-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
501(c) status
- Thread starter MemeFan
- Start date
Ok, I'll find it myself then as you wish @Mark C. Here is the US 501c(3) section of your tax code:
What this section DOES say is common to all English-origin laws around charities. "Charitable purpose" has historically been defined in English law as including the relief of poverty, the promotion of education, the advancement of health and saving of lives, and the promotion of religion. This is stated slightly differently in different jurisdictions and the boundaries of what is or is not considered "charitable" differ. But the basic idea is that something that is designed to help other people is "charitable".
However, political campaigning is not "charitable", as it has the potential to benefit the person doing it. So in all English-origin countries, tax law tries to draw a line between charitable works and politics. This is however always a very difficult line to draw, because the line between "education" and "advocacy" and "politics" is rather fuzzy.
By my reading, the US tax code says that all community foundations "operated exclusively for religious ... purposes" are automatically considered charitable and eligible for tax exemption, in the same way that amateur sports competitions are automatically considered charitable. However, this is only if "no substantial part of the activities" is attempting "to influence legislation" or engage in a "political campaign". Because if a large part of the work of the organisation was political, then it would be a political organisation rather than a charity.
Nothing in this says a church cannot disagree with public policy. It just means that if the church is to run a political campaign, they would need to set up a separate organisation to run that campaign as that campaign would be taxable, they couldn't run it through the church accounts because that would be a tax dodge.
This is absolutely standard stuff for any English country - and I expect most other countries as well, I'm just familiar with English law. I can't see what the problem is. What have I missed?
There is just one small point here which may be problematic depending on its interpretation: "... and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.". That means that if a church issues a public statement directly saying "Vote for Trump" it will be deemed political and no longer charitable. But it still doesn't say they can't discuss what public policy is more or less consistent with Christianity. It still just means that if the people in that church want to fund an explicit "Vote for Trump" campaign, they need to do that through a different organisation, not through the church.
What part of that statement are you objecting to? I can't see the issues people are claiming are in it - maybe you're talking about a different piece of legislation that adds to this? Most important, this section itself does not say that the organisation cannot disagree with public policy.
What this section DOES say is common to all English-origin laws around charities. "Charitable purpose" has historically been defined in English law as including the relief of poverty, the promotion of education, the advancement of health and saving of lives, and the promotion of religion. This is stated slightly differently in different jurisdictions and the boundaries of what is or is not considered "charitable" differ. But the basic idea is that something that is designed to help other people is "charitable".
However, political campaigning is not "charitable", as it has the potential to benefit the person doing it. So in all English-origin countries, tax law tries to draw a line between charitable works and politics. This is however always a very difficult line to draw, because the line between "education" and "advocacy" and "politics" is rather fuzzy.
By my reading, the US tax code says that all community foundations "operated exclusively for religious ... purposes" are automatically considered charitable and eligible for tax exemption, in the same way that amateur sports competitions are automatically considered charitable. However, this is only if "no substantial part of the activities" is attempting "to influence legislation" or engage in a "political campaign". Because if a large part of the work of the organisation was political, then it would be a political organisation rather than a charity.
Nothing in this says a church cannot disagree with public policy. It just means that if the church is to run a political campaign, they would need to set up a separate organisation to run that campaign as that campaign would be taxable, they couldn't run it through the church accounts because that would be a tax dodge.
This is absolutely standard stuff for any English country - and I expect most other countries as well, I'm just familiar with English law. I can't see what the problem is. What have I missed?
There is just one small point here which may be problematic depending on its interpretation: "... and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.". That means that if a church issues a public statement directly saying "Vote for Trump" it will be deemed political and no longer charitable. But it still doesn't say they can't discuss what public policy is more or less consistent with Christianity. It still just means that if the people in that church want to fund an explicit "Vote for Trump" campaign, they need to do that through a different organisation, not through the church.
Last edited:
It says:
Teaching truth on Polygyny is violation of fundamental public policy in the western Christian world. Polygyny is illegal and criminalized in the western Christian world. But homosexuality is not violation of public policy - so having pride month flags at your church is A-OK! Love is love right? Gotta love everyone. Except those that the state tells you that you can’t love.
Revelation 18:4
Then I heard another voice from heaven say: “’Come out of her, my people,’ so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues.
Last edited:
@Earth_is-, the phrase "fundamental public policy" must have a legal definition, from case law. What is that definition?
On another note, the page you have posted confirms something I had seen in the actual law I cited - all churches are "automatically considered tax exempt". You don't have to apply for "501c tax status" or anything like that, you don't have to sign any agreement with the government. All churches are automatically considered charities. So how could you possibly be a "non-501c3 church" anyway? You could only be a church that didn't bother to claim back taxes, but that would just be sloppy accounting.
So what is @Michael Moon worrying about and trying to achieve here:
On another note, the page you have posted confirms something I had seen in the actual law I cited - all churches are "automatically considered tax exempt". You don't have to apply for "501c tax status" or anything like that, you don't have to sign any agreement with the government. All churches are automatically considered charities. So how could you possibly be a "non-501c3 church" anyway? You could only be a church that didn't bother to claim back taxes, but that would just be sloppy accounting.
So what is @Michael Moon worrying about and trying to achieve here:
Given the resultant "home church" would still be automatically considered a tax-exempt charity anyway?
Churches are automatically considered to be tax exempt. But they must qualify first. They must agree and meet their terms. They must also continue to abide by those terms - otherwise - they may face certain penalties.
No, it specifically states that they "are not required to apply for" it, which means there is no requirement to "agree and meet their terms", because with no application their agreement is not sought.
This thread sticks of defeatism till heaven.
State made some rule and you literally consider yourself totally blocked for rest of life. C'mon.
This reminds of hated Roman law which allowed soldiers to force civilians to carry soldiers equipment for one mile. Why did Jesus say carry it for two? Out of love? C'mon, law says one mile, two miles is law-breaking for soldier and he is eligible for punishment.
Roman soldiers, in peace time, responsible for keeping law and order, can't at same time claim to keep law, while breaking it.
And...story of Russian aristocrat who had misfortune to start living in Soviet Union. After having feeling that NKVD will arrest him as enemy of state and he will be shot or send in gulag, he decided to throw brick in store's windows.
According to Soviet lawmakers, person can't be at same time common criminal and enemy of state. So if he finish in regular police custody, NKVD can't do anything.
Instead of looking at rules as unbreakable wall, just look them as roadblock. You can drive around or jump over roadblock.
In red rural areas pastor can freely speak again LQBT. C'mon, will IRS truly send people to listen to sermon to take church non-profit status? If they try, that's automatically outrage and easily calls to local police to keep pesky intruders away. Plus articles in local newspapers. No, IRS will keep resources on some easier targets who can be shaken to pay more taxes.
And in deep blue cities in blue states pastors can lead congregation in prayer to keep us from sin and cleanse us, especially our special lovable GLQBT brothers. Do you understand this is political correct way to pray that Lord makes GLQBT members ex-GLQBT members? And casual onlooker will conclude this is GLQBT affirmation?
Just keep in private that feeling less gay is Lord taking you on right direction.
And if anything else falls, it's religious freedom. Well protected by case law and Constitution, for which ruling class still give pretense. Which they have or they will get rebellion.
So how did homeschooling started? I don't want values of public schooling, so publically and in court it's just defense of freedom of religion. Off course, I will cooperate will public schooling just to sell it to public.
And covid show was same. I'm publically and in court for vaccines, just my religion forbids me take vaccines made with fetal cells. Sorry, freedom of religion.
Just like Satanists have argued abortion bans are against their freedom of religion. It has nothing with freedom of religion, they just adore abortions.
State made some rule and you literally consider yourself totally blocked for rest of life. C'mon.
This reminds of hated Roman law which allowed soldiers to force civilians to carry soldiers equipment for one mile. Why did Jesus say carry it for two? Out of love? C'mon, law says one mile, two miles is law-breaking for soldier and he is eligible for punishment.
Roman soldiers, in peace time, responsible for keeping law and order, can't at same time claim to keep law, while breaking it.
And...story of Russian aristocrat who had misfortune to start living in Soviet Union. After having feeling that NKVD will arrest him as enemy of state and he will be shot or send in gulag, he decided to throw brick in store's windows.
According to Soviet lawmakers, person can't be at same time common criminal and enemy of state. So if he finish in regular police custody, NKVD can't do anything.
Instead of looking at rules as unbreakable wall, just look them as roadblock. You can drive around or jump over roadblock.
In red rural areas pastor can freely speak again LQBT. C'mon, will IRS truly send people to listen to sermon to take church non-profit status? If they try, that's automatically outrage and easily calls to local police to keep pesky intruders away. Plus articles in local newspapers. No, IRS will keep resources on some easier targets who can be shaken to pay more taxes.
And in deep blue cities in blue states pastors can lead congregation in prayer to keep us from sin and cleanse us, especially our special lovable GLQBT brothers. Do you understand this is political correct way to pray that Lord makes GLQBT members ex-GLQBT members? And casual onlooker will conclude this is GLQBT affirmation?
Just keep in private that feeling less gay is Lord taking you on right direction.
And if anything else falls, it's religious freedom. Well protected by case law and Constitution, for which ruling class still give pretense. Which they have or they will get rebellion.
So how did homeschooling started? I don't want values of public schooling, so publically and in court it's just defense of freedom of religion. Off course, I will cooperate will public schooling just to sell it to public.
And covid show was same. I'm publically and in court for vaccines, just my religion forbids me take vaccines made with fetal cells. Sorry, freedom of religion.
Just like Satanists have argued abortion bans are against their freedom of religion. It has nothing with freedom of religion, they just adore abortions.
Last edited:
THAT is why I keep pointing out the necessity to understand the LEGAL MEANING of the term "jurisdiction." AND - yes - it was once utterly consistent with Scripture! (From "choose life...to choose this day...and on.)
The IRS has NO JURISDICTION over His Assembly!
And the Constitution for these united States in the First Amendment makes it UTTERLY clear that NO arm of government can DEMAND it. (Canada, OTOH, has no First Amendment. Ask Calgary Pastor Tim Stephens, Alberta Pastor Artur Pawlowski, or GraceLife Church pastor James Coates.)
But it acquires it if they are blind enough (Yahushua's term) to ASK for it. And the Messiah taught that over and over and over again...though some here prefer to ignore that.
See how cleverly they did that?
I'll bet the Willfully Blind here won't see it.
(Hint: Since we don't have any jurisdiction over the REAL 'church' anyway - let's just pretend we do, but we'll let them slide if they don't 'offend' us.)
Look up the word "exempt" in Black's Law. (That's a DICTIONARY for those who pretend legal understanding of a system they don't understand the language of.)
And for those that don't accept the 501c(3) (or any OTHER STATE-Church) jurisdiction - read the parable of the sons, in Matthew 17:24-27. Some in this very thread have already tried to twist that one.
Close, but no cigar.
Again, the key is in the word 'exempt'. From Black's Law:
"...to relieve from liability...to relieve, excuse, or set free from a duty or service imposed upon the general class to which the individual exempted belongs;"
Do you see it yet? ("The sons are free.")
Those who are His (and "His alone," as Yahushua made clear) are "not subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Those who are His are not...
part of the general class upon which a duty or service [is] imposed...
...upon those who ASK FOR IT!!!!
There are "strings attached," folks! Don't let the willfully blind, (Hosea 4:6) tell you that there are not, just because they can't see it!
And - one more time! - it is NOT in some "written contract." You "knew or should have known." After all, He warned us - over and over again. And all that Big Brother did is spring the trap that those determined to commit the idolatry of "State Worship" voluntarily stepped into!
Sadly, that makes my point.
Spoken like a truly deceived Statist.
Let me try to illustrate what you should have said:
The problem is, you don't understand how NOT TO STEP INTO State-made TRAP.
Did you pay your income taxes for last year?
If state doesn't have jurisdiction over you, well, you are also tax-exempt person. Let's see how that goes.
Today's state claim sovereignity. Which means anything involving state and anything inside state, state decide what is right. Which means there no escape from state.
And you still haven't proven 501(c) is bad. Use causal logic. Having 501(c) status causes A which causes B which causes C where C is you are screwed.
See, you can use causal logic to prove state marriage is bad. State marriage causes being under laws favouring women causes husband being afraid of wife causes husband being submissive instead of leader causes marriage structure against Lord's will.
Unless you can provide causal chain, @Mark C, you are talking hot air. All hay, no cattle, forum version.
Good question to ask - what laws were passed after churches went 501 c3?
Here's another question - if the churches weren't 501 c3, and therefore, allowed to speak against certain political candidates that went against their beliefs - would they had prevented those laws from being passed?
Here's another question - if the churches weren't 501 c3, and therefore, allowed to speak against certain political candidates that went against their beliefs - would they had prevented those laws from being passed?
What you can do is speak to biblical character (is it ok to sleep around on your wife or grab women's private parts without permission) and the biblical stance on political issues and even hand out a list showing the candidates and which stances they take. BUT stop short of stating support for or tell people not to vote for a particular candidate. It is a fine line, but churches have been navigating it for some time now.
@Following Him asked a question "another thread"** (in the Torah-Observant Ghetto where there is at least a bit less threat of overt censorship) that has led me to respond to the explicitly "US legal system-related" aspects of 501c(3) "licensed churches" here, and the Scriptural warnings there.
biblicalfamilies.org
The result was a typically snarky, condescending, certainly rude, and arguably-chastenable response intended only to cause rancor. Since it was from a 'moderator' - that's evidently OK. (Which is a bit like why SOME 501c(3) 'churches' can lobby for leftist politicians, but others dare not for their opponents...)
However, for the first time I can remember, Zec inadvertently made a good point:
He did not have a CLUE what "Black's Law Dictionary" was, or why it mattered. And, since so many here imitate his inability to understand, by virtue of not understanding the meaning of words that are in fact, why and how they are misled, this is important:
"Black's Law" [ Dictionary ] is the primary legal dictionary in use in the USA, and has been for many years. If you use a word in an English-speaking court, or are accused using any legal terminology in such a court, you had better NOT ASSUME that the word means what you think it means. The result could, literally, prove fatal. (Which is probably especially true if @Meme Fan mocks you for it.)
(Bouvier's, BTW, is the official Law Dictionary for the US Supreme Court. There, too, even tiny nuances can mean make-or-break differences. And don't fail to note that when New Editions of either are released - that means 'they' have changed the meaning of some important words.
I have had a hard copy of Black's 6th Edition for many years; I know many 'patriot-oriented' legal scholars, hosts, and even lawyers that keep a copy - expensive! - of Black's First Edition on hand.)
This thread has been "off in the weeds" multiple times because some who pontificate about "quote the LAW" or how "it's not there in plain sight so I can see it" - and don't realize that is the whole POINT of legaleze! You're supposed to fork out $1000 an hour to somelawyer liar who will tell you what words you don't understand - by design - mean in THEIR 'bailiwick' (jurisdiction.)
A quick case-in-point, and a rabbit hole not worth going down:
As a "law tutor" of mine once told me after a similar on-air rant many years ago,
"Mark, Mark - you're having an attack of logic!"
And if you persist in doing that, he noted, you'll NEVER be able to figure out what they're doing to you!
They lie, folks. They lie a LOT. They make their livings at it. They're GOOD at it.
And they do so - among other things - by means of twisting the meaning of words.
And if you don't - at the VERY LEAST - have a copy of Black's Law Dictionary up front, and figure out that some words DELIBERATELY don't mean what you think they mean...
...you're cooked before you ever realize you were in hot water.
And, Samuel - they NEVER put the hook in plain sight right next to the bait. Expect that it is always hidden.
One more tidbit: I learned years ago that the really nasty stuff (and the "remedy in law" that applies to it!) is always particularly well-hidden!
---------------------------------------
** https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/it-all-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-the-word-is.17429/
Meat - "It all depends on what the meaning of the word is..."
There's something I have long called the "Blunt Clintonian Truth." You just have to parse it VERY carefully, because, "it all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is,' is." And it's rarely what you were supposed to think it 'is'. And it turns out that modern politicians who put their...
biblicalfamilies.org
The result was a typically snarky, condescending, certainly rude, and arguably-chastenable response intended only to cause rancor. Since it was from a 'moderator' - that's evidently OK. (Which is a bit like why SOME 501c(3) 'churches' can lobby for leftist politicians, but others dare not for their opponents...)
However, for the first time I can remember, Zec inadvertently made a good point:
He did not have a CLUE what "Black's Law Dictionary" was, or why it mattered. And, since so many here imitate his inability to understand, by virtue of not understanding the meaning of words that are in fact, why and how they are misled, this is important:
"Black's Law" [ Dictionary ] is the primary legal dictionary in use in the USA, and has been for many years. If you use a word in an English-speaking court, or are accused using any legal terminology in such a court, you had better NOT ASSUME that the word means what you think it means. The result could, literally, prove fatal. (Which is probably especially true if @Meme Fan mocks you for it.)
(Bouvier's, BTW, is the official Law Dictionary for the US Supreme Court. There, too, even tiny nuances can mean make-or-break differences. And don't fail to note that when New Editions of either are released - that means 'they' have changed the meaning of some important words.
I have had a hard copy of Black's 6th Edition for many years; I know many 'patriot-oriented' legal scholars, hosts, and even lawyers that keep a copy - expensive! - of Black's First Edition on hand.)This thread has been "off in the weeds" multiple times because some who pontificate about "quote the LAW" or how "it's not there in plain sight so I can see it" - and don't realize that is the whole POINT of legaleze! You're supposed to fork out $1000 an hour to some
A quick case-in-point, and a rabbit hole not worth going down:
And there it is. Good job, Samuel.
As a "law tutor" of mine once told me after a similar on-air rant many years ago,
"Mark, Mark - you're having an attack of logic!"
And if you persist in doing that, he noted, you'll NEVER be able to figure out what they're doing to you!
They lie, folks. They lie a LOT. They make their livings at it. They're GOOD at it.
And they do so - among other things - by means of twisting the meaning of words.
And if you don't - at the VERY LEAST - have a copy of Black's Law Dictionary up front, and figure out that some words DELIBERATELY don't mean what you think they mean...
...you're cooked before you ever realize you were in hot water.
And, Samuel - they NEVER put the hook in plain sight right next to the bait. Expect that it is always hidden.
One more tidbit: I learned years ago that the really nasty stuff (and the "remedy in law" that applies to it!) is always particularly well-hidden!
---------------------------------------
** https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/it-all-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-the-word-is.17429/
Last edited:
Maybe it's obvious, but considering the above discussion where I have quoted the actual law and @Earth_is- has quoted a document which I assume is IRS guidance around the law (in other words, what he has posted is NOT law but indicates how the IRS presently interprets the law), referring back to those documents:
What do you all mean, specifically, by a "501c3 church"?
Both documents state that all religious organisations are automatically covered under that law - even Biblical Families itself. But that obviously isn't what you mean.
Are you referring only to those churches that have asked the IRS to confirm that they are tax-exempt on some sort of official form so they can reassure their congregation that donations are tax-deductable?
If so, what is the actual form that a church is required to fill in in order to receive this confirmation from the IRS?
IF most are finally "on the same page" - there is something else that you MUST understand about "legal fictions," partnerships, and particularly "corporations."
In other words, 'creations of the State'. Which ever state. And they thus have "jurisdiction" over their creation.
OK - well, gee, Mark, what's new?
Get your copy of Black's Law out, and check the definition of the word "person."
WHAT? You've gotta be kiddin'! We ALL know what THAT means. As in "We the people."
Wrong, and no you don't. Not if you assume that 'lawyers', politicians, and Deep State Controllers,
In other words, 'creations of the State'. Which ever state. And they thus have "jurisdiction" over their creation.
OK - well, gee, Mark, what's new?
Get your copy of Black's Law out, and check the definition of the word "person."
WHAT? You've gotta be kiddin'! We ALL know what THAT means. As in "We the people."
Wrong, and no you don't. Not if you assume that 'lawyers', politicians, and Deep State Controllers,
They don't, and it's deliberate, and if you get fooled - sorry - you volunteered for it.
In 1954 501c3 was established.
Roughly 10 years later bibles were gone from the public school.
Another 10 years later abortion became legalized.
On and on we go.
My question is if the churches didn’t trade their free speech for money - could they had all gotten together and rallied against any candidate that had intentions to pass something that was contrary to the faith?
I think the answer is yes. Which is just more the reason to “come out of her so you don’t partake in her plagues.”
They've cursed themselves. They’ve cursed their land. So is the adversary the wicked one? He simply made an offer. He didn’t force anyone to accept it. Just like he didn’t force anyone to bow down to pagan idols, so they can have sex with desirable prostitutes.
Last edited:
That doesn't answer my questions. I am not talking history. I am trying to carefully and systematically tease out the present-day reality for a church. I asked: