IRS: "No tax exempt status for you!" unless pro-life group backs away from Planned Parenthood

A July 6 press release:

IRS NAZI.jpg

Today the Internal Revenue Service was put on notice that the Thomas More Society in Chicago stands ready to defend the Coalition for Life of Iowa against the prejudicial questioning by the IRS, which has delayed granting tax exemption to the non-profit religious organization....

After questioning the "educational" nature of the Coalition's materials, prayer meetings, talks and other pro-life activities, the IRS stated it would not grant tax exemption until the Coalition swore to limit its "picketing" and "protesting" of Planned Parenthood.

Apparently, it was IRS Agent "Ms. Richards, CPA" who made this threat in a phone call to CLI President Susan Martinek earlier this spring. From the attorney's July 2 response letter, here is what Ms. Richards was alleged to have said:

irs pp cli slide 1b.jpg

In a June 22 FAX to CLI's attorneys, Ms. Richards backed off her phone threat but still inexplicably obsessed about CLI's planned activities at its local PP:

irs pp cli slide 2b.jpg

Hm. Is it possible the IRS's "Ms. Richards" is any relation to PP CEO Cecile Richards? Doubtful but that would make for a little bombshell.

Read the rest of TMS's press release outlining the IRS's infringement of CLI's First Amendment rights below.

TMS press release, continued:

In their response, TMS attorneys... argued that the IRS is in danger of violating the First Amendment.... The repeated questioning... suggests the IRS may be denying or delaying tax-exempt status to an eligible organization based solely upon its religious affiliation and speech. Many other organizations regularly advocate on both sides of these issues, and they have not been hindered in obtaining or maintaining tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3).

"The IRS not only erroneously forbade the Coalition for Life of Iowa from engaging in 'advocacy' as a section 501(c)(3) non-profit organization; they also never gave any explanation as to why their request was relevant," said Thomas Brejcha, president and chief counsel for TMS. ".... The IRS is protecting PP and harassing the Coalition for Life of Iowa."

TMS attorneys verify in their response that the Coalition for Life of Iowa has never engaged in any disruptive, violent or threatening action. Its activities, such as prayer meetings and events held to educate the public about sanctity of life issues, have been peaceful. As nearly all of its funds go toward education and the "advancement of religious beliefs," which falls under the definition of "charitable" under section 501(c)(3), the Coalition should thus be clearly eligible for immediate tax-exempt status from the IRS.

"By their own regulations, the IRS must take up a position of with respect to the beliefs advocated by an organization," said Brejcha. "If the IRS can discriminate against one non-profit based on its beliefs and religious affiliation, then the IRS could regulate the speech of any other non-profit organization."

All of this is very interesting, considering the fact that PP holds "nonprofit" status while making huge profits from abortion. Where is the IRS on that?

[HT: Tom C.]


Comments:

Wow. If I were inside the IRS processing applications for 501(c)(3) corps, I would probably be doing the same thing to pro-choice groups, I have to admit. But that doesn't make it right!

Posted by: Nora at July 8, 2009 10:35 AM


The seeds of persecution are sprouting.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault Author Profile Page at July 8, 2009 10:42 AM


cockroaches hate light. The IRS is used as a weapon by the left, They have specific pressures to audit certain enemies. Any one can campaign in Wrights chicago church but if a non profit speaks against a pet leftie group, they send the IRS to attack.

Posted by: xppc at July 8, 2009 10:48 AM


Have some signs carry bible verses on them and then it becomes an issue of the state trying to interfere with religion. It is against the law to force against religion.

Posted by: xppc at July 8, 2009 10:52 AM


It is against the law to force against religion.
Posted by: xppc at July 8, 2009 10:52 AM

Denying tax exempt status is not the use of force.

Posted by: Hal at July 8, 2009 11:13 AM


Posted by: Hal at July 8, 2009 11:13 AM
------

I believe xppc is indicating it's a violation of the 1st amendment, because the government is discriminating against a certain religion - thus prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

As I recall, that eventually leads to cruelties.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault Author Profile Page at July 8, 2009 11:32 AM


not surprised that a lawyer would defend the use of law to limit tax free status of prolife groups.

you disappoint me Hal.... again. :(

Posted by: angel at July 8, 2009 12:56 PM


Nothing like this happened under President Bush to far left blatantly partisan "501C3" organizations. If it had, the press would have been demanding the President's head and the prosecution of the head of the IRS. Yet it seems that from inauguration day, the Clinton IRS weapon was unleashed again.
During the Clinton years, all of his perceived enemies got audited. The media claimed this was not abnormal. Just coincidence.
Look for more political audits of enemies of the left.

Posted by: Mark at July 8, 2009 1:35 PM


In the end, unless they repent, "The Left" are going to be 'The Left BEHIND '...kwim?

Posted by: Pamela at July 8, 2009 2:27 PM


angel, sorry to disappoint. For the record, however, I did not defend the IRS position. I merely said it wasn't the "use of force."

I don't object to the IRS asking questions, but from what I know know and from what little I know about tax law, I would not support any action against Coalition for Life of Iowa.

Posted by: Hal at July 8, 2009 2:44 PM


PP makes zero profit from abortion because it is non-profit.

Posted by: reality at July 8, 2009 5:55 PM


the government is discriminating against a certain religion - thus prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Nonsense. No one is entitled to tax-exempt status. Paying taxes does not stop anyone from practicing their religion.

Posted by: reality at July 8, 2009 5:58 PM


In the end, unless they repent, "The Left" are going to be 'The Left BEHIND '...kwim?

lol, we'll take that "risk."

Posted by: reality at July 8, 2009 6:01 PM


reality, PP makes a profit....just look at their profit sheets!

My first had an abortion at 8-9 weeks along, they charged her $750.00
Her abortion took about 10 minutes total, she said the DR barely talked with her before the abortion, and she had walked in to make her appt the day before and came into the PP clinic just a mere 10 minutes before her abortion.
So they made $750.00 in about 30 minutes or so. That's a lot of moolah....
btw, RIP Baby L!

Posted by: AK Krystal at July 8, 2009 6:02 PM


Nonsense. No one is entitled to tax-exempt status. Paying taxes does not stop anyone from practicing their religion.

Reality,

The fallacy of your argument is that in the US, NPOs ARE, in fact, entitled to tax-exempt status.

High taxes on a group that makes NO profit can cause the churches in which people are able to practice their religion to fall bankrupt. Practicing my religion includes going to church weekly and accepting communion, the transubstantiated body and blood of Christ. According to my faith, this is necessary once a month.

How am I to accomplish that, without a church to attend?

Just one of many examples.

Posted by: MaryRose at July 8, 2009 8:53 PM


The IRS has been used as a political tool by every administration since it was first created. But this administration has taken dirty politics to a new low.... it seems they consider themselves entitled to throw their weight around mightily and constantly, because they won the election.

And they take the view that legalities are just "technicalities" to be overcome.

Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at July 9, 2009 1:54 PM


"Nonsense. No one is entitled to tax-exempt status. Paying taxes does not stop anyone from practicing their religion."

This is the opposite of the reality of this situation. The consitution seeks to refrain from interfering in religious behavior at all:
"nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed."

--Based on this, a church should not have to prove or file anything in order for the fed govt to generously grant the ability to exist and practice in the U.S. Some people believe this includes the ability to raise money and manage the church budget. Churches are generally under the tax-exempt status as a fundamental constitutional right.

Posted by: Row1 at July 9, 2009 2:49 PM