Comments

I would think that tax exemptions would be classified as a privilege, not a right, even to religious organizations. Privileges are conditional, like my driver's license, right?

If a church doesn't want to play by the rules for the privilege of being a tax exempt religious organization, contact your representatives to have them changed, while playing by the old rules until they are changed. Or, for speedier changes, register with the tax people as an organization that can endorse candidates, and play by those rules.

Or course, this isn't really about tax exemptions and free speach, but states' rights...the political theory of privilege.

Where the privileged have the "duty" to determine who is privileged to what degree, and who is not, but which is really an unearned and unrestricted hegemony over others who have no rights and very few privileges, too.

I don't quite know what to think of the letter.
I would be careful when you challenge the IRS>

The constitution is beside the point here. I'm alarmed at what this ad does to the Church's reputation, and by extension, to Christ. Too often we're swept up into the "rights and power" mindset of prevailing culture instead of accompanying God on his work.
A godly congregation is the salt of the earth. Tax exempt status is a welcome thanks so long as it doesn't constrict our mission. If it does, then do witout. If it's a question of fairness, "why not rather be wronged?" (I Cor. 6:7) Faith would step out regardless and depend on God to make up the difference. The New Testament and church history both teach us to peacefully spread the Gospel regardless of legalities, to say nothing of these niceties.
Some of us choose not to itemize charitable giving on tax returns to purify our motives and keep the left hand from knowing what the right is doing, but we don't make noise or take out ads about it.
A former pastor of mine had a favorite saying "God will be no man's debtor." Why put any expectations on the IRS, when we know God's hand will overcompensate, albeit in unexpected ways? (Mark 10:29)
Sure, our work may technically give us all sorts of rights, but in the spirit of I Corinthians 9, we would do well to dwell on God's gift to us rather than to what we imagine we're entitled. Let it go already.

any organization, church or otherwise, that accepts the privilege of tax exempt status 501(c)3 is required to abide by IRS rules regarding the exemption. if an organization chooses not to follow the rules after signing the application form on the dotted line, then the organization deserves whatever consequences the infraction entails. i am particularly tired of churches complaining of the many restrictions. if they find it too restrictive, then they should just pay taxes and have a guarantee from the IRS that they will be left alone. freedom always has a price.

Two quick points in response:

1. On issue preaching. We do not back away from our ad. The IRS does prohibit preaching on issues that are controversial during an election cycle under very common circumstances. Specifically, the IRS said in its letter to political parties during the 2004 election cycle (available at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/eo_letter.pdf) that it bans “any [] activities that may be beneficial or detrimental to any candidate.” This catch-all phrasing can easily be used by the IRS to silence preaching on moral issues upon which two candidates happen to differ.

In addition, the IRS’s very next sentence prohibits “[e]ven activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate on the basis of nonpartisan criteria.” The IRS inserted this clause (and the conspicuous word “even”) to disabuse the public of precisely the notion Melissa asserts. Let’s take as an example a “non-partisan criteri[on]” frequently discussed in houses of worship today—-the issue of abortion. If two days before a run-off election, an imam preaches to his congregation that they cannot in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate, and the two candidates up for election happen to be diametrically opposed on the issue of abortion, the imam has violated the law, according to the IRS. If the IRS’s words are to be believed this conclusion is inescapable.

2. On MLK Jr. We have said that the IRS, according to its own rules, should’ve pulled MLK’s church’s tax exemption. The reasoning for this is that MLK preached strongly for civil rights and against the Vietnam war, precisely when candidates were running for office based on their stands for and against these issues. If the IRS had applied its principles evenhandedly, it would have yanked Martin Luther King’s church tax exemption. But it didn’t, because it would have caused a well-justified uproar. This is pretty clearly selective enforcement.

I hope this helps to clarify our position.

Roger Severino
Legal Counsel
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

In order to determine what income is taxable the index of the Code
designates the starting point as 26 U.S.C. § 861:
26 U.S.C. § 861. Income from Sources within the United States. -
STATUTE-
(a) Gross income from sources within United States
The following items of gross income shall be treated as income
from sources within the United States: -At 1644 of your electronic version.

Further follow: “Sec. 863. Special rules for determining source
-STATUTE-
(a) Allocation under regulations
Items of gross income, expenses, losses, and deductions, other than those
specified in sections 861(a) and 862(a), shall be allocated or apportioned to
sources within or without the United States, under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary. Where items of gross income are separately allocated to sources
within the United States, there shall be deducted (for the purpose of computing
the taxable income therefrom) the expenses, losses, and other deductions
properly apportioned or allocated thereto and a ratable part of other expenses,
losses, or other deductions which cannot definitely be allocated to some item
or class of gross income. The remainder, if any, shall be included in full as
taxable income from sources within the United States. (b) Income partly from
within and partly from without the United States In the case of gross income
derived from sources partly within and partly without the United States, the
taxable income may first be computed by deducting the expenses, losses, or
other deductions apportioned or allocated thereto and a ratable part of any
expenses, losses, or other deductions which cannot definitely be allocated to
some item or class of gross income; and the portion of such taxable income
attributable to sources within the United States may be determined by processes
or formulas of general apportionment prescribed by the Secretary. Gains, profits,
and income –“ At 1655 of electronic version

Reserving all rights and objections: I have no existence of a tax
deficiency due; one must first have an income that falls WITHIN
‘the law’. I am an individual created by God, born within the fifty compact
several states. I am without the United States, and have never to my
knowledge or consent had any taxable income or activity nor do I ever intend
to have any taxable activity income, within or without the United States or
effectively connected therewith. Simply put, I have not any taxable activity
nor desire ever to have such activity, accordingly my personal and private
revenues being exempt, there is no tax deficiency, an essential element I
squarely challenge if you choose to pursue the matter. All past and present
and as I anticipate all future Informational returns that may have been filed
with you must have been done in error by the party whom made the report.
Source of income, is still a factor in determining the scope of the taxing
authority of the federal government. Prior to 1954, the income tax was levied
upon ‘net income’- exempt are the items of income that which are under the
Constitution - not taxable by the federal government, and still in effect - not
to be confused with deductions allowed.

Sections 862(b) and 863(a) state in general terms how to determine taxable
income of a taxpayer from sources without the United States after gross income
from sources without the United States has been determined. This section
provides specific guidance for applying the cited Code sections by prescribing
rules for the allocation and apportionment of expenses, losses, and other
deductions (referred to collectively in this section as ‘deductions’) of the taxpayer.
The rules contained in this section apply in determining taxable income of the
taxpayer from specific sources and activities under other sections of the
Code. -- The source of income is still a factor in determining the scope of the
taxing authority of the federal government; these deductions apply to all lawfully
taxable income, but not all sources.

The Income Tax Law, Subtitle A of Title 26, United States Code, imposes a
tax on the taxable income of certain individuals: 26 U.S.C. § 1. Tax
Imposed. There is hereby imposed on the taxable income (starting at page 39
of your electronic version), contained within your statute - imposition of the
tax is on taxable income, only, not on any person or entity. Ones income
activity must first be subject to liability for tax before it cam be imposed,
where my activity has never been subject to that liability. There may very
well be others whose activity is effectively connected within that scope and to
the United States, however my activities are not connected.

Yes, there are limitations upon Congress' power to tax and that there are
items and sources of income that are Constitutionally exempt from taxation
by the federal government. Not all income is Constitutionally taxable and is
referred to as exempt income being that which is not taxable by the federal
government "under fundamental law", where all forms of income that I
receive just happen to be domiciled... other persons may not be, however I
choose daily to remain within my God given fundamental right to choose a
non taxable activity. As stated in numerous past correspondents, I - Robert
Alexander, make it clear that I don’t receive any non-exempt items of income
specified within the “law” and any apparent evidence to the contrary is false.

The 16 Amendment did not expand the scope of Congress' power to tax
(Brushaber, Stanton, Tyee, - et al.), thus although the source of income is no
longer a factor in determining whether the tax is direct or indirect, neither the
jurisdiction of the federal government nor its taxing authority was enlarged to
include authority to tax activities and privileges that it could not have taxed
before the 16th Amendment. 26 U.S.C. § et al; Tax Imposed ‘this law’ is
imposing a “tax on only that income the federal government was
Constitutionally entitled”, able, to tax, tax-able, thereby, technically, excluding
all Constitutionally exempt or excluded income from the effects of the tax. As
repeatedly held, this [the 16 Amendment] did not extend the taxing power to
new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist
for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income.

The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power
of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary
power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning
from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it
inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation
subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the
income was derived... - Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

In Billings v. U.S., 232 U.S. 261, 34 S.Ct. 421 (1914):
"Tax statutes . . . should be strictly construed, and, if any
ambiguity be found to exist, it must be resolved in favor of the citizen.
Eidman v. Martinez, 184 U.S. 578, 583; United States v. Wigglesworth, 2
Story, 369, 374; Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Herold, 198 F. 199, 201,
aff'd 201 F. 918; Parkview Bldg. Assn. v. Herold, 203 F. 876, 880; Mutual
Trust Co. v. Miller, 177 N.Y. 51, 57."

In United States v. Merriam, 263 U.S. 179, 44 S.Ct. 69 (1923):
"On behalf of the Government it is urged that taxation is a practical matter
and concerns itself with the substance of the thing upon which the tax is
imposed rather than with legal forms or expressions. But in statutes levying
taxes the literal meaning of the words employed is most important, for
such statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear
import of the language used. If the words are doubtful, the doubt must
be resolved against the Government and in favor of the taxpayer.
Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 153."

In Tandy Leather Company v. United States, 347 F.2d 693 (5th Cir. 1965):
“that the burden in such a case is always on the collector to show, in
justification of his levy and collection of an excise tax, that the statute
plainly and clearly lays the tax; that, in short, the fundamental rule is that
taxes to be collectible must be clearly laid.” At 694

Water Quality Ass'n v. United States, 795 F.2d 1303 (7th Cir. 1986):
"It is a basic principle of statutory construction that courts have no
right first to determine the legislative intent of a statute and then,
under the guise of its interpretation, proceed to either add words to or
eliminate other words from the statute's language. DeSoto Securities Co.
v. Commissioner, 235 F.2d 409, 411 (7th Cir. 1956); see also 2A Sutherland
Statutory Construction § 47.38 (4th ed. 1984). Similarly, the Secretary has
no power to change the language of the revenue statutes because he
thinks Congress may have overlooked something."

Remembering that tax laws must be strictly construed and that any ambiguity
must be resolved against imposition of the tax, it can, therefore, only be
concluded that sources of income other than those enumerated cannot be
included in gross income and that items of income other than those items
of income specified as not exempt, are exempt from the federal income
tax. With the sole exception of those sources specifically identified as taxable
and those items specifically identified as not exempt, it cannot be said that the
tax has "been plainly and clearly laid" on any other sources or items of
income. Billings, Merriam, Gould, Tandy Leather, supra.

Domiciled within the Republic known as Texas, within these united States
(U. States i.e. United States’) I do not nor have I ever lived within the
“United States” (U.S.). To the best of my knowledge I have only visited for
a few hours a single U.S. Territory. The fifty compact several States are
without the United States (U.S.) and are NON-Federal, to put it plainly, the
fifty States Territory i.e. where I’m domiciled is in the States, which means
they are not within the federal jurisdiction. All of my personal activities and
revenues are exempt from federal excise taxation as being outside the taxing
authority of the federal government. I choose to live my Godly given rights
of life, liberty, and happiness to always remain within a non taxable activity.
Any income that I receive is exempt from federal excise taxation
because the activity is the exercise of a fundamental, constitutionally
protected right, and therefore, outside the taxing authority of the
federal government. Fundamental rights are those described in general
terms by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, as proclaimed
in that great document, it is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by
which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation. These
rights are derived from Natural Law, "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's
God" (Jesus The Living Christ), not from the Constitution, not from the
government. Such rights are inalienable (unchallengeable) and inviolable
(unbreakable), and are not privileges that can be the subject of a tax on
privileges - unalienable. A person's freedom and ability to work is his own
property, and that right cannot be taken, bought, sold or bartered away. I
owe my life to my Creator God and value what he has given me, and as a
good steward choose to serve his kingdom to the best of my ability. In my
personal, sincerely held beliefs as a Christian, I could never even consider
supporting a government that promotes baby killing (abortions) or
homosexuality (disgusting perversion of nature) – as a natural man, a
preacher and a servant of the Lord Most High God, rest assured with
certainty that I would under no circumstances, allow myself to effectively
connect an income within a taxable activity, which feeds ungodly behavior.

In a memorandum from the Congressional Research Service, Library of
Congress, it was stated, citing both Brushaber and Stanton "Therefore, it is
clear that the income tax is an 'indirect' tax." It is, therefore, subject to
the same limitations on taxing authority that are established hereinabove, and
that is that it cannot tax person or property without apportionment
(Article I, § 9, cl. 4), nor any activity that is without either the scope of
federal legislative authority, outside the scope of excise, or monies owed
to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations. Nor does the power to tax by
excise permit the federal government to tax activities that are solely within
the realm of the State jurisdiction.

The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable
right that is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of a Citizen. That among
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these'
- not grant them but secure them -'governments are instituted among
men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' Do your
duty, maintain your just powers, and keep my rights secured!