American Atheists V. Irs

[alexey]

What are your views on preferential treatment of religious non-profits by the government?

I highlighted a couple of points that seem particularly problematic.

http://www.atheists.org/legal/current/IRS

On December 12, 2012, American Atheists and two co-plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Kentucky demanding that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) stop giving preferential treatment to churches and religious organizations via the process of receiving non-profit tax-exempt status under the Internal Revue Code (IRC) procedures and definitions.IRS

Groups like American Atheists receive tax-exempt status under Internal Revenue Code 501©(3) but, because the organization is not classified as religious, it costs American Atheists and other secular non-profits significantly more money each year to maintain that status. In this lawsuit, American atheists and the other plaintiffs are demanding that all tax-exempt organizations, including those characterized as religious by the IRS, have the same requirements to achieve and maintain tax-exempt status.

In order to qualify for nonprofit tax-exempt status, any religious or secular organization must demonstrate it exists to benefit the public. After that basic element is established, religious non-profits are almost always declared automatically tax-exempt under the current IRC rules and definitions. However, secular non-profits face a lengthy application and a fee, which can be as high as $850.

Religious organizations and churches are treated differently from secular organizations. The exemptions are applied in a way that discriminates solely on the basis of whether an entity’s members express beliefs and practices accepted as religious. The IRS treats your organization better if you profess belief in a supernatural deity.

The lawsuit also covers discrepancies in how secular and religious organizations are treated in maintaining their tax-exempt statuses. Secular nonprofits complete Form 990 annually, which details information about finances, donors, volunteers, and personnel; the IRS estimates it requires 211 hours to complete the Form 990, which is then public information. Religious nonprofits are exempted from filing the Form 990, so there is no public record about their finances, donors, volunteers, or personnel.

This requirement can put organizations like American Atheists at a fundraising disadvantage compared to religious groups because many people choose not to reveal their atheism for fear of prejudice and discrimination.

American Atheists and its co-plaintiffs are asking the Court to find that such disparity of treatment between religious and secular non-profit organizations is unconstitutional and require the IRS to make the tax-exempt filing process uniform for all nonprofit organizations.

[Destino]

The government SHOULD be looking closely at nonprofits, I've worked with them enough to as that they probably aren't looking close enough. Religions are kept separate because the government isn't in the business if regulating religions. Atheists groups aren't religious groups, or so I've been told, so the wall of separation which keeps the micromanaging IRS out does not apply.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Tax the churches.

[Big Weirdo]

I thought this was a WWE thread for a second.

IRS was a horrible gimmick.

[PokerPacker]

I'm with mboyd. Why should religions be exempt from taxes?

[PeterMP]

I'm to the point that I don't think we should just tax non-profits.  I doubt the benefits of them being tax free when taken in total out weigh the costs (regulation, fraud, etc.).

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm with mboyd. Why should religions be exempt from taxes?

Separation of Church and State

Tax churches and then they get FULL involvement.

Pick your poison.

BTW, it isn't just churches...it's all religious groups that file under 501c3, and we know that atheism isn't a religion so they can file as a non-profit organization just like any other secular non- profit.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm to the point that I don't think we should just tax non-profits.  I doubt the benefits of them being tax free when taken in total out weigh the costs (regulation, fraud, etc.).

Seriously? You don't think the benefits of community service for lets say the Salvation Army out weigh the costs? You obviously don't have a clue what these 501c3 are doing on a daily basis, with volunteer support without tax dollars.

Just look at UMCOR and you tell me if we're better served with it being taxed.

Good grief

[AsburySkinsFan]

I also like how the "unbiased" article makes it seem that religious groups just have walk in the door and they get their 501c3. They have to apply too, and they're charged the SAME $850. Get real.

Want a 501c status atheists? Frickin' pick one. And then get busy serving your community....I forget what was the American Atheists response to Hurricane Katrina?

501©(1) — Corporations Organized Under Act of Congress (including Federal Credit Unions)

501©(2) — Title Holding Corporation for Exempt Organization[2]

501©(3) — Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations

501©(4) — Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees

501©(5) — Labor, Agricultural and Horticultural Organizations

501©(6) — Business Leagues, Chambers of Commerce, Real Estate Boards, etc.

501©(7) — Social and Recreational Clubs

501©(8) — Fraternal Beneficiary Societies and Associations

501©(9) — Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Associations

501©(10) — Domestic Fraternal Societies and Associations

501©(11) — Teachers' Retirement Fund Associations

501©(12) — Benevolent Life Insurance Associations, Mutual Ditch or Irrigation Companies, Mutual or Cooperative Telephone Companies, etc.

501©(13) — Cemetery Companies

501©(14) — State-Chartered Credit Unions, Mutual Reserve Funds

501©(15) — Mutual Insurance Companies or Associations

501©(16) — Cooperative Organizations to Finance Crop Operations

501©(17) — Supplemental Unemployment Benefit Trusts

501©(18) — Employee Funded Pension Trust (created before June 25, 1959)

501©(19) — Post or Organization of Past or Present Members of the Armed Forces

501©(20) — Group Legal Services Plan Organizations

501©(21) — Black lung Benefit Trusts

501©(22) — Withdrawal Liability Payment Fund

501©(23) — Veterans Organization (created before 1880)

501©(24) — Section 4049 ERISA Trusts

501©(25) — Title Holding Corporations or Trusts with Multiple Parents

501©(26) — State-Sponsored Organization Providing Health Coverage for High-Risk Individuals

501©(27) — State-Sponsored Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Organization

501©(28) — National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust

501©(29) — Qualified Nonprofit Health Insurance Issuers (Created in section 1322(h)(1) of the Affordable Care Act)[3]

[PeterMP]

Seriously? You don't think the benefits of community service for lets say the Salvation Army out weigh the costs? You obviously don't have a clue what these 501c3 are doing on a daily basis, with volunteer support without tax dollars.

Just look at UMCOR and you tell me if we're better served with it being taxed.

Good grief

 

Yes, the salvation army does, but there are costs involved including the regulations, paper work, and then there are things that do the minimal to be non-profits just to be tax exempt and aren't really designed to be non-profits, but have different objectives (I've been told this happens a lot in sports.  I want to give my brother money.  If I just give him the money, then I pay taxes on it and he pays taxes on it at a gift level.  If I start a non-profit and give him a "job", then I get a tax deduction for giving him the money as he draws a salary from the non-profit.

 

The objective isn't really to aid the community, but to give money to my brother.

 

Those costs negate the benefits of giving true non-profits a break.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yes, the salvation army does, but there are costs involved including the regulations, paper work, and then there are things that do the minimal to be non-profits just to be tax exempt and aren't really designed to be non-profits/quote]

First, once the non-profit application is processed it just sits in a file, I have never once been contacted about anything regarding a 501c3 any of my churches held....ever. And given that it costs $850 to file I'd say that the paperwork is paid in full...and we printed the paper! As far as regulations, how much more does it cost to write regulations for 501c3 compared to any other tax regulation?

As far as the example of fraud you mentioned, that sounds like what happens with college sports, and most don't even bother with the 501c3, they just give them a job with exceedingly low expectations.

[PeterMP]

[First, once the non-profit application is processed it just sits in a file, I have never once been contacted about anything regarding a 501c3 any of my churches held....ever. And given that it costs $850 to file I'd say that the paperwork is paid in full...and we printed the paper! As far as regulations, how much more does it cost to write regulations for 501c3 compared to any other tax regulation?

As far as the example of fraud you mentioned, that sounds like what happens with college sports, and most don't even bother with the 501c3, they just give them a job with exceedingly low expectations.

 

I'm talking about proffessional sports.  Notice how many pro atheletes start their own charity. 

 

Why don't many of them just work in the context of existing charities?

 

My understanding is that in many cases it is a way to funnell money to their friends and relatives as employees of the charity in a manner that also gives them a tax deduction (and I'm not saying that many atheletes don't do a lot of really good charity work even through their own organizations, the two aren't even mutually exclusive).

 

The fact that nobody does anything to check your 501c3 status just increases the chance for fraud.

 

It is a double edged sword.  More regulation and more investigations gives you less fraud, but more costs.  Less gives you less costs, but more fraud.

 

How about this?  Do away with the general exemption.  Increase the number of federal grants for doing service work like we are suppossed to be encouraging with the tax exemption, make the grants tax free, but part of the public record.

 

This opens things up to "regulation" through public information and things like the press because the grants and the grant process will be public based information.

 

As compared to tax returns which aren't.

 

Your church will pay taxes.  People won't get a tax deduction for giving you money.  If you want to do good service work, you write a grant to the federal government and get tax free money through the grant for doing that work.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Separation of Church and State

Tax churches and then they get FULL involvement.

Pick your poison.

BTW, it isn't just churches...it's all religious groups that file under 501c3, and we know that atheism isn't a religion so they can file as a non-profit organization just like any other secular non- profit.

 

So your position is that religious non-profits do not attempt to influence political process because they respect the Separation of Church of State?  I think you may be a bit naive, or worse, on that point.

[alexey]

imho separation of church and state means not equal treatment - not discriminating against, not giving special privileges.

If you give privileges to a particular type of organization, say an educational or philanthropic organization, or social club, etc, give equal rights. Tax all of them or none of them, same paperwork requirements, etc - you should not be treating religious organizations any differently.

Separation of Church and State

Tax churches and then they get FULL involvement.

Pick your poison.

BTW, it isn't just churches...it's all religious groups that file under 501c3, and we know that atheism isn't a religion so they can file as a non-profit organization just like any other secular non- profit.

...

I also like how the "unbiased" article makes it seem that religious groups just have walk in the door and they get their 501c3.

I do not think that separation of church and state means churches should be exempt from laws. I think it merely means no special treatment for or against.

For me personally, the most troubling part of special treatment given to religious institutions is exempting them from having to tell how they spend their money. Do I understand correctly that that is the case?

[AsburySkinsFan]

You have yet to show how there is any substantive difference in the way a religious group is treated. The article you posted tells half the story and ignores the fact churches all have to do the same thing.

[The Sisko]

I don't think it's fair nor a good idea to tax religious organizations. The whole point behind not taxing non-profits is that they benefit society and thus obviate or reduce the need for additional gubment programs. That said, a LOT of churches have branched out into businesses, 'er "ministries" that benefit nobody other than the preacha and maybe a few of his cronies. I live near Creflo Dollar and Eddie Longstrokeaminor, trust me, I see this phenomenon firsthand on a daily basis. Instead of removing their tax exempt status, I'd like to see religious organizations be required to file a form 990. Aside from the disclosure helping to curb abuses of the system, the general hilarity of watching preacha having to explain why he felt it necessary to buy a personal helicopter (yes, one of our local preachas has one) draw a fat salary, etc. would be pure comedy gold.

 

And Asbury, don't get your panties all in a bunch. I don't know whether American Atheists has or hasn't done any charity work. However they aren't the only non-believing group around. As individuals and on a group level, we non-believers donate and do plenty of charity work ourselves. The only difference is that very often you wouldn't know if a given charity is run by non-believers because charities frequently work with religious organizations that unfortunately would never donate to or work with them if they knew said charity was run by a non-believer.

 

I'm hoping to start my own non-profit in a few years and have put out some feelers. One of the first questions I always get is what faith I am and whether I'd be interested in joining their church. After my always polite negative response, I've never heard from any of them again nor do they return subsequent phone calls. I guess reforming ex-cons just isn't something Jeebus would do.

[alexey]

You have yet to show how there is any substantive difference in the way a religious group is treated. The article you posted tells half the story and ignores the fact churches all have to do the same thing.

For me personally, the most troubling part of special treatment given to religious institutions is exempting them from having to tell how they spend their money. Do I understand correctly that that is the case?

[dfitzo53]

For me personally, the most troubling part of special treatment given to religious institutions is exempting them from having to tell how they spend their money. Do I understand correctly that that is the case?

Just for the sake of clarity in the discussion, rather than everyone asking questions back and forth in place of actual presentation of facts and debate:

http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i990/ch01.html

 

It seems to state clearly that churches are not required to file Form 990.  Interestingly, government entities that fall under that section of the code are also not required to file Form 990 or one of its substitutes.  

 

Now, if you want to know why certain groups are exempt and certain groups aren't, I'm afraid I don't have an answer for you.

 

Alexey, are you confident in the accuracy of the information in the article you posted as a whole?  Asbury has maintained that churches are not exempt from the fees, which is in direct contradiction to the information in the article.  Do you know for a fact one way or the other?  (I don't.)

[AsburySkinsFan]

For me personally, the most troubling part of special treatment given to religious institutions is exempting them from having to tell how they spend their money. Do I understand correctly that that is the case?

I've never had to report our budget to the IRS, no. But, as part of being Methodists we operate with "open books", meaning that the way we budget and our yearly spending is not only filed with our denomination annually but also open for anyone to see.

Personally, I think you'd be pretty unimpressed with the "holdings" of most churches considering that the vast majority of churches in America have fewer than 100 members. My guess is that you're not interested in those, just those greedy Catholics with the real money....yeah let's dig into their pockets....yeah yeah.....

BTW, what community services are the American Atheists providing?

Alexey, are you confident in the accuracy of the information in the article you posted as a whole?  Asbury has maintained that churches are not exempt from the fees, which is in direct contradiction to the information in the article.  Do you know for a fact one way or the other?  (I don't.)

And that info is readily available on wikipedia.

[dfitzo53]

And that info is readily available on wikipedia.

 

Then please provide a link, since you disagree with the opening premise of the thread and know where to find support for your argument.  Nothing is sillier than multiple people arguing on the internet without a single person providing independent evidence.

 

I believe alexey is wasting his time with these threads.  (Unless of course he is entertained by them, which I suspect he is.  Then it is up to him whether it's a waste of time.)

 

Although I attend and give money to a church, I don't disagree with the idea that some parts of the tax code bear reexamination.  Either way, nothing will be gained from emotional ranting and pointed questions in the absence of the facts that relate to the question at hand.  I'm not pointing fingers at any particular person in this thread, just at the general level of discourse in almost every thread like this one.  It's like two teams of blind people playing tug of war in the mud, not realizing they're going nowhere.

[PeterMP]

I don't think it's fair nor a good idea to tax religious organizations. The whole point behind not taxing non-profits is that they benefit society and thus obviate or reduce the need for additional gubment programs. That said, a LOT of churches have branched out into businesses, 'er "ministries" that benefit nobody other than the preacha and maybe a few of his cronies. I live near Creflo Dollar and Eddie Longstrokeaminor, trust me, I see this phenomenon firsthand on a daily basis. Instead of removing their tax exempt status, I'd like to see religious organizations be required to file a form 990. Aside from the disclosure helping to curb abuses of the system, the general hilarity of watching preacha having to explain why he felt it necessary to buy a personal helicopter (yes, one of our local preachas has one) draw a fat salary, etc. would be pure comedy gold.

 

And Asbury, don't get your panties all in a bunch. I don't know whether American Atheists has or hasn't done any charity work. However they aren't the only non-believing group around. As individuals and on a group level, we non-believers donate and do plenty of charity work ourselves. The only difference is that very often you wouldn't know if a given charity is run by non-believers because charities frequently work with religious organizations that unfortunately would never donate to or work with them if they knew said charity was run by a non-believer.

 

I'm hoping to start my own non-profit in a few years and have put out some feelers. One of the first questions I always get is what faith I am and whether I'd be interested in joining their church. After my always polite negative response, I've never heard from any of them again nor do they return subsequent phone calls. I guess reforming ex-cons just isn't something Jeebus would do.

 

In terms of your link:

 

Buffett actually reports as being agnostic.  I guess you can claim that Buffet doesn't understand the difference between agnostic and atheist and is calling himself the wrong thing, but that seems pretty presumptious on that person's part.

 

Gates is at best vague about his relgion (though he has clearly said he rejects certain aspects of Christianity), but his wife is Catholic (though she has broken with the Catholic Church over the use of contraceptives- though that's probably true for like 80% of US Catholics if had to guess, including my mom who had 6 kids).

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/06/health/melinda-gates-contraception/

 

Now, the big thing is also just because a few people donate a lot that doesn't mean anything about total.

 

When looking at individuals, everything I've seen is that Christians do give more.

 

I'm not saying that atheist can't and don't do charity of give charity and realistically, this is a place where a little friendly competition would probably bo good, but the facts don't actually support most of the claims made in your links.

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703766704576009361375685394

 

(And the author of that is a faculty member at Harvard.)

 

And maybe there is new/better data that I haven't seen.

[The Sisko]

I've never had to report our budget to the IRS, no. But, as part of being Methodists we operate with "open books", meaning that the way we budget and our yearly spending is not only filed with our denomination annually but also open for anyone to see.

Personally, I think you'd be pretty unimpressed with the "holdings" of most churches considering that the vast majority of churches in America have fewer than 100 members. My guess is that you're not interested in those, just those greedy Catholics with the real money....yeah let's dig into their pockets....yeah yeah.....

BTW, what community services are the American Atheists providing?

And that info is readily available on wikipedia.

American Atheists stand up for the civil rights of non-believers and for the separation of church and state. Therefore charitable activities like soup kitchens, clothing drives, and the like are outside their core mission. Let's see if I can play the specious comparison game too. When was the last time a church ever stood up for the civil rights of non-believers or for the separation of church and state? Of course I'm sure you were completely unaware of how invalid a comparison this was. Interestingly, you also chose to ignore it when I pointed out that in general, atheists and other non-believers give as much or more than believers.

 

I do commend your denomination's transparency in its financial matters. However I think it would be helpful for all religious organizations to be required to do the same. They're receiving a benefit from the taxpayers and it's not at all unreasonable for them to disclose their financials so that the taxpayers and their contributors can know exactly how they're spending taxpayer and donated funds on and whether those activities are showing results.

[The Sisko]

In terms of your link:

 

Buffett actually reports as being agnostic.  I guess you can claim that Buffet doesn't understand the difference between agnostic and atheist and is calling himself the wrong thing, but that seems pretty presumptious on that person's part.

 

Gates is at best vague about his relgion (though he has clearly said he rejects certain aspects of Christianity), but his wife is Catholic (though she has broken with the Catholic Church over the use of contraceptives- though that's probably true for like 80% of US Catholics if had to guess, including my mom who had 6 kids).

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/06/health/melinda-gates-contraception/

 

Now, the big thing is also just because a few people donate a lot that doesn't mean anything about total.

 

When looking at individuals, everything I've seen is that Christians do give more.

 

I'm not saying that atheist can't and don't do charity of give charity and realistically, this is a place where a little friendly competition would probably bo good, but the facts don't actually support most of the claims made in your links.

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703766704576009361375685394

 

(And the author of that is a faculty member at Harvard.)

 

And maybe there is new/better data that I haven't seen.

Fair enough. As an expedient in discussions like this, we non-believers will often lump all of us together as non-believers whether atheist, agnostic or other. However my point wasn't necessarily that non-believers give more than believers so I don't really care about that per se. I just found a quick link to point out the error in Asbury's implied idea that non-believers don't give to charitable causes nor have a social/ethical imperative to do so. We do give, and we do run many charitable organizations.

[PokerPacker]

Separation of Church and State

Tax churches and then they get FULL involvement.

Pick your poison.

BTW, it isn't just churches...it's all religious groups that file under 501c3, and we know that atheism isn't a religion so they can file as a non-profit organization just like any other secular non- profit.

I don't see how taxing a religious organization just like you would any other organization is breaking the separation of church and state.

[No Excuses]

And let's not pretend that the church isn't influencing politics. They have tax exemption benefits and still play get to meddle in local, state and federal governing. How convenient.