Nonprofit Organizations Law and Policy Third Edition - Libraries ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

8 OVERVIEW OF THE NONPROFIT SECTOR eH. 1 it would be a perversion to stretch the meaning of the statute to such cases; they are indistinguishable from societies to promote or defeat prohibition, to adhere to the League of Nations, to increase the Navy, or any other of the many causes in which ardent persons engage. Our review is limited to the correction of obvious errors; we cannot say that the Board committed any here. Decision affirmed. QUESTIONS 1. A § 501(c)(3) organization may not participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. See I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) and discussion in Chapters 5 and 15. Is the prohibition against a charitable organization's involvement in political campaigns a violation of the members' First Amendment rights? See Branch Ministries u. Rossotti, 211 F.3d 137 (D.C.Cir.2000), discussed in Chapter 10. 2. Should an employee of the Internal Revenue Service on her own volition be permitted to deny § 501(c)(3) status to a nonprofit organization? May a taxpayer challenge a decision of the IRS either to grant or to deny tax exempt status to a nonprofit organization? Consider the following case. HARING v. BLUMENTHAL United States District Court, District of Columbia, 1979 471 F.Supp. 1172 HAROLD H. GREENE, DISTRICT JUDGE. In this action plaintiff requests relief from alleged religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and an injunction to restrain defendant from classifying "abortion clinics and other organizations promoting abortion and homosexuality as tax exempt organizations.' , Plaintiff is an employee of the Internal Revenue Service. * * * He applied for promotion to Tax Law Specialist, * * * but was turned down, allegedly on account of his Catholic religious belief and conduct. The government contends that there also were other reasons for plaintiffs failure to achieve promotion, but for purposes of the present motion it concedes that plaintiff was not promoted solely because of his inability or unwillingness to abide by Internal Revenue Service policies on abortion. After receiving the agency's final decision on December 19, 1977, plaintiff filed the instant action which, as indicated, challenges the tax-exempt status of various organizations and alleges violations of his rights under Title VII. * * * I Under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 501(a), organizations more specifically designated in sections 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) as being organized for religious, charitable, educational, or
SEC. I NATURE OF A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION 9 social welfare purposes, are exempt from income taxation. Within the framework of these statutory provisions, the Internal Revenue Service has granted tax-exempt status to abortion clinics and to various organizations involved with homosexual rights, and additional Revenue Rulings dealing with abortion clinics may be issued at future dates. One portion of plaintiffs suit challenges these present and expected rulings, and defendant has moved to dismiss that part of the complaint on several grounds, principally plaintiffs alleged lack of standing to bring the action. The requirement in the law that only a person with "standing" may pursue a lawsuit in the courts stems from the requirement in Article III of the Constitution that the federal courts may hear and decide only actual "cases" and "controversies." Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968). While the issue of standing has been much mooted and has witnessed several shifts in perspective, it is now clear that the "gist of the question of standing" is whether the party seeking relief has "alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions." * * * Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 703, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). If a plaintiff is unable to make such an allegation, he lacks standing; the case then is deemed not to involve an actual controversy but to call merely for an advisory opinion; and the court lacks jurisdiction. Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 37 note 15, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972). The government asserts that this is precisely the situation here. Plaintiff in this case concedes, as he must, that he does not have standing to challenge the exemption rulings at issue here merely because he is a citizen or taxpayer * * * and claims instead to find a basis for his ability to bring this lawsuit in his employment status. In order to achieve standing in his capacity as an employee of the Internal Revenue Service, plaintiff must be able to allege that the challenged actions of that Service are causing him an "injury in fact" and that his interests are arguably within "the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question." * * * In the view of this Court, he cannot satisfy either test. Plaintiff claims that he is suffering an injury in fact in that, but for the existence of IRS tax policies which exempt abortion clinics from taxation, he would not be subjected to the alleged discrimination with respect to promotions which stems from his objection to these exemptions. However, there clearly is an insufficient nexus between the exemption rulings plaintiff complains about and the alleged harm to his beliefs and practices to satisfy the injury in fact standard. It is the action of the promotion panel, not the exemption rulings of IRS, which is the direct cause of the injury to plaintiff; he is able to challenge that action in a Title VII suit; he has in fact done so; and under the law his action pursuant to
Page 2 and 3: WEST'S LAw SCHOOL ADVISORY BOARD JE
Page 4 and 5: Thomson Reuters created this public
Page 6 and 7: PREFACE Representation of nonprofit
Page 8 and 9: PREFACE vii in Italy relating to no
Page 10 and 11: x SUMMARY OF CONTENTS Page Chapter
Page 12 and 13: xii SUMMARY OF CONTENTS Page Chapte
Page 14: xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page II. Orga
Page 17 and 18: TABLE OF CONTENTS xvii Page Chapter
Page 19 and 20: TABLE OF CONTENTS Page IV. Cy Pres
Page 21 and 22: TABLE OF CONTENTS xxi Page III. Rig
Page 23 and 24: TABLE OF CONTENTS xxiii Page II. Ri
Page 25 and 26: xxvi TABLE OF CASES Church of Etern
Page 27 and 28: xxviii TABLE OF CASES Professional
Page 30 and 31: NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS LAW AND POL
Page 32 and 33: 2 OVERVIEW OF THE NONPROFIT SECTOR
Page 34: 4 OVERVIEW OF THE NONPROFIT SECTOR
Page 37: SEC. I NATURE OF A NONPROFIT ORGANI
Page 41 and 42: SEC. I NATURE OF A NONPROFIT ORGANI
Page 53 and 54: SEC. I NAITRE OF A NONPROFIT ORGANI
Page 57 and 58: SEC. II ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 27
Page 63 and 64: SEC. II ORGANlZA TIONAL STRUCTt:RE
Page 65: SEC. II ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 35
Page 81 and 82: SEC. IV FOREIGN NONPROFIT ORGANIZAT
Page 83 and 84: SEC. IV FOREIGN NONPROFIT ORGANIZAT
Page 85: SEC. IV FOREIGN NONPROFIT ORGANIZAT
Page 89:
SEC. IV FOREIGN NONPROFIT ORGANIZAT
Page 92:
62 OVERVIEW OF THE NONPROFIT SECTOR
show all

Nonprofit Organizations Law and Policy Third Edition - Libraries ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?