Temple Land Tax?

[Bikeemikey]

" The IRS has also conditioned a church's tax-exempt status on the requirement that "no substantial part of the activities" of the organization may constitute "carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation." I.R.C. § 501©(3). If a substantial part of the activities of an exempt organization, such as a church, consists of lobbying, the organization will not be tax-exempt under § 501©(3)."

Next I suppose I have to post what lobbying means. Suffice it say, someone who states that a church has a blank check to tell its members what measures to vote for, is a person who does not understand the limitations Churches have in the political process.

I think you will find that lobbying and attempting to influence legislation will not include any activity that occurs during a sabbath day congregational meeting.

Church speeches made to church members, even on political subjects with specific political directives will never be lobbying and therefore never violate religious exemption status.

The issues comes if the church begins to solicit outside its membership base with a political message. This becomes a grey area. When they begin to spend money on such actions it becomes lobbying and/or propaganda.

A church does have a blank slate to tell there members how to vote. They can do this with impunity. Most however do not. They could not however formally restrict membership to specific political affiliation or spend money promoting a political agenda or legislation.

[ERayR]

It is becoming clearer that you may not understand tax issues in the United States. You have failed to prove that the prohibition against Churches engaging "vote for x " activities exempts moral issues.

My friend I think it is you who does not understand tax issues in the US.  Just answer the CFR. 

[ERayR]

" The IRS has also conditioned a church's tax-exempt status on the requirement that "no substantial part of the activities" of the organization may constitute "carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation." I.R.C. § 501©(3). If a substantial part of the activities of an exempt organization, such as a church, consists of lobbying, the organization will not be tax-exempt under § 501©(3)."

Next I suppose I have to post what lobbying means. Suffice it say, someone who states that a church has a blank check to tell its members what measures to vote for, is a person who does not understand the limitations Churches have in the political process.

 

Here let me help you out a little.  Go to the following link and read as much as you want but pay particular attention to pages 5 thru 8. 

 

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

 

If you don't understand it let me know.  I am a CPA in one of my personalities.

[ERayR]

I think you will find that lobbying and attempting to influence legislation will not include any activity that occurs during a sabbath day congregational meeting. Church speeches made to church members, even on political subjects with specific political directives will never be lobbying and therefore never violate religious exemption status. The issues comes if the church begins to solicit outside its membership base with a political message. This becomes a grey area. When they begin to spend money on such actions it becomes lobbying and/or propaganda. A church does have a blank slate to tell there members how to vote. They can do this with impunity. Most however do not. They could not however formally restrict membership to specific political affiliation or spend money promoting a political agenda or legislation.

 

The regs say they are prohibited from using a substantial part of their activities to lobby.  I'm thinking that there are several churches that could do a whole lot of lobbying before expending a substantial part of their activities.

[foster]

My friend I think it is you who does not understand tax issues in the US.  Just answer the CFR.

You must answer the CFR first. You have not answered the CFR regarding your assertion that it would not be a problem for a Chit h to instruct it membership how to vote on a particular measure. You also have not shown that the IRS grants an exception to "moral issues".

[foster]

I think you will find that lobbying and attempting to influence legislation will not include any activity that occurs during a sabbath day congregational meeting.

Church speeches made to church members, even on political subjects with specific political directives will never be lobbying and therefore never violate religious exemption status.

The issues comes if the church begins to solicit outside its membership base with a political message. This becomes a grey area. When they begin to spend money on such actions it becomes lobbying and/or propaganda.

A church does have a blank slate to tell there members how to vote. They can do this with impunity. Most however do not. They could not however formally restrict membership to specific political affiliation or spend money promoting a political agenda or legislation.

CFR. A church does have a blank slate. Please prove they do.

[foster]

ErayE I understand quite well that a Church will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it advocates for or against a piece of legislation. You can find the reference on page 6 of the pdf you linked, left column about the middle of the page.

[ERayR]

You must answer the CFR first. You have not answered the CFR regarding your assertion that it would not be a problem for a Chit h to instruct it membership how to vote on a particular measure. You also have not shown that the IRS grants an exception to "moral issues".

 

Do you not pay attention.  Read the reference I gave you in post #128. 

[foster]

Do you not pay attention.  Read the reference I gave you in post #128. 

 

I have given close attention to the fact that you refuse to CFR your assertion from post 104. You refuse to CFR that a Church and direct its member how to vote on a particular matter. That you refuse and divert attention away from your refusal says a lot about your position and whether or not you can or will support it with anything other than "I, ErayE, said so."

 

Concerning your linked document from the IRS, the word "moral" appears twice (page 13 example 4). And it appears in the context of a Church that has violated IRS regulations.

[Ron Beron]

We are a very big state with lots of problems. On balance Governor Schwatzegger governed more like a moderate. It was disappointing that his personal life was/is  such a mess. Governor Brown while a Democrat is very fiscally conservative. Personally I wish he would be more like his dad "Pat" Brown. Only time will tell if it was for the better or worse.

Cough...cough...High speed rail....

[Ron Beron]

Hello TSS...

Generally Calif may be running a surplus, but some cities are in deep financial trouble... my home town of San Bernardino... my formerly beautiful hometown, has filed for bankruptcy... and parts of the city that were once lovely are quite run down. 

Then there is also Stockton, another city that filed bankruptcy a couple of years ago.  Don't know how they came out of it, i.e., weaker or stronger.

Now that I have no one really close left in So Cal, I haven't been there since I buried my husband in Riverside... of course that's where I'll end up, with him.  In a way I wish he would have been buried up here... we have this beautiful little cemetery high on a hill overlooking the ocean.  At least I could have visited his grave.  Thankfully extended family in So Cal put flowers on special holidays, etc.

My California is not the Calif of my youth... those days are gone...

 

GG

Even my youth.  I miss Bob's Big Boy.

[Bikeemikey]

CFR. A church does have a blank slate. Please prove they do.

A CFR is a request for a reference - there is no language in the regulations governing church non-profit requirements that days, "you can tell you members how to vote".

There are however examples if the kinda of activities that would disqualify a religion from retaining is non-profit status.

1. Lobbying politically

2. With a substantial portion of their focus.

So, my reference to a blank slate was very narrow. They can ask their members to vote however they wish, they could not however have membership subject to that political request.

Is addressing your own membership group lobbying?

Would it constitute a substantial portion of church time-resource to make such a request?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying

[ERayR]

I have given close attention to the fact that you refuse to CFR your assertion from post 104. You refuse to CFR that a Church and direct its member how to vote on a particular matter. That you refuse and divert attention away from your refusal says a lot about your position and whether or not you can or will support it with anything other than "I, ErayE, said so."

 

Concerning your linked document from the IRS, the word "moral" appears twice (page 13 example 4). And it appears in the context of a Church that has violated IRS regulations.

 

I don't know what your occupation is but you don't seem adept at reading IRS documents. 

 

OK lets try again.  First off a church directs nothing.  Leaders of churches communicate with their members.  A church leader may say whatever he/she likes as long as it is stated as personal opinion ( Page 7).  He can even endorse candidates.

 

A church as a church organization can lobby on issues.  At bottom of page 5 and on page 6 it defines lobbying activity that may be done by a church activity as long as it doesn't commit a substantial part of their resources(volunteers, paid participants or finances) to the lobbying activity.  "Substantial part" is a "facts and circumstances" measure. 

 

Read the publication carefully, paying attention to the examples.  Church leaders are not nearly as restricted as you seem to think.  They just have to be aware and not step over the defined boundaries. 

 

Note:  The "substantial part" restriction on lobby efforts would mean that a small local church leader would be limited to a much smaller effort than would the leaders of much larger churches.

[foster]

ErayE are you now backing away from your moral issue assertion from post 104; are you going to provide the reference that distinguishes "moral issues" from other political activity? Read the publications carefully, where is the "moral issue" blank check Churches have?

The substantial part issue was acknowledged in post 125, if not earlier in this thread.

Edited September 11, 2013 by foster

[thesometimesaint]

Cough...cough...High speed rail....

Miles of high speed rail in US. Less than 500 with no new seroiously being considered

Miles of hgh speed rail in China. Greater than 1428 with more seriously being considered.

 

Nuff said.

[foster]

Bikemikey perhaps you should read the IRS definition of "lobbying".

Edited September 11, 2013 by foster

[ERayR]

ErayE I understand quite well that a Church will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it advocates for or against a piece of legislation. You can find the reference on page 6 of the pdf you linked, left column about the middle of the page.

 

You are not making sense.

[ERayR]

ErayE are you now backing away from your moral issue assertion from post 104; are you going to provide the reference that distinguishes "moral issues" from other political activity? Read the publications carefully, where is the "moral issue" blank check Churches have?

The substantial part issue was acknowledged in post 125, if not earlier in this thread.

 

For some reason you are not comprehending what I am writing or I am not understanding you.  I would like to continue but don't seem to be able to communicate with you.

 

I am definitly not backing away from the moral issue assertion.  I just don't know what it is you think I have asserted.

[foster]

You are not making sense.

What does not make sense ErayE is that you will not support your "moral issue" assertion from post 104. You keep trying to divert attention away from your statement. Your avoidance must necessarily be an acknowledgment on your part that your assertion was an error; or, alternatively, it was your opinion that you want everyone to regard as a fact. So was it an error or just your learned opinion that is not explicitly found current law or IRS regulation? I am willing to accept the opinion option, are you willing to admit it is your opinion? Or will you show the IRS distinguishes "moral issues" from other lobbying?

Edited September 11, 2013 by foster

[USU78]

They certainly weren't religious leaders in the US. God can warn whomever he wants. What the US can't do is use God to promote its laws.

 

Yes they have the same rights not to force, through goverment, the worship of, or obedience to, any God.

 

I really enjoy libs posting this, as if it answered anything, especially since this is so very misleading.  Fact is, the good Chancellor was a Counter-Reformation bigot who burned more than his share of heretics.  It is awfully hard to feel too bad about what happened betwixt him and Henry VIII.

[USU78]

As a citizen of the US you are free to advocate for, or against any law, or proposed law, that you want. As a member of the Church you are subject ot the rules of the Church. The Church can't use your property without your consent.

 

If you are endowed, you have already given your consent.

[thesometimesaint]

I really enjoy libs posting this, as if it answered anything, especially since this is so very misleading.  Fact is, the good Chancellor was a Counter-Reformation bigot who burned more than his share of heretics.  It is awfully hard to feel too bad about what happened betwixt him and Henry VIII.

 

All of us are very flawed, and fall far short of the glory of God. I prefer to take the sometimes good that men do, and extend and promote that. Than to dwell upon the more often than not evil that they do. Neither Thomas More nor Henry the 8th were champions of liberal thought. Their actions helped set the stage for a century and a half of religious war in Europe. OTOH They inadvertenly helped bring about the conditions necessary for the Restored Gospel to come forth.

[thesometimesaint]

If you are endowed, you have already given your consent.

 

True.

[USU78]

All of us are very flawed, and fall far short of the glory of God. I prefer to take the sometimes good that men do, and extend and promote that. Than to dwell upon the more often than not evil that they do. Neither Thomas More nor Henry the 8th were champions of liberal thought. Their actions helped set the stage for a century and a half of religious war in Europe. OTOH They inadvertenly helped bring about the conditions necessary for the Restored Gospel to come forth.

 

Europeans need to stop whining about the 30 Years War already.  It's been over for nearly 400 years already.  Time to re-embrace one's own culture, religion and history as a thing of beauty and pride.

[foster]

A CFR is a request for a reference - there is no language in the regulations governing church non-profit requirements that days, "you can tell you members how to vote". There are however examples if the kinda of activities that would disqualify a religion from retaining is non-profit status. 1. Lobbying politically 2. With a substantial portion of their focus. So, my reference to a blank slate was very narrow. They can ask their members to vote however they wish, they could not however have membership subject to that political request. Is addressing your own membership group lobbying? Would it constitute a substantial portion of church time-resource to make such a request? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying

 

The following is from the IRS document ErayE linked:

 

A church or religious organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation ... if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation. (IRS Publication 1828 "Tax guide for Churches and Religious Organizations")

 

 

In addition are the substantial part and expenditure test.  All of this indicates Churches do not have a blank check in terms of voting.

 

Some additional reading, Law Review, Understanding the Lobbying Efforts of a Church: How Far Is Too Far?

 

An interest hypothesis is that advocacy of a legislative issue a Church deems a "moral issue" furthers the charitable purpose of the religion therefore not a violation of tax exempt status. I suppose this hypothesis is what ErayE advocates as well as many other. But, currently, there is not a an explicit "moral issue" clause which is a defense for the accusation of lobbying or other prohibited political activity.

Edited September 11, 2013 by foster