Freedom From Religion Foundation Sues IRS Over Political Activity By Churches, Religious Groups

[Don Katsu]

MADISON, Wis. -- A federal lawsuit filed by a Wisconsin-based group representing atheists and agnostics argues that the Internal Revenue Service is violating the U.S. Constitution by allowing tax-exempt churches and religious organizations to get involved in political campaigns.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation argues that churches and other religious organizations have become increasingly more involved in political campaigns, "blatantly and deliberately flaunting the electioneering restrictions."

Its lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Madison argues that the IRS is not enforcing the federal tax code, which prohibits tax-exempt religious organizations from electioneering. Not enforcing it is a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment and a violation of equal protection rights because the same preferential treatment is not provided to other tax-exempt organizations such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the lawsuit contends.

The lawsuit, which was filed against IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman, asks that the court order Shulman to initiate enforcement of the electioneering restrictions against churches and religious organizations.

It also asks that the IRS initiate legal action against any churches or religious organizations that are believed to be violating the restrictions.

Churches and religious organizations obtain a significant benefit from their tax-exempt status while also being able to engage in electioneering that other similar tax-exempt organizations do not do, the lawsuit argues.

A spokesman for the IRS in Wisconsin declined to comment.

The lawsuit cites full-page ads run this fall in the New York Times and other newspapers by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association that featured a photo of renowned evangelist Billy Graham urging Americans to vote along biblical principles. Graham met in October with Mitt Romney and pledged to do "all I can" to help the Republican presidential nominee.

The lawsuit also refers to an order from Roman Catholic Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, Ill., requiring all the priests in his diocese to read a statement urging Catholics to vote and stating that, "Catholic politicians, bureaucrats, and their electoral supporters who callously enable the destruction of innocent human life in the womb also thereby reject Jesus as their Lord."

The lawsuit also refers to "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," a national event on Oct. 7 in which more than 1,500 pastors endorsed a candidate from the pulpit and then sent a record of their statement to the IRS, hoping their challenge would eventually end up in court.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal organization based in Scottsdale, Ariz., has organized the event since 2008. The group considers the IRS regulations against bringing partisan politics to the pulpit an unconstitutional government intrusion.

For the past three years, the IRS hasn't been investigating complaints of partisan political activity by churches, leaving religious groups who make direct or thinly veiled endorsements of political candidates unchallenged.

The IRS monitors religious and other nonprofits on everything from salaries to spending, and that oversight continues. However, Russell Renwicks, a manager in the IRS Mid-Atlantic region, said in October that the agency had suspended audits of churches suspected of breaching federal restrictions on political activity. A 2009 federal court ruling required the IRS to clarify which high-ranking official could authorize audits over the tax code's political rules. The IRS has yet to do so.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation, which says it has 19,000 members nationwide, frequently files lawsuits challenging potential violations of the separation of church and state.

In recent years it has challenged the legality of the National Day of Prayer, the placement of a cross on a war memorial in Rhode Island, and praying before sporting events and other activities at the University of Tennessee.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2138457.html

[Churchill]

Fuck yeah, heathens.

[Ragnus]

This is gonna go nowhere.

[Blubbartron]

Fuck yeah, Wisconsin! Represent. Also, sadly, Ragnus is probably right. Unless people have video evidence of preachers saying explicitly to vote Republican or not to vote for Obama, they can hide behind the argument of "we only suggested they vote their faith." They're wily bastards, those religious folks.

[Tyrath]

Even though it won't go anywhere, I'm glad someone is bringing attention to this. It makes me so mad that the IRS won't do anything about the blatant law breaking the pastors have been doing.

[Jaybar]

I'm pretty sure the religious politicians are doing the pastors' jobs for them. As said above, I have never heard of a case where a figurehead has announced to a congregation who to vote for.

[Churchill]

What do you think Pulpit Freedom Sunday is? lol.

the guy that runs it was on some show recently and got made to look a fool

edit: id imagine colbert/stewart some few days before whenever their event was

[Tyrath]

I'm pretty sure the religious politicians are doing the pastors' jobs for them. As said above, I have never heard of a case where a figurehead has announced to a congregation who to vote for.

Except they just had an organized day to do just this right before the election.

[Byrthnoth]

I'm pretty sure the religious politicians are doing the pastors' jobs for them. As said above, I have never heard of a case where a figurehead has announced to a congregation who to vote for.

My childhood pastor did this twice.

[Ragnus]

Just saw some pictures that my old high school (Jesuit school) posted on Facebook of current students volunteering at a Scott Brown call center.

[Restrat]

Fuck yeah, Wisconsin! Represent. Also, sadly, Ragnus is probably right. Unless people have video evidence of preachers saying explicitly to vote Republican or not to vote for Obama, they can hide behind the argument of "we only suggested they vote their faith." They're wily bastards, those religious folks.

They do have that, the pastors themselves took videos for the "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" event they mentioned in the article. The idea was take a video of you endorsing candidates, and send it to the IRS to challenge them.

[Ksandra]

Just saw some pictures that my old high school (Jesuit school) posted on Facebook of current students volunteering at a Scott Brown call center.

I wish they would ban this (or demand equal opportunity) from schools period. a lot of private schools (both religious and non) sway students towards a particular party because they get a lot of funding from said party.

[Kuya]

Hope they have some success with this.

[archibaldcrane]

Interesting to see how it shakes out. The pastors want this fight, because they want to win a "freedom of speech" argument and not have their tax-exempt status tied to what they say in church. It's easy to see both sides here, but currently the law is against the pastors. We'll see how that goes.

[Stumblingdrunk]

Interesting to see how it shakes out. The pastors want this fight, because they want to win a "freedom of speech" argument and not have their tax-exempt status tied to what they say in church. It's easy to see both sides here, but currently the law is against the pastors. We'll see how that goes.

and now is their best chance since the make up of the court is in their favor. I'm a bit worried about how this one is gonna go

[Plow]

As ridiculous as they can be, the court can't get away with "legalizing" religious tax benefits for political groups, and the republican party can't take the blow of a republican court standing up "against freedom of speech for religions."

no chance of it seeing the light of day anytime soon

[Tyrath]

Judge refused to throw out the lawsuit

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/2...ioneering-ban/

IRS faces lawsuit for failing to enforce church electioneering ban

The Internal Revenue Service was unable to suppress a lawsuit over its failure to audit thousand of churches that allegedly violated federal tax law by engaging in partisan advocacy.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman of the Western District of Wisconsin on Monday denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the Freedom From Religion Foundation against the IRS.

“If it is true that the IRS has a policy of not enforcing the prohibition on campaigning against religious organizations, then the IRS is conferring a benefit on religious organizations (the ability to participate in political campaigns) that it denies to all other 501(c)(3) organizations, including the Foundation,” Adelman wrote.

The Internal Revenue Code prohibits tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches, from intervening or participating in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate.

But many churches have openly defied the ban without consequences. In an annual event called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” pastors from more than 1,000 churches have challenged the regulation by preaching about political topics. Some pastors even record their overtly partisan sermons and send them to the IRS.

The FFRF, which is also a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, said allowing churches to engage in politicking but not other nonprofits was unfair. The group alleged the IRS had a “policy of non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions” when it came to churches and religious organizations.

“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,” FFRF wrote in its lawsuit.

In a separate lawsuit, the organization has challenged the annual information filings exemption provided to churches and other religious organizations. Tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations must file a detailed information with the IRS to obtain and maintain their tax-exempt status, unless they are a church.

“The time for a free ride for churches is over,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor said. “The rest of us pay so much more in taxes because clergy pay so much less. If these churches — which are accountable to no one in government yet get so many favors — are allowed to engage in tax-exempt politicking, it would be the ruination of our democracy.”

[archibaldcrane]

The government's lawyers are trying to give atheist groups the same "exemptions" as they provide religious groups, in an end-around move to take away the standing the FFRF has in bringing lawsuits.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjre...as-a-religion/

The litigation between the Freedom From Religion Foundation and the United States over the parsonage exclusion has taken an odd turn. The Government is trying to convince a couple of atheists who get housing allowances from FFRF that maybe they might qualify as “ministers of the gospel”. Background

The parsonage exclusion (Code Section 107) allows “ministers of the gospel” to exclude from income both in-kind housing they receive from congregations and cash housing allowances that are spent on housing. Although the benefit is usually a fairly modest boost to the take-home pay of ministers of small congregations, there is no dollar limitation allowing for the folks my blogging buddy Reverend William Thornton calls “religious racketeers” to have six figure housing allowances. As Reverend Thornton wrote:

Someone make the case that Joe Sixpack has to pay taxes on his income and doesn’t get any exclusion for his singlewide complete with a deck and a mangy dog sleeping under it, while Kenneth and Gloria Copeland live in an 18,280 square-foot lakefront parsonage on 25 acres valued at $6.2 million and exclude hundreds of thousands of dollars from income taxes under the housing allowance, or while Phil Driscoll enjoys not owing federal income taxes on $408,638 provided to him by his ministry to buy a second home on a lake near Cleveland, Tenn. [BTW - Driscoll won in Tax Court, but ended up losing on appeal]

FFRF, on the other hand, is upset by any housing allowance for clergy viewing it as an unconstitutional subsidy to religion. That is why they are suing.
The Problem of Standing
It is actually pretty hard to litigate about somebody else’s tax break. The explanation is pretty lawyerly. The general idea is that if you think the laws are screwed up in general, you should be calling your congressman. To have access to the courts you should be arguing that the laws are screwing you specifically. FFRF came up with a clever way around this problem. They started paying two of their officers housing allowances. They could then argue that they were being treated unfairly, because they were not entitled to exclude their housing allowances. The Government, in a summary judgment motion, argued that they did not have standing, because they did not file a claim with the IRS, but the Court thought that was pretty silly, since the FFRF officers were clearly not ministers. That was nearly a year ago.
Things Get Weird
So now we come to the weird turn. In another summary judgment motion, the Government is arguing that maybe the FFRF officers are ministers. It reminds me a little of a travelling salesman joke – probably the only traveling salesman joke that would not run afoul of the contributor guidelines. The travelling salesman has a flat tire and finds that his jack handle is missing. It is very late. He decides to walk half a mile to a farmhouse and ask to borrow a jack handle. As he is walking he reflects on how annoyed the farmer might be to be awakened. You can stretch the joke out for as long as you want here with various thoughts the salesmen might have. At any rate, he knocks on the door and a groggy farmer asks him what he wants. The travelling salesman says “To heck with you. You can keep your GD jack handle.” The Government is taking the role of the puzzled farmer. Gee, why are these guys suing ? Maybe if they asked nicely we would let their housing allowances be exempt.
The Motion
The government motion goes into the history of the exclusion in order to show that it is a reasonable accommodation rather than a subsidy to religion. Housing that is provided to an employee for “the convenience of the employer” was generally considered to be exempt. Examples are things like mining camps and bunks for sailors. The Treasury announced in 1921 that it was not going to follow that rule with respect to parsonages. Congress intervened. So the earliest version of the exclusion was to put ministers in the same position as secular workers. That accounts for the in-kind exclusion. The cash exclusion came later.

But, at the time, less-established and less wealthy religions were not able to provide housing for their spiritual leaders; among them were denominations that employed part-time ministers and rabbis “characteristic of smaller, newer, and less affluent religious groups such as Pentecostals, evangelical churches, and independent African-American congregations.

So the cash housing allowance exclusion was to even things out among different religions.
Can Atheists Qualify ?
The Evangelical Center for Financial Accountability, which follows the parsonage issue closely, seems quite surprised by the Government’s position.

The ongoing litigation over the constitutionality of the clergy housing exclusion has taken a fascinating turn. According to attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice, not only is the law constitutional, but atheists might also be considered religious leaders for purposes of federal tax law (“ministers of the gospel”) to qualify for the exclusion.

Essentially the Government’s argument is that qualification as a “minister of the gospel” is based on what you do, not what you believe.

But the facts here illustrate that it is conceivable that an atheist who does things that Ms. Gaylor and Mr. Barker do in light of their personally held beliefs and in the course of their employment could meet the requirements for the exclusion in § 107(2), including the definition for “minister” under its terms. Non-theistic beliefs, including atheism, may qualify as “religious” beliefs in various contexts because they pertain to religion and fulfill a similar role in a person’s life: [W]hen a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion. We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion.

Do Atheists Already Get Ministerial Housing Allowances ?
What I find interesting about this litigation is that a particular tax benefit has taxpayers, who conceivably might qualify for the benefit, strenuously arguing that they don’t qualify and the Government arguing that they might. The notion of atheists qualifying is actually not that strange. The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregation, which is a non-creedal denomination, recognizes atheism. There are probably some theistic Unitarians who think the UUA countenances atheism to a fault.

Atheists and Agnostics are welcome in Unitarian Universalism and can find a welcoming, supportive faith community in our congregations. Although both groups are often defined by what they do not believe, the reality is that they do believe in a great many things, including many beliefs affirmed within Unitarian Universalism. They believe, for example, that we as humans are responsible for our own actions, that the here and now is important, and that it is good to try to make this world a better place.
While Unitarian Universalists may share many beliefs in common with many Atheists and Agnostics, we do not have to. As a non-creedal faith, Unitarian Universalism honors the differing spiritual paths we each travel. Our congregations are places where we celebrate, support, and challenge one another as we continue on these journeys. For this reason, many interfaith families—and this increasingly includes those with members who are Atheist or Agnostic—find Unitarian Universalism can uniquely meet their spiritual needs.

Should Liberal Religious Ministers Accept Tax-free Housing Allowances ?
Some of the oldest congregations in the country are affiliated with the UUA. When you see the iconic white steeple facing the common in a Massachusetts town, there is a decent chance that the church is UUA and was originally the established church that was founded at the same time as the town. Despite the established church roots, Unitarians tend to be in favor of church state separation.

Reverend John Gibbons of First Parish in Bedford, Massachusetts, one of my facebook buds, wrote to me that he generally opposes special tax status for clergy and churches. He told me he was very pleased that he had a role in convincing First Parish to make a payment in lieu of taxes to the Town of Bedford.

“Some of our members—myself included,” he continued, “question whether any religious institution should be exempt from public taxation. All of our members—affirmed indeed by a unanimous vote of our congregation at our Annual Meeting last June—agree to express our gratitude to the Town in this way.

It was only a hundred bucks, but I guess it is the thought that counts. I’m thinking of asking Reverend Gibbons to spearhead a group of religious liberal clergy – e.g. UU ministers, Reform rabbis, Episcopal priests – to renounce tax-free housing allowances. In a burst of ecumenism, they might invite Southern Baptists, who have very strong historic church state separation roots, to join in.
I’m not holding my breath.

This is a slightly different case, in that it is an official, legal exemption that "ministers of the gospel" get for their housing costs, but a similar issue to the above.

[Stanislaw]

Reminded me of this for some reason:

http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/drazuli/i...9e66a925-s.jpg

[Waraji]

lol "XTC"