Source: http://ak.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19720124_0040359.SCT.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-01-21 10:43:26
Document Index: 389115531

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 501', '§ 501', '§ 501', '§ 501', '§ 1252', '§ 501', '§ 501']

| UNITED STATES v. CHRISTIAN ECHOES NATIONAL MINISTRY
decided: January 24, 1972.
UNITED STATESv.CHRISTIAN ECHOES NATIONAL MINISTRY, INC.
[ 404 U.S. Page 561]
This case began when the Internal Revenue Service revoked the tax-exempt status of the appellee, a nonprofit religious corporation. The appellee had previously enjoyed a tax exemption under § 501 (c)(3) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code, 26 U. S. C. § 501 (c)(3). This section defines exempt organizations, in pertinent part, as:
"Corporations . . . organized and operated exclusively for religious . . . purposes . . . , no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation, [ 404 U.S. Page 562]
and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office."
The appellee's exemption under this provision was revoked on three grounds: (1) that the appellee was not operated exclusively for religious purposes, (2) that it had engaged in substantial activity aimed at influencing legislation, and (3) that it had intervened in political campaigns on behalf of candidates for public office.
The appellee paid the taxes assertedly owed and then filed the present suit for a refund in Federal District Court, claiming that it was entitled to an exempt status under § 501 (c)(3) of the Code. The case was heard by a single District Judge sitting without a jury. The judge ultimately decided that the appellee was entitled to tax-exempt status and to a refund of the taxes paid.*fn1
The District Court rejected all three grounds on which the Internal Revenue Service had revoked the appellee's exempt status. It found, as fact, (1) that the appellee's "activities have been directed toward achieving its religious goals," (2) that "with the exception of support of the proposed Becker Amendment to the United States Constitution relating to voluntary prayer and Bible reading in public schools, [the appellee] has not engaged in attempts to influence legislation," and (3) that the appellee "has not endorsed a political candidate, and has not instructed its followers as to how to vote but only to vote." On the basis of its findings of fact, the court concluded as law that the appellee fell within the terms of § 501 (c)(3). That ended the case. But the District Court nonetheless went on to discuss certain constitutional issues. [ 404 U.S. Page 563]
In its conclusions of law, the court stated that the First Amendment prohibits both the Government and the courts from determining whether a religious organization is operated for exclusively religious purposes, and is thus eligible for tax-exempt status, by analyzing each and every activity of the organization and classifying it as "religious" or "political." In this case, the court said, the Internal Revenue Service conducted and relied upon such an analysis in revoking the appellee's exemption and, for that reason, the Service denied the free exercise of religion to the appellee. The District Court also stated that the Internal Revenue Service violated the appellee's right to due process of law by singling it out, among all other religious organizations, for investigation and exemption revocation "without evidence to support its action."
The United States seeks to appeal the decision of the single District Judge directly to this Court. It argues that we have jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1252. That jurisdictional provision allows a direct appeal to the Supreme Court from the decision of "any court of the United States . . . holding an Act of Congress unconstitutional in any civil action, suit, or proceeding to which the United States . . . is a party." Such a direct appeal is allowed whether the Act of Congress was declared unconstitutional "as a whole" or simply "as applied." Fleming v. Rhodes, 331 U.S. 100, 102-103. The findings and conclusions of the District Court in the present case, however, reveal that it did not hold § 501 (c)(3) unconstitutional in either of these ways. Hence, we must dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
The "basis" of the District Court's decision, United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 20, was that, under the facts adduced at trial, the appellee qualified for exempt status under § 501 (c)(3). The court did not question or ...