The Church and the IRS

Jeff BreinholtMormon 24 Comments

Thomas Vaughn Barlow really does not like the IRS. On June 8, 2007, he sent it a letter, which stated:

This means that if you do not answer me lawfully and take my money or property or in any way continue to harass me or fail to assure me of my being secure in my persons, houses, papers and effects, that I’m justified in acts of war to balance your terrorism. Do you get it? I will kill any of your agents I can find. I will blow up your buildings. This is war.

Barlow is a Mormon. Well, sort of. He was part of the Fundamentalist LDS Church, at least before he got kicked out. Was his letter not a little over the top? The jury thought so. He received a 21-month prison sentence [1].

Was this type of conduct typical of Mormons? Sure, the LDS agree to be subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, and to obey, honor, and sustain the law. It is taught in Primary, and part of what it means to be a good Mormon and American. The trouble comes when we get into the details. Yes, the Tax Code – Title 26 of the U.S. Code – is very detailed. Does the 12th Article of Faith include the agreement not to tangle with the Executive Branch tax collectors?

Fighting the IRS is, in some ways, part of Mormon lore. Individual Mormons (typically the well-heeled) have taken some very aggressive tax positions and have gone to court to defend them.

Consider the first Mormon-related tax case in modern times. Ernest Wilkinson – yes, the Ernest Wilkinson, successful lawyer and BYU President – engaged in some creative accounting to minimize his tax exposure for a whopping (by 1960s standards) $ 1.4 million in legal fees he had received from the Ute Indian tribe. President Wilkinson took the IRS to court, and he won [2]. Over the next 50 years, other Mormons have taken some fairly aggressive tax positions which led them to Tax Court [3].

What is not particularly aggressive to go to court to challenge tithing deductions that were disallowed because of inadequate documentation [4]. By the same token, it was only mildly aggressive to defend the deductibility of payments made to sons while on their LDS missions, at least before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled those deductions improper [5].

Where the Church itself is a party in litigation with the tax authorities, the subject seems to be its seemingly-never ending quest to be exempt from property taxes [6]. The Church has also litigated whether it is tax-exempt in all of its far-flung economic activities [7].

These cases, mainly good faith disputes, do not say much about whether Mormons are prone to be tax scofflaws. More probative on this question are the many Mormons who have engaged in tax rebellion.

The first published opinion in this category involved James and Jean Smith, who argued that had been singled out and selectively prosecuted by the IRS because they were Mormons, based on the false belief that members of the Church constitute what Federal officials call the “Tax Rebellion Movement.” The Smiths left no doubt about what they were. They claimed that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified, and they attacked the legality of the United States’ monetary system, arguing that they never received any “constitutional dollars” which would be subject to Federal income taxation [8].

The notion that the IRS was picking on Mormons during this era was apparently getting some circulation among tax protestors. A few years earlier, George Markovsky felt compelled to write a letter to the IRS, which stated:

[The revenue agent’s] pocket ‘Summons‘ specifically requests above-named Associates (i.e., petitioner and his wife) to abjure their First and Fifth Amendment Immunities by meeting with her on September 9, 1976 for the purpose of answering questions and providing information and documentary evidence for Holy Office types to use against them.

Mr. and Mrs. Markovsky are NOT members of the Mormon Church. Hence they are under no threat of being excommunicated from the Celestial jurisdiction by the Hierarchy of that or any other church for exercising their First Amendment Religio/Political Freedoms to be (Tax) Protesters (or ‘Protestants‘ if you will, the terms are interchangeable because they mean the same things).

And, of course, the statute of limitations expired 200 years ago on the sorry idea that secular servants had “authority” to undress (excommunicate) individuals of their Civil Rights and Liberties and thereafter imprison them for the Heresy of being protesters or dissenters to the status quo. First Amendment Injunction took care of such arrogances.

The Markovsky’s take the position that because 1040’s, W-4E’s, W-4’s, and other Income Tax forms are Confessions, which are enforced by Inquisitorial procedures that you and yours are engaged in the UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF (Catholic) CHURCH LAW. You and yours seem to have forgotten – or never knew – that formal Confession to an entrenched priestly class has, from time immemorial, been the controlling Sacrament of Catholic Religions; that it was the compulsions surrounding the Liturgy of Confession which Martin Luther rejected, ab initio, over 400 years ago by his Priesthood of all Believers principle, thereby precipitating the PROTESTANT (Protester) Reformation; and that this same Self-Priesthood principle is the precedent underlying Separation of Church and State and other First Amendment Injunctions.

The Markovsky’s have no objection to Priests and other Clergymen practicing the liturgy of Confession within the privacy of their religious associations. That’s known as Freedom of Religion!

But they REFUSE to permit persons living off public payrolls TO PRACTICE THEIR IGNORANCE OF FIRST AMENDMENT INJUNCTIONS ON THEM, as if they were subjects of a Church/State Theocracy, instead of Sovereign citizens of a Republic founded on the individual’s Self-Priesthood. Moreover they reject the pretension that when the First Amendment demoted Priests and other Clergymen to private citizens thereby enjoining Official use of the implements of religious psychology to promote Political Orthodoxy on this side of the Atlantic – that it somehow transferred their erstwhile sacerdotal License, intact, to Secular Servants of these United States [9].

Around this time, the conviction of Sheryl Brown for willful failure to file an income tax return was affirmed, over his objection that the prosecution violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by obtaining records from the Mormon Church [10].

Over the next two decades, Mormons have tried to conceal their income by starting their own church and claiming to be tax-exempt [11] and by arguing, like Sheryl Brown, that the IRS had no power to compel records from the LDS Church [12]. Perhaps the granddaddy of all Mormon tax protestors is Philip Marsh, who was successfully prosecuted for marketing un-taxing kits to help people drop off the IRS’ radar screen [13].

In the last ten years, Mormons have argued that they are discriminated against in the Tax Court [14]. They have also repeated claim that the LDS Church is immune for IRS summons process [15]. One can see why Mormon tax evaders would find the Church cooperation harrowing. After all, if the IRS wanted to know how much gross income someone earned during a year, they merely need to access the person’s tithing records and multiply by ten.

While these cases were going on, there can be no question what the official LDS position is on income taxes: it encourages people to come clean with the IRS. For example, a Mormon bishop recommended that a congregant write a letter to the IRS confessing that he filed a tax return, in order to relieve his ex-wife of joint and several liability she might otherwise suffer [16].

This ethos – respecting the IRS and its authority – sometimes makes the Church conform when it would not otherwise want to. For example, I am one of those cynical people who think that Spencer W. Kimball’s “revelation” about blacks and the priesthood was not a message from God. Instead, it was an example of political expediency and tax planning. I do not believe that it had to do with BYU major sports aspirations. Rather, it was the very real concern that the LDS Church and BYU would lose its tax exemption, combined with a lawsuit involving the Boy Scouts of America.

As a religious institution, the Mormon Church and BYU are charitable entities recognized as tax-exempt by the IRS. This means that persons who donate to them can claim the donations as tax deductions. The Church’s budget comes largely from charitable contributions. The ability of donors to claim tax deductions is, in some minds, a form of government subsidy.

A group of black taxpayers and their minor children attending public schools in Mississippi brought a class action on May 21, 1969 against the United States, seeking to enjoin the Secretary of the Treasury and the IRS from according tax exempt status to private schools in Mississippi which excluded African-American students on the basis of race or color.

In July 1970, while the lawsuit was pending, the IRS issued two Releases, announcing that “it can no longer legally justify allowing tax-exempt status to private schools which practice racial discrimination nor can it treat gifts to such schools as charitable deductions for income tax purposes.”

Meanwhile, a group of white citizens entered the lawsuit, claiming that they had a First Amendment right not to associate with persons of other races, which would be infringed by the IRS’ revocation of the white private schools’s tax-exempt status.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the black plaintiffs, concluding that the IRS actions of denying tax -exemption to discriminatory schools was constitutional, and that it could disallow deductions for persons making gifts to such schools. Regarding the interests of the white families, the court noted that its decision did not prevent them from sending their children to segregated private schools at their own expense, paying the full cost of education at such schools. Such schools, however, were not entitled to public support, as which tax-exemption qualified. It reasoned that the Federal Government could not under the Constitution give direct financial aid to schools practicing racial discrimination, but that tax exemptions and deductions certainly constitute a Federal Government benefit and support. “While that support is indirect, and is in the nature of a matching grant rather than an unconditional grant, it would be difficult indeed to establish that such support can be provided consistently with the Constitution” [17].

Of course, the schools at issue in Green v. Connally were truly segregated, in that blacks were not allowed admission into them. This was a distinction that had been used by Mormon leaders. During a Devotional address on November 25, 1969, President Wilkinson addressed students and faculty on these recent accusations of racism at BYU, citing the BYU admission policy that stated students are admitted regardless of their race as long as they maintain the ideals and standards of the Church.

In the 1970s, the IRS turned its sights on a southern college known as Bob Jones University. Like BYU, Bob Jones University permitted black to enroll, and claimed not to be segregated. However, it treated black and white differently. The sponsors of the Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian institution in Greenvile, South Carolina, believed that the Bible forbade interracial dating and marriage.

To effectuate these views, blacks were completely excluded from the school until 1971. From 1971 to May 1975, the University accepted no applications from unmarried blacks, but did accept applications from blacks married within their race.

Beginning in May 1975, the University permitted unmarried African-Americans to enroll, but a disciplinary rule prohibits interracial dating and marriage. That rule read:

There is to be no interracial dating
1. Students who are partners in an interracial marriage will be expelled.
2. Students who are members of or affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage will be expelled.
3. Students who date outside their own race will be expelled.
4. Students who espouse, promote, or encourage others to violate the University’s dating rules and regulations will be expelled.

The University continued to deny admission to applicants engaged in an interracial marriage or known to advocate interracial marriage or dating.

On April 16, 1975, the IRS notified the Bob Jones University of the proposed revocation of its tax-exempt status because of its discriminatory policies.

The IRS officially revoked the University’s tax-exempt status in January, 1976. Bob Jones University challenged the revocation. The case would ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The government took the position that Bob Jones University’s racial policies made it ineligible for tax-exempt status.

If the IRS’ decision in Bob Jones University was affirmed by the Supreme Court, it would close BYU’s argument that its racial policies were not discriminatory. The Church now was looking at the very real prospect that BYU would lose its tax-exempt status. That would be bad news indeed.

Other things were happening. In 1977, President Kimball was distressed when he was served with a subpoena to give a deposition in a case brought by the NAACP against the Boy Scouts of America and Troop 58, organized in one of the wards of the Liberty Stake in Salt Lake City. There were two black Scouts in the troop. One of them complained to the black ombudsman for Utah because he was deprived of the chance to become the senior patrol leader of his troop because of the Church procedure that the senior patrol leader had to be the deacons quorum president. It was contended that this violated the young man’s civil rights.

While the Church was not a party to the suit, the Church’s practice was a key issue in the litigation. It was for this reason the subpoena was issued to President Kimball. And because it was a subpoena duces tecum, he was directed to bring to the deposition every document relating to the Church’s policy withholding the priesthood from blacks.

Because he had had little to do with litigation during his life and was uncertain about what faced him, President Kimball was distraught. He could not sleep. He reportedly could talk of little else in the meetings with his counselors.

As we know, the change finally came in June 1978, as the Bob Jones University tax case was winding its way through the courts. Coincidence? I doubt it.

[1] U.S. v. Barlow, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 2516843 (10th Cir. 2009).

[2] Wilkinson v. United States, 304 F.2d 469 (Ct Cl. 1962).

[3] Paxman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 50 T.C. 567 (Tax 1969); Thatcher v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 61 T.C. 28 (Tax 1974); Buehner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 65 T.C. 723 (Tax 1976); Kleinman v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1984-347, 1984 WL 14996 (Tax 1984); Reile v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1992-488, 1992 WL 206149 (Tax 1992); Torney v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1993-385, 1993 WL 325063 (Tax 1993); Ferguson v. C.I.R., 108 T.C. No. 14, 108 T.C. 244 (Tax 1997); Ferguson v. C.I.R., 174 F.3d 997 (9th Cir 1999); Talmage v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 2008-34, 2008 WL 440831 (Tax 2008).

[4] Coultas v. C. I. R., T.C. Memo. 1972-1, 1972 WL 2135 (Tax 1972); Watkins v. C. I. R., T.C. Memo. 1973-267, 1973 WL 2445 (Tax 1973); Jeppsen v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1977-274, 1977 WL 3565 (Tax 1977); Jeppsen v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1978-343, 1978 WL 3021 (Tax 1978); Gifford v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1980-351, 1980 WL 4188 (Tax 1989); Lyman v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1984-115, 1984 WL 15437 (Tax 1984); Castleton v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 2005-58, 2005 WL 697961 (Tax 2005).

[5] White v. U.S., 514 F.Supp. 1057 (D.Utah 1981); Brinley v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1983-408, 1983 WL 14392 (Tax 1983); White v. U.S., 725 F.2d 1269 (10th Cir. 1984); Brinley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 82 T.C. No. 70, 82 T.C. 932 (Tax 1984); Brinley v. C.I.R., 782 F.2d 1326 (5th Cir. 1986); Davis v. U.S., 664 F.Supp. 468 (D.Id. 1987); Davis v. U.S., 861 F.2d 558 (9th Cir. 1988); Hernandez v. C.I.R., 490 U.S. 680, 109 S.Ct. 2136 (1989); Davis v. U.S., 495 U.S. 472, 110 S.Ct. 2014 (1990).

[6] Malad Second Ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. State Tax Commission, 75 Idaho 162, 269 P.2d 1077 (Idaho 1954); Kunes v. Mesa Stake of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,17 Ariz.App. 451, 498 P.2d 525 (Ariz.App. 1972); Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Saints v. Department of Revenue, 1975 WL 1126 (Or.Tax, 1975); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Department of Revenue, 276 Or. 775, 556 P.2d 685 (Or. 1976); New Jersey Stake of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Morris Township, 3 N.J.Tax 572 (N.J.Tax, 1981); Utah County, By and Through County Bd. of Equalization of Utah County v. Intermountain Healthcare, 709 P.2d 265 (Utah 1985); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day v. Ada County,123 Idaho 410, 849 P.2d 83daho 1993); Maricopa County v. State, 187 Ariz. 275, 928 P.2d 699 (Ariz.App. Div. 1. 1996); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Department of Revenue, 1997 WL 734056 (Or.Tax 1997).

[7] IHC Health Plans, Inc. v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 2001-246, 2001 WL 1103284 (Tax 2001); IHC Group, Inc. v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 2001-247, 2001 WL 1103286 (Tax 2001); IHC Care, Inc. v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 2001-248, 2001 WL 1103289 (Tax 2001);IHC Health Plans, Inc. v. C.I.R., 325 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2003)

[8] Smith v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1979-51, 1979 WL 3147 (Tax 1979).

[9 Markovsky v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1985-283, 1985 WL 14910 (Tax 1985).

[10U.S. v. Brown, 600 F.2d 248 (10th Cir. 1979).

[11 Tschudy v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1993-567, 1993 WL 491379 (Tax 1993)

[12 Codner v. U.S., 17 F.3d 1331 (10th Cir. 1994).

[13 U.S. v. Marsh, 144 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir. 1998).

[14] Hawkins v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 2003-181, 2003 WL 21436740 (Tax 2003).

[15]Thomas v. U.S., 2004 WL 1571968 (D.Me. 2004);Taylor v. U.S., 292 Fed.Appx. 383 (5th Cir. 2008).

[16]Smith v. C.I.R., T.C. Summ.Op. 2007-57, 2007 WL 1120287 (Tax 2007).

[17] Green v. Connally, 330 F.Supp. 1150, (D.D.C. 1971), aff’d, 404 U.S. 997, 92 S. Ct 564 (1971).

Comments 24

  1. You may well be right that legal implications were part of what caused President Kimball and the Twelve to consider again, as their predecessors had done, the priesthood ban. Whatever motivated the brethren to supplicate the Lord on the matter, they unanimously testified that they received an answer. Do not conflate cause of the prayer with the result.

  2. So God is somehow unable to give a revelation that is in response to various circumstances on the ground? A more interesting question might be, does he give any other kind?

    “President Kimball was distraught. He could not sleep. He reportedly could talk of little else in the meetings with his counselors.”

    “Reportedly”? Seventeen references in this post and not one can be found to support the innuendo that forms the primary basis of your contention?

  3. You’re right. I should have dropped an endnote. The description you question comes from Chapter 22 of “Spencer W. Kimball, Resolute Disciple, Prophet of God,” by Francis M. Gibbons.

  4. Are you aware that the Quorum of 12 had a vote to lift the priesthood ban in 1969? Quoting from my blog, “1969, Hugh B Brown proposed that the church’s policy be reversed. This policy was approved by the First Presidency, and the Quorum of the 12. President McKay was out due to illness, and Harold B. Lee was out travelling on church business when the vote was taken. A re-vote took place, and the measure to extend the priesthood to blacks was defeated.”

    It’s pretty long, but go to for more info. Pres Kimball made many statements against racism prior to 1969.

  5. I think the situation in Brazil was a hundred times more influential in President Kimball’s calculus than was any concern over Bob Jones and U.S. tax policy. At this point any such concern would still have been in the abstract. Sure it was a prudent move for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is that it was the right thing to do, but there was no immediate, specific pressure from the IRS on the Church compelling such a move in the summer of 1978.

  6. Those who have accused me or error have actually proven my larger point – that the lifting of the ban was the result of political expediency. If Mormon Heretic is right, the pressure was felt in 1969. If Kevin Barney is right, it had to do with the Brazilian situation. If Wow is right, the pressure was the cause of the prayer rather than the result. I say – yes to all. The lifting of the ban was not an act of God. Rather, it was a man-made solution (whatever the impetus) to a man-made cause – racism. .

  7. I don’t have the Gibbons reference to refer to, but Mauss’s “Fading of the Pharaohs’ Curse” dates the NAACP suit regarding BSA to 1974. The church promptly responded by detaching the SPL position from the DQP calling. Mauss’s date corresponds to my own memory regarding both the BSA issue and the church response. That would make the issue over which President Kimball was so distraught four years before OD2, and the problem had long since been solved by a simple policy change.

    I fail to see how an act of God is mutually exclusive with that act having some earthly purpose. If they are mutually exclusive, then my earlier question becomes relevant. When did God ever do anything that was unrelated to something happening in the world?

  8. Jeff, most of the major events in all of our recorded scripture have been the result of political / social / military / whatever expediency. I also fail to see how that automatically makes all or any of them not divinely mandated or inspired.

    Do I think the ban was God’s will? No. Do I think the lifting of the ban had to happen for the Church to make progress throughout the world? (political expediency) Absolutely, yes. Do I think tax concern was the primary issue driving it? No. Might it have been a secondary concern? Sure.

    I think your post is interesting, but I don’t see how it proves that the lifting of the ban was not God’s will – and “act of God”. I know sometimes in my own life that I only receive what I consider to be personal revelation when events around me have humbled me enough to ask earnestly for an answer / understanding. Given how the apostles operate, I dont’ see why it can’t be any different for them as a united group.

    I just don’t see the bright line connection that removes God from the lifting of the ban. I’m not saying I can prove it came from God, but I don’t see how anything in your post proves it didn’t.

  9. Btw, just for the record, I believe the ban was inevitable because God tends to let us live our lives and not pull puppet strings. All of us do things that He probably would prefer we not do – ALL of us. I feel the same way about the lifting of the ban – that once those who were in position to recognize the ban as policy and not doctrine were able to do so and understand that it simply had to change, then and only then did God say, “Fine, now that you are unitedly ready to undo what those before you did, undo it.”

    I’m willing to accept dozens of expediency reasons without having to reach the conclusion that the ending of the ban wasn’t inspired and God-directed. They don’t have to mutually exclusive.

  10. Interesting post, Jeff. Definitely a lot to chew on, and thanks for doing all the research here. You may well be right that these cases had an influence on Pres. Kimble’s 1978 revelation (although a bit more research may be needed to fully establish that). But I think more people would be comfortable with the post if you had situated your argument within the growing body of solid historical research on the decades leading up to the decision to lift the ban–Greg Prince’s bio of David O. McKay, Mike Quinn’s bio of J. Rueben Clark, Quinn’s discussion of these issues in Extensions of Power, Ed Kimble’s bio of Spencer W. Kimble, and Armand Mauss’s All Abraham’s Children. These scholars have shown that the decision to lift the ban was complex, involving a plurality of causes, among them political pressure, a desire to extend temple and priesthood blessings to Brazilian Saints of potentially mixed-race heritage, and a growing sense among some of the Brethren that the ban did not have strong scriptural or historical support (i.e., Lester Bush’s 1973 article showing that the ban did not originate with JS). In my view, racism was certainly involved at some level in implementing the ban, but that doesn’t necessarily preclude the possibility that God played a hand in finally removing the ban.

  11. #11 and #12— Ray and David G.

    Well said and thank you. The “Samuel Principle” I think applies here, ie, we get want we want until we are ready to repent. When Samuel told Israel that God wants you to have Judges and not Kings and why, Israel demanded the lesser covenant. Well, God did not reject his people entirely anymore then we reject our own children. He made a new and lesser “king” covenant with the attendant downside. This is His church even if we insist on not embracing the fulness that it could be. however, when we repent an effusion of the spirit can and does confirm those advances such as lifting the ban. So I agree with Ray it is not mutually exclusive to say that there were influences both secular and spiritual…

  12. Jeff, I’m not sure if your purpose is to post on the Church and the IRS, or the priesthood ban. If it is the priesthood ban, I find your reasoning leaves out a host of other factors. There were a multitude of reasons for the ban in the first place, and for the lifting of the ban. It is a gross oversimplification to assume the IRS had anything more than a mild role with lifting the priesthood ban. Read my post if you want a more comprehensive history of the ban.

    I’ve got a post tomorrow on the anti-polygamy raids. Tax law had an effect, but surely played a secondary role in the Manifesto. Certainly the role taxes played in the Manifesto greatly dwarfs any comparisons to the priesthood ban. I think it is highly simplistic to insinuate that the IRS played as large a role as you have implied in lifting the priesthood ban.

  13. I think where you took this piece completely misses the boat. You took it to the blacks and priesthood ban, which was disappointing. I was looking forward to a more compelling piece about the interesting conundrum of the LDS church and its relation to government financing. There are those that would say that the IRS is an illegal entity and that the very fundamental Mormon ethos of rugged individualism and libertarianism, which we used to have, is at stake here, as well as the fact that many feel that the IRS is the thug arm of modern day Gadiantonism. Then there is the idea that we do not “tweak the tail of the beast” and render unto Caesar which calmed the ETB factions in the early 70’s. I would have related this to the new current cultural trend of tea parties, rising neo-libertarianism in the church, with much ado about Glenn Beck and his popularity, the recovery of Cleon Skousen (getting media in nonetheless for the 5,000 Year Leap), in other words looking forward, not backward, to tax policy implications.

    That would have been much more intriguing.

    I was shocked as well, that the implications of this weren’t telegraphed when gay marriage, as assumed by many, become the next de facto struggle. If progressive trends hold in the near future and the country has homosexual rights as a new jurisprudence, and thus, through the 14th amendment, these same tax exemption threats come to bear, will the church do the same thing? With the Manifesto came the decision to omit a commandment but left the essence of the new and everlasting covenant intact, with the Priesthood ban, it was a lift of something anathema to many and a policy little understood. With gay marriage, or banning homosexual discrimination in general, you stab and rip the heart out of the new and everlasting covenant and its purpose, the sacred center of Mormonism. It will be interesting to see.

  14. Peter – conflating people who protest the IRS with Tea Party protests is completely wrong with respect to the Tea Party folk. That is more of protest against irresponsible government spending out of control, that a tax issue per se. Just FYI.

  15. Jeff:

    I found the Bob Jones Case interesting and it was understandable that President Kimball was distressed over being given a supoena detailing the Church’s position with Blacks.

    Consider the future. Should Homosexuals prevail and knock down any and all barriers in American society – Then could not the LDS Church face the same type of suit as Bob Jones U.?

    And could the LDS Church now make a separate agreement with the U.S. government and the IRS to pay a 10%, or less, flat tax. and not be subject to any future litigation by the IRS in regards to tax exemption?

    I know that this may be a silly question. It’s just that I feel that Homosexuals will prevail with their efforts in State and Federal government. And the tax exempt status of the LDS Church will soon be in their crosshairs.

  16. Cutting through the semantics, I think we can agree that Jeff has demonstrated A likely factor, though not THE ONLY factor, that led to the repeal of the ban in 1978.

    Very interesting, Jeff. I had previously heard a theory about tax exemption being a motivating factor, but until now never knew any details about the specific court cases that could have brought that fear to pass.

  17. Thanks, Andrew. Regarding some of the other comments, I have no way to prove that God’s will is not mutually exclusive with made-made situations, and I certainly did not mean to run down anyone’s religious beliefs. I take the point. My strident language should not be confused with absolute certainty.

  18. I may be displaying my ignorance here, but I haven’t heard of many Mormons challenging the IRS. Perhaps it’s a regional thing, and I never encountered it on the East Coast. My only experience with the IRS and Mormonism was when the IRS recently audited my parents and challenged the validity and authenticity of their tithing contributions. It took 7 months and two levels of review, but eventually my mother’s meticulous record-keeping prevailed. I wonder if the LDS Church and its members will see an increase in scrutiny over the next few years, if only for their heightened visibility in the media.

    There seem to be more than one Peter in this comment thread. I did not write #16, but I agree that the Bob Jones case is on the minds of the Church Legal Department staff as the look ahead to future legal wranglings over gay rights. The Bob Jones case need not (and in my mind should not) determine the outcome of future funding disputes for universities like BYU, but I wouldn’t take that for granted.

  19. I’ve been active in taxations for longer then I care to acknowledge, both on the individualized side (all my employed life history!!) and from a legal stand since satisfying the bar and following tax law. I’ve furnished a lot of advice and rectified a lot of wrongs, and I must say that what you’ve posted makes utter sense. Please persist in the good work – the more individuals know the better they’ll be armed to handle with the tax man, and that’s what it’s all about.

  20. “While these cases were going on, there can be no question what the official LDS position is on income taxes: it encourages people to come clean with the IRS.”

    Oh really! How about all the instructions included in the Mission President manual that tell the MPs not to disclose any payments and benefits received from the church to the IRS or anyone else.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *