Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington

Last updated
Regan v. Taxation with Representation
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued March 22, 1983
Decided May 23, 1983
Full case name Donald T. Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington
Citations461 U.S. 540 ( more )
103 S. Ct. 1997; 76 L. Ed. 2d 129; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 33; 51 U.S.L.W. 4583; 83-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9365; 51 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1294
Case history
Prior676 F.2d 715 (D.C. Cir. 1982); probable jurisdiction noted, 459 U.S. 819(1982).
Holding
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code does not violate the First or Fifth Amendments.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by unanimous
ConcurrenceBlackmun, joined by Brennan, Marshall
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. I, V

Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540 (1983), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld lobbying restrictions imposed on tax-exempt non-profit corporations. [1]

Contents

Background

Internal Revenue Code

The case involved several provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954:

The Internal Revenue Code (IRC), formally the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, is the domestic portion of federal statutory tax law in the United States, published in various volumes of the United States Statutes at Large, and separately as Title 26 of the United States Code (USC). It is organized topically, into subtitles and sections, covering income tax in the United States, payroll taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, and excise taxes; as well as procedure and administration. Its implementing agency is the Internal Revenue Service.

Facts

Taxation with Representation of Washington (TWR), a non-profit corporation organized to promote certain interests in the field of federal taxation, was formed to take over the operation of two other nonprofit organizations, one of which had tax-exempt status under § 501(c)(3) and the other under § 501(c)(4), applied for tax-exempt status under § 501(c)(3). The Internal Revenue Service denied the application under § 501(c)(3), because it appeared that a substantial part of the corporation's activities would consist of attempting to influence legislation, which is not permitted by § 501(c)(3).

Procedural history

TWR brought their initial challenge before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the United States. TWR challenged the prohibition against substantial lobbying as violative of the First Amendment and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, and sought declaratory judgment that it qualified for the exemption granted by § 501(c)(3), claiming that § 501(c)(3)'s prohibition against substantial lobbying is unconstitutional under the First Amendment by imposing an "unconstitutional burden" on the receipt of tax-deductible contributions, and is also unconstitutional under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because the Code permits taxpayers to deduct contributions to veterans' organizations that qualify for tax exemption under § 501(c)(19).

United States District Court for the District of Columbia United States federal district court

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia is a federal district court. Appeals from the District are taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The District Court granted summary judgment against TWR. On appeal, the en banc United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, holding that while § 501(c)(3) did not violate the First Amendment, it did violate the Fifth Amendment's due process guarantees. [5] The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Secretary of the Treasury and the United States, challenged the decision of the D.C. Circuit.

In law, a summary judgment is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial. Such a judgment may be issued on the merits of an entire case, or on discrete issues in that case.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Current US federal appellate court

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is one of the thirteen United States Courts of Appeals. It has the smallest geographical jurisdiction of any of the U.S. federal appellate courts, and covers only one district court: the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It meets at the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse, near Judiciary Square, Washington, D.C.

Opinion of the Court

On appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed. In an opinion by Justice Rehnquist, a unanimous Court held:

William Rehnquist Chief Justice of the United States

William Hubbs Rehnquist was an American jurist and lawyer who served on the Supreme Court of the United States for 33 years, first as an Associate Justice from 1972 to 1986 and then as Chief Justice from 1986 until his death in 2005. Considered a conservative, Rehnquist favored a conception of federalism that emphasized the Tenth Amendment's reservation of powers to the states. Under this view of federalism, the court, for the first time since the 1930s, struck down an act of Congress as exceeding its power under the Commerce Clause.

(1) Congress was not required to provide appellant with public money with which it was to lobby; the prohibition against lobbying in § 501(c)(3) did not violate the First Amendment, since Congress, pursuant to § 501(c)(3), had not infringed on any First Amendment rights or regulated any First Amendment activity, and
(2) the prohibition against lobbying in § 501(c)(3) did not violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, even though veteran's organizations were allowed under § 501(c)(19) to carry on substantial lobbying and still qualify to receive tax deductible contributions, since qualified veteran's organizations were entitled to receive tax deductible contributions regardless of the content of the speech they used, and it was not irrational for Congress to decide that taxpayers should not subsidize the lobbying of tax exempt charities, or to decide that although it would not subsidize substantial lobbying by charities in general, it would subsidize the lobbying of veterans' organizations. The Court concluded that § 501(c)(3) did not employ any suspect classification, and the lower appellate court erred in applying strict scrutiny to it. The Court concluded that Congress could have granted funds to an organization, but conditioned the grant by providing that none of the money received from congress be used to lobby state legislatures.

Concurrence

Justice Blackmun, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, concurred. While he joined the Court's opinion, the holding that § 501(c)(3) did not violate the First Amendment depended entirely on the Court's necessary assumption that the Internal Revenue Service, in enforcing the lobbying restrictions, required an organization qualified under § 501(c)(3), and its lobbying affiliate with tax exempt status under § 501(c)(4), only to be separately incorporated and to keep records adequate to show that the tax deductible contributions were not used to pay for lobbying.

See also

Related Research Articles

Tax deduction is a reduction of income that is able to be taxed and is commonly a result of expenses, particularly those incurred to produce additional income. Tax deductions are a form of tax incentives, along with exemptions and credits. The difference between deductions, exemptions and credits is that deductions and exemptions both reduce taxable income, while credits reduce tax.

Tax exemption is the monetary exemption of persons, people, property, income, or transactions from taxes that would otherwise be levied on them. Tax-exempt status can provide complete relief from taxes, reduced rates, or tax on only a portion of items. Examples include exemption of charitable organizations from property taxes and income taxes, veterans, and certain cross-border or multi-jurisdictional scenarios.

Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the religion clauses of the First Amendment did not prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from revoking the tax exempt status of a religious university whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy, such as eradicating racial discrimination.

United States non-profit laws relate to taxation, the special problems of an organization which does not have profit as its primary motivation, and prevention of charitable fraud. Some non-profit organizations can broadly be described as "charities" — like the American Red Cross. Some are strictly for the private benefit of the members — like country clubs, or condominium associations. Others fall somewhere in between — like labor unions, chambers of commerce, or cooperative electric companies. Each presents unique legal issues.

Revenue Act of 1913

The Revenue Act of 1913, also known as the Underwood Tariff or the Underwood-Simmons Act, re-established a federal income tax in the United States and substantially lowered tariff rates. The act was sponsored by Representative Oscar Underwood, passed by the 63rd United States Congress, and signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson.

A Group Exemption Letter or (GEL) is a special letter that is issued by the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS). A GEL pertains to organizations that have been recognized by the IRS as tax exempt organizations.

A 501(c) organization is a nonprofit organization in the federal law of the United States according to Section 501(c) and is one of over 29 types of nonprofit organizations exempt from some federal income taxes. Sections 503 through 505 set out the requirements for obtaining such exemptions. Many states refer to Section 501(c) for definitions of organizations exempt from state taxation as well. 501(c) organizations can receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and unions.

Income taxes in the United States are imposed by the federal, most state, and many local governments. The income taxes are determined by applying a tax rate, which may increase as income increases, to taxable income, which is the total income less allowable deductions. Income is broadly defined. Individuals and corporations are directly taxable, and estates and trusts may be taxable on undistributed income. Partnerships are not taxed, but their partners are taxed on their shares of partnership income. Residents and citizens are taxed on worldwide income, while nonresidents are taxed only on income within the jurisdiction. Several types of credits reduce tax, and some types of credits may exceed tax before credits. An alternative tax applies at the federal and some state levels.

The Taxing and Spending Clause and the Uniformity Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, grants the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. While authorizing Congress to levy taxes, this clause permits the levying of taxes for two purposes only: to pay the debts of the United States, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Taken together, these purposes have traditionally been held to imply and to constitute the federal government's taxing and spending power.

Bob Jones University v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725 (1974), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that Bob Jones University, which had its 501(c)(3) status revoked by the Internal Revenue Service for practicing "racially discriminatory admissions policies" towards African-Americans, could not sue for an injunction to prevent losing its tax-exempt status. The question of Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status was ultimately resolved in Bob Jones University v. United States, in which the court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect discriminatory organizations from losing tax-exempt status.

A 501(c)(3) organization is a corporation, trust, unincorporated association, or other type of organization exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Code. It is one of the 29 types of 501(c) nonprofit organizations in the US.

<i>Coit v. Green</i> United States Supreme Court case

Coit v. Green, 404 U.S. 997 (1971), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed a decision that a private school which practiced racial discrimination could not be eligible for a tax exemption.

Boyer v. Boyer, 113 U.S. 689 (1885), was a suit in error brought in a state court of Pennsylvania for an injunction restraining the commissioners of Schuylkill County from levying a county tax for the year 1883 upon certain shares in the Pennsylvania National Bank, an association organized under the National Banking Act. The suit proceeds upon the ground that such levy violates the act of Congress prescribing conditions upon state taxation of national bank shares in this, that "other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens" of that county is exempted by the laws of Pennsylvania from such taxation. A demurrer to the bill was sustained and the suit was dismissed. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, that judgment was affirmed on the ground that the laws of the state under which the defendants sought to justify the taxation were not repugnant to the act of Congress.

Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970), was a case before the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that grants of tax exemption to religious organizations do not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Nonpartisanism in the United States is organized under United States Internal Revenue Code that qualifies certain non-profit organizations for tax-exempt status because they refrain from engaging in certain prohibited political activities. The designation "nonpartisan" usually reflects a claim made by organizations about themselves, or by commentators, and not an official category per American law. Rather, certain types of nonprofit organizations are under varying requirements to refrain from election-related political activities, or may be taxed to the extent they engage in electoral politics, so the word affirms a legal requirement. In this context, "nonpartisan" means that the organization, by US tax law, is prohibited from supporting or opposing political candidates, parties, and in some cases other votes like propositions, directly or indirectly, but does not mean that the organization cannot take positions on political issues.

Director of Revenue of Mo. v. CoBank ACB, 531 U.S. 316 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned whether CoBank is exempt from state income tax requirements. A unanimous Court held that they are not exempt.

The Johnson Amendment is a provision in the U.S. tax code, since 1954, that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Section 501(c)(3) organizations are the most common type of nonprofit organization in the United States, ranging from charitable foundations to universities and churches. The amendment is named for then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, who introduced it in a preliminary draft of the law in July 1954.

Every Voice is an American nonprofit, nonpartisan liberal political advocacy organization. The organization was formed in 2014 upon the merger of the Public Campaign Action Fund, a 501(c)(4) group, and the Friends of Democracy. Every Voice, along with its affiliated Super PAC, Every Voice Action, advocates for campaign finance reform in the United States via public financing of political campaigns and limitations on political donations. The organization's president, David Donnelly, has said "We fully embrace the irony of working through a Super PAC to fight the influence of Super PACs."

A 501(h) election or Conable election is a procedure in United States tax law that allows a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization to participate in lobbying limited only by the financial expenditure on that lobbying, regardless of its overall extent. This allows organizations taking the 501(h) election to potentially perform a large amount of lobbying if it is done using volunteer labor or through inexpensive means. The 501(h) election is available to most types of 501(c)(3) organizations that are not churches or private foundations. It was introduced by Representative Barber Conable as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 and codified as 26 U.S.C. § 501(h), and the corresponding Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations were finalized in 1990.

References

  1. Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540 (1983). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. 26 U.S.C.   § 501(c)(3) .
  3. 26 U.S.C.   § 170(c)(2) .
  4. 26 U.S.C.   § 501(c)(4) .
  5. Taxation with Representation of Washington v. Regan, 676F.2d715 (D.C. Cir.1982).