Volokh, Eugene wrote:
As I read the Texas Monthly plurality, Harlan's Walz concurrence, and
(probably) the Texas Monthly concurrences, tax exemptions for religious uses
are generally constitutional to the extent that they also apply to other
charitable and educational uses. That, I think, is generally so.
But this decision summarized by Paul Caron at http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/03/tax_court_uphol.html makes me wonder, at least as to certain situations: "The Tax Court yesterday upheld the IRS's denial of § 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status to a California organization dedicated 'to educat[ing] the public as to the alleged slavery and entrapment of Hollywood celebrities by Government officials.' Families Against Government Slavery v. Commissioner http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/Families.TCM.WPD.pdf , T.C. Memo. 2007-49:
"'Language in the documents that Mr. Matthews distributes to the public at the referred-to demonstrations alleges that the Federal Bureau of Investigation kidnaps Hollywood celebrities and that law enforcement personnel and private gangs are joined in a conspiracy to kill, trap, and enslave Hollywood celebrities and minorities "to gain more financial support" and to engage in activities that petitioner describes as "blood sport". Language in petitioner's documents also alleges that Government-sponsored welfare and housing programs force minority women to participate in the above alleged conspiracy. ...
"Educational purposes [under § 501(c)(3)] do not include activities
principally involving the presentation of unsupported opinion. Reg. §
1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(3)(i). ... The documents that petitioner presents to the public through
Mr. Matthews are full of unsupported opinions and distorted facts. Petitioner's
presentations and documents use inflammatory language and emotional and irrelevant
statements. Because petitioner's activities appear principally to involve the
presentation to the public of unsupported opinions, petitioner's activities do not
further educational purposes under the operational test. On the record before us,
petitioner does not qualify for tax-exempt status under § 501(c)(3) as an educational
organization."
It sounds like petitioner is a kook, and his project is kooky. But it does seem pretty clear that
religious organizations don't lose § 501(c)(3) eligibility because they "principally involv[e] the
presentation of unsupported opinion" or "distorted facts." The IRS, I take it, wouldn't apply
to them its four factors for determining "whether an opinion is to be regarded as unsupported":
"(1) Whether viewpoints or positions taken are factually unsupported;
"(2) Whether facts are distorted;
"(3) Whether inflammatory and disparaging material is utilized based
more on strong emotional feelings than on objective evaluations; and
"(4) Whether the organization fails to provide background information that
would allow the public to understand and to evaluate the material."
If that's so, then does it violate the First Amendment for tax exemptions to be
granted to all religious entities, with no inquiry into whether they simply distribute
"unsupported opinions," while secular spreaders of opinion are subject to such
an inquiry? Or does this different treatment simply reflect the Ballard / Thomas /
Watson v. Jones principle that the government may not investigate the accuracy of
religious factual claims, even though it may investigate the accuracy of secular factual
claims?
Eugene
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
"(1) Whether viewpoints or positions taken are factually unsupported;
"(2) Whether facts are distorted;
"(3) Whether inflammatory and disparaging material is utilized based
more on strong emotional feelings than on objective evaluations; and
"(4) Whether the organization fails to provide background information that
would allow the public to understand and to evaluate the material."
I'm not at all qualified in this area of the law, so can someone tell me
why these four criteria don't apply to all religions?
Susan
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read mess
