General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShouldn't churches be taxed if they weigh in on secular "issues"?
It's my understanding that religion/church is forbidden to support a particular candidate however can support, or not support, a particular issue without fear of losing their tax exempt status.
Why is this?
Why are they allowed to weigh in on political issues (law) and still retain their tax exempt status?
--
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)their product should not be produced/distributed tax-free.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Some mega-churches have bookstores with full-time staff. They sell inspirations books and other paraphernalia just like any other bookstore. No reason for them to get the advantage of operating tax-free (unlike to their for-profit competitors).
Unless they can PROVE that any "profit" from their operations is reinvested in genuinely charitable activities. Six-figure salaries for the pastors do NOT count.
mark eagledove
(76 posts)totally agree
Walk away
(9,494 posts)The separation of church and state is about ideology, not profits and losses.
Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)They're free to spew any bullshit on any issue.
That's my understanding.
Tax 'em anyways. They're a major potential revenue source.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Churches support liberal causes, too.
You are attempting to re-define the separation of church and state, which is already established in law. Why are you trying to expand the separation? That is the real question.
Freddie
(9,275 posts)But the second a church starts telling their members how to vote, they should be taxed!
SHRED
(28,136 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)Do you have an answer to the question I asked?
forestpath
(3,102 posts)Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Goddam Bastard!
Logical
(22,457 posts)Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Or maybe that shit-stain Al Sharpton?
How about Jimmy Carter, damned Bible-thumping Sunday School Teacher!
Then there's....uh....every fucking member of the Kennedy Family!
Oooo, that creep Daniel Berrigan and also the Nuns on the Bus. They piss me off so much.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Probably not just that blanket condemnations (like the one I was replying to) are typically wrong-headed and otherwise just plain wrong. Probably not that assuming all members of a group share the worst characteristics of some members of the group is pretty much the dictionary definition of prejudice. Probably not that at all.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)which is the language in the 501(c)(3) statute.
Here's a good read on those lines, and how to step across them:
http://www.nonprofitrisk.org/library/articles/How_to_Lose_Your_Tax_Exempt_Status.shtml
kwassa
(23,340 posts)that is a bizarre leap of logic.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)How else is their faith supposed to relevant in their lives if they can't apply it to the world around them? So long as the church does not advocate for or against a candidate or a campaign, they are allowed to discuss current events. Bear in mind that every liberal advocacy group, such as Planned Parenthood and others, also makes statements on social issues. But they do not engage in direct political advocacy.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)That by doing so, they cross the line into political activity or electioneering?
Not sure, since you didn't specify.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Why should he lose his tax-exempt status?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/national-cathedral-gun-control-rev-gary-hall_n_2313328.html
WASHINGTON -- The dean of the Washington National Cathedral, the Very Rev. Gary Hall, vowed on Sunday to mobilize the nation's faith communities to fight the influence of pro-gun lobbying groups and advocate for stronger gun control laws. In a morning sermon delivered to more than 1,000 congregants in Northwest Washington, D.C., Hall said, "Everyone in this city seems to live in terror of the gun lobby. But I believe the gun lobby is no match for the cross lobby."
Hall delivered his sermon in the wake of Friday's massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., a tragedy that has horrified the nation and reignited the debate over gun control laws.
An ordained Episcopal priest, Hall presides over an institution that Congress has designated as the National House of Prayer. But in Sunday's sermon, Hall placed the Cathedral in a rare position at the center of a contentious political debate. If we are truly Americas National Cathedral, as we say we are, then we must become the focal point of faithful advocacy of gun control, calling our leaders to courageous action and supporting them as they take it," Hall said.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)501(c)(3) organizations can engage in limited amounts of lobbying. If they organization engages in "substantial" lobbying -- typically (but not exclusively) measured by a percentage of the organization's gross expenditures -- then it could lose its tax exempt status. For a pastor to stand in the pulpit and denounce another lobbying group is something that has no dollar value and would not likely be cause for review by the IRS.
Jack Sprat
(2,500 posts)If the minister, priest, or rabbi advocates for a political candidate or party, then their tax-exempt status should be forfeited. The congregants should be allowed to act as whistle-blowers.
It's only right and fair. If I have given money in offerings and my church betrays me with political BS offensive to me, then I should be able to report them to the IRS and have action taken to impose taxes upon that church for a year and then a probationary period added to it.
femrap
(13,418 posts)Tax the crap out of all of them....except those that really do good.....and preach that the members must do good.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)2naSalit
(86,822 posts)pnwmom
(109,000 posts)you want to tax the Sierra Club.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)sort of the same way NOW can endorse obama.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Use of these terms can be confusing. Lawyers tend to identify organizations by the relevant section of the Internal Revenue Code, so that there's no ambiguity.
A 501(c)(3) organization is prohibited from endorsing political candidates, and is limited in its lobbying on issues. The organization is not taxed. Donations to the organization may be deducted by the donors on their individual income tax returns, because they are charitable contributions.
A 501(c)(4) organization is also a nonprofit and is also not taxed, but it is permitted to endorse political candidates. Contributions to the organization are not tax-deductible for the donors.
Most churches and other religious organizations in this country are 501(c)(3) entities, as are the Red Cross, various disease-related foundations, and a host of others. Some religious leaders have occasionally gotten carried away and skirted -- or, in my personal opinion, crossed -- the line against endorsements. The IRS has not made a widespread practice of cracking down on such instances.
Some of the organizations mentioned in this thread, such as the Sierra Club and NOW, are 501(c)(4) organizations. If you've been deducting your contributions to them, see your accountant about filing an amended return -- that's an improper deduction. Such organizations (also including the NRA, for example) are allowed to endorse political candidates.
It's a very common practice for a 501(c)(4) organization to set up an affiliated 501(c)(3) foundation, so that donors who want the deduction can make charitable contributions that will get c3 treatment while furthering the goals of the c4 organization. The foundation's funds can be used only for limited purposes, such as litigation. This restriction makes such money less valuable. (You'll sometimes see the terms "hard money" and "soft money" in this context. The hard money is what's harder to raise because the donor can't deduct it; it goes to the c4 organization and can be used with fewer restrictions. The soft money is what goes to the c3 foundation and can be used only for limited purposes. Sound management dictates that soft money be used for any project that qualifies for it, because this preserves the more flexible hard-money funds.)
Often, as in this thread, it's unclear whether "tax the churches" means "treat the churches as c4 rather than c3 entities" or "evict them from section 501 entirely." One point to bear in mind is that there are many, many c3 entities that aren't churches, and any change affecting churches will presumably affect all those other c3's as well.
And, yes, I'm aware of the 501(c)(5) and 501(c)(6) organizations. By omitting them I'm oversimplifying. Practically every sentence of this post is an oversimplification in some respect or other. It's a post, not the book-length treatment that would be required for complete accuracy.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)not trying to be snarky, but there are loads of places where the christian bible (or its interpretations) can bleed into what might be considered secular life. it is really a sticky wicket.
sP