Posts tagged as:

church

Taxpayer asks:

I have a difficult situation. I won a lot of money in my church’s 50/50. I know I have to report it as income but when I asked for written information from my church, they asked me not to report it. They say they aren’t legally allowed to run a 50/50 and if I report it, I’ll get them in trouble and they could have to close. I don’t want to get anyone in trouble but I don’t want to cheat on my taxes. What do I do?

Taxgirl says:

You’re absolutely right that you need to report the income. So good on you.

As to the church, this kind of thing happens all of the time. Many organizations are barred by state law from conducting “games of chance” and other random lottery type fundraisers. And the 50/50 is just that: everyone pays into a pot and a random winner takes 50% and the church or other organization takes the remainder. It’s a win-win for the church or other organization because it requires no upfront cash, no real efforts beyond promotion. There’s just that little detail of whether it’s allowable…

The good news in your case is that you don’t have to have a form from the church in order to report the income. Just report it on Line 21 as other income. The IRS asks you to describe the type and amount – it doesn’t actually require you to name the source.

All of that said, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that you could be asked, at audit, to provide the source of the funds. In that event, do it. The church is clearly aware that what they’re doing is wrong and they’ve made the decision to do it anyway. That’s not on you, it’s on them: any of the fall out resulting from the 50/50 is the result of their calculated risk. And so long as it’s working for them, they’ve decided to keep doing it. Again, not your problem.

So go, enjoy your winnings. Don’t waste another moment worrying about it.

Like any good lawyer, I need to add a disclaimer: Unfortunately, it is impossible to give comprehensive tax advice over the internet, no matter how well researched or written. Before relying on any information given on this site, contact a tax professional to discuss your particular situation.

Have a question? Ask the taxgirl!Now on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/taxgirl

{ 2 comments }

Taxpayer asks:

I read this article today and it seemed very aggressive, bordering on overly aggressive. Can you comment?

http://www.startchurch.com/blog/view/name/can-pastors-deduct-tithes-as-business-expenses

The tithe situation here just seems too good to be true. Next, my understanding that pastors are considered self-employed only for purposes related to the SE tax, not for deducting expenses. Therefore the home office must be for the employer’s convenience, not the employees. Can a pastor with a church office make a case for his home office being at his employer’s convenience?

Taxgirl says:

My readers send me a number of links and I am often asked to comment on posts like the one in your question. I tend not to post links publicly if there’s not value in them – especially if I’m being baited or if I feel like my response would just be critical.

But this is a pretty interesting question and I get the feeling that you’re actually looking for an answer and not just a critique. So I’m going to oblige.

The long and short of it is that I agree with many of your points. The IRS does assign a kind of “dual” status for ministers (and in fact all clergy but I’m going to refer to ministers in this post) but it’s not as easy-breezy as the author implies. Ministers may be considered self-employed for the purposes of FICA but that doesn’t confer special treatment by allowing them to otherwise classify their relationship with the church. If a minister receives wages from the church and has established an employee-employer relationship, the IRS will expect that expenses and benefits be reported as such. This means that business and professional expenses would be deducted on Schedule A, not Schedule C. Those expenses are subject to the normal reporting requirements.

A minister who clearly has independent status (such as a traveling minister who serves many churches) or who also performs “a la carte” independent services (such as officiating at weddings not connected with his ministerial duties at the church) may receive one or more forms 1099 and may file a Schedule C. But otherwise, wages are reported on a form W-2 and the regular rules apply.

So now let’s get to the tithe as a business expense. On its face, I would agree that a tithe could meet the criteria as “ordinary and necessary.” It is, in fact, common and accepted in many religions to tithe. And by qualifying it in a contract, it could be viewed as helpful and appropriate for your trade or business. But it would not qualify as a business expense reportable on Schedule C for ministers classed as employees.

Quite frankly, even if it did qualify, I think it’s a case of the tax tail wagging the dog. No matter how you characterize, it’s still a 10% cut in salary if you’re required by contract to pay it out to the church. A SE savings doesn’t make up for a required outlay as a condition of employment. Is it worth it to tie yourself to a condition of employment? Not to mention the whole lack of warm fuzzies I get at the idea that my pastor would be required to give money back to the church. Is that just a case of robbing Peter to pay… Peter?

However, believe it or not, creating an employment contract that requires you to turn over a portion of your salary to a charitable organization could actually qualify the tithe as a charitable donation. Even though there’s clearly an expectation of something in return (in this case, a job) the IRS has specifically addressed this very situation and determined that it may be allowable. It’s also worth noting that while there’s an upper limit to the amount of charitable deductions that you can take, there is no threshold to meet as with unreimbursed employee expenses.

With respect to the home office, I agree with your comments about the commute. To qualify for the home office deduction, the home office must be:

  1. regularly and exclusively used for business activity; and
  2. your principal place of business.

I think it’s a tough argument to make for many ministers that a home office qualifies as the “principal” place of business. Generally, a church is the place where most of the work takes place.

Additionally, a home office is, as you correctly point out, for the convenience of the employer, not the employee. I know of few churches which do not have suitable space available for ministers. If the space is available, the employee may not opt to work from home (as a choice) and claim a home office deduction. This isn’t restricted to churches – that’s the rule.

You can’t deduct the cost of commuting to your place of work. If your home office is for your convenience – and not for the convenience of the church – traveling to the church would be considered a commute and therefore wouldn’t qualify as a business expense.

And again, the restrictions relating to home office and commuting are for the minister as an employee, not as an independent contractor. You can’t act as though you’re an independent contractor when you’re an employee, minister or not.

If you’re interested in finding out more, check out Weber v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 378 (1994), aff’d 60 F.3d 1104 (4th Cir. 1995). This is more or less the case as far as the IRS is concerned on the tax treatment of ministers. In that case, which the IRS won, a Methodist minister claimed to be self-employed for the purpose of income tax and Social Security. The case, which was upheld on appeal, found that the employee test for income tax purposes is the same for ministers as regular folks, regardless of Social Security status.

I hope that clears up any confusion. Thanks for writing in!

Like any good lawyer, I need to add a disclaimer: Unfortunately, it is impossible to give comprehensive tax advice over the internet, no matter how well researched or written. Before relying on any information given on this site, contact a tax professional to discuss your particular situation.

Have a question? Ask the taxgirl!Now on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/taxgirl

{ 0 comments }

When all else fails, hit ‘em in the pocketbook…

This week, supporters of Proposition 8, which would ban gay marriage in California, released an ad, pictured above. The ad claims that under current law, gay marriage would be promoted in public schools and warned that churches which opposed same-sex unions would lose their tax exempt status. Richard Peterson, a law professor at Pepperdine University School of Law, appears in the ad, citing a newspaper article alluding to the loss of tax exempt status for those churches that oppose same sex marriage.

There’s just one problem: the author of the piece said no such thing. Robert DeKoven, a law professor at California Western School of Law, claims that the ad “completely distorted” his position. He said:

I never, ever, ever said anything about if churches do not perform same-sex marriages that you’ll lose your tax-exempt status.

DeKoven, who has never been contacted by the Yes on 8 campaign or Professor Peterson, authored an op-ed piece for the July 3 edition of the Gay & Lesbian Times entitled “Anti-Gay Clergy Should Fear Backlash.” Despite the title, DeKoven was not arguing that there might be tax consequences for those churches who oppose gay marriage; instead, he was arguing that it was not fair to allow tax deductions for donations to churches which are political but not allow tax deductions for donations to secular groups that are overtly political. That argument makes sense.

Issue advocacy on its face does not put tax exempt status at risk: it depends on the facts and circumstances. For example, the president of the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS) issuance of a letter “from the pulpit” as was indicated in DeKoven’s piece, urging members to donate “means and time” to pass Proposition 8 is likely just a matter of issue advocacy. And to be clear, tax-exempt charitable organizations may take positions on public policy issues, even for those issues on which candidates have taken differing positions. However, encouraging voters to get behind an issue needs to be interpreted as simply that and not as intervention in a particular candidate’s campaign.

Even if a message from the charitable organization does not expressly encourage a vote for or against a specific candidate, there is a risk of violating the ban on political campaigning by a charitable group if the message appears to favor or oppose a candidate. That might include, for example, adding photos or statements from candidates in issue advocacy campaigns; directing voters to a particular candidate’s website; and literature that touts one candidate’s record on an issue. But simply advocating an issue is not a violation of the prohibition against politicking.

There is a fine line – and it’s clear to me that DeKoven was not implying that the line had been crossed in this circumstance. However, Professor Peterson and the folks at Yes to 8 apparently saw this as an opportunity to frighten taxpayers into believing that they couldn’t speak out against gay marriage under the current law. That’s just plain nonsense. It is short-sighted and narrow-minded of Professor Peterson to participate in such an ad campaign without arming himself with the facts – and if he had armed himself with the facts and moved ahead, shame on him.

Professor Peterson has not responded publicly to the criticisms against him. In the meantime, Pepperdine University School of Law has asked the Yes on 8 campaign to remove the Pepperdine affiliation from the ads; the campaign has not agreed to do so.

Funny. If the law actually were as Peterson has attempted to imply, he would have put Pepperdine’s tax exempt charitable status at risk for what appears to be taking a very public stance on a political issue… Only, Professor, that’s not the case, now is it?

{ 6 comments }

Does the name Tony Alamo ring a bell? It should. The controversial evangelist, now 74 years old, has been making headlines for more than 25 years.

The flashy Alamo was born Bernie Lazar Hoffman in small town Missouri. Jewish by birth, Alamo married Edith Opal Horn, who was also Jewish. Alamo claims to have converted to Christianity after a super natural experience; after the conversion, he referred to himself as “a completed Jew.” Soon thereafter, he changed his name to Tony Alamo and Edith’s name to Sue Alamo. With a new religion and new names, Sue and Tony began their ministry.

Alamo Ministries grew quickly, expanding into other arenas and becoming a virtual empire worth an estimated $60 million in the 1980s. Those actions attracted the attention of the Department of Labor and the IRS, both of which instituted actions against his assortment of companies. Alamo appealed his DOL case all the way to the Supreme Court in 1985 and lost. That same year, the IRS retroactively revoked the tax exempt status for Alamo’s “church” for the years 1977 to 1980. The matter stayed in court for seven years. Eventually, the IRS seized “church” property in order to satisfy outstanding tax obligations in the millions.

Nonetheless, Alamo didn’t learn his lesson. Nearly ten years later, Alamo was convicted of filing a false federal income tax return and failing to file tax returns for three years. Income for the years in which he did not file is estimated to have been as high as $9 million. Much of the income came from a stint in the fashion industry where Alamo designed special denim jackets and accessories reportedly for such celebrities as Mr. T, Bono and Springsteen (a quick peek on eBay this evening revealed only one bid for any Alamo designs – and that bid was 99 cents).

In 1994, Alamo was sentenced to a fine of $550,000 and a maximum of six years in federal prison, he only served four of those years. One of the requirements of his release is particularly notable: he was ordered to return the remains of his deceased wife to members of her family. When his wife died of cancer years earlier, Alamo claimed she would be resurrected and kept her body on display in a crystal crypt on his dining room table. During the federal raid on his church compound, he had ordered his followers to hide her body. As part of the condition of his release, his followers turned the body over to Susan’s family, sixteen years after her death.

More after the jump…

[click to continue…]

{ 2 comments }

GOP in Galveston, TX works to remove Scientology status

20 April 2008

Last month, a delegate from Galveston County, Texas presented a proposal to the Republican National Convention to revoke tax exempt status for the Church of Scientology.
Here is the Resolution:
The Resolution
Initiative for Texas Resolution Calling for the revocation of the Church of Scientology’s status as a Legitimate religion in the sate of Texas.
Be it resolved that [...]

10 comments Read the full article →

Obama’s Speech Interests IRS

29 February 2008

picApp_publisherId = 447;picApp_imageId = 1786;picApp_imageWidth = 357;picApp_imageHeight = 260;picApp_configUrl = “http://pis.picapp.com/IamProd/FlashSite/GetConfig.aspx”;picApp_Picview=”http://pis.picapp.com/IamProd/FlashSite/en/picviewerv1_1.swf”;picapp_numberOfLine=2;ImageServe();
The IRS is serious about the rules which prohibit non-profit organizations, including churches, from supporting candidates or political parties.
Just a few week after the IRS mailed a lengthy letter to First Baptist Church of Buena Park pastor Wiley S. Drake advising that he was being [...]

4 comments Read the full article →

All Saints Church Doesn’t Bluff, Does the IRS?

24 October 2007

There’s a great post over at Election Law by Donald B. Tobin about the controversy surrounding a sermon preached by the Rev. Dr. George F. Regas, Rector Emeritus at All Saints Church on October 31, 2004. The sermon was thought to have crossed the line with respect to the prohibition against churches participating in [...]

0 comments Read the full article →

When You Want To Give Religiously. Really.

8 August 2007

With just the click of a mouse, you can now pay your power bill, reconcile your checking account and make a donation to your church. Yep, you read the last part correctly. In response to recent changes which now require a taxpayer to have a bank record or a written communication from a [...]

0 comments Read the full article →