Tax Exempt Religious Organizations

[Greekgod]

I Think so as well.

[Ducimus]

Steve posting just reminded me of something I've thought about having lived in Utah for a couple years or so now.

If the majority of people are of the same faith, and as a result, the majority of a states population has the same set of values, do those values at that point become a homogeneous socially accepted norm for the area, and hence as a result, is the church really isn't intruding into matters of state at all?

I probably didn't articulate that well. It's kind of a fuzzy and abstract thought. I am one who finds themselves in an odd position of disliking organized religion in general, and yet being ok with it as a non participant living in what is by way of comparison a positive environment created as a direct result of organized religion.

Ohhh.. contradictions!

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by privateer

Can you give links that to Laws that say that religous orginizations can't contribute to political causes?

Your use of the word "law", "contribute" and "political causes" complicates the question.

Under the IRS regulations churches full under code 501c3 which has limitations in order to keep their tax exempt status.

From the IRS

it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Finally, you used the term "political causes" which can mean many different things. Most of which are not prohibited by the IRS rules concerning 501c3 organizations, but not all. When it comes to participating in a campaign, the rules are a lot more clear

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.



Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.


On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

Now, if the 501c organization is a corporation (not all of them are) then there are separate laws governing political contributions. Contrary to the hysteria about Citizens United, corporations are, were, and probably will be prohibited from making contributions directly to a candidate's campaign. All Citizen's United did was re-affirm an already existing law that allows corporations to fund non candidate campaign functions. A subtle but important legal difference.



It is a complicated and complex topic. This is how tax attorneys stay in business.

Originally Posted by Platapus

Your use of the word "law", "contribute" and "political causes" complicates the question.

Ya. I should know better then to use Layman terms in GT.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Steve posting just reminded me of something I've thought about having lived in Utah for a couple years or so now.

If the majority of people are of the same faith, and as a result, the majority of a states population has the same set of values, do those values at that point become a homogeneous socially accepted norm for the area, and hence as a result, is the church really isn't intruding into matters of state at all?

I probably didn't articulate that well. It's kind of a fuzzy and abstract thought. I am one who finds themselves in an odd position of disliking organized religion in general, and yet being ok with it as a non participant living in what is by way of comparison a positive environment created as a direct result of organized religion.

Ohhh.. contradictions!

Fight the theocracy!

In other notes, back in Russian history, one way to dodge state land taxes was to donate your land to the Church, since it was exempt. Ivan the IV (if I remember correctly) ended that in some of his reforms. I don't remember if that is the case in modern Russian history though.


Doesn't the Mormon church own a mall or two in SLC? Seems kinda odd for a non-exempt to own a revenue generating business. I guess it is Utah, the line between church and state can be pretty thin there.

[Platapus]

Lawyers write laws in such a manner that only lawyers can understand them.

Conflict of interest? No! That would be wrong.

[Tchocky]

Sort of.

Copper-bottomed non-ambiguous language has to be complex.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

If the majority of people are of the same faith, and as a result, the majority of a states population has the same set of values, do those values at that point become a homogeneous socially accepted norm for the area, and hence as a result, is the church really isn't intruding into matters of state at all?

You have to remember that when the Mormons founded Salt Lake City it was a theocracy. Brigham Young was the governor of The State and the head of The Church, and ran both with an Iron hand. This continued for ten years, until the Utah War of 1856-57. There was bloodshed, but no real war, and it ended when Brigham Young agreed to step down in favor of a Federally appointed governernor. Young still ruled the Church until his death in 1877. This also brought about the end of the polygamy question, leading to Utah becoming a state in 1896.

When I first came here in 1971 the Mormon influence was heavy. There was a controversy going on concerning official LDS studies in school classrooms after hours. This was finally resolved by opening classrooms for evening studies by anyone qualified to teach them. Utah today is still 70% LDS, but Salt Lake City is quite the opposite, being about 30% Mormon, and a very nice cosmopolitan center with a good club scene.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Lawyers write laws in such a manner that only lawyers can understand them.

Conflict of interest? No! That would be wrong.

How 'bout we start with "in God we trust" right on the filthy lucre itself and work our way back up from there? A suitable New World Order medium of exchange if ever there was one! No wonder our Islamic brethren who sell us the oil for dollars are peeved!

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You have to remember that when the Mormons founded Salt Lake City it was a theocracy. Brigham Young was the governor of The State and the head of The Church, and ran both with an Iron hand. This continued for ten years, until the Utah War of 1856-57. There was bloodshed, but no real war, and it ended when Brigham Young agreed to step down in favor of a Federally appointed governernor. Young still ruled the Church until his death in 1877. This also brought about the end of the polygamy question, leading to Utah becoming a state in 1896.

When I first came here in 1971 the Mormon influence was heavy. There was a controversy going on concerning official LDS studies in school classrooms after hours. This was finally resolved by opening classrooms for evening studies by anyone qualified to teach them. Utah today is still 70% LDS, but Salt Lake City is quite the opposite, being about 30% Mormon, and a very nice cosmopolitan center with a good club scene.

I'm surprised Duci hasn't converted yet? He does live in the heart of Mordor. Maybe they converted him and didn't tell him. Got jello?

[Armistead]

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

I'm surprised Duci hasn't converted yet? He does live in the heart of Mordor. Maybe they converted him and didn't tell him. Got jello?

Ain't ever gonna happen.

I can abide by the customs and such. After all, I moved here, they were already here, nobody asked me to move here to their home, so it's not my place to make waves. However, I won't convert to Mormonism, or any other denomination. I do actually have a lot of respect for the LDS church for various reasons, while my level of dislike of evangelicals has remained undiminished, however I maintain my neutrality. My wife is a "non active" for reasons that are hers (and not for me to share), but the point being i have the inside scoop on what's what, without having to step foot into a local ward house (see that, I know the terminology ). On that note, our combined level of stubborness... she is the unstoppable force. I the immoveable object. We aren't converting anytime soon.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Armistead

"the Italian government made a historic change in 2013 tax code to boost revenue: the Roman Catholic Church will no longer be exempt from property taxes in Italy. "

Should the US do the same?

http://www.policymic.com/articles/21...-be-tax-exempt

Well, the income for churches is derived mainly from individuals who have already paid taxes on it.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Well, the income for churches is derived mainly from individuals who have already paid taxes on it.

And can deduct the charitable donation at tax time.

Our tax code sucks.

[Onkel Neal]

Lol, I was just about to ninja edit and add that