The Law of Tax-Exempt Healthcare Organizations. Bruce R. Hopkins
Читать онлайн книгу.
St. Paul, MN, 2012).
10 18.9 This is the whole‐text canon (Reading Law, supra, note 18.8, at 1167). In this case, the court did not read “all parts of the statute together”; it read only two sections of it (IRC § 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) and (iii)). The entire statute is IRC § 170(b)(1)(A), where the law provides for nine categories of public charities, eight of which do not contain the primary‐function requirement. It is probable that the statute writers had a reason to insert the requirement only in IRC § 170(b)(1)(A)(iii), a point the court did not explore.
11 18.10 The IRS calculated that the Mayo Clinic's educational activities were only 13 percent of its total activities and that its revenue from educational undertakings was only 6 percent of total revenue (Tech. Adv. Mem. 201407024). The court in this case may have violated another contextual canon: the absurdity doctrine. This canon states that a provision may be judicially corrected where the failure to do so would result in a disposition that no reasonable person could approve (Reading Law, supra, note 18.8, at 234). Indeed, another contextual canon the court could have applied is the harmonious‐reading canon, pursuant to which the provisions of a text should be interpreted in a way that renders them compatible, not contradictory (id., at 180).
12 242 Id. at § 4.02(6).
CHAPTER SEVEN Lobbying and Political Activities
1 § 7.1 Legislative Activities Limitation *(b) Legislative Activities
2 § 7.4 Political Activities Limitation (b) Participation or Intervention (g) IRS's Recent Enforcement Efforts (h) “Religious Liberty” Executive Order
3 § 7.5 Business Expense Deduction Rules and Political Activities
4 § 7.7 Public Policy Advocacy Activities
5 § 7.8 Political Activities of Social Welfare Organizations
§ 7.1 LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES LIMITATION
(b) Legislative Activities
p. 196, note 26, seventh line. Delete the period; insert following closing quotation mark:
(at 760, note 9).
p. 196, note 26. Delete text following the first period and insert:
Id.
p. 196, note 26. Insert as second paragraph:
An organization formed to protect the human rights of “defenseless victims” from various forms of mind‐control attacks was denied recognition of exemption as a charitable entity primarily because one of its principal activities was advocation of legislation to prohibit or regulate use of attack weapons on the public (Priv. Ltr. Rul. 201430014).
*p. 196. Insert as fourth complete paragraph:
Another way an organization can be classified as an action organization is where its purposes can be achieved only through enactment of legislation. For example, the IRS held that an organization formed to promote transparency in government through technology failed to qualify for tax exemption as a charitable entity because its primary activity is advocating adoption of a theory or doctrine that can become effective only by a legislative enactment.26.1 Likewise, an organization was denied recognition as an exempt charitable entity on the ground it is an action organization, inasmuch as its primary activity, which is obtaining statehood for a “political unit,” can only be attained by the enactment of legislation.26.2
p. 197, first complete paragraph. Insert as third sentence:
On the basis of the principles illustrated in examples in the tax regulations, a court held that a communication refers to a ballot measure “if it either refers to the measure by name or, without naming it, employs terms widely used in connection with the measure or describes the content or effect of the measure.”30.1
§ 7.4 POLITICAL ACTIVITIES LIMITATION
(b) Participation or Intervention
p. 213, note 150. Insert following existing text:
The IRS ruled, however, that a nonprofit organization planning on conducting a series of ostensibly educational symposia failed to qualify for tax exemption because, as to the first of these events, representatives of only one political party, some of whom were candidates for public office, were invited to participate as speakers (Priv. Ltr. Rul. 201523021).
(g) IRS's Recent Enforcement Efforts
p. 218, first complete paragraph. Delete text following first sentence (including footnotes) and insert:
This initiative is continuing by means of the use of IRS entities termed political activities referral committees (PARCs).185
p. 218. Insert as second complete paragraph:
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found that, between July 2015 and August 2016, 19 “high‐profile” referrals were forwarded to the PARC. The PARC evaluated these referrals, then recommended 10 of them for examination. More than one‐half of these recommended referrals involved exempt social welfare organizations. As of January 2018, five of the 10 examinations had not been initiated; there have not been any revocations or “other negative findings” as a result of examinations. TIGTA determined that the IRS “did not adequately document research related to the allegation[s], tax‐exempt laws evaluated, or the rationale behind decisions made.” This documentation was said to be “vital because the referrals are high profile, involve extremely sensitive allegations of impermissible political activity, and require a subjective analysis of often unique facts and circumstances of unverified information from the allegations.” TIGTA also reviewed a statistical sample of referrals from more than 6,500 referrals concerning tax‐exempt organizations received by the IRS between July 2015 and August 2016. It estimates that more than 1,000 referrals related to allegations of impermissible political activity were not forwarded to the PARC, although they met the IRS criteria for doing so.186
p. 218. Insert as third complete paragraph, before heading:
The IRS announced, on May 22, 2014, that the agency had begun work on a regulation project concerning the conduct of political campaign activities by public charities and other