain FFRF board members make up the entirety of Nonbelief's board."
NonBelief Relief sued the IRS in the Washington, D.C. district court, attempting to force the IRS to require D.C. churches to provide Form-990s to keep their tax-exempt status. ADF filed the motion so that a church could be able to defend itself in court.
"This really is a broad-based attack against religion," Stanely explained. "Their true motive is not to gain equality by having non-church organizations also be exempt. The true motive here is to harm churches and religion by requiring them to fill out these intrusive reporting requirements."
Among other things, the Form-990 reveals a group's income and expenses; its assets, liabilities, and net worth; the total of contributions received and the names and addresses of all substantial contributors; and the names and addresses of its foundation managers and highly compensated employees, along with compensation and other payments to those workers.
If FFRF succeeds, it would involve "government intruding itself into the internal affairs of the church," Stanley said. If the case would be extended outside of D.C. — clearly FFRF's plan — then "every church would be required to prepare and file an annual tax return with the government."
This is a fundamental assault on the very idea of freedom of religion. "Our constitutional structure is based on not having churches report to the government, not having churches ask for permission to exist," the ADF lawyer told PJ Media. "What if a church has to fill out a 990, but it objects for religious reasons? Can the government shut it down?"
Churches also enjoy a second exemption to the tax code. "If you're a non-profit organization, you have to apply for recognition," Stanley explained. "Churches are exempt from that requirement to apply first, and for good reason. Churches don't have to ask permission from the federal government to exist."
Yet FFRF has found "a backdoor way of changing that," Stanley argued. He paraphrased it: "We're not going to require churches to get permission to exist, but we are going to force them to report on their financial business to the federal government."
"I think it's always dangerous to put that information into the hands of bureaucrats," the ADF lawyer said. "We've seen examples with Tea Party groups where that could go wrong."
While liberals still insist the IRS targeting scandal was merely a bureaucratic snafu, Stanley insisted that "even the potential for targeting scandals or misuse of information can destroy the free exercise of religion."
The church tax exemption itself is not some privilege handed down by Congress in a "matter of legislative grace," the ADF lawyer argued. "This is a constitutional requirement: It keeps the government out of the internal affairs of the church. A church itself is the core of the free exercise of religion, so it should be protected more broadly."
Furthermore, the IRS has an 18-point test for what constitutes a church, including a requirement that it perform "sacerdotal functions," such as baptism, communion, weddings, or funerals, Stanley explained. Their exemptions make a great deal of sense, and are indeed a fundamental aspect of America's defense of the free exercise of religion.
FFRF should be ashamed of itself for this assault on the heart of the First Amendment. Then again, it should also be ashamed of itself for attempting to silence football coach prayer and Marco Rubio's Bible verse tweets . This disgusting attempt to subject churches to IRS control seems par for the course — but with more far-reaching consequences than FFRF's usual fare.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Who is online
104 visitors
Churches should pay their fair share of government costs
All for it. But before we tackle religious institutions let's start with all of these other "non profits" first. Then decide if it is really worth the fight.
Willing to bet we wouldn't get past Planned Parenthood.
I am an atheist. I have no problem with Churches being tax exempt. We all have problems with organizations that are tax exempt. Which ones depend on your political leanings.
Its easy to say ..... lets tax exempt nonprofits like churches ..... when you're an Atheist and you're talking about churches ...... then it gets complicated when to be unbiased, one is asked to include all the other nonprofit organizations like you listed.
Most people don't have the slightest clue how encompassing that is. Its just cool to be a person of non-faith and say; "all churches should be taxed."
By their getting out of paying taxes, I have to pay more so I am subsidizing religion
Some complain about their tax dollars paying for things they don't like, and they like to claim it is against their religion for tax money to pay for birth control but non religious people have to make up what churches don't pay
Hmmm. Jebuscare....
When churches and church leaders become political, they should lose tax exempt status.
Some churches want to directly define public policy without having to be a part of the system themselves.
Bingo.
The Bakers, Robertson, Fred Phelps, Warren Jeffs, Marshal Applewhite, Jim Jones... Corruption is a problem in all religions. All religions profess to be moral and upstanding and want to be seen as a pillar of morality. Fine. The problem I have is that many Christians jumped on the Trump train. They did so knowing that he has cheated on all of his wives, (3), paid a porn star to keep quiet about their affair behind his wife's back, admits he used to walk in and out of teenage girls dressing rooms while young teens were not wearing anything and said that he could grab women and kiss them without even asking. How ANY Christian can support a candidate like that is beyond me. These people have proven beyond a doubt that they really don't care about the bible and what Jesus had to say, they care more about pushing their agenda and because of that simple fact? They should NOT be tax exempt since they are clearly more of a political entity than they are a religious entity.
But they should remain tax exempt? Um, no.
There are a lot of good community churches that talk the talk and walk the walk, there are several in my community that do a LOT to help the community so I am certainly not saying ALL churches are bad, but the bad ones give the rest a bad name. Sad.
You want religion out of politics but you're mad that people didn't base their vote on religious morality?
I haven't met or seen the Christian that supports the negative things Trump does and says. They voted for him in spite of those things because they expected he would do his secular job better than the available alternative (Clinton).
Then I don't want any lectures or sermons from these "Christians" because of my life choices
You got that right
You missed the point. What I mean is that if a Christian preaches about being moral, then votes for a politician that has no morals at all, they have crossed the line from being a moral person to being a political one. Therefor, they should pay taxes since their morals have taken a back seat to politics.
Holy shit ..... pun intended ..... i'd love to see the Federal agency that would control making those decisions ........ NOT! A very YUGE ...... NOT!
I agree lol
Does that happen to you a lot?
How? The Christian voter isn't cheating on his wife or telling lies. He's hiring the politician to do a job. If we waited for the perfect moral politician, we'd basically be waiting for Jesus.
You pay income taxes then go buy goods and pay sales tax, and those businesses that take your money pay tax on their incomes. When you go spend your money on salvation, why should that be any different? If I believe going to a Vegas whorehouse and dropping a few thousand dollars is my salvation, should it be tax free and should the chicken ranch not have to pay any taxes because they sell happiness? Churches are nothing but whore houses selling people fantasy pleasure.
Of course religious people pay taxes, it's the religious organizations that get treated differently than any other business selling something. And obviously Churches are selling something, so why no sales tax and why no income tax for Church organizations? They and their customers use the same roads, utilities and military protection as any other American business, what's so special about a Church that they can take in a ton of cash and not pay a dime in taxes. They can even spend that un-taxed money to pay off and keep quiet victims of their sexual abuse, so in effect, we all subsidized Priests raping children. So a mark, I mean customer, er I mean "parishioner" comes in and gives $100 to the Church. While I'm paying taxes on the money my business makes so that we can have roads, military and utilities, the Church pays exactly $0 into those benefits. The Church then takes the money, pays no taxes, and hands it to the parents of a child their priests molested "Here, take this $100 with our blessing, hopefully it will be enough to get your child through a lifetime of trauma and emotional turmoil.". Now don't you feel better having subsidized their ability to pay off their victims? If they had to pay taxes that family might have only gotten $70 instead of $100 so that justifies it, right? That justifies my having to pitch in and pay their share of taxes so they can pay for the children they've raped, right?
True, any Christian is free to express his political opinions. However, if that Christian uses his/her position in a tax free organization to spread their political opinion, then they're risking losing their Churches tax exempt status.
"Charitable organizations, including churches, are generally prohibited from participating in the political process. In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation, known as lobbying; a church risks losing its 501(c)(3) status if it becomes involved in substantial lobbying activities."
The original comment was "They should NOT be tax exempt since they are clearly more of a political entity than they are a religious entity." I'd say that was stating that they were more politics than religion, thus risking losing their tax exempt status.
I haven't seen anybody say that.
From context, I would take that to mean that a church whose pastor engages in politics should lose its tax exemption, which is in accordance with current law, although that is rarely enforced, unfortunately.
The pastor himself would already be subject to taxes, regardless of his politics.
Not really so sure you're right about that. This IRS publication would seem to indicate that such an activity is questionable.
To me, that would seem to indicate that when a preacher is acting as a preacher (an agent of the church), in a church or using church facilities (such as a website), if that minister gets political, he gets his church in a political entanglement.
I hired a new manager of my complaint department. Her name is Helen Waite. Please make her feel welcome.
Awesome, if anyone has a complaint, I'll tell them to go to Helen Waite!
I knew that someone would understand that old corporate joke.
I had this notice on the wall of my cubicle of an intern job. The boss was so amused that he took it for himself.
I dont see how that authority figure giving advice to his congregation is any different than a professor at a university doing the same thing. Are universities tax exempt ?
PS: regardless of party affiliation.
His reading of the law does not change the separation of church and state. If he is working in a role as a religious leader then he must be apolitical, even if he isn't in the pulpit. A minster is not to be supporting political candidates, parties or political ideas, if he wants to preserve the exemopt status of his church. If he pays the taxes he can invite politicians to give the sermon.
Hun, I kinda figured for profit universities paid taxes. I figured state universities of course didn't but the for profit ones I just always figured they did. Not that I ever cared enough to check..lol
and as far as religious leaders and candidates what you said is about what I thought, I've seen different though.
Most colleges and universities not supported by the state are also nonprofit.
thanks
Yes, yes it does
Do people like Joel Osteen and Pat Robertson pay income taxes?
Not sure, but they should be making license plates.....in prison.
They should be. They're essentially working for a non-profit but that doesn't mean that their income from a non-profit is tax exempt
I suspect most, if not all, of their income probably doesn't come from the church as salary. I read somewhere on the interwebs that Osteen has not been paid by the church for years. They write books, own TV studios, sell advertising, and so on. I don't think much of either one of those guys, but regardless, they're such extreme examples, that I don't think it's useful to look at them as the basis for what public policy should be for most churches (which actually average out to be pretty small).
Then they're paying income tax.
I would imagine.
They want to be tax exempt for believing in something they cannot even prove exists.... Seems totally legit. [eye roll]
Religion is a 2000+year-old business of snake oil sales. They scam the brainwashed, the stupid, and willfully ignorant while they wage war against logic.
That would hinge on you proving that the gods that people pray to actually exist and are not just the product of religious belief. I'll make a pot of covfefe while we wait for you to post that evidence.
What is holding you back?
Totally agree, unless they meet the same requirements as non-profits
"An atheist group has taken direct aim at the free exercise of religion, attempting to subject churches to the rule of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)"
Sounds like atheist types REALLY aren't for that "Separation" thingy they constantly bitch about.
The strict separation of church and state doesn't mean that churches should be exempt from secular law.
So for you it is OK for the secular government to influence church activities but the churches can do nothing to influence government activity. You do know that keeping the government out of church affairs was the main purpose of the wall if separation .
ooooo…..SORRY !
It either IS....or it ISN'T separation.
There is NO in-between.....unless your into "Picking" !
So, y'all are good with human sacrifice, so long as it's carried out by a religious congregation in accordance with their doctrine?
Or are churches subject to secular law?
The government doesn't get to determine the beliefs or the religious activities of the church. The Supreme Court has already ruled that churches must obey secular law when they ruled that the use of forbidden substances was not part permitted as part of a religious service. US v. Kuch.
Exactly correct.
The Catholic Church should be investigated under the RICO statute as an international criminal org. in the coverup of child sexual abuse.
It Is Me seems to think that churches are exempt from secular law because of the concept of separation of church and state.
I did do that, to Its Me and Arkpdx in 12.1 and 12.1.4. Why did you feel the need to jump in the middle of the discussion?
I would guess this case goes further than their previous ones because they have done a reasonable job of establishing standing. Here, they actually applied for an exemption and were denied, giving them an actual claim of harm done to them by the plaintiff. That's a beginning, at least.
Ultimately, I think the suit is still probably a loser on the merits, though. I think the government will argue that churches are exempt so as to minimize government entanglement in religious organizations. Some may not agree with that assessment, but I think you can argue it and I think courts will hesitate to deny Congress the authority and responsibility to make that determination.
Having said all that, I think it would actually be a good thing if churches filed the form everyone else does. There are so many charities and so many of them (secular and religious) are inefficient or outright corrupt. Transparency would promote confidence in the charity of churches and actually stimulate more giving.
why does it seem the religious always need money and always need exemptions from law(s) ? It's almost as if they can't play by the same "rules" as everyone else or they deem themselves to be "better" than everyone else...