IRS denies tax-exempt status to Christian nonprofit group because 'the Bible's teachings are typically affiliated with the Republican Party'
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Internal Revenue Service denied a Christian nonprofit group tax-exempt status because "the Bible's teachings are typically affiliated with the Republican Party and candidates."
© Provided by Washington Examiner
"Specifically, you educate Christians on what the Bible says in areas where they can be instrumental including the areas of sanctity of life, the definition of marriage, biblical justice, freedom of speech, defense, and borders and immigration, U.S. and Israel relations," read a letter from IRS Exempt Organizations Director Stephen Martin to Christians Engaged, a nonprofit group seeking tax-exempt status. "The Bible teachings are typically affiliated with the [Republican Party] and candidates. This disqualifies you from exemption under IRC Section 501(c)(3)."
Christians Engaged, which bills itself as educational, Christian, and nonpartisan, says its goal is to "awaken, motivate, and empower ordinary believers in Jesus Christ to: pray for our nation and our elected officials regularly, vote in every election to impact our culture, and engage our hearts in some forms of political education or activism for the furtherance of our nation."
The group promises to teach Christians how to "civically engage as part of their religious practice" but makes clear that it does not promote a specific party or candidate.
THE EQUALITY ACT COULD FORCE FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS TO CLOSE THEIR DOORS
But the IRS pointed to the group's leadership, which has members that have been heavily involved in Republican political activities in previous years. The rejection letter also accuses the organization of engaging in "prohibited political campaign intervention" and operating "for a substantial non-exempt private purpose and for the private interests of the [Republican] party."
The First Liberty Institute, which is representing Christians Engaged, responded by sending an appeal letter to the IRS claiming that Martin mischaracterized the organization while violating its First Amendment rights.
"From its religious perspective, Christians Engaged provides nonpartisan religious and civic education, focusing on encouraging and educating Christians to be civically engaged as a part of their religious practice," the appeal reads.
Lea Patterson, who serves as counsel with First Liberty Institute, argued that the IRS could use the same justification to shut down any number of Christian nonprofit groups currently active in the country.
"If the IRS going forward thinks that Bible teaching is Republican-affiliated, then that could endanger the tax-exempt status of many religious organizations — including potentially churches, which obviously teach the Bible with some frequency," Patterson said in an interview with Breitbart News on Saturday.
Patterson further pointed out that the IRS has allowed tax-exempt status for other similar organizations in the past, including a nonprofit group started by former first lady Michelle Obama called When We All Vote.
"To change the culture around voting and to increase participation in each and every election by helping to close the race and age gap. Created by Michelle Obama, When We All Vote brings together individuals, institutions, brands, and organizations to register new voters across the country and advance civic education for the entire family and voters of every age to build an informed and engaged electorate for today and generations to come. We empower our supporters and volunteers to take action through voting, advocating for their rights, and holding their elected officials accountable," reads that group's mission statement.
"Denying tax-exempt status for Christians Engaged while recognizing the exempt status of other organizations who encourage civic engagement from different viewpoints demonstrates the IRS's impermissible viewpoint discrimination," Patterson said in the appeal letter.
Patterson also argued the IRS was breaking protocol by assuming a Bible-centered group is aligned with Republicans, pointing to President Joe Biden's Catholic beliefs as an example of biblical teachings holding weight in the Democratic Party.
"The IRS states in an official letter that Biblical values are exclusively Republican. That might be news to President Biden, who is often described as basing his political ideology on his religious beliefs," Patterson said.
Patterson said that the hope is the IRS will grant the appeal and allow Christians Engaged to operate as tax-exempt but promised the group was prepared to take the fight to federal court if forced to do so.
"Our client's hope is that they get approved and recognized as a 501(c)(3)," Patterson said.
Tags:News, IRS, Christianity, Republican Party, Joe Biden, Michelle Obama
Original Author:Michael Lee
Original Location:IRS denies tax-exempt status to Christian nonprofit group because 'the Bible's teachings are typically affiliated with the Republican Party'
Tags
Who is online
453 visitors
Well, does this mean that Biden was actually paying attention during the Obama Administration's tenure?
Is the IRS doing the Democratic Party's bidding now?
What is with the IRS targeting conservatives and Christian groups now?
It's not, it's targeting 501 c3's that are prohibited from supporting political candidates, as a result of the Johnson Amendment enacted in 1954. Section 501(c)(3) organizations are subject to limits on lobbying, having a choice between two sets of rules establishing an upper bound for their lobbying activities.
When their websites stated platform practically mirrors the Republican party platform and they say their donations are spent praying for politicians that share their values and motivating Christians to vote for those politicians that share their values, they are obviously a group that is supporting Republican candidates and trying to get others to vote for those Republican candidates which is in violation of the 501 c3 rules.
I can see their desire to skirt the rules and claim they are non-partisan, but does anyone actually think they will be supporting Democratic candidates? Really?
The abuses by the IRS continues with a different Democratic President.
I wouldn't associate a religious ideology being identified exclusively with a political group. But if a religious organization wants tax exempt status, they need to adhere to the IRS rules.
No they don't. The rules for tax exempt status are there for a reason, the attempt to 'hem and haw' your way around the rules so that the rules don't apply to Republican conservative Christians is obvious.
The abuses by conservative Christians who don't think the rules should apply to them continues.
If this was an atheist group that said they were non-partisan but also said they would be supporting political candidates and political parties that espoused atheist values, supported candidates who are pro-choice, pro-lgtbq rights, pro-marijuana legalization, pro-equal pay for women and supported BLM and civil rights movements and the political candidates who share those values, would you truly believe they were "non-partisan" and should be tax exempt?
Some of the keywords used by Lois Lerner to red flag 501c3's for further review were "progressive" "medical marijuana" and "occupy" so even back then the IRS was simply trying to take a short cut to get the end result of weeding out ineligible non-profits.
FFS, the IRS admitted to targeting conservative groups based on really nothing more than their names.
We have heard the IRS make these claims before about conservative groups. That doesn't make the claims true, as we found out.
They admitted to targeting many different groups based on the names that would red flag the account since the name implied it had some political intention including "progressive" "medical marijuana" and "occupy" among others. In the end none were actually denied their status based on the keywords so that bullshit conservatives narrative was a bunch of hot air that apparently they're still fucking blowing.
It actually happened so I don't see where you can call it bullshit.
The IRS targeted groups and may still be doing so.
And only some progressive groups were ultimately rejected.
This certainly looks like a political group trying to use religion as a tax dodge. I'm sure you'll update us when the appeal is resolved.
They tried to use keywords to red flag any groups that were violating the rules. The red flag did not automatically kill their tax exempt status, it just kicked it into a "closer scrutiny" bin to save labor at the IRS. Obviously, even though they were simply trying to save time, it backfired and gave dumb shit conservatives ammunition to cry "victim! We're victims over here! Victim! Victim!" even while they completely ignored the fact that they weren't the only ones targeted, but they sure as hell made it seem that way.
Now they are just reviewing each and every one without using any quick and easy "keyword" to red flag offenders. Just because they're not using the keywords doesn't mean they're not supposed to be doing their jobs of checking for eligibility, and this political activist group got caught, boo hoo.
I wonder why so few people seem to wonder WHY the IRS targeted any groups based on names alone when not one single group was denied? Surely, based on the IRS criteria, at least ONE group with a name that qualified for extra scrutiny would be denied. And what of the applications slow-walked based on their names?
Look, I could understand if they had a bunch of applications that had been denied already and had similar names or key words in their names. That would be a pattern. Perfectly understandable if they targeted groups because of the history.
What the IRS did was NOT that.
Imagine how deluded with partisanship you'd have to be to continue shilling for the IRS after they admitted they improperly scrutinized and targeted conservative groups.
Is the IRS doing the Democratic Party's bidding now?
But it is just fine and dandy that the PMG, The former AG, and current members of congress did and continue to do Trump's bidding, right?
Please stay on topic.
A seriously biased source.
The hard bracket symbols are where the article writer put in what he wanted it to say. Not what was in the original writing. Why? Are the readers of the Washington Examiner too stupid to understand an unedited version of the ruling OR does the author want to sway the reader to make it look like the IRS is biased where as the IRS is saying the group is biased. Why isn't there a link to the letter and this group's filing so we can read it unbiased and make up our own minds?
A 501(c)(3) cannot be used for lobbying, propaganda, legislative activity, activity that intervenes in political campaigns or endorses/opposes a candidate of public office.
Just got to love it when all someone can do is complain about the source.
I won't objectively comment on an issue that is so subjectively slanted in the article that it has to re-write parts of it for the intended audience.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The seeded article is very self explanatory as to why the exemption was denied to this group. The seeder doesnt want to accept that fact.
The seeded article is slanted heavily to the right as is the whole Washington Examiner propaganda site. As more investigation was warranted (and provided by the seeder) is seems relatively easy to conclude the IRS sees the group, Christians Engaged, as a political group and not a religious group. The Newsweek article does report the lawyers for the group have filed an appeal. We'll see if the appeal holds up.
[deleted]
Newsweek has a similar article if that source makes you feel better.
The facts didn't change, however.
At least the Newsweek article explains what was cut out with the hard brackets and further explains the rejection.
They are breaking the rules they don't get tax exempt status. As I put above a 501(c)(3) cannot be used for lobbying, propaganda, legislative activity, activity that intervenes in political campaigns or endorses/opposes a candidate of public office.
Your article seeded submits the only reason for the rejection is that it favors the Republican Party - which I admit is stated, but isn't the only reason which isn't stated in your article. The letter - accourding to the Newsweek also clarifies -
Considering I personally don't know what this group has to say specifically on any one issue, I could see an honest appeal on this merit - AND AN APPEAL has been filed, but I don't think they will get it.
For others that care -
It's way past time to end tax exemptions for any and all religious organizations, regardless of political affiliations.
Never going to happen.
Just a liberal pipedream.
Yet, that is exactly what is happening. They are not getting away with calling what is basically a political lobbying group a religious organization just to get tax exempt status. Good job IRS!
That is bullshit. Religious exemptions are not ending. Get fucking real.
Wouldn't be surprised if the appeal is successful and the IRS ends up apologizing.
It's happened before.
Are you just pretending to not understand or are you really incapable of understanding that organizations which are primarily political are not supposed to get tax exemptions meant for religious groups?
i understand it perfectly.
You realize what post I first responded to on this thread, right?
The one about tax exemptions ending for religious organizations? I said it ain't going to happen.
Do you seriously think they are ending?
You get that a church is a religious organization?
I didn't think you were pretending to be dumb.
But, thanks for clearing that up for everyone...
That makes almost as little sense as your original comment did.
As more and more Christian groups become politically active they risk violating the existing rules for tax exemption which is what John is talking about, and he's right. While the tax exempt status for purely religious non-political Churches exist, more and more Churches seem to be getting into the politics game which is putting their tax exempt status at risk. If they would just stick to religion they can keep their exempt status, but many think it's now their right to engage in politics. And while it's any group or religions right to engage in politics they do not have a "right" to tax exempt status if they make that choice.
You won't live long enough to see an end to tax-free status for religious organizations.
Neither will I.
That reminds me of something said by the late, great, George Carlin: "If churches want to play the game of politics, let them pay admission like everyone else."
Yeah, religious tax exemptions are bullshit.
Does that include those of Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims, and Native Americans?
Having read the article, it is NOT AT ALL difficult to understand why the IRS would turn this group down for an exemption.
There are many lessons that could be taught from the Bible, and from both a liberal or conservative viewpoint.
Yet this groups Bible lessons it wants to impart to people line up almost exactly with the political platform of the Republican Party.
It is baffling that this group or those who support them here think they have a case against the IRS.
And I'll bet the same people who think there is no case here didn't think the IRS did anything wrong under Obama even after the IRS ADMITTED to wrongdoing!
Meh, unless you organization is a straight up charity where 90% + of the proceeds go to actually helping people, then I don’t think you should qualify for tax exempt status to begin with.
100% agree!
That is why they were denied and it is about time the IRS stopped allowing political organizations to abuse tax exemptions only meant for actual religious groups...