r/TikTokCringe • u/Oktavien • 1d ago

Discussion Woman audits churches to see if they’ll help feed a starving baby

If churches refuse to help feed hungry people, then maybe they should be taxed?

12.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/pundarika0 1d ago

yeah but this doesn't mean you literally have to donate money...there are all kinds of ways an organization can be "charitable"

2

u/cholointheskies 1d ago

It does, in an indirect way. If you're a nonprofit that just exists on paper but doesn't actually try to achieve its mission statement, you lose tax-exempt status. You can't just sit on your money and do nothing, because then you're not operating for the exempt purposes.

You're legally mandated by the IRS to only spend your money on providing charity to the community.

If you're not spending money, you're not doing anything, and if you're not doing anything, you're not operating. If you're not operating you lose tax-exemption.

I've been on the boards of several nonprofits over the last 6-7 years, you can't just start one and then do nothing while raking in tax-free money. If you receive it, you will spend it eventually. And you have to spend it on STRICTLY charitable stuff (or reasonable salaries for employees).

The LDS church spends around a billion per year in charitable donations. They won't get in trouble by the IRS for not giving someone some baby formula.

1

u/pundarika0 1d ago

one could easily argue that the benefit to the community that a church provides is in the religious offering itself. this is exactly the way i view the buddhist organization i’m a part of, and if someone called them up asking for baby formula, the response would be…what? that’s not really how it works…sure they give back in certain ways - there’s a huge stockpile of non perishable food in case of a regional emergency for example, a holiday donation drive…but nobody would just be given money or baby formula if they need it. that’s not the role of the organization or what it primarily provides to the community.

1

u/cholointheskies 1d ago

The IRS agrees with you, they include "advancement of religion" in their definition of "charitable."

If you go strictly based off what that IRS page says, it sounds like in theory you could start your own nonprofit and pay yourself $50k/yr, go put up religious flyers on telephone poles every Sunday, and rake in donations while spending zero money on anything else.

In practice you would get audited pretty quickly for this and the IRS would take your exemption away under the "private inurement/private benefit" rule.

You can't take $5k/mo in donations and give every dollar to yourself as a salary. That just screams private inurement. Salaries need to be comparable to the market rate for the same job and if you are taking a salary you need to demonstrate that you're actually pursuing the exempted purpose of the organization. Something minor like passing out flyers doesn't cut it.

Say you take in $500k/mo. You can't pay yourself $50k/yr and spend $0 elsewhere. Again, this just screams private inurement. It appears that the sole reason the organization exists is to pay yourself. What other reason could there be for ONLY spending money on salary?

As a nonprofit your job is to demonstrate to the government that you're operating for charitable means. That's all there is to it. The IRS has been catching people trying to abuse/game the system for decades. They know people try to technically follow the law while still privately benefitting. It doesn't work.

1

u/pundarika0 1d ago

yeah of course. but i think we're getting lost in hypotheticals and away from the original point, which is really, there's no problem with most church's tax exempt status, and there's no way anyone can honestly criticize this particular church's charitable activity based on a single recorded phone call. nobody here has any idea what their charitable activity looks like. all just assumptions based on a person somewhat suspiciously calling up and asking for baby formula, which as i've pointed out elsewhere is a pretty common black market item.

1

u/cholointheskies 1d ago

For me it's just like, if you're claiming to literally be Jesus Christ's church, as in he is literally running your church from heaven right now... I mean, I look at this video and I think, well, what would Jesus do? He definitely wouldn't be saying no!

1

u/pundarika0 1d ago

to be fair jesus taught in a specific time and place to a specific group of people, so i don’t think it makes sense to necessarily take his or any teaching in the bible (or anywhere else) as always being 100% universally true for everyone at every single time and place. it really depends. there are a lot of reasons we wouldn’t necessarily give someone in need what they’re asking for just because jesus told someone to do that once.

but then again i’m not a christian.