Texas Ethical Culture wins important step at State Appeals Court

[DigitalChicken]

Background:
The Ethical Society of Austin (an Ethical Culture group) was denied tax exempt status as a religious organization by (then) State Comptroller John Sharp in 1995 because the group did not affirm a belief in God.

It won at the state trial level and now its won at the state appeals level.

Excerpt:
The Ethical Society of Austin (Athe Ethical Society@), a congregation of individuals who meet regularly to practice a belief system known as Ethical Culture, seeks tax-exempt status as a religious organization under the tax code. See Tex. Tax Code Ann. '' 171.058, 151.310(a)(1), 156.012 (West 2002). The Texas Comptroller denied the application on the ground that the Ethical Society must demonstrate that it requires belief in a A God, Gods, or higher power (hereinafter the Supreme Being test) in order to qualify. The trial court found that the Ethical Society should not have been denied tax-exempt status because the Comptroller's test was unconstitutionally underinclusive and that the Ethical Society should have qualified for the requested tax exemptions. We must now decide whether a state government may, consistent with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, require a group to demonstrate its belief in a A Supreme Being in order to be considered a religion for statutory purposes. Because the Comptroller's test fails to include the whole range of belief systems that may, in our diverse and pluralistic society, merit the First Amendment's protection, we will affirm the trial court's judgment.


Its quite possible that even at the State's budget strapped times it may choose to appeal to the next level which I believe is the State Supreme Court.

Comptroller of Public Accounts v. Ethical Society of Austin (http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinion.asp?OpinionID=11583)

DC

[Mageth]

Good news, but better news for me would be if tax-exempt status for all religious organizations was removed. ;)

[pug846]

Hasn't the Supreme Court already held that you don't need to believe in a "higher power" in order to qualify as a religion?

[Mageth]

Here's one related SCOTUS case: Welsh vs. United States (http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_WelshUS.htm), dealing with conscientious objection to military service:

In United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965), a unanimous Court construed the language of the exemption limiting the status to those who by "religious training and belief" (that is, those who believed in a "Supreme Being"), to mean that a person must have some belief which occupies in his life the place or role which the traditional concept of God occupies in the orthodox believer.

After the "Supreme Being" clause was deleted, a plurality in Welsh v. United States, construed the religion requirement as inclusive of moral, ethical, or religious grounds. Justice Harlan concurred on constitutional grounds, believing that the statute was clear that Congress had intended to restrict conscientious objection status to those persons who could demonstrate a traditional religious foundation for their beliefs and that this was impermissible under the Establishment Clause. Although an individual's assertion that his views were religious was to be regarded highly, the opposite proclamation was not to be similarly viewed.

Significance:

This decision expanded the types of beliefs that can be used to get conscientious objector status. The depth and fervency of the beliefs, rather than their status as part of an established religious system, became fundamental to determining which views could exempt an individual from military service.

[Mageth]

Then there's Torcaso Vs. Watkins (http://members.aol.com/TestOath/Torcaso.htm) (1961).

From the decision, footnote 11:

Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.

[copernicus]

Originally posted by Mageth
Good news, but better news for me would be if tax-exempt status for all religious organizations was removed. ;)
In other words, you want the First Amendment to be recognized for its literal wording? Hallelujah! ;)

[Toto]

How does this square with this?

Texas controller denies Unitarians tax exempt status because they don't have a single system of belief (http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/8692961.htm) (requires free registration)

The comptroller's office has not always barred "creedless" religions from tax exemption, said Douglas Laycock, a University of Texas law professor who specializes in religious liberty issues.

That standard first came up in 1997, when then-Comptroller Sharp ruled against the Ethical Culture Fellowship of Austin. In making that decision, Sharp overturned the recommendation of his staff.

The Ethical Culture Fellowship sued, claiming that Sharp overstepped his authority. Allied with the group in the ongoing lawsuit are pastors from a broad range of faiths, including Baptists, Lutherans and Mennonites.

Both the lower court and the Texas Supreme Court have ruled against the state's decision. In one opinion, an appeals court said the comptroller's test "fails to include the whole range of belief systems that may, in our diverse and pluralistic society, merit the First Amendment protection."

Strayhorn vows to continue the legal fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary. "Otherwise, any wannabe cult who dresses up and parades down Sixth Street on Halloween will be applying for an exemption," she said in a April 23 news release.

[Worldtraveller]

Strayhorn vows to continue the legal fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary. "Otherwise, any wannabe cult who dresses up and parades down Sixth Street on Halloween will be applying for an exemption," she said in a April 23 news release.

Wow!?!? :banghead:

The ignorance in that statement boggle the mind. So now there is a minimum membership requirement, or does this comptroller think she is personally able to define what is and isn't a religion?

Time for this ignoramus to be fired/recalled, but given that it's in the state of tx, not likely to happen.

Cheers,
Lane

[BruceWane]

Strayhorn vows to continue the legal fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary. "Otherwise, any wannabe cult who dresses up and parades down Sixth Street on Halloween will be applying for an exemption," she said in a April 23 news release.

You'd think some of our "fiscally prudent" conservatives would do a cost analysis of court costs versus revenue lost via exemptions.

Kinda highlights how much the term "conservative" has mutated of late, ya know?

[tracer]

"Otherwise, any wannabe cult who dresses up and parades down Sixth Street on Halloween will be applying for an exemption,"
That's one thing that's always kinda bugged me. My understanding is that it's possible for a religious organization to be considered a "cult" under the Federal Treasury Regulations, in which case it won't be exempt from Federal income tax.

How do Federal laws/regs distinguish between a "religion" and a "cult"?

[Toto]

That's one thing that's always kinda bugged me. My understanding is that it's possible for a religious organization to be considered a "cult" under the Federal Treasury Regulations, in which case it won't be exempt from Federal income tax.

How do Federal laws/regs distinguish between a "religion" and a "cult"?

They can't and don't, but there are other criteria that have been used to deny tax exempt status to certain groups.

Federal regs (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicf79.pdf)

The 1978 EOATRI on Churches accurately states that the terms "church", "religion", "religious purposes", etc. have not been defined in the IRC or regulations. Case law has left the definition to "the common meaning and usage" of the term church. De La Salle Institute v. U.S., 195 F. Supp. 891 (N.D. Cal., 1961).

In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that government has no authority to pass on the legitimacy of a religious belief or to define permissible religious belief. Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67 (1953); United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965). It is, therefore, improper for us to distinguish between organizations seeking IRC 501(c)(3) exemption, because they are termed "non-traditional" or "cults" or "messianic" or anything else.

The word "cult" may be the most charged of all the nebulous catch-words current in the media. It seems to be a shorthand term used to categorize certain religious or quasi-religious organizations whose views, practices, or activities are perceived as unorthodox by the majority. We recognize that, historically, one man's cult has been another's religion. The Service's concern is tax administration (compliance with IRC 501(c)(3)'s legal requirements with regard to churches and religious organizations) and not defining "cults" or passing on the merits of their beliefs.

Interesting reading.

[Toto]

More on the tax exemption controversy:

Carole's lips to God's ear (http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2004-05-28/pols_naked7.html)

Earlier, Ancira had told the newspaper's R.A. Dyer that in order to qualify as a religion, a group must stipulate "simply a belief in God, or gods, or a higher power." Unitarians and Universalists (the denominations have existed throughout the U.S. for more than 200 years, but merged in 1961) do not dictate a specific creed for membership and in practice may include a wide range of believers, from progressive Christians to, in Althoff's words, "hardcore atheists." . . . .

The whole snafu is likely a spin-off of the agency's ongoing legal tiff with the Ethical Society of Austin, which sued the state after Strayhorn's predecessor John Sharp denied it an exemption for lack of belief in a "supreme being." Soundly whipped thus far in Texas courts, Strayhorn has vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary – and might weaken her case if she lets the UU slackers slip through the net of vigilance. . . .

Texas, taxes, and churches (http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/8772450.htm?1c)

[Toto]

Strayhorn now denies exemption to Wiccans and Pagans (http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/8799360.htm)

The comptroller's office has declared that a group of witches and two other nontraditional groups are not true religions -- at least for taxing purposes -- because they do not hold public ceremonies, according to information obtained by the Star-Telegram.

But legal scholars and civil libertarians say there's nothing in state or federal law that obliges religious groups to meet in public. Given other controversial decisions by her office, some question whether Strayhorn has concocted excuses to disqualify less conventional religions.

. . .

But lawyer Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel at the Liberty Legal Institute, which defends religious liberties on behalf of more mainstream groups, praised Strayhorn for taking on a difficult issue.

"If religion can mean anything, then it has no definition," Shackelford said. "If it means atheism, does it really have a meaning? She's trying to struggle, at some level, on how to interpret something that most folks have tried to shy away from. It's tough."

[ohwilleke]

The Texas Supreme Court by the ethical society should clear the way for others. I think that will be a hard precedent for the courts to avoid.