Catholic Answers sues IRS, alleging ‘intimidation’ on political issues [CNA]

[Ani_Ibi]

group hug. :grouphug:

 

[Digitonomy]

The email soliciting donations indicates it will cost ~$100,000. This is the reason I was critical of blowing $35,000 on the amicus brief a few months ago. Being just one of many organizations weighing in on Prop 8 seemed like an unnecessary drain on funds when a bill like this was coming down the pike. The IRS case is a far more worthwhile effort, and more critical to the core mission of CA.

 

[fosio]

This has nothing to do with free speech. There is a free speech right to politically campaign, to say it is right to vote for this person, wrong to vote for that person. That’s the free speech right of every American (or at least it should be … campaign finance reform has impinged on it a little). There is absolutely no free speech right however to a tax break. If the govt wants to give certain groups a tax break, the govt can set its own conditions for that tax break, including limiting the speech of that group (though not of the persons outside their employment). If a group doesn’t want those restrictions on speech, they can just decline the tax break.

The only constitutional issue is if the speech restrictions that are the condition for the tax break are deliberately discriminating against particular religions or for or against religion in general. But the speech restrictions clearly apply to every group, even those of no religious affiliation … so I think this case is not viable. I doubt it would even be heard by the Supreme Court. Since Catholic Answers is small potatoes, the case is only likely to be heard by the Supreme Court if two different circuits establish contradictory precedents. I don’t know see that happening and dont know of any precedent in another circuit that could be contradictory to a favorable ruling or unfavorable ruling.

I also don’t think you will see the IRS’s or Kissling’s or the other Catholic group’s side of the story presented fairly in that link. A fairer view from Orthodox beliefnet commentator

blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/06/its-one-of-those-questions.html

Now, with all due respect to Karl Keating, I think that’s a bit over-simplified. Sure, there may be some priests or ministers who don’t speak out about abortion or other moral issues because they fear losing their tax-exempt status. But there are lots of other reasons for clergy not to talk about it, ranging from clergy who don’t agree with their church’s pro-life position and keep quiet about it rather than show their dissent openly, to clergy who believe sincerely that addressing such issues in a one-on-one, pastoral setting is better than preaching about them during Sunday worship. The IRS fear doesn’t, I think, loom large enough to keep committed pro-life pastors from addressing the abortion issue, any more than fear of IRS action would keep a committed environmentalist Evangelical from preaching about wasteful consumption. And neither of those sorts of homilies or sermons should be taken as political speech–moral issues may sometimes overlap political concerns, but morality isn’t politics, and religion has always been concerned with morality.

But what about the Catholic Answers lawsuit? Was it political speech, or intervening in an election, for Catholic Answers, a group of lay people that does not speak for the institutional Church any more than any other group of lay people do, to express the opinion that under Canon 915 John Kerry ought not receive Holy Communion?

He doesn’t think what Catholic Answers did ran afoul of the IRS rules but then I don’t think he’s been presented with the other sides of the story.

I think he’s also wrong about morality and politics. Morality is about how to live your life. How to organize society, i.e. politics, involves decisions about how to live our lives, always. So politics is an extension of morality lived. So I think a church or pastor ought to speak about this area of our lives, politics. But since IRS rules forbid a lot of that speech, I think a church or pastor should just decline the tax break. The tax break is a privilege that is the fruit of statute, not any kind of constitutional right.

 

[BobCatholic]

If the govt wants to give certain groups a tax break, the govt can set its own conditions for that tax break, including limiting the speech of that group (though not of the persons outside their employment).

The government does not have an unlimited power to tax or give tax breaks.

Suppose there was a tax break for people who are white while adding a 50% additional tax for blacks? And a 25% additional tax on asians? That would not be constitutional.

Suppose the government places a 10 dollar tax on each word of a speech if your political views are conservative as defined by the IRS versus a tax credit of $10 per word if your political views are leftist? That would not be constitutional.

Suppose the government were to place a double tax on Catholic Churches versus no tax for Unitarian Churches, based solely on the religion. That would not be constitutional.

Suppose the government were to tax churches who have male pastors while those churches who had women pastors would be tax free. That would not be constitutional.

 

[TMC]

So what is the status? Seems to me the IRS should have moved or answered by now. Anyone know?

 

[Dale_M]

So what is the status? Seems to me the IRS should have moved or answered by now. Anyone know?

According to records available through the California Southern District Court’s Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System, the US Department of Justice filed a motion Monday (June 15th) to dismiss the lawsuit without oral argument. Judge Irma Gonzalez will address that motion (and presumably related matters) in Courtroom 1 of the United States Courthouse at 940 Front Street, San Diego, California, on July 13, 2009 at 10:30 a.m

I’ll post a link to the motion, but I don’t think the link will work for persons unless you are registered (and logged in) with PACER or ECF.
ecf.casd.uscourts.gov/doc1/03713707018

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

This has nothing to do with free speech. There is a free speech right to politically campaign, to say it is right to vote for this person, wrong to vote for that person. That’s the free speech right of every American (or at least it should be … campaign finance reform has impinged on it a little). There is absolutely no free speech right however to a tax break. If the govt wants to give certain groups a tax break, the govt can set its own conditions for that tax break, including limiting the speech of that group (though not of the persons outside their employment). If a group doesn’t want those restrictions on speech, they can just decline the tax break.

The only constitutional issue is if the speech restrictions that are the condition for the tax break are deliberately discriminating against particular religions or for or against religion in general. But the speech restrictions clearly apply to every group, even those of no religious affiliation … so I think this case is not viable. I doubt it would even be heard by the Supreme Court. Since Catholic Answers is small potatoes, the case is only likely to be heard by the Supreme Court if two different circuits establish contradictory precedents. I don’t know see that happening and dont know of any precedent in another circuit that could be contradictory to a favorable ruling or unfavorable ruling.

I also don’t think you will see the IRS’s or Kissling’s or the other Catholic group’s side of the story presented fairly in that link. A fairer view from Orthodox beliefnet commentator

blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/06/its-one-of-those-questions.html

Hmm, what about the Bill of Rights
We the People:

Amendment I
Congress **shall make NO law **

respecting an establishment of religion, or **prohibiting the FREE exercise **thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I guess we’ve not only reinterpreted the Constitution and the Bill of rights but also reinterpreted the phrase “NO LAW” and the word “FREE” also.

Regards, Erchomai Kyrios

He doesn’t think what Catholic Answers did ran afoul of the IRS rules but then I don’t think he’s been presented with the other sides of the story.

I think he’s also wrong about morality and politics. Morality is about how to live your life. How to organize society, i.e. politics, involves decisions about how to live our lives, always. So politics is an extension of morality lived. So I think a church or pastor ought to speak about this area of our lives, politics. But since IRS rules forbid a lot of that speech, I think a church or pastor should just decline the tax break. The tax break is a privilege that is the fruit of statute, not any kind of constitutional right.

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

Here’s the first amendment redacted and modernized to 2009
Amendment I
**Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion **(except of course where it may be in our best interests to define or redefine one ), or prohibiting the (“FREE” -please expunge and add "38% tariff on their") exercise thereof; except of course if it is one critical of our political views and go against our constitutional right of political correctness - far be it to say anything against the soveriegns of the USAA or abridging the freedom of speech, (Now on sale by the Government of the USAA for only 38 cents on the dollar) - your dollar by the way) or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. ("As long as those grievances don’t impinge on our progessive empowerment to revise the liberties of the people to mean anything we want - after all “We Big Government know better than they!”)

 

[BobCatholic]

Here’s the first amendment redacted and modernized to 2009
Amendment I
**Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion **(except of course where it may be in our best interests to define or redefine one and except for Atheism which it is free to impose in its citizens ), or prohibiting the (“FREE” -please expunge and add "38% tariff on their") exercise thereof; except of course if it is one critical of our political views and go against our constitutional right of political correctness - far be it to say anything against the soveriegns of the USAA or abridging the freedom of speech, (Now on sale by the Government of the USAA for only 38 cents on the dollar) - your dollar by the way) or of the press (only if run by left wing types); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, (except if you are protesting abortion clinics) and to petition the government for a redress of grievances (except if you are not politically correct) ("As long as those grievances don’t impinge on our left-wing empowerment to revise the liberties of the people to mean anything we want - after all “We Big Government know better than they!”)

Fixed

 

[jsfavor18]

There is nothing new under the sun.

Have you read the obit of former IRS Commissioner Donald Alexander in the NY Times?
It mentions IRS being used for political purposes.
nytimes.com/2009/02/09/us/09alexander.html?_r=1

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

Fixed

Yes, I’d agree that’s probably a fairly good representation of the present state of our 1rst amendment as interpreted by the Obama administration and the ACLU. However dire it seems, however, the Christians of the 1rst three centuries had it much worse!

 

[TMC]

According to records available through the California Southern District Court’s Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System, the US Department of Justice filed a motion Monday (June 15th) to dismiss the lawsuit without oral argument. Judge Irma Gonzalez will address that motion (and presumably related matters) in Courtroom 1 of the United States Courthouse at 940 Front Street, San Diego, California, on July 13, 2009 at 10:30 a.m

I’ll post a link to the motion, but I don’t think the link will work for persons unless you are registered (and logged in) with PACER or ECF.
ecf.casd.uscourts.gov/doc1/03713707018

I don’t have my own PACER account, and don’t want one (yes I am that cheap), so I can’t get the documents. I am curious how this will go. I think the IRS was wrong, but I’m not sure there is anything left for a court to do. The IRS admitted it was wrong and undid the fine or penalty, but for different reasons than Catholic Answers argues. I suppose the remaining issue is whether CAF can repay Mr. Keating. I don’t know if the IRS has said they can’t (or shouldn’t) do that, but I wonder if a court is going to get into the business of saying they can. Anyone have experience with these kinds of tax/charity issues?

 

[jerrytuxedo]

What’s also sad about this issue is that the Internal Revenue Service employees at-large are probably more professional and less politically correct that most other federal agencies. Turn the true bureaucrats loose and they’re be attacking in droves. No doubt if the IRS prevails, other agencies in government will go after the Roman Catholic Church. Remember those in government who’re behind this fiasco are using taxpayers fund to combat taxpayers. Folks need to contribute to the legal fund. The Section 4955 assessment for FYE 6/30/2004 and FYE 6/30/2005 totals $101.93. That’s a symbolic amount to donate. Stop the onslaught of government now or the price (morally and monetarily) will drastically increase down the road.

 

[dannyblaze]

There is a very simple answer to this problem with the IRS. First the IRS tax code does make it clear that a non-profit cannot endorse or tell its people in the church during a church service who to vote for and who not to vote for, the language is very clear on this matter and pertains to para church organizations that use the 501(c)(3) status.

Second, the IRS tax code also makes it very clear that no church organization is required to file for 501 tax exemption status because the Church is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Based upon these criteria it would be most wise for all Churches and their organizations to drop the tax exempt status and then priest, ministers and the like would not have to worry about losing their tax exempt status and would once again be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and not the IRS and its regulations. If memory serves me right, Jesus stated that we cannot serve two masters, the IRS, once one is under their tax code for non-profits, willfully gives the power of control over certain language that is espoused from the pulpit or from the newsletter. This is just a fact of law and IRS code.

The church and those organizations such as Catholic Answers need to make a very hard decision, either serve God and His Kingdom or allow their power to be relegated to the IRS because of the volitional choice to be tax exempt.

The other issue that bothers me with this matter is the serious violation of the Apostle Paul’s very clear rebuke of the Corinthian Church taking one another to court. Paul seriously rebuked these members of the church and this means that it is not only wrong but does not follow the other issue that of Christ’s commandment to turn the other cheek and if “one wants to sue you for your shirt give to them your coat also” and there are many more that Jesus commands us to follow. The question here is, who is our King?

I understand the frustration with the IRS but when one willfully gives the IRS that power because they choose to be a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization, then you must abide by their rules or you are breaking another commandment that says to not make a vow and then break it. With the 501(c)(3) the non-profit agrees (vows) to abide by the code, if not then they are subject to the codes violation rules and the consequences of breaking those rules.

I know that there will be great justification for why Catholic Answers will and is suing the IRS but even though by the world’s standards this is okay, by the Standards of Jesus Christ this is just not following Christ, the Apostles teaching and is simply not representative of the those who are members of the Kingdom of God.

Now I know that Paul appealed to Caesar but this was not to sue for his being taken wrongfully as a Roman citizen, but to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One great Bishop said, “Our duty is to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, nothing less and nothing else”. We would do well to follow that statement.

 

[Digitonomy]

There is nothing new under the sun.

Have you read the obit of former IRS Commissioner Donald Alexander in the NY Times?
It mentions IRS being used for political purposes.

Interesting obit. Are you implying that the president was somehow influencing the IRS to go after Catholic Answers after the 2004 election?

It seems unlikely to me that there is some political scheme at work; more likely there were overzealous IRS agents that misunderstood the law. Deciding that Catholic Answers’ actions were illegal because they resembled other actions that were illegal may have been sloppy, and it’s well worth suing over to make the issue crystal clear in future, but it doesn’t automatically mean political manipulation is afoot.

 

[Digitonomy]

I understand the frustration with the IRS but when one willfully gives the IRS that power because they choose to be a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization, then you must abide by their rules or you are breaking another commandment that says to not make a vow and then break it. With the 501(c)(3) the non-profit agrees (vows) to abide by the code, if not then they are subject to the codes violation rules and the consequences of breaking those rules.

Of course when they abide by the code and are still fined, it’s prudent to pursue the due process to which they are entitled. Sometimes this means a lawsuit.

dannyblaze:

I know that there will be great justification for why Catholic Answers will and is suing the IRS but even though by the world’s standards this is okay, by the Standards of Jesus Christ this is just not following Christ.

I think you’re off-base on this topic in two ways. First, you discuss what requirements churches are under, or free of, in section 501(c)(3). This doesn’t apply to Catholic Answers, since it is not a church. Secondly, your use of 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 to denigrate all lawsuits is misguided since Paul is specifically condemning suits within the congregation. I would guess Paul has three main reasons for this - 1) it’s a bad example or witness to non-Christians, 2) it divides the Church, 3) some may be focussing on the suits, rather than on Christ - it may have been a more litigious society in Corinth than other cities, since Paul didn’t feel the need to mention this in the other letters we know of. Only this last reason matches your logic, and I think it’s the least of the three.

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

There is a very simple answer to this problem with the IRS. First the IRS tax code does make it clear that a non-profit cannot endorse or tell its people in the church during a church service who to vote for and who not to vote for, the language is very clear on this matter and pertains to para church organizations that use the 501(c)(3) status.

Hi Danny,
Point #1.
I actually think you may be missing the point. Does the constitution of the United States of America bar the Church from free speech to avoid taxation or did a Supreme Court decision in 1954 invent the ruling? It would appear that Churches did just that in America for 77% of our 233 year history. In fact many of Americas pastors, whether you agree or disagree, actually fought in the American Revolution. Should we have caved to King George? The Northern Churches were especially heavily involved in the Abolitionist movement prior to the Civil War, even when it was illegal for them to do so. It would seem these rights, which were certainly paid for in blood, should not be so easily relinquished to bureacrats who would seek to curtail American liberties that were so dearly paid for. Yes, while it is the law we recognize it but to be the doormat for every piece of judicial legislation without a challenge within the bounds of our citizenship sullies the sacrifices of former generations of Americans who fought to protect this nation of the people, by the people, for the people. Freedom does not slip away all at once - it is given away - like Esau, who sold his heritage and blessing for a few scraps of food. And what did the Lord have to say about the man who squandered his blessings?
the Prophet Malachi:

Mal.1:2-3 “I have loved you,” says the LORD. But you say, “How have You loved us?” “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness.”

Saint Paul repeats this in his letter to the Romans
"St Paul:

Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Should catholics and christians give up trying to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision? Should we allow the liberal courts to usurp constitutional powers and legislate new law from the bench? For one they have already reinterpreted the 1rst amendment and are now redefining what marriage is according to pagan ideals. Were judges elected as our representatives to now act as our legislative branch? Do these things represent the internal abuse of the balance of powers vested to the government by the governed? Do they represent the will of the voters? Our ancestors did not give up so easily as this during the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision of 1856 nor in the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896? Neither should we if our cause is just and grounded in the Bill of Rights.

Second, the IRS tax code also makes it very clear that no church organization is required to file for 501 tax exemption status because the Church is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

As to your second point I must ask, what part of NOT prohibiting the FREE exercise of religion and speech do we not understand as Americans? Our duty is first to God but that does not mean we should relinquish our rights as citizen sojourners in this world, especially if we believe that it was God who had so obviously blessed our nation, allowing a good and wholesome foundation of laws to guarantee our liberties.
John P Curran:

• “The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt.”

Ben Franklin:

• Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

Tom Jefferson:

• Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.
• The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all … in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body… indeed, in some degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call common sense. State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules.
• We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a featherbed.

In short I do not think Saint Paul nor the founding fathers of our constitition advocated for us to be a nation of milksops. We are to be a people who love justice and defend its heritage. We are to be heavenly minded but also, as we sojourne here, we are reminded again & again to also be a force for good, that this might be a place where we and our children may grow up in Christ, both protecting and warning others from all schemes that would threaten to tear down our moral fabric. If that isn’t within the context of the **free **exercise of religion I don’t know what the framers could have meant. I really believe we need to wake up before tyrants tread down the last vestiges of our constititional liberties.
the Apostle Matthew quoting our Lord:

Mat 5:13 "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.

May God Bless America, Erchomai Kyrios

 

[jsfavor18]

Interesting obit. Are you implying that the president was somehow influencing the IRS to go after Catholic Answers after the 2004 election?

It seems unlikely to me that there is some political scheme at work; more likely there were overzealous IRS agents that misunderstood the law. Deciding that Catholic Answers’ actions were illegal because they resembled other actions that were illegal may have been sloppy, and it’s well worth suing over to make the issue crystal clear in future, but it doesn’t automatically mean political manipulation is afoot.

There is nothing new under the sun. It is not just Catholic Answers and this has been going on since 1969.

“The purpose of the Internal Revenue Service is to enforce the tax laws, not to enforce political orthodoxy. The Special Service Staff operations represent a dangerous abuse of the enormous powers Americans have given to the tax collection arm of the government.”

Sam J. Ervin Jr Chairman, Constitutional Rights Subcommittee 1974
page iv (Preface) of Political Intelligence in the Internal Revenue Servicepublished December 1974 by the gov printing office

I am stating that Richard Nixon when he was sworn in as President in 1969 introduced IRS to the other uses of its power. In 1969, they created a secret intelligence gathering unit to go after “enemies” based on what the person or entity “said.” This is in violation of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution.

Sam Ervin, JR who chaired the efforts to stop McCarthy and the which stopped Nixon also investigated this secret unit. It was while investigating Nixon that he discovered this secret unit. From the preface of the investigation, you can see that he thought that unit had been disbanded. In reality they still exist today. That is evidenced in the fact that you cannot order a copy of the investigation from the gov printing office (gpo.gov) and it is not listed in their records. That fact that the unit was not listed in IRS records started the investigation by Ervin in the first place. I found out about the group because I **said **something years ago and IRS begain retaliating against me using their “Power to Destroy” Remember the employee who testified against IRS in the 1998 hearings? They also went after her. It is what you say. Ervin chaired the subcommittee on Constitutional Rights.

Don’t take my word for it. Read the preface of the investigation written by Sam Ervin.

Here’s the quote that made me think of Catholic Answers

In fact during the course of its investigation, the Subcommittee received numerous complaints from citizens about the Internal Revenue Service’s intrusions into their private lives and political, religious and social activities. Many complained that their political activities, speeches and associations appeared to have been the basis for adverse action by the Internal Revenue Service. Some stated that they were afraid to exercise these rights in the face of the Internal Revenue Service audits and other reprisals. Other groups, which qualified for or sought tax-exempt status, feared the loss of such status as a result of IRS scutiny."

Introduction pages 2-3 of Political Intelligence in the Internal Revenue Service: The Special Service Staff

Don’t take my word for it. Here is a link to the Preface, Table of Contents, Introduction thru Conclusion of investigation. The rest of the 344 page book is the supporting docs (i.e. letters, memos, etc)

Book cover
scribd.com/doc/15731460/Bookcover-of-investigation-into-IRS-intelligence-group

Preface to page 29
scribd.com/doc/16419388/Political-Intelligence-in-the-Internal-Revenue-Service-The-Special-Service-Staff-

 

[jsfavor18]

BTW: This morning, I heard the interview about the lawsuit on Relevant Radio.

Oh, I forgot this from my last post.
Stock #052-070-02653-7
Catalog #Y 4.J89/2:IN8/16

Links to search the government printing office which published this book

bookstore.gpo.gov/advsearch.jsp#advancedsearch

bookstore.gpo.gov/help/index.jsp

 

[WarriorAngel]

I will defeinitely be praying for the best outcome and the end of IRS intimidation.