IRS is going after “Non-PC” churches?

No.

I've worked with and for several nonprofits, and this is a universal rule. If you are engaged in political activity or advocacy you do not qualify for nonprofit status. This is a bright red line and well-known and has been this way for many years. It isn't just about religious affiliation.
 
Mr. Coffee said:
No.

I've worked with and for several nonprofits, and this is a universal rule. If you are engaged in political activity or advocacy you do not qualify for nonprofit status. This is a bright red line and well-known and has been this way for many years. It isn't just about religious affiliation.
Click to expand...
If you believe that rule is adjudicated fairly and without bias by the IRS I've got some swamp land in Arizona I'd sell you cheap.
 
reed scott said:
If you believe that rule is adjudicated fairly and without bias by the IRS I've got some swamp land in Arizona I'd sell you cheap.
Click to expand...
Define "fairly". Also remember that churches are already tax-exempt under other rules, and also there is the same 50-year-old ban there, but it is widely and universally ignored, as you no doubt know.

In this case, at least, the rule seems pretty damned clear. The organization in the article was expressly a political advocacy organization. Look at their website: https://christiansengaged.org and amongst the very first words you see are: "Pray Vote Engage" and about half a page down they are talking about "Political Education or Activism", which are all things expressly prohibited under 501(c)(3). This is a no-brainer.
 
Mr. Coffee said:
all things expressly prohibited under 501(c)(3). This is a no-brainer.
Click to expand...
Apparently this requires more of a brain than some possess.

Just espousing religious affiliation or inspiration does not qualify an organization as a church. Claiming tax exempt status as a 501(c)(3) and engaging in political advocacy is expressly disallowed.

It is not a liberal conspiracy against insurrectionist/conservatives. If it is enforced more often against right wing organizations, it is due to the fact that they are more inclined to flout the law, feeling entitled to ignore it because of the "holiness" of their cause.
 
I'm sorry, I feel compelled to post on this topic again. This is largely because I saw and found something on their website that makes my blood boil.

If you look at their donation page, you will see the language:

Christians Engaged is a Texas 501(3)c nonprofit corporation in the process of applying for 501(c)3 status. We are educational, Christian, and non-partisan.
Click to expand...

The technical term for the above is fraud. A person in good faith might conclude that their donation is tax deductible, but because of the IRS ruling it most certainly is not. At a minimum this will make a mess of a donor's tax returns. The number one rule of non-profits is do not ever screw over donors.

One might argue that because the article quoted in the OP is so recent, this ruling might be recent as well. To that I have two things to say: one is that it isn't that hard to update a web page and the needed language could be updated in minutes, and the other is that we don't know when the organization (I will not use their name) in question received the ruling, given the fact that they have apparently engaged another organization to sue the IRS on their behalf tells me it was quite some time ago.

So, Christian or not, these people are morally the equivalent of people who put up gofundme pages for their cancer treatments and never had cancer.
 
Actually this thread is not about churches but tax deductible 501(c)(3) charitable organizations which in this case is religiously affiliated, something that is completely legal. What is not legal is for qualified charitable organizations religious or otherwise to engage in political advocacy.

Furthermore, what @Mr. Coffee coffee points out that ,having their 501(c)(3) status denied, they are still claiming legal tax exempt status on their website donation page, a clear fraud. As a result, any tax payer who donates and deducts that donation is liable personally for tax fraud. Not exactly "Christian" behavior as I understand it.
 
The simple solution to eliminate widespread institutional tax exempt fraud is to phase out and eliminate tax exempt status and associated deductions for contributions to non-profits, religious and otherwise.
 
EMGX said:
The simple solution to eliminate widespread institutional tax exempt fraud is to phase out and eliminate tax exempt status and associated deductions for contributions to non-profits, religious and otherwise.
Click to expand...
It’s a load of bs that any org gets tax exempt status as it’s just another way to launder money.
 
or in chic hues cases they would have to show where their money went if it isa actually spent on charity and such note ink the mega churches buying al the stuff they buy.
 
EMGX said:
The simple solution to eliminate widespread institutional tax exempt fraud is to phase out and eliminate tax exempt status and associated deductions for contributions to non-profits, religious and otherwise.
Click to expand...
Dallant said:
It’s a load of bs that any org gets tax exempt status as it’s just another way to launder money.
Click to expand...
No, just no. Also, please describe and define "widespread". There are also a lot of good organizations from swim teams to outdoor education programs and more that provide substantial benefits to their members and customers and society at large at little cost to the public and are typically incorporated as non-profits.

The major advantage of a 501(c)(3) is not that the organization is not taxed, it is that donations are tax-deductible.

Keep in mind that for-profit entities like S Corporations and LLCs are also not taxed.

Keep in mind also that a (normal) C Corporation is only taxed on profit. If they are a rapidly growing business and investing revenue in hiring new employees, developing new products, and otherwise expanding their business they may not turn a profit and therefore pay no tax. The practical limit on such behavior is that investors in a C corporation expect to get their money back eventually, and in order to pay back investors they have to show a profit and pay investors using dividends (which under normal sane accounting and tax rules can only come from profits).

Anyway, the organization mentioned in the OP is made of up of very bad people. As an additional bonus, they ask for churches to donate to their cause as well. I leave it to your imagination what happens to the non-profit status of a church if they directly donate to an organization which does not have non-profit status. These people are causing, or attempting to cause, a great deal of harm. So no matter what their intentions or advocacy they are toxic.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Coffee said:
No, just no.
Click to expand...
Yes, just yes. Eliminating the exempt status would reduce the impetus for fraud and abuse that this tax statute encourages as well as the "good vs bad" people and motives judgments that are often fundamentally politically and culturally biased. Widespread, of course, just take a look around including, but certainly not limited overt political overtones (politicians stumping from pulpits) to uber highly paid non-profit executives and waste even in organizations with exemplary charters/causes. Eliminating tax exempt status doesn't mean that these organizations can't exist, just that the govt and taxpayers aren't subsidizing their activities. US debt currently stands at somewhere around 30 trillion dollars, which is unpayable by any reasonable standard and the govt borrows money to even pay interest on that debt. Time is long past for the US to become fiscally responsible and this would be a small step in the right direction. And end silly arguments about who and whose cause is right and good vs who/whose is wrong and bad as exemplified in this thread.
 
EMGX said:
Try reading the title of the thread.
Click to expand...
I read it and also read the article. Try reading the article cited and tell me if the title is well chosen.

The OP went for an alarming, attention getting title instead of a one that accurately stated the issue in the article. It had nothing to do with churches but rather a denial of tax exempt charity status to an organization with a religious bent engaged in politics.

Even Jerry Falwell kept the Thomas Road Baptist Church and his political advocacy group, The Moral Majority, separate...the former being tax exempt and the later not.
 
EMGX said:
Eliminating the exempt status would reduce the impetus for fraud and abuse that this tax statute encourages as well as the "good vs bad" people and motives judgments that are often fundamentally politically and culturally biased.
Click to expand...
Note that I have never criticized the mission of this organization, just that how they are running their business is screwing over their donors. Which is a bad thing.

I don't think we are ever going to agree on the subject of not-for-profits and the arcane world of corporations and the various flavors they come in. I'd just emphasize that there are a lot of services these organizations provide in our society and eliminating them would likely have unpleasant unintended consequences. Remember that it is one thing to burn down a s*it house, but another entirely to install indoor plumbing. And you probably want to have at least a start on that plumbing before starting that fire.
 
Most non profits provide support to health, cultural, education, recreational and other beneficial projects largely outside the purview of government. However as donations are tax deductible, a portion of each individual's contribution is an amount of tax revenue that is not paid in the form of taxes to government.

It is totally legitimate to encourage people to support charitable project that are private sector driven rather than bogged down in government bureaucracy. As a practical reality when non profits get too big they tend to spend a higher percentage of their revenues on bureaucracy, the American Red Cross being a prime example with huge amounts spent on executive salaries and perks. Tightening limits on what qualifying 501(c)(3)s can spend on salaries and marketing does make sense. Eliminating the substantial incentive for giving, represented by the tax deduction would eliminate many vibrant, private sector programs that enrich our society.
 
Did you know the Sierra Club is not a 501c3 nonprofit, so donations to them are not tax deductible? I was surprised to learn that last year, but it makes sense since it frees them up to do political work.

(Donations to ourforestfund.org are tax deductible btw, in case you need some tax deductions... 🙂)
 
ChezCheese:) said:
Did you know the Sierra Club is not a 501c3 nonprofit, so donations to them are not tax deductible? I was surprised to learn that last year, but it makes sense since it frees them up to do political work.

(Donations to ourforestfund.org are tax deductible btw, in case you need some tax deductions... 🙂)
Click to expand...
Many churches are now dropping 501c3 or new churches are eschewing it. There IS a constitutional argument that churches are exempt from taxation constitutionally. It's out there on the inter webs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
UPDATE: [#11] X52.. The 1000watt rear hub motor “grindage” fiasco explained.. FINALLY!!
Replies
3
Views
1K
Urbancowboy
Urbancowboy
smorgasbord
Ultra Tuning: Where other guides go wrong
2
Replies
24
Views
7K
Nvreloader
N
S
Derestricting a Shimano STEPS E-Bike
Replies
4
Views
13K
gehu
G
smorgasbord
Ultra Tuning: Setting up PAS levels in the Basic Tab
2
Replies
32
Views
9K
Nvreloader
N
S
[#15][M2S ebike] A 60volt Reention Dorado-casing battery on a 48volt ebike-- WOW!!!
Replies
1
Views
2K
Kayakguy
K
Back