General Discussion

pinto

(106,886 posts)

30. Exempt Purposes - Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3)

Reply to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 03:24 PM

Feb 2013

Exempt Purposes - Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3)

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

Page Last Reviewed or Updated: 14-Jan-2013

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exempt-Purposes-Internal-Revenue-Code-Section-501(c)(3)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The United States is a secular nation. Period. [View all] riqster Feb 2013 OP

All I want is a burka for Christmas!! La, La, La, La, Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #1

Oh, the fun we could have rewriting Christmas songs for other faiths riqster Feb 2013 #2

Why would atheists celebrate Christmas? HappyMe Feb 2013 #7

For the gifts, dummy! Jeff In Milwaukee Feb 2013 #10

Here's one! Still Blue in PDX Feb 2013 #23

Not to cause a resurgence of the (theoretical) war on Christmas, but . . . Still Blue in PDX Feb 2013 #27

Here's one from Tom Lehrer riqster Feb 2013 #28

Then why are businesses required to accommodate religious objection as practical? ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #3

Are you saying the United States is NOT a secular nation? MNBrewer Feb 2013 #4

Its a hybrid, mostly historical roots ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #9

Do, Please, Sir, Expound Further On This.... The Magistrate Feb 2013 #5

It depends on the level and degree ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #12

That Does Not Advance The Conversation, Professor.... The Magistrate Feb 2013 #13

Tax exempt status has nothing to do with "reasonable accommodation to popular feelings" ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #16

If You Think It Has Nothing To Do with Popular Feelings, Professor The Magistrate Feb 2013 #18

Churches are considered charities under the tax code Jeff In Milwaukee Feb 2013 #11

That is mostly a legacy from medieval times ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #14

Not really... Jeff In Milwaukee Feb 2013 #17

Further to this I believe the lack of taxation is seen as part of the separation of Church and State ieoeja Feb 2013 #39

Yes - But some of them cross the line regularly Jeff In Milwaukee Feb 2013 #41

Because the 1st amendment establishes freedom of religion. cbayer Feb 2013 #22

That only applies to the government not private individuals ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #24

What only applies to government? Non-profit status applies to all non-profit cbayer Feb 2013 #29

Agree with lax IRS enforcement of the 501(c)3 standards. pinto Feb 2013 #31

Localities can control Costco much more than a churches ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #33

What has it done to neighborhoods, for better or worse? pinto Feb 2013 #38

I generally believe that even non-profits should pay their fair share of community costs ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #40

Exempt Purposes - Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) pinto Feb 2013 #30

That exemption is also extended to property taxes in most jurisdictions ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #34

Yeah.....and? HappyMe Feb 2013 #6

You must teach me, George Michael. You must teach me the ways of the secular flesh. nt Tommy_Carcetti Feb 2013 #8

The nation is, but a lot of the people aren't slackmaster Feb 2013 #15

Another clue: the US census magellan Feb 2013 #19

One side of my ancestry got here in 1774, the rest in the 1800's riqster Feb 2013 #20

I hear you magellan Feb 2013 #21

Same here on the French side riqster Feb 2013 #25

Certainly. I would be outraged if Congress passed a law respecting the establishment of religion, Nye Bevan Feb 2013 #26

Constitutionally it is decidedly neutral in regards religion. Neither supporting nor obstructing. pinto Feb 2013 #32

Correct. riqster Feb 2013 #35

Yet we have Federal laws like RLUIPA ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #36

I'm unfamiliar with RLUIPA, but for background found this via Wikipedia, fwiw - pinto Feb 2013 #37

Which is exactly why I'm 10000% against a new constitutional convention. Initech Feb 2013 #42

Fuckin' hell, NO! riqster Feb 2013 #43