IRS Finds Charities Overstep Into Politics

IRS Finds Charities Overstep Into Politics

By MARY DALRYMPLE, AP Tax Writer

WASHINGTON - IRS exams found nearly 3 out of 4 churches, charities and other civic groups suspected of having violated restraints on political activity in the 2004 election actually did so, the agency said Friday.

Most of the examinations that have concluded found only a single, isolated incidence of prohibited campaign activity.

In three cases, however, the IRS uncovered violations egregious enough to recommend revoking the groups' tax-exempt status.

"While the vast majority of charities, including churches, did not engage in politicking, our examinations substantiated a disturbing amount of political intervention in the 2004 electoral cycle," IRS Commissioner Mark Everson said in a statement.


more . . .
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060224/ap_on_go_ot/irs_politics

I don't believe this statement...

<snip>
The IRS said the cases covered "the full spectrum" of political viewpoints
<snip>

Liberal non profits are just as guilty as conservative ones.

office into the congregation one Sunday . . .

MSM's definition of a bipartisan scandal: 12,000 Republicans sent to jail, 1 Democrat accused but acquitted.

MSM's definition of a Democratic scandal: see above.

MSM's definition of a Republican scandal? We're still waiting . . .

There WAS a time when churches might have "needed" tax-free status, but that time is long gone.

The norm should be TAXABLE.. the exception, non-taxed.

There is NO way on earth that Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell/Robert Schuller/and all the other televangelists at MEGA-churches..and yes even the Catholic church...whould have tax-exempt status.

A small town "out-in-the-country" church, maybe...but NOT most of them we see every day.

The extreme wealth that some of these guys rake in, is OBSCENE, and they pick and choose candidates who will ensure their future prosperity, and then con their congregants to vote for them..

Pastors/priests/ministers have a lot of power over the gullible in their churches, and they have incorporated politics into their ministries... It;s so interwoven these days, it's hard to tell where politics stops and religion begins.

They need regulation, and they need taxation.

The taxes that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson do NOT pay, are made up by the rest of us..and they are laughing all the way to the bank..

There is no valid reason why churches should be tax exempt.

Any organization that does charitable work should be able to deduct the portions of their income that is used for that charitable work. But only that portion. There is no reason why a religious organization should be entirely exempt.

to support some kind of progressive tax that wouldn't tax the small churches.

a small town church with a minister & his family living WITH and LIKE their congregants is a perfect choice for tax-free. These small churches own the land that the church and minister's house sits on, and THAT's IT..they may have a bus and a small staff..maybe even a small school.. the key word is SMALL..and they serve a distinct community, and they deserve some help, but in reality..these days there is NO shortage of "spiritual guidance" anywhere.

The canard of the "poor oppressed religious folks" is a JOKE.. Paying churches out of PUBLIC coffers (tax-free status) so they can pick and choose whom THEY help with that money is WRONG..

They should pay taxes (fairly) and the public pool of tax money should be available to help ANYONE..regardless of their faith..

Private churches should not be paid with federal money, to administer aid that the federal government SHOULD be giving..

These mega churches are paid for by the time construction is completed. They can well afford to pay taxes.

how strictly the IRS interprets the prohibition on "endorsing" political candidates. Historically, they have looked for explicit endorsements - which has permitted all sorts of implied but not explicitely stated candidate endorsements. I would venture to guess that someday that very matter will be litigated.

If churches want to use their facilities for polling stations, that's one thing..the ACT of voting is a non-partisan thing that they should be able to do, but THAT'S IT!

Ministers can have (and DO have) political favorites, but that's a PERSONAL preference...not to be preached on.

I am quite tired of seeing candidates have to pander to ANY religious community, trying to prove how pious they are..

I don't want my senators/congresspeople/president/governor feeling obligated to ANY religious group..or ANY group in particular.

but churches (and other 501(c)(3) non-profits) have been able to make implied endorsements of candidates. Permitting implicit endorsements and prohibiting explicit endorsements is a matter of statutory construction and application. What does it mean to "endorse" a candidate? Does it mean saying "vote for John Smith"? Or does it mean saying "God is pro-life and anti-gay"? I really do not understand why some of the groups that pursue issues of church and state separation have not brought a taxpayer derivative suit under the equal protection clause of the constitution in an effort to define the prohibiton on "endorsing" candidates to include implicit as well as explicit endorsements. There is a good argument to be made. Consider, for example, that implied threats are prohibited as are explicit threats. Any trip through airport security will remind you of that.

Gee, does that sound sorta fishy?

When Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) tried to 'give the money back' via giving it to a worthy charity, there was a glitch. The charity he picked has only one registered lobbyist. That registered lobbyist happens to have been a legislative aide to Burns in the past. After thinking it over, the council in charge of said charity declined Burns' donation because it might appear questionable. They thought the Native American group that made the donation originally could probably use the money back.

Am thinking there are probably a few charities with board members who are not as circumspect as the Tribal Council who said no thanks to Burns/ Am thinking this is a whole new money laundering business for some, if not many.

If a politician wants to 'return the money' to avoid the appearance of impropriety, what is the problem with really returning it which means GIVE IT BACK TO THE DONORS? This bit about 'it may be illegal to give it back' is BS. When they want to be sure the press is paying attention to their refusal of someone's money, they give it back to the donor with much fanfare!

And besides the possible new conduit for funds to be shifted around under the FEC radar, this damages the reputation of many charities and will likely result in less legitimate contributions as people question what is really done with donations.

While making a mockery of FEC rules, they are doing much damage to the ability of many groups to do good works.

They are the worst sort of villains.