Revoking A Church’s Tax-Exempt Status

 

I do not recall an audit of a church during my career.

I have however practiced at the other end: helping religious organizations obtain tax-exempt status.

Terms are important here. Let us look at two: churches and religious organizations.

A church is the immediate mental image: a congregation; an established place to meet; a code of doctrine; procedures for ordaining ministers, and so forth. A more intuitive term would be “a house of worship,” and worship would include Christianity and other religions.

A religious association is a religiously-oriented entity other than a church.

The terminology is important be cause churches do not need to apply for and obtain tax-exempt status. As long as they meet basic Section 501(c) requirements, they are deemed to be tax-exempt – the term is “per se” – just by being a church. That said, it is not unusual for a church to formally apply for tax-exempt status. Why? To tie to bow, so to speak. Chances are the church will regularly and routinely seek tax-deductible donations. It might be helpful to assure donors that the IRS recognizes the church as qualifying to receive such donations.

Since a church does not need to request and obtain 501(c) status, it is also not required to file annual Forms 990. It can, of course, the same as it can also formally apply for exempt status. The church can decide.

A religious organization – not being a church – must apply for exempt status, file annual Forms 990, and all the paperwork we routinely associate with being tax-exempt.

Let’s return to the requirements, and then we will discuss a church that crossed the line.

There are five basic requirements under Section 501(c):

·      The entity must be a corporation.

·      The entity must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, and other charitable purposes.

·      Net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder.

·      No substantial part of the organization’s activity may be attempting to influence legislation.

·      The organization may not intervene in political campaigns.

These are the minimum hurdles. In practice there is some latitude (must be a corporation, for example, but the definition of corporation for this purpose is generous), but one must still keep the tires on the pavement.

The Community Worship Fellowship (CWF) was founded in 1998 by Lester Goddard and his family. The organizing documents with Oregon had all the magic words (“organized exclusively for …”), and it obtained tax-exempt status from the IRS. It was governed by an uncompensated council of elders.

There are two broad requirements in this area: what the paperwork says and what you actually do. So far, the paperwork seems normal.

However, it turned out that your name had to be “Goddard” (or related to) to be on the council of elders – the governing body of the church.

Bad start. They might want to address this as soon as possible.

After a decade the IRS began asking questions. There were reports that CWF assets were being used for personal benefit. The church blew off the initial inquiry. The IRS responded by auditing years 2013 through 2016.

COMMENT: Brilliant.

The IRS discovered the following:

·      Lester Goddard determined his own salary and bonus.

·      His salary and bonus were approved by the members, but most of the members were related to Lester.

·      CWF credit cards showed purchases of Prada handbags, jewelry, perfume, and furs.

·      CWF paid personal boat payments and private travel, including Disneyland and Hawaii.

·      CWF paid for improvements (think a pool) at Lester’s home.

·      CWF lent money to Lester and family. Let’s say CWF was … not rigorous … about the money being repaid.

In tax lingo, this money shuffle is called “private inurement.” In common conversation, we call it something else.

Meanwhile CWF moved its incorporation from Oregon to Hawaii. Why? I am not sure. The IRS – to the best of my knowledge – still reaches Hawaii.

In December 2018 the IRS revoked CWF’s exemption.

Problem: the IRS did not publicly disclose the revocation. How were donors to know?

In March 2019 CWF filed suit.

In October 2025 the Federal Court of Claims finally decided.

The reason for a six-year delay? There were 18 stays for additional discovery.

This is not a pretty story, and church exemptions is not an area the IRS likes to tread. Tax and constitutional law weave together closely, and even an IRS win might be construed as pyrrhic. There are more than 350,000 religious tax-exempt organizations, for example, but less than five lost their exemption in 2023. None of those five were churches.

Our case this time was Community Worship Fellowship v United States, No 19-352 (Fed Cl October 23, 2025).

Thinking About Private Foundations

 

I’ll admit it: last month (October) left room for improvement. An unresponsive IRS and a dearth of hirable accounting talent is taking its toll here at Command Center. I am hoping that recent hiring at the IRS will take the edge off the former; I see little respite from the latter, however.

This month many of our nonprofit returns are due. That is OK, as those do not approach the volume of individual returns we prepare.

I find myself thinking about private foundations.

I would set-up a family foundation if I came into megabucks. It would, among other things, allow the CTG family to aggregate, review, discuss and decide our charitable giving as a family unit.  

But I have also been in practice long enough to see family foundations misused. A common-enough practice is to hire an … unmotivated … family member as a foundation employee.  

Let’s talk about the self-dealing rules and foundations.

First, let’s clarify what we mean when we use the term private (or family) foundation.

It is a charity – like the March of Dimes or United Way – but not as much. Think of foundations as the milk chocolate to the public charity dark chocolate. The dark chocolate is – let’s be frank – the better chocolate. Contributions to both are tax deductible, but there are restrictions on the private foundation that do not exist for a public charity. Why? Because a public charity tends to have a diverse and diffuse donor base. A private foundation can be one family – or one person. A private foundation can therefore be more disposed to get its nose in traps than a public charity.

Let’s introduce two terms: disqualified persons and self-dealing.

There are two main categories of disqualified persons. I will use the CTG Foundation (and its one donor – me) as an example.

·      Category One

o  A substantial contributor (that would be me)

o  Members of my family

o  A corporation, partnership or trust wherein I am at least a 35% owner

·      Category Two

o  Foundation directors and officers

o  Their families

A family foundation might keep everything in the family, in which case categories one and two are the same people. It does not have to be, though.

We have the players. Now we need an event, such as:

·      Buying or selling property from or to a disqualified (person)

·      Renting from or to a disqualified (unless from and for free)

·      Lending money to or borrowing from a disqualified (unless from and interest free)

·      Allowing disqualifieds to use the foundation’s assets or facilities, except on terms available to all members of the public

·      Paying or reimbursing unreasonable or unrelated expenses of a disqualified

·      Paying excessive compensation to a disqualified

In theory, that last one would discourage hiring the … unmotivated … family member. In reality … there is very little discouragement. The deterring effect of punishment is impacted by its likelihood: no likelihood = no deterrence.

A key thing about self-dealing transactions is that, as a generalization, the tax Code does not care whether the foundation is getting a “deal.”  Say that I own rental real estate in Pigeon Forge. I sell it to the CTG Foundation for pennies on the dollar. Financially, the foundation has received a significant benefit. Tax-wise, there is self-dealing. The Code says “NO” buying or selling to or from a disqualified. There is no modifying language for “a deal.”

So, what happens if there is self-dealing?

There are two tiers of penalties.

·      Tier One

o  A 10% annual penalty on the self-dealer. In our Pigeon Forge example, that would be me. If the violation is not cleaned-up quickly, the 10% applies every year until it is.

o  There may be a 5% penalty on a foundation manager who participated in the act of self-dealing, knowing it to be such. Again, the penalty applies annually.

·      Tier Two

o  The Code wants the foundation and disqualified to reverse and clean-up whatever they did. In that spirit, the penalty becomes severe if they blow it off:

§  The penalty on the self-dealer goes to 200%

§  The penalty on the foundation manager goes to 50%

You clearly want to avoid tier two.

What would impel the foundation to even report self-dealing and pay those penalties?

I like to think that the annual 990-PF preparation by a reputable accounting or law firm would provide motivation. I would immediately fire a private foundation client which entered into and refused to unwind a self-deal. I am more concerned about my reputation and licensure. I can always get another client.

Then there is the possibility of an IRS audit.

It happens. I was reading one where the private foundation made a loan to a disqualified. The disqualified never made payments or even paid interest, and this went on for so long that the statute of limitations expired. According to the IRS, it might not be able to get to those closed years for penalties, but it could force the foundation to increase the loan balance by the missed interest payments (even for closed tax years) when calculating penalties for the open years.

Yep, that is what got me thinking about private foundations.

For the home gamers, this time we discussed CCA 202243008.

Depression And Disability

I am reading a Tax Court case where the taxpayer represented himself. This is referred to as “pro se.” Technically, it does not mean that you cannot have an attorney or advisor with you; it rather means that the attorney or advisor is not admitted to practice before the Tax Court. If I was your CPA, for example, I would field the questions-and-answers on your behalf while you sat there silent and forlorn. You would still be considered to be “pro se,” as I do not practice before the Court. Had I practiced in the D.C. area or with the national tax office of a large firm, I might have been more interested in pursuing admission to practice.

The taxpayer’s name is Walter Kowsh, and he had an incredible string of misfortune. Walter lived in New York. His wife died at age 53, leaving him with two teenage children and an elderly parent.

Then he lost several friends on the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Some of those friends had gone to his wife’s funeral.

By 2002 he could longer work because of depression and anxiety attacks.

He started taking prescriptions, including Wellbutrin and Paxil.

His depression became debilitating.

He started collecting on his private disability insurance.

He did not however apply for Social Security disability. Too bad, as there is a case (Dwyer) that accepts social security as proof of disability.

He took an early distribution from his 401(k) or IRA in 2003. He did not however file a tax return for 2003.

So the IRS tentatively prepared one for him.

After a string of IRS notices, he finally prepared and filed his 2003 return.

The IRS next wanted penalties for late filing as well as the 10% penalty on the early distribution.

Walter needed an out from both penalties. Is there way to do it?

Yep.

Disability would do it. Disability is an exception to the 10% penalty and is also reasonable cause to abate a late filing penalty.

Walter argued that he was disabled.

Question is: did Walter’s depression rise to the level of a disability?

Incredible story, said the IRS. Get us a doctor’s letter, and let’s wrap this up.

Walter could not – or would not - get a doctor’s letter. His own doctor refused to provide one.

This was a bad start.

How about a prescription history from the pharmacy? asked the IRS. They might be able to print out your history for the whole year.

Nope, said Walter.

I am already collecting disability, continued Walter. What part of “disability” do you not understand?

Walter could really have used a tax advisor at this point.

You see, collecting disability from an insurance company lends strong credibility to Walter’s claim, but disability is a medical diagnosis. The insurance reinforces the diagnosis but is not a substitute for it.

Rest assured the Court was curious why Walter’s doctor would not provide a letter, or why he refused to have another doctor provide one…

… despite numerous requests from respondent.”

Respondent means the IRS.

And I am curious myself.

I do not doubt that he was depressed. I also do not doubt that he considered himself disabled. What I don’t understand is the big pushback on what appears to be a reasonable request.

It is not personal, Walter. Stop taking it that way.

Walter lost.

You see the downside to a true pro se.

I would have been screaming at Walter for sabotaging his own case. He would have gotten that doctor’s letter or I would have fired him.

But Walter made the tax literature for the point that collecting private disability insurance, by itself and without further substantiation, does not prove disability for purposes of the tax Code.

Tax geeks will remember Walter for decades.

The Abbott Laboratories 401(k)

Something caught my eye recently about student loans. A 401(k) is involved, so there is a tax angle.

Abbott Laboratories is using their “Freedom 2 Save” program to:

… enable full-time and part-time employees who qualify for the company's 401(k) – and who are also contributing 2 percent of their eligible pay toward student loans – to receive an amount equivalent to the company's traditional 5 percent "match" deposited into their 401(k) plans. Program recipients will receive the match without requiring any 401(k) contribution of their own.”

Abbott will put money into an employee’s 401(k), even if the employee is not himself/herself contributing.

As I understand it, the easiest way to substantiate that one’s student loan is 2% or more of one’s eligible pay is to allow Abbott to withhold and remit the monthly loan amount. For that modest disclosure of personal information, one receives a 5% employer “match” contribution.

I get it. It can be difficult to simultaneously service one’s student loan and save for retirement.

Let’s take this moment to discuss the three main ways to fund a 401(k) account.

(1)  What you contribute. Let’s say that you set aside 6% of your pay.

(2)  What your employer is committed to contributing. In this example, say that the company matches the first 4% and then ½ of the next 2%. This is called the “match,” and in this example it would be 5%.

(3)  A discretionary company contribution. Perhaps your employer had an excellent year and wants to throw a few extra dollars into the kitty. Do not be skeptical: I have seen it happen. Not with my own 401(k), mind you (I am a career CPA, and CPA firms are notorious), but by a client. 

Abbott is not the first, by the way. Prudential Retirement did something similar in 2016.

The reason we are talking about this is that the IRS recently blessed one of these plans in a Private Letter Ruling. A PLR is an IRS opinion requested by, and issued to, a specific taxpayer. One generally has to write a check (the amount varies depending upon the issue), but in return one receives some assurance from the IRS on how a transaction is going to work-out taxwise. Depending upon, a PLR is virtually required tax procedure. Consider certain corporate mergers or reorganizations. There may be billions of dollars and millions of shareholders involved. One gets a PLR – period – as the downside might be career-ending.

Tax and retirement pros were (and are) concerned how plans like Abbott’s will pass the “contingent benefits” prohibition. Under this rule, a company cannot make other employee benefits – say health insurance – contingent on an employee making elective deferrals into the company’s 401(k) plan.

The IRS decided that the prohibition did not apply as the employees were not contributing to the 401(k) plan. The employer was. The employees were just paying their student loans.

By the way, Abbott Laboratories has subsequently confirmed that it was they who requested and received the PLR.

Technically, a PLR is issued to a specific taxpayer and this one is good only for Abbott Laboratories. Not surprisingly there are already calls to codify this tax result. Once in the Code or Regulations, the result would be standardized and a conservative employer would not feel compelled to obtain its own PLR.

I doubt you and I will see this in our 401(k)s.  This strikes me as a “big company” thing, and a big company with a lot of younger employees to boot.

Great recruitment feature, though.

Benefitting Too Much From A Charity

I suspect that many of us know more about public charities and foundations than we cared to know a couple of years ago.

What sets up the temptation is that someone is not paying taxes, or paying extraordinarily low taxes. For example, obtain that coveted 501(c)(3) status and you will pay no taxes, barring extreme circumstances. If one cannot meet the "publicly supported" test of a (c)(3), the fallback is a private foundation - which only pays a 2% tax rate (and that can be reduced to 1%, with the right facts).

We should all be so lucky.

Let's discuss the issues of charities and private benefit and private inurement.

These rules exist because of the following language in Section 501(c):

No part of the earnings [of the exempt organization] inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual….”

In practice the Code distinguishes inurement depending upon who is being benefitted.

If that someone is an “insider,” then the issue is private inurement. An insider is someone who has enough influence or sway to affect the decision and actions of the organization.

A common enough example of private inurement is excessive compensation to a founder or officer.  The common safeguard is to empower an independent compensation committee, with authority to review and decide compensation packages. While not failsafe, it is a formidable defense.

If that someone is an “outsider,” then the term is private benefit.

Here is a question: say that someone sets up a foundation to assist with the expenses of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. Several years later a family member is so diagnosed. Have we wandered into the realm of private inurement or benefit?

The Code will allow one to receive benefits from the charity – if that individual is also a member of a charitable class. In our example, that class is breast cancer patients. If one becomes a member of that class, one should sidestep the inurement or benefit issue.

The “should” is because the Code will not accept too small a charitable class. Say – for example - that the charitable class is restricted to the families of Cincinnati tax CPAs who went to school in Florida and Missouri, have in-laws overseas and who would entertain an offer to play in the NFL. While I have no problem with that charitable class, it is very unlikely the IRS would approve.

By the way, the cost of failing can be steep. There may be penalties on the charity and/or the insider. Push it too far and the organization's exempt status may be revoked altogether.

Or you may never be exempt to begin with. Let’s look at a recent IRS review of an application for exempt status.

A family member has a rare disease. You establish a foundation to "assist adolescent children and families in coping with undiagnosed and/or debilitating diseases."

The Code allows you to operate for a while and retroactively apply for exemption, which you do.

Sounds good so far.

You and your spouse are the incorporators.

This is common. You can still establish an independent Board.

Your organizing paperwork does not have a "dissolution" clause.

Big oversight. The dissolution clause means that - upon dissolution - all remaining assets go to another charity. To say it differently, remaining assets cannot return to you or your spouse.

The charity is named after your son, who suffers from an unidentified illness.

Not an issue. I suspect many foundations begin this way.

Your fundraising materials specifically request donations to help your son.

You are stepping a bit close to the third rail with this one.

Since inception, the only individual to receive funds is your son. Granted, you have said you intend to make future distributions to other individuals and unrelated nonprofits with a similar mission statement. Those individuals and organizations will have to apply, and a committee will review their application. It just hasn’t happened yet.

Problem.

The IRS looked at your application for exemption and bounced it. There were two main reasons:

First, the problem with the paperwork, specifically the dissolution clause. The IRS would likely have allowed you the opportunity to correct this matter, except that ...

Secondly, there were operational issues. It does not matter how flowery that mission statement is. The IRS reserves the right to look at what you are actually doing, and in this case what you were actually doing was making your son's medical expenses tax-deductible by introducing a (c)(3). Granted, there was language allowing for other children and other organizations, but the reality is that your son was the only beneficiary of the charity's largesse. The rest was just words.

The IRS denied the request. All the benefits of the organization went to your family, and the promise of future beneficiaries was too dim and distant to sway the answer. You had too small a charitable class (that is, a class of one), and that constitutes private inurement.

And you still have a tax problem. You have an entity that has collected money and made disbursements. The intent was for it to be a charity, but that intent was dashed. The entity has to file a tax return, but it will have to file as a taxpaying entity.

Are the monies received taxable income? Are the medical expenses even deductible? You have a mess.

The upside is that you would only be filing tax returns for a year or two, as you would shut down the entity immediately.