Huckabee (R): time for churches to give up tax-exempt status

[oldfart]

I get that the IRS can't question the status of the church, given those parameters. However, my question revolves around the restrictions applied by 501 (c). As I understand it, in order to maintain tax exempt status the organization cannot engage in outright political endorsement. They can put forth a particular message, but they can't say "vote for candidate A". Is that correct?

Well, it's a slippery slope. Legally a church could lose exempt status for overt political activity. In practice the IRS doesn't go there unless it believes the entity is a tax-avoidance scam. So, for example, a pastor from the pulpit is perfectly OK telling his flock to vote for candidates with Christian values, or candidates that are members of the same denomination, or candidates that oppose abortion. But he can't say, "Vote for John Smith".

Another wrinkle is that not all tax benefits of churches are necessarily at risk. I think that a church that established a political campaign fund contributions to which its members attempted to deduct as charitable contributions would not risk loss of exempt status. The fund would be treated as a campaign committee and the contributions treated as nondeductible. The IRS would be far more likely to assert this position.

 

[PratchettFan]

I get that the IRS can't question the status of the church, given those parameters. However, my question revolves around the restrictions applied by 501 (c). As I understand it, in order to maintain tax exempt status the organization cannot engage in outright political endorsement. They can put forth a particular message, but they can't say "vote for candidate A". Is that correct?

Well, it's a slippery slope. Legally a church could lose exempt status for overt political activity. In practice the IRS doesn't go there unless it believes the entity is a tax-avoidance scam. So, for example, a pastor from the pulpit is perfectly OK telling his flock to vote for candidates with Christian values, or candidates that are members of the same denomination, or candidates that oppose abortion. But he can't say, "Vote for John Smith".

Another wrinkle is that not all tax benefits of churches are necessarily at risk. I think that a church that established a political campaign fund contributions to which its members attempted to deduct as charitable contributions would not risk loss of exempt status. The fund would be treated as a campaign committee and the contributions treated as nondeductible. The IRS would be far more likely to assert this position.

That's what I thought. thanks.

 

[Old Rocks]

Jefferson was afraid that religion would corrupt the government.

Madison was afraid that government would corrupt religion.

Both were correct.

 

[PratchettFan]

Jefferson was afraid that religion would corrupt the government.

Madison was afraid that government would corrupt religion.

Both were correct.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them. " Barry Goldwater

 

[amrchaos]

Huckabee is ruining my plans to declare atheism a mental illness, thus tax exempting all non-believers!!

The Huckster sucks--and eat chipmunks!

 

[Glensather]

I don't know... given what I've just read (thanks for the info), I think this might skirt too close to the First Amendment for me to be okay with it.

Also, does Huckabee realize the outrage and fallout that would occur from this? Christians already think that they're under attack... does he really think this will help?

 

[longknife]

My problem with this is: how would a church be able to report the names of their donors to add to the Poor Box or make tithing? IMHO, donating to a church is a very private matter the government has no business knowing.

I also believe preachers/pastors/priests and so on have the right and SHOULD be able to voice opinions on the news of the day and political matters - in light of their ecclesiastical beliefs and teachings.

If, for instance, a candidate's stands and/or actions following the teachings of the religion - or go against them - statements to that affect from the pulpit should not be banned - but urged.

Look at politicians like Nancy Pelosi trying to force her views on the Catholic Church! Why is that okay but a bishop's opposition to her stands isn't?

 

[Glensather]

My problem with this is: how would a church be able to report the names of their donors to add to the Poor Box or make tithing? IMHO, donating to a church is a very private matter the government has no business knowing.

I also believe preachers/pastors/priests and so on have the right and SHOULD be able to voice opinions on the news of the day and political matters - in light of their ecclesiastical beliefs and teachings.

If, for instance, a candidate's stands and/or actions following the teachings of the religion - or go against them - statements to that affect from the pulpit should not be banned - but urged.

Look at politicians like Nancy Pelosi trying to force her views on the Catholic Church! Why is that okay but a bishop's opposition to her stands isn't?

I can agree with that. Logically, a pastor/bishop/whatever would want to vote for someone who shares his worldview, and would want to share that with his church. That should be acceptable.... shouldn't it?

 

[PratchettFan]

My problem with this is: how would a church be able to report the names of their donors to add to the Poor Box or make tithing? IMHO, donating to a church is a very private matter the government has no business knowing.

I also believe preachers/pastors/priests and so on have the right and SHOULD be able to voice opinions on the news of the day and political matters - in light of their ecclesiastical beliefs and teachings.

If, for instance, a candidate's stands and/or actions following the teachings of the religion - or go against them - statements to that affect from the pulpit should not be banned - but urged.

Look at politicians like Nancy Pelosi trying to force her views on the Catholic Church! Why is that okay but a bishop's opposition to her stands isn't?

Well, I would say the primary difference is that Pelosi is not asking for tax exempt status.

Churches do comment on political issues, the Catholic Church certainly does. I am not aware of a single church which has lost its tax exempt status for doing so. Do you?

 

[bodecea]

Well, well, well...

Mike Huckabee says churches should give up tax exempt status - National Democrat | Examiner.com

In a surprising move, Christian conservative and Republican leader Mike Huckabee is encouraging churches to give up their tax exempt status. Huckabee issued the following call for churches to unilaterally give up their tax-exempt status via Twitter on June 11:

as a secularist, I agree w/ him, but for reasons of fairness.

I agree that all churches and religious organizations should give up their tax-exempt status. I know that it means they can dabble in politics freely then....many do anyways.

 

[longknife]

My problem with this is: how would a church be able to report the names of their donors to add to the Poor Box or make tithing? IMHO, donating to a church is a very private matter the government has no business knowing.

I also believe preachers/pastors/priests and so on have the right and SHOULD be able to voice opinions on the news of the day and political matters - in light of their ecclesiastical beliefs and teachings.

If, for instance, a candidate's stands and/or actions following the teachings of the religion - or go against them - statements to that affect from the pulpit should not be banned - but urged.

Look at politicians like Nancy Pelosi trying to force her views on the Catholic Church! Why is that okay but a bishop's opposition to her stands isn't?

I can agree with that. Logically, a pastor/bishop/whatever would want to vote for someone who shares his worldview, and would want to share that with his church. That should be acceptable.... shouldn't it?

Not according to Redneck Liberals!

 

[rdean]

My problem with this is: how would a church be able to report the names of their donors to add to the Poor Box or make tithing? IMHO, donating to a church is a very private matter the government has no business knowing.

I also believe preachers/pastors/priests and so on have the right and SHOULD be able to voice opinions on the news of the day and political matters - in light of their ecclesiastical beliefs and teachings.

If, for instance, a candidate's stands and/or actions following the teachings of the religion - or go against them - statements to that affect from the pulpit should not be banned - but urged.

Look at politicians like Nancy Pelosi trying to force her views on the Catholic Church! Why is that okay but a bishop's opposition to her stands isn't?

I can agree with that. Logically, a pastor/bishop/whatever would want to vote for someone who shares his worldview, and would want to share that with his church. That should be acceptable.... shouldn't it?

Not according to Redneck Liberals!

Redneck Liberal? What is that?

 

[flacaltenn]

My problem with this is: how would a church be able to report the names of their donors to add to the Poor Box or make tithing? IMHO, donating to a church is a very private matter the government has no business knowing.

I also believe preachers/pastors/priests and so on have the right and SHOULD be able to voice opinions on the news of the day and political matters - in light of their ecclesiastical beliefs and teachings.

If, for instance, a candidate's stands and/or actions following the teachings of the religion - or go against them - statements to that affect from the pulpit should not be banned - but urged.

Look at politicians like Nancy Pelosi trying to force her views on the Catholic Church! Why is that okay but a bishop's opposition to her stands isn't?

I've been to Unitarian Services 3 times.. Each service was pushing participating in some soon to come protest rally. ((Usually for a leftist cause))

They seem to flaunt the edges of the law..

 

[oldfart]

My problem with this is: how would a church be able to report the names of their donors to add to the Poor Box or make tithing? IMHO, donating to a church is a very private matter the government has no business knowing.

There is no provision for churches to report donations to the government. There is a provision that taxpayers who want to DEDUCT such donations be able to document them. A special recordkeeping requirement states that cash donations of $250 or more be backed up by acknowledgement of receipt by the religious organization. This leaves the choice to the individual to either claim the deduction and be able to document it or not.

 

[oldfart]

I can agree with that. Logically, a pastor/bishop/whatever would want to vote for someone who shares his worldview, and would want to share that with his church. That should be acceptable.... shouldn't it?

Not according to Redneck Liberals!

Redneck Liberal? What is that?

I think he's talking about me! See my location.

 

[LittleNipper]

Well, well, well...

Mike Huckabee says churches should give up tax exempt status - National Democrat | Examiner.com

In a surprising move, Christian conservative and Republican leader Mike Huckabee is encouraging churches to give up their tax exempt status. Huckabee issued the following call for churches to unilaterally give up their tax-exempt status via Twitter on June 11:

as a secularist, I agree w/ him, but for reasons of fairness.

I feel that if churches are taxed, then so should schools, hospitals, and political/military funds.

 

[Dot Com]

My problem with this is: how would a church be able to report the names of their donors to add to the Poor Box or make tithing? IMHO, donating to a church is a very private matter the government has no business knowing.

I also believe preachers/pastors/priests and so on have the right and SHOULD be able to voice opinions on the news of the day and political matters - in light of their ecclesiastical beliefs and teachings.

If, for instance, a candidate's stands and/or actions following the teachings of the religion - or go against them - statements to that affect from the pulpit should not be banned - but urged.

Look at politicians like Nancy Pelosi trying to force her views on the Catholic Church! Why is that okay but a bishop's opposition to her stands isn't?

I can agree with that. Logically, a pastor/bishop/whatever would want to vote for someone who shares his worldview, and would want to share that with his church. That should be acceptable.... shouldn't it?

ummm..... no. That = politicking and violates their tax exempt status. The christian coalition did that in 1990

 

[dblack]

My problem with this is: how would a church be able to report the names of their donors to add to the Poor Box or make tithing? IMHO, donating to a church is a very private matter the government has no business knowing.

I also believe preachers/pastors/priests and so on have the right and SHOULD be able to voice opinions on the news of the day and political matters - in light of their ecclesiastical beliefs and teachings.

If, for instance, a candidate's stands and/or actions following the teachings of the religion - or go against them - statements to that affect from the pulpit should not be banned - but urged.

Look at politicians like Nancy Pelosi trying to force her views on the Catholic Church! Why is that okay but a bishop's opposition to her stands isn't?

I can agree with that. Logically, a pastor/bishop/whatever would want to vote for someone who shares his worldview, and would want to share that with his church. That should be acceptable.... shouldn't it?

ummm..... no. That = politicking and violates their tax exempt status. The christian coalition did that in 1990

Ding, ding, ding! You hit the nail on the head.

That's exactly how the tax exempt status is used (to silence religions' political views) and that's why Huckabee is suggesting chuches reject such an 'offer'. In the general sense, all tax incentives are used in this way - to squelch or dictate various behaviors. We've come to use the tax code as a means of controlling people rather than simply a way to fund government, and that's wrong in my view.

 

[Agent.Tom]

Also, does Huckabee realize the outrage and fallout that would occur from this? Christians already think that they're under attack... does he really think this will help?

But doesn't the Christian Church paying taxes take one of the attacks away? Seeing the Church [especially the mansion-owning, Cadillac-driving outspoken televangelists] collect large amounts of money tax-free is perhaps the most infuriating of things Secularists hate about them.

 

[Glensather]

Also, does Huckabee realize the outrage and fallout that would occur from this? Christians already think that they're under attack... does he really think this will help?

But doesn't the Christian Church paying taxes take one of the attacks away? Seeing the Church [especially the mansion-owning, Cadillac-driving outspoken televangelists] collect large amounts of money tax-free is perhaps the most infuriating of things Secularists hate about them.

Point on that. I consider people like Joel Olsteen about as "Christian" as an Orthodox Jew.

... that's not fair to Jews, but I can't think of a better analogy currently.

Furthermore, has Huckabee considered what this would do to poor churches that already struggle just to keep a service going? I live smack in the middle of the Bible Belt. There are at least 3 Baptist Churches within walking distance, and many more of nearly all other denominations except Catholic. While some of these have full pews, many of them (like the Church of God I attended before I... well, quit the faith, I guess) can barely get half-attendance. What's it going to do to them?