Atheists Sue IRS Over Bully Pulpit

[kalm]

Wonder if the Church of Polsongriz has claimed tax exempt status?

Wisconsin atheist group sues IRS over electioneering by religious groups
By Scott Bauer
Associated PressAssociated Press
Posted: 11/15/2012 12:01:00 AM CST

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.

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.

http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_2 ... neering-by" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[89Hen]

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=31194&hilit=greenpeace#p669199

[kalm]

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=31194&hilit=greenpeace#p669199

This is a new lawsuit with some new incidences of churches crossing the line. Heaven forbid a subject gets new treatment...

Nazi.

[89Hen]

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=31194&hilit=greenpeace#p669199

This is a new lawsuit with the same old incidences of churches crossing the line. Heaven forbid a subject gets new treatment...

Nazi.

FIFY

[D1B]

I donate to FFRF. Nice work ladies and gentlemen.

Tax the fucking churches. No one wants the church charities either - it aint worth the price.

[kalm]

This is a new lawsuit with the same old incidences of churches crossing the line. Heaven forbid a subject gets new treatment...

Nazi.

FIFY

Then there's no need for you to post in it...is there?

[dbackjon]

Good - IRS has dropped the ball on this.

[89Hen]

FIFY

Then there's no need for to post it...is there?

FIFYA

[kalm]

Then there's no need for to post it...is there?

FIFYA

Fail

[BlueHen86]

FIFYA

Fail

[JoltinJoe]

Frivolous litigation.

Will be dismissed within a couple of months. No newspaper will report it when the case gets dismissed.

[dbackjon]

Frivolous litigation.

Will be dismissed within a couple of months. No newspaper will report it when the case gets dismissed.

Why is it frivolous?

[Grizalltheway]

Frivolous litigation.

Will be dismissed within a couple of months. No newspaper will report it when the case gets dismissed.

Why is it frivolous?

Because Joe's not making any money off of it.

[JoltinJoe]

Frivolous litigation.

Will be dismissed within a couple of months. No newspaper will report it when the case gets dismissed.

Why is it frivolous?

In order to sue, a person or entity must have "standing" -- which must mean that have suffered some "personal" loss or they have some "personal" interest in the outcome of the lawsuit.

The Supreme Court has rejected that a person or entity has standing to bring a lawsuit simply because they have some generic injury to their person, or simply because, they are a taxpayer in a case against a governmental entity. The rule against "taxpayer standing" has one exception -- if the taxpayer asserts a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by way of a government expenditure.

There is no government expenditure here, nor any violation of any provision of the constitution. The allegation is that the IRS should enforce a statute, and enabling regulations, prohibiting political speech by not-for-profits.

(And in fact the statute and regulations do not bar political speech by a not-for-profit. A not-for-profit may engage in political speech so long as its speech directly relates to its not-for-profit mission; the activities of the not-for-profit are substantially not political; and the not-for-profit does not endorse any candidate specifically by name. Therefore, the Catholic Church can certainly say that people should vote for pro-life candidates).

On a practical level, the courts are not going to permit taxpayer standing in a case like this. The federal statute authorizes the IRS to enforce the prohibition against political speech. It includes no provision which authorizes a person or entity to sue the IRS to force it to take enforcement action. And the Courts are not going to permit groups with competiting social visisons to involve the IRS and the Courts themselves as surrogates to do their bidding in these type of "political" battles.

Case dismissed.

[JohnStOnge]

I didn't read it all word by word but as I understand things nothing I did see in the article is prohibited. I think they are allowed to take positions on issues regardless of how obvious who a given position favors is. I think they're OK unless they don't directly endorse a candidate or a Party. Like if they said, "Vote Republican because Republicans are pro life."

Me, I don't like the law and wish they'd get rid of it. If they're going to make non profits tax exempt the only thing you should have to do to be tax exempt is be non profit. They should not then use the tax code to muzzle non profit groups. Churches as well as other non profit groups should be free to say whatever they want to say without fear of retribution from government.

[D1B]

From the FFRF:

FFRF sues IRS to enforce church electioneering ban
November 14, 2012

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is taking the Internal Revenue Service to court over its failure to enforce electioneering restrictions against churches and religious organizations, calling it a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and of FFRF’s equal protection rights. FFRF filed the lawsuit today in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. (View the lawsuit here.)

A widely circulated Bloomberg news article quoted Russell Renwicks, with the IRS’ Tax-Exempt and Government Entities division, saying the IRS has suspended tax audits of churches. Other sources claim the IRS hasn’t been auditing churches since 2009. (See AP Religion Writer Rachel Zoll’s story, “IRS Not Enforcing Rules on Churches and Politics.”) Although an IRS spokesman claimed Renwicks “misspoke,” there appears to be no evidence of IRS inquiries or action in the past three years.

As many as 1,500 clergy reportedly violated the electioneering restrictions on Sunday, Oct. 7, 2012, notes FFRF’s legal complaint. The complaint also references “blatantly political” full-page ads running in the three Sundays leading up to the presidential elections by the Billy Graham Evangelical Association.

FFRF, a state/church watchdog based in Madison, Wis., is asking the the federal court to enjoin IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman from continuing “a policy of non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions against churches and religious organizations.”

Additionally, FFRF seeks to order Shulman “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.”

FFRF has more than 19,000 members nationwide “who are opposed to government preferences and favoritism toward religion.” FFRF is regularly contacted by its members and members of the public over specific and general violations of church electioneering restrictions, and FFRF staff attorneys regularly ask the IRS to investigate such violations.

This non-enforcement “constitutes preferential treatment to churches and religious organizations that is not provided to other tax-exempt organizations, including FFRF,” the complaint notes. “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.”

This preferential tax exemption involves more than $100 billion annually in tax-free contributions to churches and religious organizations in the United States.

In addition to reporting the Graham ministry’s electioneering to the IRS, FFRF has sent letters of complaint to the IRS involving 27 other such violations so far this year. Recent complaints include:

• Green Bay Bishop David L. Ricken, who wrote an article on diocesan letterhead inserted in all parish bulletins about voting and choosing the president and other offices. Ricken warned that if Catholics vote for a party or candidate who supports abortion rights or marriage equality, “you could be morally ‘complicit’ with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy.” (Read full FFRF letter to IRS.)

• Peoria Bishop Daniel R. Jenky, who, in an April homily, sharply criticized President Obama, referencing the 2012 presidential election, saying Obama was “following a similar path” as Hitler and Stalin. Jenky said “every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences. . .” (Read full FFRF letter to IRS.)

• Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, Wis., who wrote a Nov. 1 article, “Official guidelines for forming a Catholic conscience in the Diocese of Madison,” published in the Catholic Herald, spelling out “non-negotiable” political areas. “No Catholic may, in good conscience, vote for ‘pro-choice’ candidates [or] . . . for candidates who promote ‘same-sex marriage.’ ” (Read full FFRF letter to IRS.)

The lawsuit, FFRF v. IRS, (12-cv-818), was filed by attorney Richard L. Bolton on behalf of FFRF

[JoltinJoe]

I filed a lawsuit last Friday demanding that the IRS audit the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Also, since it is clear to me that the IRS is not doing its job, I also demanded that I be permitted to direct and control all activities of the IRS.

[GannonFan]

As much as you guys like to dismiss JJ, I don't see any answer from you guys on this valid point that he brought up:

...the statute and regulations do not bar political speech by a not-for-profit. A not-for-profit may engage in political speech so long as its speech directly relates to its not-for-profit mission; the activities of the not-for-profit are substantially not political; and the not-for-profit does not endorse any candidate specifically by name.

If a not-for-profit fit into one of those 3 arguments, then sure, they can be sued. However, most of the not-for-profit activities mentioned in this thread would not violate those conditions. It's one thing to rail against religion and the positions they take and hope there is a legal solution to silence religion, however, there is still the letter of the law to be followed. Most of what these not-for-profits are doing are entirely legal under the law. Pesky thing, the law and all.

[89Hen]

As much as you guys like to dismiss JJ, I don't see any answer from you guys on this valid point that he brought up:

...the statute and regulations do not bar political speech by a not-for-profit. A not-for-profit may engage in political speech so long as its speech directly relates to its not-for-profit mission; the activities of the not-for-profit are substantially not political; and the not-for-profit does not endorse any candidate specifically by name.

If a not-for-profit fit into one of those 3 arguments, then sure, they can be sued. However, most of the not-for-profit activities mentioned in this thread would not violate those conditions. It's one thing to rail against religion and the positions they take and hope there is a legal solution to silence religion, however, there is still the letter of the law to be followed. Most of what these not-for-profits are doing are entirely legal under the law. Pesky thing, the law and all.

And many if not most non-profits have political leanings and express them clearly. I tried to tell Kalm this was a non-starter.

[kalm]

As much as you guys like to dismiss JJ, I don't see any answer from you guys on this valid point that he brought up:



If a not-for-profit fit into one of those 3 arguments, then sure, they can be sued. However, most of the not-for-profit activities mentioned in this thread would not violate those conditions. It's one thing to rail against religion and the positions they take and hope there is a legal solution to silence religion, however, there is still the letter of the law to be followed. Most of what these not-for-profits are doing are entirely legal under the law. Pesky thing, the law and all.

And many if not most non-profits have political leanings and express them clearly. I tried to tell Kalm this was a non-starter.

And you're still posting in the thread.

[89Hen]

And many if not most non-profits have political leanings and express them clearly. I tried to tell Kalm this was a non-starter.

And you're still posting in the thread.

I'm only posting to get you to respond to your thread. I seem to be the only one that garners your interest.

[D1B]

As much as you guys like to dismiss JJ, I don't see any answer from you guys on this valid point that he brought up:

...the statute and regulations do not bar political speech by a not-for-profit. A not-for-profit may engage in political speech so long as its speech directly relates to its not-for-profit mission; the activities of the not-for-profit are substantially not political; and the not-for-profit does not endorse any candidate specifically by name.

If a not-for-profit fit into one of those 3 arguments, then sure, they can be sued. However, most of the not-for-profit activities mentioned in this thread would not violate those conditions. It's one thing to rail against religion and the positions they take and hope there is a legal solution to silence religion, however, there is still the letter of the law to be followed. Most of what these not-for-profits are doing are entirely legal under the law. Pesky thing, the law and all.

The catholic church and other christian churches are chronic violators. Of course the government is set up to accomodate them. That doesn't mean we should just let it happen, without comment or at least trying to stop them.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

I donate to FFRF. Nice work ladies and gentlemen.

Tax the **** churches. No one wants the church charities either - it aint worth the price.

I gladly donate to my church, they do a lot of good with charities and homeless shelters.

Churches will never be taxed....not in my lifetime.

[D1B]

I donate to FFRF. Nice work ladies and gentlemen.

Tax the **** churches. No one wants the church charities either - it aint worth the price.

I gladly donate to my church, they do a lot of good with charities and homeless shelters.

Churches will never be taxed....not in my lifetime.

Your church does a lot for pedophiles and scumbag lawyers too, with your money.

[kalm]

And you're still posting in the thread.

I'm only posting to get you to respond to your thread. I seem to be the only one that garners your interest.

Fine, I'll oblige. Churches and other non-profits should receive the same scrutiny. For-profit churches should not be tax exempt. Live like monks or pay up.