Federal Judge Dismisses Catholic Answers Lawsuit over IRS Bullying of Non-Profits

[Eucharisted]

SAN DIEGO, October 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) filed by Catholic Answers, a Catholic apologetics ministry, which charged that the federal tax collection agency routinely bullies churches and non-profit organizations into political silence, especially when it comes to speaking out on moral issues.

Catholic Answers and its founder Karl Keating filed the suit with the US District Court based in San Diego on April 3, 2009, in response to the IRS levying an excise tax of $831.41 plus interest for 2004 and 2005 on Catholic Answers and founder Karl Keating for what the IRS judged were “acts of political intervention.”

Keating had posted an e-letter in April 2004 on the Catholic Answers website in response to questions during the US Presidential election. Keating had explained that Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry “is nominally Catholic, and is vociferously pro-abortion” and was “wrong on all five ‘non-negotiable’ issues [abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, euthanasia] listed” in Catholic Answer’s influential “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics.” (VGSC)

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/oct/09101903.html

Do read the full article.

Catholic Answers Action: caaction.com/

 

[rep140]

I’m glad. I voted for W in 2000 and abortion figured into my choice. Well, 4 years later we are in a war of choice that the Pope opposed and nothing had changed on the abortion issue.

 

[dmelosi]

I’m glad. I voted for W in 2000 and abortion figured into my choice. Well, 4 years later we are in a war of choice that the Pope opposed and nothing had changed on the abortion issue.

Much has changed, instead of holding ground and building momentum to reverse abortion, the gates are becoming wide open to the government paying for abortion.

All I can think of is WOW, does anyone really believe nothing has changed on the abortion issue?

 

[Gene_Church]

I’m glad. I voted for W in 2000 and abortion figured into my choice. Well, 4 years later we are in a war of choice that the Pope opposed and nothing had changed on the abortion issue.

Karl Keating was correct. There are 5 non-negotiable issues. On these issues, John Kerry was on the wrong side.

Iraq was not one of the non-negotiable issues. If Bush was completely wrong on Iraq, but on the right side of all the non-negotiable issues, then support of Kerry would have been immoral, and impermissible for a Catholic.

Karl Keating was repeating and educating about Catholic teaching. That is what Catholic Answers is all about.

 

[Loy]

Catholic Answers and Karl Keating were legally correct in opposing the the IRS decision to tax them. But since the IRS eventually withdrew the tax assessment and refunded the payment, it would be unusual for a federal court to grant relief. Sometimes courts recognize that an issue is far too important and therefore allow the lawsuit to proceed in the interest of justice, but that is unusual. Hopefully some appellate judges will understand the first amendment significance of this lawsuit and reverse the district court’s ruling.

I will pray that Catholic Answers successfully appeals this decision. I encourage anyone who can to help Catholic Answers pay their legal fees and expenses.

Godspeed, Karl!

 

[pnewton]

When I see all the crazy stuff that does go to court, I am floored that this was thrown out unilaterally by a single judge. He did not see threatening to remove tax exempt status and fining CA as bullying because the money was refunded. My only answer to this idiocy is that it is regretably the type of response one could expect in our runaway judiciary. The school yard bully is now robed and on the bench.

 

[Loy]

When I see all the crazy stuff that does go to court, I am floored that this was thrown out unilaterally by a single judge. He did not see threatening to remove tax exempt status and fining CA as bullying because the money was refunded. My only answer to this idiocy is that it is regretably the type of response one could expect in our runaway judiciary. The school yard bully is now robed and on the bench.

Hold on, hold on. It’s better to understand what happened and direct anger at specific instances of injustice rather than at the judiciary at large. I certainly have been guilty of the latter, and I’m trying my best to repent and to reform my behavior.

First of all, remember that Catholic Answers and Karl Keating didn’t go to court asking the judge to find that IRS acted like bullies, but rather to determine whether the IRS complied with the law. Also, there’s nothing unusual about a single judge dismissing the case. The lawsuit was in the trial stage, in which one judge is responsible for making all the rulings in a case. Normally, it’s not until a party files a motion for new trial that multiple judges become involved. It would have better if the judge had ruled in favor of the lawsuit, but the dismissal can be appealed. It isn’t over yet.

I read the LifeSite article, which has a link to a pdf file of the Judge’s decision. IMHO, this is not a case of a judge running amok, but rather of a judge being overly conservative. She’s not making anything up from scratch. She cites cases and statutes in support of her decision.

But between the lines, she seems to be telling everyone to be nice and not rock the boat. She strongly hints to Catholic Answers and Karl Keating that any politically related comments should be made in Catholic Answers Action, the new 501(c)(4) political action group that Catholic Answers founded. She hints to the IRS not to repeat this same action against Catholic Answers in another political cycle. Instead of being a bully, she wants to avoid conflict. However, this obviously is not entirely satisfactory.

If her decision is not overturned, and if other trial courts across the country agree with her line of reasoning, then religious organizations will have to jump through all sorts of hoops and risk being taxed before they can get a ruling that fully explains what types of comments may be made about politicians and political issues. Lawyers will have a very difficult time giving advice to religious organizations. And very likely, most pastors will be too intimidated to point out what is moral and what is immoral, unless of course what they are saying is politically correct.

For whatever it’s worth, the federal statutes causing all these problems can be amended, but that will likely have to wait until a new congress is seated.

Regardless, let’s not allow justifiable disagreement with this situation to cause us to make us make rash statements about those with whom we disagree.

The situation is difficult but not hopeless.

God bless everyone!

 

[Lurch104]

I’m glad. I voted for W in 2000 and abortion figured into my choice. Well, 4 years later we are in a war of choice that the Pope opposed and nothing had changed on the abortion issue.

Nothing has changed? How many pro choice Catholics are now on the bench? Bush also stopped funding international abortions; one of the first policies Obama reversed. Think again if you believe that a vote for Mr. Bush did nothing to help our cause.

 

[pnewton]

Hold on, hold on. It’s better to understand what happened and direct anger at specific instances of injustice rather than at the judiciary at large. I certainly have been guilty of the latter, and I’m trying my best to repent and to reform my behavior.

My anger here is at this specific judge. My opinion of the judiciary as a whole and lawyers to boot is rooted in my own experiences with them, althought that is just my own opinion. Maybe some day I will get to deal with an honest lawyer or a just judge and my opinion will shift.