What difference? If you want to set up a tax exempt (non-profit, although the term is misleading) newspaper, have at it. It won’t fly, but you can give it a go.

Why aren’t all newspapers tax-exempt, the way you show all churches are? Why doesn’t a newspaper’s “exempt purpose arise[] by virtue of its existence”?

Why the difference in application?

What difference? If you want to set up a tax exempt (non-profit, although the term is misleading) newspaper, have at it. It won’t fly, but you can give it a go.

@Jaime r

“if the Catholic Church starts endorsing candidates, there’ll be zero chance of the Church receiving a dime of my money.”

Terrific. You should think about in the light of how the Church is calumnied about Hitler. Despite clear communications from the Poe about Naziism, the Church is accused of not having done enough.

the Church is not seeking recognition of an “exempt” purpose. A Church’s exempt purpose arises by virtue of its existence.

But what I’m not following is, if ‘free exercise of religion’ is an automatically exempt purpose, why is not ‘free speech’ likewise exempt? It’s denoted in the same language in the same amendment. Why the difference in application?

I have a bitter hostility to Caesar. As a pure policy point, leaving aside the legal question, if the Catholic Church starts endorsing candidates, there’ll be zero chance of the Church receiving a dime of my money. If my Bishop endorses a candidate, I will move to another diocese. The last thing the Church needs is to get more in bed with Caesar. The last thing we need is for the Church to become more entangled in the BS political divisions that divide America.

At the level of economic incentives, it doesn’t matter whether the expenditure isn’t taxed when it’s donated or when it’s used.

No, but donations to Churches and charities are not deductible unless you itemize.

However, I note your attempt to change the argument-you were not discussing the deductibility of the donation by the donor-you were discussing the exemption from tax of the donee entity.

“It’s that Churches gave up their right to engage in certain types of political speech by choosing to be tax exempt.”

Look, I get it. You have this bitter hostility to religion and you think nothing should be escaping Ceaser’s greedy hand. However, no matter how much you argue (poorly) it doesn’t change the facts, two of which is that you don’t understand tax law and contentiousness is a poor substitute for validity.

are donations to candidates and parties tax deductible? So then those donations are taxed.

If you really want political donations to be tax free, then campaign to make political donations tax deductible. Making PACs and Churches indistinguishable does no one any good.

One other point:

“But there’s no reason for the government not to tax political expenditures just because it’s passed through a church.”

So if ‘political expenditures’ pass through a candidate or Party or other organization, should they be taxed? Will you be proposing tax the Presidential candidates? Organizing for America? Labor unions? Or are you just singling out churches?

“If you choose to be a Church, rather than a PAC, you’ve chosen tax exemption and not political speech.”

So say you.

I already explained why that’s wrong. You simply refuse to accept it, will not or cannot follow the analysis. There’s a difference between holding an opinion, and holding an informed, professional opinion. Treasury Circular 230 allows three classes of professionals to dispense tax advice-Attorneys, CPA’s and Enrolled Agents. I’ve provided my qualification-what is yours?

“I don’t think we should give the Soroses and Kochs of the world an incentive to make fake churches ”

Nice strawman argument. Read the link to Treas Reg 1.511, before repeating that suggestion again. You will see that it is a highly implausible suggestion. If you are that wealthy, you didn’t get that way by pursuing fool’s errands. Of course, if they did, I don’t care-I believe in free association and if George Soros can get people in a “church”, that’s no worse than a politician packing a stadium or Soros paying drones to work in super-pacs.

“Unless I’m mistaken.”

You are very mistaken.

@Ray Ingles:

“Why are newspapers not likewise exempt?”

A newspaper could very well be exempt, if it organized as 501(c)(3). There is nothing to stop someone from advancing an educational or other valid exempt purpose through printed materials, and I’m sure on a small scale, some do.

But on a large, (NY Times/Wall Street Journal) scale, the IRS might take the view that ad revenue is not in futherance of an exempt mission and require it to pay Unrelated Business Income Tax or “UBIT” and since ad revenue is the biggest part of a paper’s revenue-what’s the point?

Another requirement of 501(c)(3) is the absence of a profit motive and stockholders. I assure you the great publishing empires were profit motivated. Newspapers are capital intensive businesses-big name reporters need to be paid. There’s paper, presses, trucks and today, a huge IT structure, etc. So, the short answer is that nobody has yet found a way to operate a general purpose paper as a tax-exempt and prosper.

A Church’s exempt purpose arises by virtue of its existence. The reason is that the Constitution (not the Internal Revenue Code), is the supreme law of the land).

Why are newspapers not likewise exempt? Or do you think they should be? (Joe Knippenberg, feel free to weigh in any time.)

This is exactly what happens in France. Part of a Church’s activities are conducted through an « association cultuelle » whose activities are limited to conducting worship and training clergy. Part of its activities are conducted through one or more « associations reconnues d’utilité publique »[“associations recognized to be of public utility,” or charities. Both enjoy tax exemption (and also the power to receive legacies). Then, they have other associations to conduct non-qualifying activities. These bodies are all legally distinct, but have the same personnel.

The Catholic Church and the Jewish community have been particularly adept at creating these juridical structures. Some evangelical groups, often foreign-based, have fallen foul of them, through lack of proper legal advice.