TaxProf Blog

Editor: Paul L. Caron
Pepperdine University School of Law

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

Chronicle:  The IRS Has Granted Tax-Exempt Status To More Than 60 'Hate Groups'

IRS Logo 2Chronicle of Philanthropy, Dozens of ‘Hate Groups’ Have Charity Status, Chronicle Study Finds:

The federal government has granted tax-exempt status to more than 60 controversial nonprofits branded by critics as "hate groups," including anti-immigrant and anti-gay-rights organizations, white nationalists, and Holocaust deniers, according to a Chronicle of Philanthropy analysis.

The issue is a thorny one for the Internal Revenue Service, which must balance First Amendment rights against concerns that it is essentially granting government subsidies to groups holding views that millions of Americans may find abhorrent. Complicating matters, the IRS is already under fire from critics who say the agency has discriminated against conservative political organizations.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has compiled a list of nearly 900 so-called hate groups, most of them on the far right (although the roster also includes radical Islamists, black separatists, and other fringe groups) and many with deceptively innocuous-sounding names. The Chronicle analysis found that 55 of those organizations are registered as charities and eight are 501(c)(4) "social welfare" groups, which also enjoy tax exemptions.

Many groups on the list vehemently dispute the "hate" designation and say the Southern Poverty Law Center — known as SPLC and itself a tax-exempt organization — is a left-wing attack group. And most of the groups on the list are relatively small, with less than $500,000 in annual revenue.

Still, some experts say organizations are increasingly pushing the boundaries of how far they can go and still meet the standard for tax exemption. "We want to be careful about what we’re requiring the public to subsidize through tax exemption and at the same time we want not to inhibit speech too much," said Eric Gorovitz, a lawyer with Adler & Colvin, a firm specializing in nonprofit law. "That's just hard to do."

The Southern Poverty Law Center defines hate groups as those which "have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." "We’re not proposing that these groups be thrown in prison for expressing their views," said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the SPLC. Nor does the organization advocate for these groups to have their nonprofit status revoked. But Mr. Potok does see the issue as problematic.

"In effect, the American taxpayer is subsidizing false propaganda defaming minority groups," he said. Claims by watch-list organizations to be educational institutions are "simply a facade," he added: "There's a difference between education and propaganda."

Several groups on the list that were contacted by The Chronicle said the SPLC has unfairly demonized them and questioned the organization's legitimacy as an arbiter of what constitutes hate. Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said the SPLC — which has labeled the federation an anti-immigrant hate group since 2007 — has done "nothing but demean, smear, and attack its opponents."

"They claim that they’re trying to promote tolerance when they’re completely intolerant of people with an alternative point of view," he said, adding that his organization plans to seek an IRS investigation of the SPLC’s own tax-exempt status over alleged illegal political activity before the presidential election. Mr. Stein declined to detail the specifics of the complaint, which he said will be filed after Mr. Trump takes office.

In 2010, several conservative groups, including the Family Research Council and the American Family Association, took out full-page ads in Politico and the Washington Examiner, signed by 22 members of Congress and other conservative leaders, accusing the SPLC of engaging in "character assassination." ...

Groups accused of espousing hate have been denied tax-exempt status in the past. In 1983, the IRS revoked Bob Jones University’s nonprofit status over its prohibition on interracial dating. That same year, the neo-Nazi group National Alliance was denied a tax exemption because its materials advocated for the violent removal of nonwhites and Jews from society.

But when the IRS denied charitable status to the radical feminist publication Big Mama Rag, claiming its stance was too "doctrinaire," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the agency’s definition of educational activities was too vague. So the IRS issued a new guideline that remains the standard today.

"It’s fairly difficult for the IRS to deny or revoke tax-exempt status, unless there’s a call to violence," said Marcus Owens, a tax lawyer who ran the IRS office that oversees nonprofit groups in the 1990s.

The Surly Subgroup:  White Nationalists Groups are Charitable? Apparently so According to IRS, by Phillip Hackney (LSU):

Sam Brunson and I discuss an AP story “White Nationalists Raise Millions with Tax-Exempt Charities,” by Michael Kunzelman on a Cooking the Books Podcast today on Sparemin. ...

Many might be surprised that these organizations that educate people about the righteousness of the superiority of the “white race” are operating openly under IRS approval as tax exempt organizations. It means that the US government effectively subsidizes the operation of these organizations through tax deductible charitable contributions and exemption for any income they earn.

How do they qualify? The primary argument must be that they are educational. ...

The point though is that the IRS had successfully denied similar organizations in the past. Why are they not applying these same principles to these groups? It is possible at least that a factual analysis of all the factors of each of these groups would lead to a conclusion that they are in fact educational. This seems hard to accept given that these groups are apparently espousing the same ideas as these other two groups. They should not be able to pass the IRS revenue procedure on education. There are two answers, but neither are satisfactory to me for a reason that Sam brought up.

Reason 1: As I say in the story the IRS reviews tens of thousands of organizations annually and does not have the capacity to review every case. ...

Reason 2: The IRS is afraid. This seems like a reasonable argument after all the Tea Party difficulties that the IRS experienced. ...

[W]ith a Trump administration in power, it is unlikely to be interested in pursuing such a group. Could anyone else? Nope. Under SCOTUS precedent, it appears no one else has the standing to challenge such an IRS determination.

Salon, White Nationalists Have Raised Millions Thanks to Tax-Exempt Charities:

Samuel Brunson, a tax law professor at Loyola University in Chicago, noted the nonprofit status gives these groups a veneer of legitimacy and respectability. “It should make people uncomfortable that the government is subsidizing groups that espouse values that are incompatible with most Americans,” he said. ...

Some tax experts said the IRS is still feeling the sting from conservative critics over its 2013 concession that it unfairly gave extra scrutiny to tea party groups seeking tax exemptions. “I don’t think they’re feeling very brave right now,” said Ellen Aprill, a tax law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2016/12/chroniclethe-irs-has-granted-tax-exempt-status-to-more-than-60-hate-groups.html

IRS News, Tax | Permalink

Comments

But what's a "hate" group? I could call Harvard a hate group if I wanted to. It doesn't have any meaning.

Posted by: mike livingston | Dec 27, 2016 4:14:23 AM

Are you really surprised that the IRS would do nothing about these groups while going denying non-profit status to groups that merely want lower taxes and less regulation? IF so, you don't understand the politics of hate.

When I was a kid, my state's Democratic party had as its logo, present on all ballots, a rooster crowing "White Supremacy for the Right." That certainly makes the party a hate group, but all things considered, it's no different from a "Black Lives Matter" group that's openly hostile to those advocating "All Lives Matter," "White Lives Matter" or "Blue [for cops] Lives Matter." Indeed, the logo of Alabama's Democratic party could have been changed to "White Lives Matter" with no real change in meaning and with a similar hostility toward those claiming "Black Lives Matter" or "All Lives Matter."

The politics of hate necessitates not only an in-group, whose hatred is justified, but also an out-group, whose hatred is not accepted. Politically, only the necessities of winning elections determines which group is in or out. In the late 1960s, the Democratic party—no longer able to make black people its out group, flipped. Whites who voted against it became the out group.

Indeed, you make a serious mistake if you think that seemingly championing an in-group actually means caring about what happens to it. That is why the champions of "Black Lives Matter" aren't concerned that, absent the heavy hand of law enforcment, the black on black murder rate in Chicago has gone up about 40%. They're no more concerned about black lives than the Democratic party of my youth cared about poor whites. Establishing these in groups and out groups is simply a way to manipulate voters.

And since manipulation is the goal, it's to the interest of those championing this politics of hate to magnifiy the influence of out groups, not only making them look larger than they are, but creating the conditions for them to grow. The more dangerous that out group appears, the more closely clueless members of in groups will do as those championing this politics of hate want.

And because it sets group against group, the politics of hate is enormously destructive. Look around and you'll set its many effects. And never, never forget that the politics of hate is not just about taking advantage of existing eminities. It often creates tensions where none exist. Blacks are set against whites in our Rust Belt, because many in our political class care nothing about finding jobs for either. And in the UK, the Labor party has grown tired of dealing with the concerns of British blue-collar workers. It's set about importing a new group whose votes it can set against its old working bloc. The end result is likely to be a disaster, but its a disaster that'll have its primary effects after they've retired handsomely and perhaps living somewhere the climate is milder.

There's more to be said about this than I have space for. I've spent my entire life—back to the mid-1950s in the segregated South—watching this. I understand it quite well and really should write a book on it. Indeed, my first political memories, which date from the second grade, were on this topic. Nothing disgusts me quite a much as the inability of many to see something so obvious.

Posted by: Michael W. Perry | Dec 27, 2016 5:17:44 AM

Mike Perry's analysis is totally accurate. Terms such as "hate" and even ones that seem less problematic such as "diversity", "inclusiveness", "phobic", "racism", "bigot", and so forth are supposedly to help bring us together when in fact they are used as weapons and far too casually to apply to virtually any context without honest discussion or facts or thinking about there impact on the society itself. Manipulative use of such language is a deliberate effort to use the power of a concept as leverage to gain or keep power. They are NOT honest efforts to understand or resolve troubling controversies. The language used by each collective movement (and counter-movement) has been language of attack, protest and opposition. It is language as a weapon employed to gain or defend power. On this theme see, Max Lerner, Ideas Are Weapons: The History and Uses of Ideas (Transition, 1991).

Posted by: David | Dec 27, 2016 12:22:06 PM

The top two organizations on the list by far, in $ revenue, are the American Family Association and the Family Research Council. They're doctrinaire religious conservative (no abortion, no gay marriage, no porn, etc.) which are hardly fringe positions. They were pretty much mainstream conservative positions 10 years ago.

It does beg the question, though, what qualifies the SPLC to designate them "hate" groups. From what I've read, the SPLC certainly qualifies as a "dumb" group as they don't even use basic empirical standards to keep track of hate crimes, and only certain ones by certain perpetrators at that...

Posted by: MM | Dec 27, 2016 7:28:14 PM

A list of "hate groups" from today's SPLC is as valid as would have been a list of "socialist groups" from the John Birch Society 60 years ago. Once a respected organization, SPLC has followed its donors into the far left fever swamps.

Posted by: AMTbuff | Dec 27, 2016 7:44:50 PM