DOCSLIB.ORG

REVIEW of INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 501(C)(3) REQUIREMENTS for RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
REVIEW of INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 501(C)(3) REQUIREMENTS for RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS REVIEW OF INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 501(c)(3) REQUIREMENTS FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION MAY 14, 2002 Serial No. 107–69 Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 80–331 WASHINGTON : 2002 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:17 Aug 15, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 W:\DISC\80331.XXX txed01 PsN: txed01 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida FORTNEY PETE STARK, California NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut ROBERT T. MATSUI, California AMO HOUGHTON, New York WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania WALLY HERGER, California SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland DAVE CAMP, Michigan JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin JIM NUSSLE, Iowa JOHN LEWIS, Georgia SAM JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts JENNIFER DUNN, Washington MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York MAC COLLINS, Georgia WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana ROB PORTMAN, Ohio JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania XAVIER BECERRA, California WES WATKINS, Oklahoma KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas JERRY WELLER, Illinois EARL POMEROY, North Dakota KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado RON LEWIS, Kentucky MARK FOLEY, Florida KEVIN BRADY, Texas PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin ALLISON GILES, Chief of Staff JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AMO HOUGHTON, New York, Chairman ROB PORTMAN, Ohio WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania JERRY WELLER, Illinois MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri JOHN LEWIS, Georgia SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida MARK FOLEY, Florida EARL POMEROY, North Dakota SAM JOHNSON, Texas JENNIFER DUNN, Washington Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occur- rences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process is further refined. ii VerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:17 Aug 15, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 W:\DISC\80331.XXX txed01 PsN: txed01 C O N T E N T S Page Advisory of May 7, 2002, announcing the hearing ............................................... 2 WITNESSES Internal Revenue Service, Steven T. Miller, Director, Exempt Organizations ... 6 Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Reverend Barry W. Lynn ...................................................................................................................... 47 American Center for Law & Justice, Colby M. May ............................................. 23 Coral Ridge Ministries, D. James Kennedy ........................................................... 53 Hopkins, Bruce R., Polsinelli, Shalton & Welte .................................................... 12 Interfaith Alliance, Reverend C. Welton Gaddy .................................................... 38 National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, Brenda Girton-Mitchell ... 56 New Bethel Baptist Church, Hon. Reverend Walter E. Fauntroy ....................... 43 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Alliance for Justice, Nan Aron, letter .................................................................... 85 American Jewish Committee, statement ............................................................... 86 American Jewish Congress, statement .................................................................. 86 Anti-Defamation League, New York, NY, statement ............................................ 92 Baptist Joint Committee, J. Brent Walker, and K. Hollyn Hollman, letter and attachment .................................................................................................... 93 Bopp, James, Jr., Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom, Terre Haute, IN, statement ......... 94 Edwards, Hon. Chet, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, statement .............................................................................................................. 100 Islamic Supreme Council of America, statement .................................................. 101 Jones, Hon. Walter B., a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina, statement ............................................................................................. 102 Maryland Bible Society, Reverend Raymond T. Moreland, letter ....................... 103 National Council of Nonprofit Associations, Audrey R. Alvarado, letter ............ 103 OMB Watch, Kay Guinance, statement ................................................................. 104 People for the American Way, Ralph G. Neas, and Stephenie Foster, letter ..... 106 Religious Freedom Coalition, William J. Murray, statement .............................. 106 Rutkowski, Robert E., Topeka, KS, letter .............................................................. 107 Soka Gakkai International-USA Buddhist Association, Bill Aiken, letter ......... 109 Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Harvey Blitz, Richard B. Stone, Rabbi T. Hersh Weinreb, and Nathan J. Diament, letter ................ 109 Wood, William, Charlotte, NC, statement ............................................................. 110 Aiken, Bill, Soka Gakkai International-USA Buddhist Association, letter ........ 109 Alvarado, Audrey R., National Council of Nonprofit Associations, letter ........... 103 Aron, Nan, Alliance for Justice, letter ................................................................... 85 Blitz, Harvey, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, letter ...... 109 Diament, Nathan J., Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, letter ...................................................................................................................... 109 Foster, Stephenie, People for the American Way, letter ...................................... 106 Guinance, Kay, OMB Watch, statement ................................................................ 104 Hollman, K. Hollyn, Baptist Joint Committee, letter and attachment ............... 93 Murray, William J., Religious Freedom Coalition, statement ............................. 106 Neas, Ralph G., People for the American Way, letter .......................................... 106 Stone, Richard B., Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, let- ter .......................................................................................................................... 109 Walker, J. Brent, Baptist Joint Committee, letter and attachment .................... 93 Weinreb, Rabbi T. Hersh, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of Amer- ica, letter ............................................................................................................... 109 iii VerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:17 Aug 15, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 W:\DISC\80331.XXX txed01 PsN: txed01 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:17 Aug 15, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 W:\DISC\80331.XXX txed01 PsN: txed01 REVIEW OF INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SEC- TION 501(c)(3) REQUIREMENTS FOR RELI- GIOUS ORGANIZATIONS TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2002 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in room 1100 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Amo Houghton (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. [The advisory announcing the hearing follows:] (1) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:17 Aug 15, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\80331.XXX txed01 PsN: txed01 2 ADVISORY FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: (202) 225–7601 May 7, 2002 No. OV–12 Houghton Announces Hearing on the Review of Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) Requirements for Religious Organizations Congressman Amo Houghton (R–NY), Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing to review Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) Section 501(c)(3) require- ments for religious organizations. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, May 14, 2002, in room 1100 Longworth House Office Building, beginning at 2:00 p.m. In view of the limited time to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However, any individual or organization not sched- uled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Subcommittee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. BACKGROUND: I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) organizations—such as religious, charitable, educational, sci- entific, and literary organizations—enjoy certain benefits because of their tax-ex- empt status: • Being exempt from Federal income taxation under I.R.C. § 501(a), and • Allowing
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Johnson Amendment in Light of Recent Supreme Court Precedent
    REGENT UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW Volume 24 2011–2012 Number 2 LBJ, THE IRS, AND CHURCHES: THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE JOHNSON AMENDMENT IN LIGHT OF RECENT SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT Erik W. Stanley* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 238 I. CHURCH TAX EXEMPTION IN HISTORY ................................................... 241 A. A Brief History of Church Tax Exemption Generally ..................... 241 B. Restrictions on the Exemption ......................................................... 242 1. The 1954 U.S. Senate Race in Texas ......................................... 244 2. The Johnson Amendment........................................................... 246 II. IRS ENFORCEMENT OF THE JOHNSON AMENDMENT ............................ 248 A. Vague Enforcement .......................................................................... 249 1. “Facts and Circumstances” ........................................................ 249 2. “Code Words” ............................................................................... 251 3. “Issue Advocacy” or “Campaign Intervention”? ........................ 251 4. Who Is a “Candidate”? ................................................................ 252 5. Vague Enforcement Leading to Self-Censorship ...................... 252 B. Drawing the Line at Speech from the Pulpit .................................. 253 C. Unequal Application ........................................................................ 255 D.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix File Anes 1988‐1992 Merged Senate File
    Version 03 Codebook ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ CODEBOOK APPENDIX FILE ANES 1988‐1992 MERGED SENATE FILE USER NOTE: Much of his file has been converted to electronic format via OCR scanning. As a result, the user is advised that some errors in character recognition may have resulted within the text. MASTER CODES: The following master codes follow in this order: PARTY‐CANDIDATE MASTER CODE CAMPAIGN ISSUES MASTER CODES CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP CODE ELECTIVE OFFICE CODE RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE MASTER CODE SENATOR NAMES CODES CAMPAIGN MANAGERS AND POLLSTERS CAMPAIGN CONTENT CODES HOUSE CANDIDATES CANDIDATE CODES >> VII. MASTER CODES ‐ Survey Variables >> VII.A. Party/Candidate ('Likes/Dislikes') ? PARTY‐CANDIDATE MASTER CODE PARTY ONLY ‐‐ PEOPLE WITHIN PARTY 0001 Johnson 0002 Kennedy, John; JFK 0003 Kennedy, Robert; RFK 0004 Kennedy, Edward; "Ted" 0005 Kennedy, NA which 0006 Truman 0007 Roosevelt; "FDR" 0008 McGovern 0009 Carter 0010 Mondale 0011 McCarthy, Eugene 0012 Humphrey 0013 Muskie 0014 Dukakis, Michael 0015 Wallace 0016 Jackson, Jesse 0017 Clinton, Bill 0031 Eisenhower; Ike 0032 Nixon 0034 Rockefeller 0035 Reagan 0036 Ford 0037 Bush 0038 Connally 0039 Kissinger 0040 McCarthy, Joseph 0041 Buchanan, Pat 0051 Other national party figures (Senators, Congressman, etc.) 0052 Local party figures (city, state, etc.) 0053 Good/Young/Experienced leaders; like whole ticket 0054 Bad/Old/Inexperienced leaders; dislike whole ticket 0055 Reference to vice‐presidential candidate ? Make 0097 Other people within party reasons Card PARTY ONLY ‐‐ PARTY CHARACTERISTICS 0101 Traditional Democratic voter: always been a Democrat; just a Democrat; never been a Republican; just couldn't vote Republican 0102 Traditional Republican voter: always been a Republican; just a Republican; never been a Democrat; just couldn't vote Democratic 0111 Positive, personal, affective terms applied to party‐‐good/nice people; patriotic; etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard G. Hewlett and Jack M. Holl. Atoms
    ATOMS PEACE WAR Eisenhower and the Atomic Energy Commission Richard G. Hewlett and lack M. Roll With a Foreword by Richard S. Kirkendall and an Essay on Sources by Roger M. Anders University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London Published 1989 by the University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England Prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission; work made for hire. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hewlett, Richard G. Atoms for peace and war, 1953-1961. (California studies in the history of science) Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Nuclear energy—United States—History. 2. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission—History. 3. Eisenhower, Dwight D. (Dwight David), 1890-1969. 4. United States—Politics and government-1953-1961. I. Holl, Jack M. II. Title. III. Series. QC792. 7. H48 1989 333.79'24'0973 88-29578 ISBN 0-520-06018-0 (alk. paper) Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 CONTENTS List of Illustrations vii List of Figures and Tables ix Foreword by Richard S. Kirkendall xi Preface xix Acknowledgements xxvii 1. A Secret Mission 1 2. The Eisenhower Imprint 17 3. The President and the Bomb 34 4. The Oppenheimer Case 73 5. The Political Arena 113 6. Nuclear Weapons: A New Reality 144 7. Nuclear Power for the Marketplace 183 8. Atoms for Peace: Building American Policy 209 9. Pursuit of the Peaceful Atom 238 10. The Seeds of Anxiety 271 11. Safeguards, EURATOM, and the International Agency 305 12.
    [Show full text]
  • The Background of the Revenue Act of 1937
    THE BACKGROUND OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1937 RANDOLPzH E. PAUL* O N AUGUST 28, 1894, Congress enacted what was then considered a drastic income tax statute.' It carried a rate of 2%. The stat- ute was regarded by many with horror. Mr. Joseph H. Choate, then a leader of the New York bar, called the act "communistic in its pur- poses and tendencies," and confiscatory. 3 Words momentarily failed even Mr. Choate before the Supreme *Court, but he managed to label the prin- ciples upon which the tax was defended in that court as "communistic, socialistic-what shall I call them-populistic4 as ever have been ad- dressed to any political assembly in the world." s No attempt was made to circumvent this outrageous "direct" tax upon property. None was ever necessary. A direct frontal attack was made in the famous Pollock case and was successful by the recently noteworthy margin of five to four. Th6 decision, dose as it was, "forcibly interred"6 the contested statute and the nineteenth century had a peaceful ending. Taxpayers were safe until orderly constitutional process made the six- teenth Amendment effective on February 25, I913 Jand "direct" income taxation was possible without the impossible8 apportionment requirement. On this day the peace won by Mr. Choate proved merely a truce, and war was declared. In the beginning it was a quiet, good-natured conflictY It * Member of the New York bar. '28 Stat. 553 (1894), 31 U.S.C.A., § 372 (1929). 2 Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 532 (1895).
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Charter School Growth and Sustainability in Harlem
    REGIMES, REFORM, AND RACE: THE POLITICS OF CHARTER SCHOOL GROWTH AND SUSTAINABILITY IN HARLEM by Basil A. Smikle Jr. Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under the Executive Committee of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2019 © 2019 Basil A. Smikle Jr. All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT REGIMES, REFORM, AND RACE: THE POLITICS OF CHARTER SCHOOL GROWTH AND SUSTAINABILITY IN HARLEM By Basil A. Smikle Jr. The complex and thorny relationship betWeen school-district leaders, sub-city political and community figures and teachers’ unions on the subject of charter schools- an interaction fraught with racially charged language and tactics steeped in civil rights-era mobilization - elicits skepticism about the motives of education reformers and their vieW of minority populations. In this study I unpack the local politics around tacit and overt racial appeals in support of NeW York City charter schools with particular attention to Harlem, NeW York and periods when the sustainability of these schools, and long-term education reforms, were endangered by changes in the political and legislative landscape. This dissertation ansWers tWo key questions: How did the Bloomberg-era governing coalition and charter advocates in NeW York City use their political influence and resources to expand and sustain charter schools as a sector; and how does a community with strong historic and cultural narratives around race, education and political activism, respond to attempts to enshrine externally organized school reforms? To ansWer these questions, I employ a case study analysis and rely on Regime Theory to tell the story of the Mayoral administration of Michael Bloomberg and the cadre of charter leaders, philanthropies and wealthy donors whose collective activity created a climate for growth of the sector.
    [Show full text]
  • Deals for Trade Votes Gone Bad
    Deals for Trade Votes Gone Bad June 2005 © 2005 by Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photography, recording, or by information exchange and retrieval systems, without written permission from the authors. Public Citizen is a nonprofit membership organization in Washington, D.C., dedicated to advancing consumer rights through lobbying, litigation, research, publications and information services. Since its founding by Ralph Nader in 1971, Public Citizen has fought for consumer rights in the marketplace, for safe and secure health care, for fair trade, for clean and safe energy sources, and for corporate and government accountability. Visit our web page at http://www.citizen.org. Acknowledgments: This report was written by Todd Tucker, Brandon Wu and Alyssa Prorok. The authors would like to thank Paul Adler, Eliza Brinkmeyer, Tony Corbo, Elizabeth Drake, Susan Ellsworth, Lina Gomez, David Kamin, Patricia Lovera, Travis McArthur, Nanine Meiklejohn, Kathy Ozer, Tyson Slocum, Tom “Smitty” Smith, Margarete Strand, Jamie Strawbridge, Michele Varnhagen, Jeff Vogt, Lori Wallach, and David Waskow for their help with this document, as well as the authors of previous Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch deals reports, including Gabriella Boyer, Mike Dolan, Tamar Malley, Chris McGinn, Robert Naiman, Darshana Patel, and Patrick Woodall. Special thanks go to James Meehan for help with the title logo. We also thank
    [Show full text]
  • Getting Ready for Health Reform 2020: What Past Presidential Campaigns Can Teach Us
    REPORT JUNE 2018 Getting Ready for Health Reform 2020: What Past Presidential Campaigns Can Teach Us Jeanne M. Lambrew Senior Fellow The Century Foundation ABSTRACT KEY TAKEAWAYS ISSUE: The candidates for the 2020 presidential election are likely to Campaign plans are used by emerge within a year, along with their campaign plans. Such plans will supporters and the press to hold presidents accountable. Though include, if not feature, health policy proposals, given this issue’s general voters are unlikely to believe that significance as well as the ongoing debate over the Affordable Care Act. politicians keep their promises, GOAL: To explain why campaign plans matter, review the health policy roughly two-thirds of campaign components of past presidential campaign platforms, and discuss the promises were kept by presidents likely 2020 campaign health reform plans. from 1968 through the Obama years. METHODS: Review of relevant reports, data, party platforms, and policy documents. Health policy will likely play FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Proposals related to health care have a significant role in the 2020 grown in scope in both parties’ presidential platforms over the past election, with Republicans focused on deregulation and century and affect both agendas and assessments of a president’s capped federal financing success. Continued controversy over the Affordable Care Act, potential and Democrats backing the reversals in gains in coverage and affordability, and voters’ concern Affordable Care Act and a suggest a central role for health policy in the 2020 election. Republicans Medicare-based public plan will most likely continue to advance devolution, deregulation, and option. capped federal financing, while Democrats will likely overlay their support of the Affordable Care Act with some type of Medicare-based public plan option.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Preface ..................................................................................................... ix Introductory Notes to Tables ................................................................. xi Chapter A: Selected Economic Statistics ............................................... 1 A1. Resident Population of the United States ............................................................................3 A2. Resident Population by State ..............................................................................................4 A3. Number of Households in the United States .......................................................................6 A4. Total Population by Age Group............................................................................................7 A5. Total Population by Age Group, Percentages .......................................................................8 A6. Civilian Labor Force by Employment Status .......................................................................9 A7. Gross Domestic Product, Net National Product, and National Income ...................................................................................................10 A8. Gross Domestic Product by Component ..........................................................................11 A9. State Gross Domestic Product...........................................................................................12 A10. Selected Economic Measures, Rates of Change...............................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • The African-American Church, Political Activity, and Tax Exemption
    JAMES_EIC 1/11/2007 9:47:35 PM The African-American Church, Political Activity, and Tax Exemption Vaughn E. James∗ ABSTRACT Ever since its inception during slavery, the African-American Church has served as an advocate for the socio-economic improve- ment of this nation’s African-Americans. Accordingly, for many years, the Church has been politically active, serving as the nurturing ground for several African-American politicians. Indeed, many of the country’s early African-American legislators were themselves mem- bers of the clergy of the various denominations that constituted the African-American Church. In 1934, Congress amended the Internal Revenue Code to pro- hibit tax-exempt entities—including churches and other houses of worship—from allowing lobbying to constitute a “substantial part” of their activities. In 1954, Congress further amended the Code to place an absolute prohibition on political campaigning by these tax-exempt organizations. While these amendments did not specifically target churches and other houses of worship, they have had a chilling effect on efforts by these entities to fulfill their mission. This chilling effect is felt most acutely by the African-American Church, a church estab- lished to preach the Gospel and engage in activities which would im- prove socio-economic conditions for the nation’s African-Americans. This Article discusses the efforts made by the African-American Church to remain faithful to its mission and the inadvertent attempts ∗ Professor of Law, Texas Tech University School of Law. The author wishes to thank Associate Dean Brian Shannon, Texas Tech University School of Law; Profes- sor Christian Day, Syracuse University College of Law; Professor Dwight Aarons, Uni- versity of Tennessee College of Law; Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • "Relief" Provisions in the Revenue Act of 1943
    "RELIEF" PROVISIONS IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1943 By JAMES E. FAHEY t THE Revenue Act of 1943 1 is an anomaly in the framework of income tax legislation.2 Its most obvious distinction lies in the manner of its enactment. It is the first revenue raising measure ever to be vetoed by a president and the first ever to be passed over veto. The political storm which engulfed Congress and the President over the bill's passage cen- tered in large measure over the so-called "relief" provisions found in the bill. These provisions alternately have been defended as accomplishing the correction of existing inequities in the law and assailed as providing loopholes enabling certain favored individuals and industries to avoid their equitable share in financing the war. A scrutinization of these con- troversial provisions in the light of the situations which they were de- signed to change may serve to focus the issue more clearly for the reader whose opinions are yet to be crystallized. Specifically, the President's veto message ' criticized five "relief" pro- visions in the bill as being special privilege measures. They were the provision for non-recognition of gain or loss on corporate reorganiza- tions carried on under court supervision and the concomitant "basis" provision,4 the extension of percentage depletion to certain minerals which were theretofore denied its use,' a provision making optional to taxpay- ers in the timber or logging business an accounting procedure which would enable them to treat the cutting of their timber as the sale of a capital asset,6 the extension of favored excess profits tax treatment formerly given only to producers of minerals and timber to producers of natural gas,7 and a broadening of the existing exemption of air mail carriers from excess profits taxes.8 t fember of the Kentucky Bar; Lecturer in Taxation, University of Louisville Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • The Revenue Act of 1934
    March, 1935 THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934 GEORGE GRAYSON TYLER t AND JOHN P. OHL X Congress, probably inspired by the disclosures of the investigations of the Banking and Currency Committee, passed House Resolution 183, on June 9, 1933, thereby authorizing the Ways and Means Committee to in- vestigate methods of preventing the evasion and avoidance of taxes, means of simplifying the revenue laws and possible new sources of revenue. Pur- suant to this Resolution, a Subcommittee of the Committee on \Ways and Means conducted an inquiry prior to the convening of the second session of the 73d Congress. The Subcommittee filed "A Preliminary Report" ' on December 4, 1933, upon the subjects, of tax avoidance, evasion and sim- plification. In response to the Subcommittee's recommendations, the then Acting Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., issued a state- ment 2 differing in many important particulars from the conclusions reached by the Subcommittee. As a result of the above investigations, H. R. 7835 was introduced in the House and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. After extensive hearings 3 the bill was reported out with amendments by the Com- 4 mittee and a report was submitted thereon. On February 21, 1934, the House passed the bill with minor committee amendments. 5 Then, having been introduced in the Senate, the bill was referred to the Finance Com- mittee, which, after further hearings,0 reported it 7 with substantial amend- ments. Further material changes were made on the floor of the Senate s before passage. Thereafter, the Conference Committee on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses made its recommendations reconciling the differ- j- Formerly assistant to Professor Roswell Magill, former assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury; member of the New York Bar.
    [Show full text]
  • A Historical Perspective of the Permeable IRS Prohibition on Campaigning by Churches Patrick L
    Boston College Law Review Volume 42 Issue 4 The Conflicted First Amendment: Tax Article 1 Exemptions, Religious Groups, And Political Activity 7-1-2001 More Honored in the Breach: A Historical Perspective of the Permeable IRS Prohibition on Campaigning by Churches Patrick L. O'Daniel Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the Religion Law Commons, and the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation Patrick L. O'Daniel, More Honored in the Breach: A Historical Perspective of the Permeable IRS Prohibition on Campaigning by Churches, 42 B.C.L. Rev. 733 (2001), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol42/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MORE HONORED IN THE BREACH: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE PERMEABLE IRS PROHIBITION ON CAMPAIGNING BY CHURCHES PATRICK L. O'DANIEL* Abstract: Since 1954, there has been a prohibition on certain forms of intervention in political campaigns by entities exempt frOm taxation under section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code—including most. churches. This Article provides a historical perspective on the genesis of this prohibition—the 1954 U.S. Senate campaign of its sponsor, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and the involvement of religious entities and other 501 (c) (3) organizations in his political campaign. Although Johnson was not opposed to using churches to advance his own political interests, lie (lid seek to prevent ideological, tax-exempt organizations from funding McCarthyite candidates including his opponent in the Democratic primary, Dudley Dougherty.
    [Show full text]