religious favoritism?

[James Maule]

For what it's worth, from the tax perspective: the constraints on tax-exempt organizations are a combination of common law definitions (e.g., the meaning of "charitable") and an array of complex policy-based determinations that reflect Congressional judgment of what a tax-exempt organization should or should not be doing. The political activity restraint (the one at issue here) is really itself another array of various limitations, ranging from denial of tax-exempt status to the trigger of private foundation excise taxes (and deduction denials for taxpayers). In terms of removing some of the political activity restraint, the Congress spotlights both policy and constitutional issues. The policy issues can be debated forever (and have been). The constitutional issue involves the extent to which religious organizations operate under a "different" or "more favorable" set of rules... something that already happens with respect to things such as information return filing and unrelated business taxable income computation and application. These differences have been justified on constitutional grounds, that is, that the imposition of certain requirements would impede free exercise. Apparently either free exercise was not considered to have included political lobbying or the application of those constraints on all tax-exempt organizations was considered to be sufficiently neutral so as to resist any challenges that had been made during the legislative processes generating those provisions. Query if these bills would be any more of an establishment clause concern than the already existing differences.



Jim Maule
Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law
Villanova PA 19085
maule at law.villanova.edu
http://vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule
President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law instruction) (www.taxjem.com)
Publisher, JEMBook Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com)
Owner/Developer, TaxCruncherPro (www.taxcruncherpro.com)
Maule Family Archivist & Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com)




>>> dcruz at LAW.USC.EDU 11/21/01 01:22PM >>>
I don't know enough about the tax code to be certain, but the descriptions
below of HR 2357 and HR 2931 make it sound like these bills would give
religious organizations taxation/speech preferences that other nonprofit
organizations would not be extended.  I've read the bills (they're short),
and that appears that it might be the case with respect to HR 2357,
although the cross-references are such that I can't tell at all with
respect to HR 2931.  If these readings are right (and I lack confidence on
that question -- for all I know of the tax laws, the bills might be
eliminating a restriction applicable only to religious groups), any
constitutional problems?

(I don't know the group that sent this message out, so I can't vouch for
them or their accuracy.)

-David B. Cruz, USC Law (Cal.)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:12:14 EST

Spread the word:
HR 2357 the "Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act,"
This bill is designed, "To amend the Internal Revenue Service Code of 1986
to permit church and other houses of worship to engage in political
campaigns."  (without losing their precious tax exempt status)
As of today, 104 members of the
House of Representatives have cosponsored the legislation.

Mr. Jones' legislation has momentum.  With just another 20 to 30 more
cosponsors, the momentum will be enough for the House leadership to move
the bill through committee and to the House floor for a vote.

ALSO:  HR 2931, the so-called Bright-line Act, would permit churches and
other religious groups to use up to 20% of their annual untaxed income for
lobbying efforts. Another five percent could be donated directly to
candidates. The measure was introduced by Rep. Phil Crane (R-Illinois) and
has major cosponsors including Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), whip
Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Charles Norwood (R-Geoirgia). The measure is also
being supported by Rev. Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition and
other religious right groups.


Check out:
http://www.atheists.org/action/alert-1-oct-2001.html