Ship of Fools: Irs settles with atheists and agrees to crack down on churches for electioneering.

Thread: Irs settles with atheists and agrees to crack down on churches for electioneering. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027456

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Irs settles with atheists and agrees to crack down on churches for electioneering.

Thoughts?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Do you have any thoughts about it? If so, perhaps you could share them in order to get the conversation going...

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

I find it interesting that insted of saying a definite yes or no the IRS seemingly dragged it's feet and just didn't respond for ages. Is this a case of them not wanting to penalise churches? Or is it more likely down to general sluggish bureaucracy we see in a lot of government departments.

Posted by Photo Geek (# 9757) on :

I thinks its simply a result of current US politics. Although there may be some exceptions, most church electioneering is for Republican candidates and takes place in the churches of very conservative denominations. The IRS is already being accused of targeting tea party groups.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
Although there may be some exceptions, most church electioneering is for Republican candidates and takes place in the churches of very conservative denominations. The IRS is already being accused of targeting tea party groups.

AIUI many Afro-American churches also engage in electioneering.

Moo

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

They do engage in electioneering and even more blatantly that predominantly white churches. I'm all for the IRS cracking down on electioneering by churches. Not only is it illegal for any tax exempt organization to endorse a candidate but churches in particular have no business endorsing candidates. Alliance Defending Freedom is wrong. The IRS isn't telling preachers what they can and can't preach. Preachers can still preach sermons on specific moral and political issues (and I think a lot of that goes too far). They just can't endorse candidates. If you want to endorse candidates, then give up your tax exempt status.

Way to go atheists. [Yipee]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
Although there may be some exceptions, most church electioneering is for Republican candidates and takes place in the churches of very conservative denominations. The IRS is already being accused of targeting tea party groups.
AIUI many Afro-American churches also engage in electioneering.

Not quite. Predominantly African-American churches are heavily involved in get-out-the-vote efforts (which are legal for tax-exempt organizations). They're much less often involved in the candidate-endorsement type of electioneering the IRS is dealing with in its current decision.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Traditionally in Chicago certain very large African-American churches were famous for working hand-in-glove with certain machine leaders. So they definitely did it. Mind, the machine worked because almost everyone else did it too. No slur on those churches intended, but it did happen. They still throw pushily political events--I've been to one--but at least the one I went to carefully did not endorse anyone. (It did introduce multiple people who happened to be politicians, but that's probably within bounds because it's unstoppable anyway.)

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

It is impossible to stop a congregation from doing it if they decide to do it. All the IRS can do is provide examples of how not to do it. Communicating from the pulpit is just a very small fraction of the communication that happens in a congregation.

I do pretty much agree with this right here that the church should not break out the ten foot poles.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

So how does it work in practice? Pastor X gets into the pulpit the Sunday before the election and announces that no true Christian can vote for a candidate who favours legal access to abortion and everybody nods sagely but if he points out that the Democratic Candidate for Chief Ratcatcher favours legal access to abortion, the Republic is in mortal peril?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It is impossible to stop a congregation from doing it if they decide to do it.

They're not trying to prevent churches from endorsing specific candidates. They're trying to prevent churches that endorse specific candidates from claiming a tax exemption, said exemption coming as it does with a "don't endorse any specific candidates" condition.

I fail to see the problem, to be honest.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It is impossible to stop a congregation from doing it if they decide to do it.
They're not trying to prevent churches from endorsing specific candidates. They're trying to prevent churches that endorse specific candidates from claiming a tax exemption, said exemption coming as it does with a "don't endorse any specific candidates" condition.

I fail to see the problem, to be honest.

Yes, I know what they are trying to do. They will fail, though.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It is impossible to stop a congregation from doing it if they decide to do it.
They're not trying to prevent churches from endorsing specific candidates. They're trying to prevent churches that endorse specific candidates from claiming a tax exemption, said exemption coming as it does with a "don't endorse any specific candidates" condition.

I fail to see the problem, to be honest.
Yes, I know what they are trying to do. They will fail, though.

It's only a problem if you fail to see the distinction between "a church" (a tax-exempt organization) and "a congregation" (the collective and voluntary members of "a church" who have no special tax status due to that membership).

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
So how does it work in practice? Pastor X gets into the pulpit the Sunday before the election and announces that no true Christian can vote for a candidate who favours legal access to abortion and everybody nods sagely but if he points out that the Democratic Candidate for Chief Ratcatcher favours legal access to abortion, the Republic is in mortal peril?

The issue isn't mortal peril, the issue is using the pulpit for political activity and claiming the tax exemption that comes from not using the pulpit for political activity. As far as morality goes, it's simply lying.

Personally I say just chuck the tax exemption. Why should churches be exempt from paying taxes? Are they persons too?

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

If the leadership of a tax-exempt organization wants to put out the word to the other members of the organization about any topic under the sun, you can't stop them.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

I must say, I rather like the idea of living in a juridiction where persons are exempt from paying taxes. Where do I sign.

Out of interest, do political parties in the US pay taxes?

[ETA: x-post]

[ 23. July 2014, 15:24: Message edited by: Gildas ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
If the leadership of a tax-exempt organization wants to put out the word to the other members of the organization about any topic under the sun, you can't stop them.

Of course not, but you can take away their tax exempt status if they have violated one of the terms of keeping it.

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
I must say, I rather like the idea of living in a juridiction where persons are exempt from paying taxes. Where do I sign.

Only corporate persons who own the prerequisite number of Congresscritters.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

One of the interesting questions is what is likely to happen to churches absent the IRS rule against electioneering. Imagine two non-profit organizations, a political action committee (PAC) and a church. Both are tax-exempt entities, but the church has the additional benefit of its contributors being granted a tax deduction for any monetary contribution. So if you're a politically active person, where would you contribute your money? To PolitiPAC, where your money will go to electioneering, or to PolitiChurch, where your money will go to electioneering and you can write it off as a tax deduction? Given the amount of loose money floating around in the American electoral system, in the absence of an anti-electioneering clause in the tax code one could easily foresee a situation where the vast majority of contributions to churches are from political factions wanting to run ads. I'm not sure this kind of distorting influence would be good for churches, nor do I see any clear reason why money spent on political activities should be tax-deductible for contributors (but only if laundered through a church first!)

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

US courts and US IRS hate getting dragged into judging what churches do or don't do. It raises questions of government trying to control religion.

So I doubt there will be any critique of what any sermonizer says, or what pamphlets are handed out to a congregation inside a church.

But to the extent any churches hold outdoor public space meetings or post billboards to encourage the public to vote for or against any candidate (if any churches have done that), they might now take action. A televised weekly service, in which an occasion sermon says no good christian votes for a candidate that supports abortion, would cross the line it it said just call this number for a list. Have any done billboards or "call for a list"?

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

Personally I say just chuck the tax exemption. Why should churches be exempt from paying taxes? Are they persons too?

Unless a congregation is building up a horde of cash, there wouldn't really be a profit to tax. However, tax exemption from property tax seems a real problem.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] If the leadership of a tax-exempt organization wants to put out the word to the other members of the organization about any topic under the sun, you can't stop them.
Of course not, but you can take away their tax exempt status if they have violated one of the terms of keeping it.

Do you really want the IRS to be monitoring a conversation between you and your preacher while you eat lunch together at a diner to make sure he doesn't tell you how he thinks good Christians should vote?

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] If the leadership of a tax-exempt organization wants to put out the word to the other members of the organization about any topic under the sun, you can't stop them.
Of course not, but you can take away their tax exempt status if they have violated one of the terms of keeping it.
Do you really want the IRS to be monitoring a conversation between you and your preacher while you eat lunch together at a diner to make sure he doesn't tell you how he thinks good Christians should vote?

At a diner? Wouldn't that be allowed?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] If the leadership of a tax-exempt organization wants to put out the word to the other members of the organization about any topic under the sun, you can't stop them.
Of course not, but you can take away their tax exempt status if they have violated one of the terms of keeping it.
Do you really want the IRS to be monitoring a conversation between you and your preacher while you eat lunch together at a diner to make sure he doesn't tell you how he thinks good Christians should vote?

No. I want the IRS to end tax-exempt status for churches. As I have already said. In large part because they shouldn't be policing what we say in our churches. The agreement to receive tax-exempt status in return for not using churches to promulgate political points of view is a devil's deal and should end.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I want the IRS to end tax-exempt status for churches.

Ok. That's cool. Imho, a church doing what it ought would rarely have much of a federal tax liability, if any, anyway.

What's your opinion about property taxes?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I want the IRS to end tax-exempt status for churches.
Ok. That's cool. Imho, a church doing what it ought would rarely have much of a federal tax liability, if any, anyway.

What's your opinion about property taxes?

Grossly regressive. The only taxes I approve of (if it matters at all what I approve of) are a graduated (progressive) income tax (on all income including investment income, mind) and VAT.

[ 23. July 2014, 16:55: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by George Spigot:
At a diner? Wouldn't that be allowed?

Yes it would be allowed. The IRS settlement changes nothing that hasn't been the law of the land for years. The IRS needs to do its job. Both church and state would benefit from it.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
Although there may be some exceptions, most church electioneering is for Republican candidates and takes place in the churches of very conservative denominations. The IRS is already being accused of targeting tea party groups.
AIUI many Afro-American churches also engage in electioneering.
Not quite. Predominantly African-American churches are heavily involved in get-out-the-vote efforts (which are legal for tax-exempt organizations). They're much less often involved in the candidate-endorsement type of electioneering the IRS is dealing with in its current decision.

Bearing in mind that I'm a left-wing Democrat who has worked with churches on political advocacy and get-out-the-vote efforts as part of a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization... I have to say that GOTV efforts are often every bit as partisan as blatant partisan electioneering, especially in our data-driven electoral world. It is not technically partisan to knock on every door and call every phone number in a neighborhood occupied almost entirely by people of color with low incomes and ignore the middle-class white neighborhood next door, even if the former regularly votes 95% Democratic and the latter 55% Republican. "Non-partisan" is a wall to hide behind when more conservative church members criticize the work for being too political, and it protects the tax-exempt status of the nonprofit coordinating it, but the intent is partisan, and everyone knows it. This is why, for example, federal Americorps funds (usually for one-year service year jobs) cannot legally be used for voter registration. The more voters turn out (especially in poorer, non-white cities) the more Democratic the vote.

This is our best and in many ways our only weapon against unlimited super-PAC spending, so I'm all for it. But this is coming from both ends of the (American, at least) theological-ideological spectrum.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] If the leadership of a tax-exempt organization wants to put out the word to the other members of the organization about any topic under the sun, you can't stop them.
Of course not, but you can take away their tax exempt status if they have violated one of the terms of keeping it.
Do you really want the IRS to be monitoring a conversation between you and your preacher while you eat lunch together at a diner to make sure he doesn't tell you how he thinks good Christians should vote?
At a diner? Wouldn't that be allowed?

That's why such rules seem completely ineffectual and a complete waste of time.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

This is awesome. [Yipee]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I want the IRS to end tax-exempt status for churches.
Ok. That's cool. Imho, a church doing what it ought would rarely have much of a federal tax liability, if any, anyway.

What's your opinion about property taxes?
Grossly regressive. The only taxes I approve of (if it matters at all what I approve of) are a graduated (progressive) income tax (on all income including investment income, mind) and VAT.

VAT is not a progressive tax. Poor people pay a bigger percentage of their income on VAT, and even essentials like tampons and fruit juice get charged VAT here.

Scrapping income tax for the lowest earners (most people in poverty are in work) and bringing in land value tax are much more effective and progressive.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

A progressive tax is one that is directly linked to its base quantity by value. It has nothing to do with other definitions of progress or progressiveness.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I stand corrected on VAT. But the problem with property tax is that it eats away at retired people's fixed incomes. I think moving money should be taxed but not standing money.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Can you clarify your tax laws a bit please. In Canada, individuals (citizens only) can donate and fund political campaigns. Corporations, trade unions, associations and groups may not make political contributions. So this makes the issue moot about the use of political donations as income tax deductions for companies. Can companies in the USA deduct their political contributions from income tax. Individuals can do this within strict limits in Canada: $1100 per year max when the law was passed in 2006, the amount is adjusted each year for inflation.

I think the issue is probably more clearly that wealth should not define elections nor campaigns, but this is obviously a Canadian's perspective given that I understand companies can fund and buy what ever they want within campaigns in the USA.

If churches are not allowed to fund, should companies also be disallowed? Why not?

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I want the IRS to end tax-exempt status for churches.
Ok. That's cool. Imho, a church doing what it ought would rarely have much of a federal tax liability, if any, anyway.

What's your opinion about property taxes?
Grossly regressive. The only taxes I approve of (if it matters at all what I approve of) are a graduated (progressive) income tax (on all income including investment income, mind) and VAT.
VAT is not a progressive tax. Poor people pay a bigger percentage of their income on VAT, and even essentials like tampons and fruit juice get charged VAT here.

Scrapping income tax for the lowest earners (most people in poverty are in work) and bringing in land value tax are much more effective and progressive.

The United States has the Earned Income Tax Credit (EIC) for the lowest wage earners. It's essentially a negative income tax (You're reimbursed more than you're taxed.) for the lowest income earners. Above that, the progressive income tax structure kicks in. The problem this country has is that there are too many deductions and exclusions and the tax structure is no longer progressive enough.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Can companies in the USA deduct their political contributions from income tax.

quote:
Individuals can do this within strict limits in Canada: $1100 per year max when the law was passed in 2006, the amount is adjusted each year for inflation.

not deductible in the US.

quote:
I think the issue is probably more clearly that wealth should not define elections nor campaigns

Our elections are about who controls the trillions of dollars spent each year by our governments, so, it is about wealth and those trillions are campaign finance. That's how I see it, anyway.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I want the IRS to end tax-exempt status for churches.
Ok. That's cool. Imho, a church doing what it ought would rarely have much of a federal tax liability, if any, anyway.

What's your opinion about property taxes?
Grossly regressive. The only taxes I approve of (if it matters at all what I approve of) are a graduated (progressive) income tax (on all income including investment income, mind) and VAT.
VAT is not a progressive tax. Poor people pay a bigger percentage of their income on VAT, and even essentials like tampons and fruit juice get charged VAT here.

Scrapping income tax for the lowest earners (most people in poverty are in work) and bringing in land value tax are much more effective and progressive.
The United States has the Earned Income Tax Credit (EIC) for the lowest wage earners. It's essentially a negative income tax (You're reimbursed more than you're taxed.) for the lowest income earners. Above that, the progressive income tax structure kicks in. The problem this country has is that there are too many deductions and exclusions and the tax structure is no longer progressive enough.

Oh wait, I think I've heard of this - I've had American friends talk about some kind of tax refund at the end of the year? Is that it? A friend's February-due baby unexpectedly arrived in early December so she got some extra tax relief for that.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Oh wait, I think I've heard of this [Earned Income Tax Credit] - I've had American friends talk about some kind of tax refund at the end of the year? Is that it? A friend's February-due baby unexpectedly arrived in early December so she got some extra tax relief for that.

Tax refunds are a separate thing, although of course people who qualify for an Earned Income Tax Credit often (always? I don't know) get a tax refund. But other people get refunds also. Your employer deducts an estimated tax amount from your paycheck every pay period and sends it to the IRS, and if at the end of the year they deducted too much compared to your actual tax owed, you get a refund cheque.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Oh wait, I think I've heard of this [Earned Income Tax Credit] - I've had American friends talk about some kind of tax refund at the end of the year? Is that it? A friend's February-due baby unexpectedly arrived in early December so she got some extra tax relief for that.
Tax refunds are a separate thing, although of course people who qualify for an Earned Income Tax Credit often (always? I don't know) get a tax refund. But other people get refunds also. Your employer deducts an estimated tax amount from your paycheck every pay period and sends it to the IRS, and if at the end of the year they deducted too much compared to your actual tax owed, you get a refund cheque.

Expanding a little more:

The US tax year for individuals is the calendar year. "Everybody" with any income has to file a tax return by April 15th for the previous year. Employees tell their employers how much tax to withhold (and send to the IRS) each pay packet - there are penalties for under-estimating your tax liability, so most people pay too much, and then get a refund when they file their taxes. You want to try and get close to zero refund, though, or you're making an interest-free loan to the government.

You get to exempt some income from tax for each dependent you have, and there's an additional tax credit for each child (which most people get). EITC comes on top of that, for people with very low incomes. EITC is more or less the same as what was the UK's Working Tax Credit. You get more EITC if you have more children.

A child born in December still qualifies you for the tax credits and exemptions for the year that ends on December 31st. For most people, having an additional child lets you exempt an extra $3,900 of income from tax. For low to moderate income families, each child gives you a $1,000 tax credit.

Note - I'm not a tax advisor, accountant, or in any other way qualified to give tax advice. I just pay them...

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

The property tax issue is interesting. Often that's what pays for roads, bridges, schools, I'm not sure what else.

Churches (and other charities) pay no taxes on real estate AND no sales taxes on purchases. Also no income taxes except on "unrelated business" income, like if a church owns a restaurant open to the public that income is business income and taxable.

This broad exemption means churches pay nothing towards the cost of having a fire department ready to fight a fire at church, a police department to protect if necessary, roads safe enough for people to drive to church, sewers to carry waste water away, etc. Should they be paying towards these costs? Or not?

Thinking of one specific local church for which I have the figures given out at an annual meeting (I'll use round numbers) land and building $5,000,000 value, budget $500,000 per year.

Real estate tax in Texas is high because of no income tax so what's 3% of 5 million? That would be a huge added budget item each year. Some years that church has to send out an email (usually in summer) begging money to pay the regular bills.

Looking at the 500,000 budget, 2 clergy (one full time one part time) plus well kept 4 bedroom house for the head clergy plus all house expenses including utilities, total clergy cost roughly $150,000. Other staff (music director and secretary), 75,000. Fees to denomination 50,000. Accountant, cleaning staff etc 25,000. insurance and mortgage 60,000. utilities 20,000. Office expenses etc bring the total operating expense to 400,000.

Of the remaining 100,000 budget, half is the mother's day out program including salaries (the program is self-supporting, it's income is shown in the budget as part of the 500,000 coming in), most of the rest is the youth program (including yearly mission trip expenses), and a bit of money for various little activities like Sunday school supplies, music program supplies, VBS supplies, etc.

I don't know what would happen if the church had to come up with another $150,000 a year for real estate taxes! Would people increase pledges by that amount? Would churches abandon their expensive buildings and find some whole other model?

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

There are two sides to that. On the basis of "No taxation without representation", the churches shouldn't pay tax so long as they are not a part of the voting public. If churches are corporations (like Hobby Lobby), which get to meddle with government functions then they should pay taxes as the price of taking part.

OTOH, the members of the church make donations from their income, which was taxed (in most cases) and from which other taxes are paid, so the members DO get to have a say in governing. If they agree to club together in voting patterns, that is their individual choice. BUT, again, if "the church" puts pressure on the individual members, then it should be "pay up" time.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Of course, in the UK, the Church of England is represented in Parliament and also gets tax concessions...

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0