Congress, Constitutional Law, Politics, Religion, Society

Group Challenges Different Treatment By IRS of Religious and Non-Religious Groups

170px-rembrandt_harmensz-_van_rijn_079-1The Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) has filed a lawsuit with the Internal Revenue Service that raises an interesting question. The group challenges the government’s different treatment of religious and non-religious non-for-profit organizations. While tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations must file a detailed application form, fee and annual information to obtain and maintain their tax-exempt status, churches and other religious organizations are exempted from the requirement to file the reports and fees. The lawsuit alleges that the added expensive and detailed paperwork is a form of discrimination against non-religious groups.

The lawsuit does raise a valid question of why such forms are not uniformly required or waived for all groups. An atheist group is presumably not treated as falling under a religious exception despite that fact that it is an alternative to such faith organizations. The lawsuit alleges that “[t]he preferential treatment provided to churches and other affiliated religious organizations constitutes an exclusive and discriminatory benefit to religion in violation of the Establishment Clause, as well as the equal protection rights required by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” states the lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Madison.

The lawsuit seeks a court order to stop the IRS “from continuing to exempt churches and other affiliated religious organizations from the application and annual information filings required of all other non-profit organizations under §501(c)(3).”

Notably, the IRS Commissioner is accused of a non-enforcement policy with regards to electioneering by churches:

200px-IRS

In fact, however, the Internal Revenue Service, under the direction of the
Defendant Shulman, has followed and continues to follow a policy of non-enforcement of the
electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3) against churches and other religious organizations.
22. As a result, in recent years, churches and religious organizations have been
blatantly and deliberately flaunting the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3), including during
the presidential election year of 2012. Illinois Bishop Daniel Jenky, for example, required that a
partisan letter be read by every celebrating priest in the diocese to congregants the weekend
before the recent Presidential election.

What do you think?

Here is the lawsuit.

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., as its Complaint against the
Defendant, Douglas Shulman, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, alleges as follows:
1. The Plaintiff, Freedom From Religion Foundation (“FFRF”), seeks a Declaration
under 28 U.S.C. §2201 that the Defendant, Douglas Shulman (“Shulman”), in his capacity as
Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), has violated, continues to violate, and
will continue to violate in the future, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States by failing to enforce the electioneering restrictions of
§501(c)(3) of the Tax Code against churches and religious organizations. The Defendant’s
actions also violate the Plaintiff’s Equal Protection rights.
2. Plaintiff requests the Court to enjoin the Defendant Shulman from continuing a
policy of non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions against churches and religious
organizations. The Plaintiff also requests the Court to order the Defendant to authorize a high
ranking official within the IRS to approve and initiate enforcement of the restrictions of
§501(c)(3) against churches and religious organizations, including the electioneering restrictions,
as required by law.
3. This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 with
respect to the relief sought against the Defendant Shulman. The Court also has the authority to
issue a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. §2201. The Court further has the authority to
award injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §1443 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.
4. The United States has waived sovereign immunity, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.§702, for
actions that seek specific relief other than money damages, as in this case.
5. Venue is appropriate in the District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(e), where FFRF has its principal office.
6. The Plaintiff is a tax-exempt non-profit organization under §501(c)(3) of the Tax
Code, and as such, FFRF must and does abide by the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3).
7. The Plaintiff is a non-profit membership organization that advocates for the
separation of Church and State and educates on matters of non-theism. The Plaintiff has more
than 19,000 members, residing in every state of the United States, as well as the District of
Columbia.
8. FFRF represents and advocates on behalf of its members throughout the United
States.
9. FFRF’s membership includes individuals who are federal tax-payers who are
opposed to government preferences and favoritism toward religion.
10. The Defendant Shulman is the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service,
with a principal address of 1111 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20224; the
Defendant Shulman is sued in his official capacity.
11. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution prohibits governmental preference for, endorsement of, and discrimination in favor
of religion.
12. Section 501(c)(3) of the Tax Code prohibits all non-profit organizations,
including churches and other religious organizations, from intervening in political campaigns as
a condition of their tax-exempt status.
13. All organizations that are recognized as exempt from federal income tax under
§501(c)(3) of the Tax Code are subject to the prohibition against political campaign intervention.
14. All organizations, including churches and religious organizations, that are exempt
from federal income tax under §501(c)(3) of the Tax Code are prohibited from participating or
intervening, directly or indirectly, in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any
candidate for elective public office.
15. The restrictions of §501(c)(3) on electioneering activities do not preclude
discussions of issues that are not linked to support for or opposition to candidates; the fact that
candidates may align themselves on one side or another of an issue does not restrict the ability of
religious organizations to engage in discussions of that issue.
16. A discussion of issues violates the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3) of the
Tax Code if the discussion contains overt support for or opposition to a particular candidate.
17. Factors relevant to determining whether an advocacy communication constitutes
impermissible campaign intervention include: (a) whether the communication identifies one or
more candidates for a public office; (b) whether the communication expresses approval or
disapproval of one or more candidates’ positions and/or actions; (c) whether the communication
is delivered close in time to an election; (d) whether the statement makes reference to voting or
an election; and (e) whether the issue addressed in the communication has been raised as an issue
distinguishing candidates for a given office.
18. The electioneering prohibition of §501(c)(3) applies to tax-exempt organizations,
including churches and religious organizations, and to the actions of individuals, including clergy
or other religious leaders, acting as representatives of tax-exempt organizations; the prohibition
of §501(c)(3) does not apply to the political activities of clergy or other religious leaders
undertaken in their individual capacities.
19. The Internal Revenue Service follows special procedures before commencing
inquiries about potential violations of §501(c)(3) by a church or religious organization.
20. The IRS may initiate a tax inquiry of a church or religious organization if a highranking
IRS official documents in writing the acts and circumstances, including potential
violations of the electioneering prohibition, that lead the official to reasonably believe that the
Church may have violated the requirements for tax exemption under §501(c)(3).
21. In fact, however, the Internal Revenue Service, under the direction of the
Defendant Shulman, has followed and continues to follow a policy of non-enforcement of the
electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3) against churches and other religious organizations.
22. As a result, in recent years, churches and religious organizations have been
blatantly and deliberately flaunting the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3), including during
the presidential election year of 2012. Illinois Bishop Daniel Jenky, for example, required that a
partisan letter be read by every celebrating priest in the diocese to congregants the weekend
before the recent Presidential election.
23. More than 1500 clergy reportedly also violated §501(c)(3) on October 7, 2012, in
a deliberate and coordinated display of noncompliance with the electioneering restrictions of
§501(c)(3), including prominent megachurches.
24. The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association ran blatantly partisan full-page ads in
October of 2012 in the Wisconsin State Journal; the Ministry also ran ads in the New York Times,
USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and more than a dozen national and battle ground state
newspapers before November 6, 2012. The Association also published expressly partisanship
matter on its website at http://www.billygraham.org.
25. Open and notorious violations of the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3) by
churches and other religious organizations have been occurring since at least 2008, with churches
recording their partisan activities and sending the evidence to the IRS.
26. The Internal Revenue Service, however, under the direction and leadership of the
Defendant Shulman, is following a policy and practice of non-enforcement of §501(c)(3) against
churches and religious organizations.
27. The IRS, under the direction of Defendant Shulman, on information and belief,
has failed even to designate an official with authority to initiate enforcement of §501(c)(3)
against churches and other religious organizations.
28. The non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3) against
churches and other religious organizations constitutes preferential treatment to churches and
religious organizations that is not provided to other tax-exempt organizations, including FFRF,
which are required to comply with the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3).
29. The Defendant’s non-enforcement of §501(c)(3) as to churches and religious
organizations provides preferential treatment that is not neutrally available to other tax-exempt
organizations, including the plaintiff FFRF in this case.
30. The non-enforcement of §501(c)(3) as to churches and other religious
organizations by the IRS, under the direction of Defendant Shulman, directly benefits churches
and religious organizations, while discriminating against other non-profit organizations,
including the plaintiff FFRF, solely on the basis of religious criteria.
31. §501(c)(3), as administered by the defendant Shulman, provides preferential
treatment that is not neutral and generally applicable to all tax-exempt organizations.
32. The policy of non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3) as
to churches and religious organizations, by the Defendant Shulman, violates the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment.
33. The preferential treatment of churches and other religious organizations by the
Defendant results in obligations on secular non-profits, including the Plaintiff FFRF, that are not
imposed on churches, which distinction arises exclusively from the application of religious
criteria.
34. The Plaintiff is disadvantaged vis à vis churches and religious organizations by
the Defendant Shulman’s policy of non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions against
churches and other religious organizations.
35. Churches and religious organizations obtain a significant benefit as a result of
being non-exempt from income taxation, while also being able to preferentially engage in
electioneering, which is something secular tax-exempt organizations cannot do.
36. The preferential tax-exemption that churches and other religious organizations
obtain, despite noncompliance with electioneering restrictions, amounts to more than
$100,000,000,000 annually in tax-free contributions made to churches and religious
organizations in the United States.
37. The policy and practice of non-enforcement of electioneering restrictions against
churches and religious organizations by the Defendant Shulman and the Internal Revenue
Service confers benefits solely on the basis of religious criteria, on the basis of which the
Plaintiff FFRF does not qualify solely because of the application of religious criteria.
38. As a result of the discriminatory administration of §501(c)(3) by the Defendant
Shulman and the IRS, the Plaintiff FFRF seeks equal treatment herein in the form of a level
playing field, including by denying such preferential treatment to churches and religious
organizations.
39. The Defendant’s policy of non-enforcement of electioneering restrictions against
churches and other religious organizations has the effect each year of excluding billions of
dollars from taxation and this exclusion is available only to churches and religious organizations
with the concomitant right to also engage in electioneering activities.
40. The tax benefits preferentially provided to churches and other religious
organizations constitute an exclusive and discriminatory subsidy to religion in violation of the
Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff FFRF demands judgment against the Defendant Shulman and
the IRS as follows:
a. Declaring that the policy of the Internal Revenue Service, under the direction
of Defendant Shulman, violates the Establishment Clause and the Due Process
Clause of the United States Constitution by providing preferential treatment to
churches and religious organizations;
b. Enjoining the Defendant Shulman, and the Internal Revenue Service, from
continuing to allow preferential and discriminatory treatment under
§501(c)(3) of the Tax Code exclusively to churches and religious
organizations;
c. Ordering the Defendant Shulman and the IRS to forthwith comply with
necessary steps to designate an IRS official legally authorized to initiate
action against churches and other religious organizations that are reasonably
believed to have violated the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3);
d. Awarding the Plaintiff its reasonable costs and disbursements of this action as
allowed by law;
e. Awarding such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
Dated this 13th day of November 2012.
BOARDMAN & CLARK LLP

Source: Raw Story

82 thoughts on “Group Challenges Different Treatment By IRS of Religious and Non-Religious Groups”

  1. Dear God,

    Thanks for responding to me. You’ve been non-communicative in my life so far.
    You must have much to do being God and all that entails.
    So glad you find time for us here.

    And doing on 615 a month must be tough. Don’t you get better paid fot your work. Who is your employer. We here will make a complaint on your behalf.

    I guess that you have to go to the library to get internet service, the service not being cheap for a 615 a month employee.

    And it is my 5 cents you are spending through my tax contribution, I give it willingly to just avoid having to the drivel said by all the world’s misunderstanding of you.

    Your buddy,
    Devil

  2. idealist what do You call GOD?
    the rich man goes to hell for denying GOD, I skate on natural ice. do you know nature for the next ten thousand years? you seem to be rich in knowledge. does a 707 crash, and burn, like the antichrists want me to fall into.
    you do not tell theories in order to save the planet, but If I were to do every thing MYSELF I certainly wouldn’t need your dumb ass.

    it says that I will destroy the world, and save it, through a nuclear war, that you would not hear about, but…, THE BIBLE says that when the time comes to believe, but, it does not say what to believe in.

    I live on less than $615 a month for over thirteen years, how about you? you must be rich, and I know the ways that congress can’t conceive. you, they, and every church want GOD to live in shame.

    but to reflect on the past, I gave you, and every person on the planet the opportunity to repent.

    but that did not work either.

    does irreparable anarchy ring a bell? I warned you on a global level you won’t see this coming, the pope is only one of those who are forcing their mark. I have a thousand years to destroy satan and you and your family will be in hell. I Own the computer your looking at, the chair your sitting in, and the planet the holds them up. all you have to do to deny ME is to think against ME in any fashion…

    like I said, the only way that you will know for sure that I am real IS TO DIE.

    all idealistic ways will come to an end. with all those theologians out there it is extremely confusing even to the best atheist on the planet. but every religion was told to describe the five sooth stones in HEAVEN. they all GOD. they (laugh all you want to) were fired over four years ago but politicians like to use religion to get elected. look at how the world abuses religion!

    did I forget to tell you again, that all religious institutions are supposed to have been closed for over four years. so when does the 42 months start that is written? are you aN ace?

    even though it is written that I would be a Ranger, and fail at everything I did. the world has JESUS returned as I promised. but those that say that through GOD all things are possible and that they will die before they will give up their Preachiings, or leave MY property, you have to know that every time you pass by any religious institution you sinned, and that you have spoken against GOD every time you pass, just like those who are trespassing ON MY KINGDOM.

    so whenever you get up from your chairs, go look up at the stars and ask yourself, what is up there and who owns them. this universe is hanging in this huge mass of absolutely total darkness, and nothing.

    nobody knows where the hell it goes to but, the idealist wants GOD or the people to knuckle under to his, or their own personal beliefs, church, religion, politicians, or government. all christians want GOD or JESUS to come to their church so WE can watch them eat JESUS. now! that is some seriously twisted shit! while outside of the known universe you won’t even find bacteria. there is only one way to prove ME wrong. and, watch out for the natural ice.

    so laugh all you want all you good people. if your perfect nobody likes you either.

    I think somebody got fired for that.

  3. God or whatever you call yourself,

    A small quibble: you forgot “rich man” in getting into heaven.

    What kind of ice do you skate on? good skating. watch out for natural ice.

  4. of all the different religions that are attended, they are great speakers. nobody sees it coming. as an example, no church has given GOD anything, and churches tell you that I am the antichrist, while the congresses of the world are telling you they will fix something, they go to see their own religions…, and speak against GOD by silence.

    If GOD created man, then what will the religions, and the IRS tell GOD when they die. by what authority, does any religion have, that PROVES anybody goes to heaven. the clergy used to preach, it is easier for a camel to fly through the eye of a needle than it is for man to get into get into the Kingdom Of God. this is the case, the religions are the ones that are deceiving…

    what authority does the irs have over GOD, when it is written that you have the chosen ones here who will set things rite. so the screw the national day of prayer. you’re supposed to pray every day! of all the people that died in the last year can you give one name, of one that got into HEAVEN, while the population is increasing by over 70,000,000 a year.

    did congress give you another band-aid? do they go to any religious ceremonies that are against GOD? after all they have given ME Nothing as their churches tell them in their ‘harming weighs. I said that all religious institutions will be closed so as to stop the fraud. your political leaders are digging deeper every day. that may take decades to recover from on a global level.

    knowing that JESUS was announced in arizonia in the eighties like the rumor, like it is written, and…

    …with the days it would take to explain all of the above…

    I AM going ice skating as I do, instead of telling you every time someone’s scratching their nuts. it takes to long.

    the abyss is growing faster, and faster with every birth…

  5. Woosty,

    Thanks for the laugh. Seeking brevity can leave something unclear, but a good laugh is enjoyed. Just my kind of humor.

    I have not stats, only headlines and articles. But where are yours to prove that most churches don’t. And if you have proof, does that excuse the churches that DO, and thus should forfeit their tax exemption according to law?

    A constitutional point or two: My knowledge increases here hopefully.

    1. “Congress shall make no law…….” Congress or the State does not sanctify churches or religions. It grants them full freedom to practice within the constraints of the !aw except for forbidden practices: ie human sacrifice, literal cannibalism, multiple wives, pedophilic practices, etc.

    The law however ensnared us all and the churches too by using its interstate commerce regulation power to justify taxation, and thereafter taxation laws to use arbitrarily

    So in view of the latter uses/abuses of the taxation power, there are greater beasts to slay than church exemptions. Although it does sully their religions in my eyes. But who am I, whích we all can say.

  6. ” She cracked her nuts.”
    🙂
    that mayt be my favorite line in any post here ever ….

    “Let us return to 501c3 status., It is guarded by restrictions from Caesar.
    The church ignores these: it functions politically to selected candidates advantage/disadvantage. It functions as a launderer of political monies, and a conduit for initiation and distribution of political propaganda.” ~ Id
    —
    I disagree and where’s your proof?

    Firstly, in the USA, there is no ‘Church’ per se…..there is a freedom of religion and a number of thereby sanctified by the State Churches. There is an understanding that ‘Church’ functions separate to but not completely Independant of the State. There are most probably sub-contexts of that statement ie; ‘this or that particular Church was found to be operating outside of the understanding of the law thereby endangering thier tax-exempted status.’ Just like non-Church non-profit groups whose functions may appear similiar to Churches but who are not products of religious charter…and whose rules are also different, and who may also fall outside the rules and endanger their tax status….

    to simplify,

    nosiree bud, the Church I attend does not do those things and also the majority of Churches don’t either….

  7. Woosty,

    What a charming Woosty special. I am honored, honestly.

    Take away the first two sentences and the following we can agree on.
    And I do agree that putting the church at the mercies of arbitrarily and politically controlled taxation burden might be going too far——although that is what the church endures now by seeking and receiving 5001c3 exemption.

    The church does render unto Caesar. I won’t pull out the long list of reasons why there are and should not be churchs. We remember them all I believe.

    Let us return to 501c3 status., It is guarded by restrictions from Caesar.
    The church ignores these: it functions politically to selected candidates advantage/disadvantage. It functions as a launderer of political monies, and a conduit for initiation and distribution of political propaganda.
    All of which are forbidden by the State. On forfeit of 501 protection, I presume, as punishment. Perhaps retroactively if a proper investigation is done.

    So who are the violators here? The church or those calling for rigorous enforcement?

    As for science fiction movies: I prefer document films which show chimps showing altrism, a trait not commonly seen in them in their world.
    The one I’m thinking of, shows a mother ape, with babe in arms, pleading with hand gestures for loan of the nutcracking stone from the huge male owner.
    He left it and turned away. She cracked her nuts.

    If you believe genesis, then discussing the whens and hows of the Golden Rule, in all its versions, is a fruitless task. Accdg to the Bible, man was created fixed and immutable to change by God. And evolution is a blasphemy, if that is the right word.

    And a personal happy new year to you and your cats. Keep on fighting our oppression and for respect for nature around us.

  9. My morals are mine. My guidelines to a worthy life are mine.
    And the Golden Rule was found by man, long before humanity.
    No church or religion has a monopoly on charity, love, etc. anymore than I have. Nor do I seek followers to support me or my movement.
    But churchs wish us to pay its way with tax exemption. It need the common support of our infrastructure, etc just as we secular one do. But it does not contribute. How is that fair? ~Id
    ——————————-
    Dear Id, if not for the Church, you would be owned by the State, with no room for doubt. It is the possibility of the Church to live alongside the State that gives the possibility of a life – full. Government, the State, has morphed from a creation of the people for their edification and protection and possibilty of fullfillment to a thing that seemingly has as its goal, the foundational edict to control and exploit them….hence the dysfunction in Washington, the bloated Military whose weapons ake so many in Washington rich whilst sucking the lifeblood from those who are now choked under its so called protections. Please, my soul is not yours to either take or give….
    And FYI, the Church is Free From the State….and so you have freedom of Religion, and that includes freedom FROM Religion as well. YOU do not have to partake but forcing the Church to it’s knees weakens the freedom of the people and does indeed weaken the foundation of the State.

    The ridiculous moaning and groaning about tax exemption blah blah blah is nothing more than poking a dog with a stick to hide something else, perhaps of a more secular profit based motive?

  11. rlblaty,

    I fail from your petition or from Wikipedia to see any motives for political steered injustice in his case.

    He was trying to make a buck, broke fed law and got time for it.

    His theory is full of BS, confutable BS.::::3 weeks to create the Grand Canyon, that the weak powers of polar magnetism could counter the kinetic energy of the meteor and concentrate remnants to the polar regions where they neatly fell, that dinosaurs lived at the same time as human. WTF would humans lived on then————Completely ignorant blather.

    You hopefully notice that I don’t take the Bible seriously. Do you?

    1. Idealist707,

      Yeah, a lot of people kinda think that way about Kent and his notions.

      Alas, HE CLAIMS to be a “political prisoner” and not a common tax cheat.

      For all his years of whining about his current predicament, I think it would be neat if the Obama administration would address his case; maybe some time around April 15, 2013.

    2. Here’s a link to a petition to the President as sponsored by his supporters on a private website:

      http://freehovind.com/petition/view

      It gives more details from their perspective.

      The White House sponsored petitions, if you haven’t noticed, are very restrictive as to space limitations both as to the initial request and the following explanatory details. In both my White House sponsored petitions I just about used every space allowed.

      1. Idealist707, et al:

        I thought you might like a followup on the White House sponsored petition regarding IRC 107.

        After we hit the magic 150 mark yesterday, the petition went “public” and “searchable” and there has been a steady increase in numbers; with the current total over 450. About 10 days to get to 150, and then 300 added within the last 24 hours.

        Here’s the direct link to the petition:

        http://wh.gov/QQOh

        If you haven’t already done so, you might want to give consideration to signing on.

  12. I lend my name readily to worthy causes. Part of keeping the gov etc that we are alive and kicking. will go see and then google him.
    Tnx.

  13. rlbaty,

    you needed better instructions than I gave. The text is misleading.
    Suggestions are welcome.

    But they are made at the BOTTOM of the pile, so hope your net and computer are fast. There is a lot to scool by.

    Don’t expect a reply from JT or GBs, seldom seen by me at least. Patience. If no results work at it in the best way you deem.

    1. Idealist707,

      OK, I took your word for it and added a recommendation on the “Corrections” page.

      Here’s that IRC 107 petition page again for ready reference:

      http://wh.gov/QQOh

      But wait, I’ve now set up a second petition after giving up on Kent Hovind’s followers to do so. Wouldn’t you like to see the Obama administration address the alleged political imprisonment of Kent Hovind? Here’s the link to that petition:

      http://wh.gov/U07b

  14. Idealist707,

    I just checked over there, and the “Corrections” section appear to ONLY be for corrections, no ideas for a blog.

    Did I miss something?

    If there is a place here for making suggestions for a stand alone blog regarding the FFRF IRC 107 Challenge, can you be more specific?

  15. rlbaty,

    In case of you not knowing it, the Corrections thread is just for directly suggesting subjects for a blog. Directly to the Professor or Guest Bloggers.

    2. Here’s a bit of trivia for those here who may have a continuing interest in the FFRF IRC 107 Challenge pending in federal district court; the 1st of the 3 cases being commonly referenced in news reports these days.

      Paragraph #38 from the FFRF Complaint (excerpts):

      > 38.
      >
      > The intricacy of the religious questions
      > arising under §107 create entanglement
      > between the government and religion;
      > difficult determinations must be made,
      > for example, as to whether an organization
      > constitutes an integral agency of a church;
      > the IRS has consistently ruled that
      > ordained ministers…at schools that are
      > “integrally” related to churches are
      > performing services within the exercise
      > of a ministry, no matter what they teach;
      > …even basketball coaches…qualify for
      > the benefits of §107 if they are
      > ordained as ministers.

      Compare to my petition explanation (excerpt):

      http://wh.gov/QQOh

      > The IRS has extended the benefits to
      > employees of many private, non-church
      > organizations such as the basketball
      > coach at Pepperdine University.

      Coincidence?

      Maybe someone at the FFRF will explain that historical connection one of these days.

      That administrative extension was courtesy of George H.W. Bush and Omar Burleson who put the squeeze on the IRS back in the Nixon years and as agents of some of their Texas constituents who were coming under fire from the IRS. It’s now been exploited more and more over more than 40 years.

  16. Woosty, keep your soul as it seems to function well. Abandon all hope those who enter a church. Irony and seriously. Did I say batshit and sellouts. Hardly, batshit for religions, and sellouts am not familiar enough to use. Keep up your posts, videos and icons. Marvelous, even if cranky at times. That should be allowed to all here.

    No, I think that I have made the radical case (reallly a rehash of Higgins et al) that religion teaches nonsense based on miraculous happenings, teaches people to be followers not thinkers, and presumes to be the only way to God or being saved in some cases. Balderdash all.

    My morals are mine. My guidelines to a worthy life are mine.
    And the Golden Rule was found by man, long before humanity.
    No church or religion has a monopoly on charity, love, etc. anymore than I have. Nor do I seek followers to support me or my movement.
    But churchs wish us to pay its way with tax exemption. It need the common support of our infrastructure, etc just as we secular one do. But it does not contribute. How is that fair?

    Enough preaching from me.
    Happy New Year.

  17. Ariel,

    Can you remind me of a tax burden from the secular side which burdens unfairly the religioun?
    I find your figures on the degree of redigiousity doubtful, even as estimates.

  19. It is a compelling argument. I’ve a feeling it might make its way to the SCOTUS. Hopefully it will. It could be somewhat of a landmark case if it does.

    1. Darren,

      My opinion, as previously stated, is that the latest case and the one before it have more public relations value for the FFRF than legal merit.

      The FFRF got its experience taking on the IRS with its challenge to IRC 107 and now has expanded its experience with the two latest, less legal meritorious endeavors.

      I think it’s the IRC 107 case that has the greatest prospects of making it to the U.S. Supreme Court, if Congress and the President don’t act and if the FFRF keeps its interest. It’s already set some legal history on the “standing” issue which will, no doubt, be part of any appeal by the Government.

      Hopefully, Turley, et al, will give it some serious consideration in this new year.

      Here’s the direct link to the related White House sponsored petition on the issue.

      http://wh.gov/QQOh

      And don’t forget, Senator Grassley’s commission took note of the problems with IRC 107 but refused to act; instead out-sourcing the issues to Grassley’s friends in the religious community. No telling when they might come back with their recommendations.

Comments are closed.