The Internal Revenue Service has staked out the position that churches may discuss electoral politics without running afoul of tax-exempt status law.
The IRS, and other parties involved in a lawsuit, expressed the view in a court filing.
“The text of the Johnson Amendment may cause certain otherwise tax-exempt organizations to lose their § 501(c)(3) status if they ‘participate in, or intervene in . . . , any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.’ 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3),” the filing notes.
CONSERVATIVE GROUP TAKES ON IRS OVER ‘VAGUE’ RULES SILENCING FREE SPEECH
But the document argues that an internal church discussion regarding politics does not violate the Johnson Amendment.
“Bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services, do neither of those things, any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates. Thus, communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted,” the filing declares.
TRUMP SCORES MAJOR WIN AS SENATE INSTALLS IRS CRITIC TO LEAD THE AGENCY
The document notes that “the Parties request this Court enter the attached proposed order enjoining Defendants as well as their successors, agents, and employees, from enforcing the Johnson Amendment against Plaintiff Churches based on speech by a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith.”
The filing comes in a case that was brought against the IRS last year by National Religious Broadcasters, Sand Springs Church, First Baptist Church Waskom, and Intercessors for America.
FIVE MAJOR POLICIES TO KNOW FROM THE ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL ACT
Fox News Digital reached out to the IRS for comment on Tuesday, but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
Read the full article here
