{"id":38963,"date":"2020-02-15T06:49:51","date_gmt":"2020-02-15T14:49:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=38963"},"modified":"2020-02-15T06:49:51","modified_gmt":"2020-02-15T14:49:51","slug":"everyday-erinyes-204","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2020\/02\/15\/everyday-erinyes-204\/","title":{"rendered":"Everyday Erinyes #204"},"content":{"rendered":"

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto<\/span><\/strong>, Megaera<\/span><\/strong>, and Tisiphone<\/strong><\/span>. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”<\/p>\n

A few weeks ago (three, to be exact) I did a mammoth article on the IRS, with emphasis on why it’s so easy for Repubicans to cheat (and of course, when they cheat the IRS, it is ALL OF US who are getting cheated. I tend to take it personally.) Now, they have come up with yet a new wrinkle to cheat us all financially, and to combine it with straight-up misrepresentation by posing as actual churches when they aren’t.
\n==================================================================<\/p>\n

What’s a church? That can depend on the eye of the beholder or paperwork filed with the IRS<\/h1>\n
This might be a church. Or not.
\nRawpixel.com\/Shutterstock.com<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Samuel Brunson<\/a>, Loyola University Chicago<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

In 2016, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association<\/a> told the Internal Revenue Service that it no longer wanted to be treated merely as a tax-exempt religious organization, free from the obligation to pay taxes on its income<\/a>. Instead, the association \u2013 a Charlotte, North Carolina-based group that produces evangelical events<\/a>, celebrates the legacy of Billy Graham and proselytizes about Jesus Christ \u2013 wanted the IRS to recognize it as a church.<\/p>\n

The IRS complied with its request.<\/p>\n

Similar religious groups lacking pews and parishioners are making the switch, too, including Focus on the Family<\/a>, which promotes Christian<\/a> heterosexual marriage<\/a>; and the Navigators<\/a>, an interdenominational Christian group<\/a> active on college campuses.<\/p>\n

In spite of being registered with the IRS as \u201cchurches,\u201d these organizations and others like them don\u2019t claim to be churches publicly. In fact, Gideons International<\/a> \u2013 an association of businessmen and their wives who leave Bibles in hotel rooms \u2013 says on its website that it is neither a denomination nor a church. And yet, for tax purposes, Gideons claims to be a church<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Why would an already tax-exempt religious group want the government to treat it as a church? Because the rules governing churches are less strict.<\/p>\n

501(c)(3) groups<\/h2>\n

While reasons for this growing trend<\/a> vary, these groups may share one main goal: keeping their donor lists private<\/a> to protect their donors from public criticism or backlash.<\/p>\n

As a professor who studies how tax laws affect churches and other tax-exempt organizations<\/a>, I believe these groups overestimate the benefits their donors will receive if the groups are treated as churches. Even so, I\u2019m concerned that groups taking this step are reducing the flow of valuable information about these organizations to the public.<\/p>\n

To see why I\u2019m worried, here\u2019s some background about what\u2019s probably the best-known section of the U.S. tax code, section 501(c)(3)<\/a>. It provides two benefits to organizations that meet its requirements for tax exemption. First, these approximately 1.5 million<\/a> groups \u2013 including everything from familiar nonprofits like the Red Cross<\/a> to National Public Radio<\/a> to the lesser-known First Church of Cannabis<\/a> and the Satanic Temple<\/a> \u2013 generally don\u2019t have to pay taxes on their income.<\/p>\n

Second, some of their donors can deduct their donations from their taxable income through the charitable deduction<\/a>, creating an incentive to support those groups. While groups must be organized as nonprofits to qualify for the federal tax exemption, not every nonprofit is exempt<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Eligibility requires pursuing a specific purpose<\/a>, such as religion, education or charity.<\/p>\n

These organizations face obligations to maintain their exemptions, such as filing special paperwork with the IRS every year known as a Form 990<\/a>. It requires disclosing some information, including who sits on its board of directors and the highest-paid employees. Tax-exempt groups also must share select financial information, including the value of their assets, their expenditures and their revenue.<\/p>\n

As you may know, the IRS can\u2019t violate your privacy by releasing your tax return<\/a>. By contrast, it must make all 990 forms<\/a> part of the public record<\/a>.<\/p>\n

An exception<\/h2>\n

As I explained in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought<\/a>, an academic publication, no tax-exempt organization had to file any documentation with the IRS for the first 30 years following the modern federal income tax\u2019s inception in 1913. That changed in 1943, when Congress decided to make all of these groups except the religious ones \u2013 whether or not they function as churches \u2013 file of annual tax returns.<\/p>\n

By 1969, in the wake of the discovery of a number of organizations abusing their tax exemptions<\/a>, Congress had begun to feel like the government needed more information. That year, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would have eliminated the filing exception for all religious organizations.<\/p>\n

The House\u2019s bill galvanized the religious community, which lobbied the Senate. Leaders like Ernest Wilkinson<\/a>, the president of Brigham Young University, and the U.S. Catholic Conference<\/a> argued against this legislation.<\/p>\n

They claimed that the added paperwork would be burdensome and expensive for churches without generating additional tax dollars. They also asserted that disclosure was unnecessary because religious donors make charitable contributions based on religious obligations, not due to concern regarding the financial health of churches.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, Congress split the proverbial baby. As of 1970, religious organizations were no longer exempt from filing 990 forms. The government did, however, exempt from this obligation churches, church associations and their \u201cintegrated auxiliaries<\/a>\u201d \u2013 that is, organizations associated with a church that receive financial support primarily from that church.<\/p>\n

Today churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship<\/a> remain free from the obligation to file the forms the IRS makes all other tax-exempt organizations submit.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
The IRS uses the term \u2018church\u2019 broadly, applying it to all faith traditions.<\/span>
\nCrystal Eye Studio\/Shutterstock.com<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Let\u2019s be a church!<\/h2>\n

To decide whether something really is a church, at least for tax purposes, the IRS considers 14 criteria<\/a>.<\/p>\n