CHURCH OF THE CHOSEN PEOPLE, ETC. v. United States
50 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5954, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15220, 548 F. Supp. 1247 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To qualify for a religious tax exemption under I.R.C. § 501(c)(3), an organization's beliefs must be 'religious' in nature—addressing fundamental questions about the human condition, being comprehensive, and having external manifestations—and its net earnings must not inure to the private benefit of any individual.
Facts:
- Demigod Socko Pantheon (DSP), also known as the Church of the Chosen People, was incorporated in Minnesota in 1976.
- DSP's primary purpose was to preach 'The Gay Imperative,' a doctrine asserting that same-sex relationships are necessary to control overpopulation and ensure human survival.
- The organization was led by Richard John Baker and J. Michael McConnell, who were its only active 'Archons' or leaders.
- DSP lacked many traditional religious attributes, including published literature, regular religious services, a formal membership list, and a defined history or traditions. It held only two ceremonies between 1976 and 1978.
- An advertisement placed by DSP described its activities as 'religious explorations and a secular lifestyle'.
- DSP's organizational income was used to pay the full rent, utilities, and telephone bills for the personal residence of its leaders, Baker and McConnell.
- The organization's funds were also used to pay for personal magazine and newspaper subscriptions for its leaders.
- DSP's bank account was held in Baker's name, not in the name of the organization.
Procedural Posture:
- Demigod Socko Pantheon (DSP) filed federal income tax returns and paid taxes for the years 1976, 1977, and 1978.
- In April 1979, DSP filed claims for a refund with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), arguing that it qualified as a tax-exempt religious organization.
- Previously, between 1975 and 1978, the IRS had denied three separate applications from DSP for tax-exempt status.
- After six months elapsed without a formal IRS ruling on the refund claims, DSP initiated this lawsuit against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to seek a refund.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an organization that promotes a doctrine of sexual preference and secular lifestyle, lacks traditional religious characteristics, and whose funds are used for the personal expenses of its leaders qualify as a tax-exempt religious organization under § 501(c)(3)?
Opinions:
Majority - MacLaughlin, District Judge
No. An organization does not qualify for tax-exempt status as a religious organization under § 501(c)(3) if its purpose is not substantially religious and its net earnings inure to the benefit of private individuals. The court found that DSP failed on both grounds. First, applying the three-part test from Africa v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the court determined that DSP's doctrine was not religious in nature. Its central tenet, 'The Gay Imperative,' was a 'single-faceted doctrine of sexual preference and secular lifestyle' that did not address fundamental questions of the human condition, was not a comprehensive system of belief, and lacked the external manifestations of a religion. Second, the court found that DSP was operated for the private benefit of its leaders, Baker and McConnell. The organization's funds were used to pay for their personal living expenses, including rent, utilities, and subscriptions, which is explicitly prohibited for a § 501(c)(3) organization. Therefore, DSP was not organized and operated 'exclusively for religious purposes.'
Analysis:
This decision illustrates how courts distinguish between a sincerely held belief system and a 'religion' for tax law purposes, without inquiring into the truth of the beliefs themselves. It provides a concrete application of a legal test for defining religion that focuses on the scope and nature of the belief system (addressing ultimate questions, comprehensiveness, external forms). The case also underscores the critical importance of the operational test for tax exemption, showing that even if an organization's purpose were deemed religious, the misuse of funds for private inurement is an independent and fatal flaw. This serves as a strong precedent against so-called 'mail-order ministries' or other organizations that may use the cover of religion for personal financial gain.
