404 F.2d 1066 (10th Cir. 1968), 38-68, Christian Echoes National Ministry, Inc. v. United States

Docket Nº:38-68.
Citation:404 F.2d 1066
Party Name:CHRISTIAN ECHOES NATIONAL MINISTRY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Date:December 30, 1968
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Page 1066

404 F.2d 1066 (10th Cir. 1968)



UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 38-68.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

December 30, 1968

LeRoy Blackstock, Tulsa, Okl. (Dwayne C. Pollard, Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Gilbert E. Andrews, Atty., Dept. of Justice (Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Atty. Dept. of Justice, Lawrence A. McSoud, U.S. Atty., of counsel, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.

Before MARVIN JONES, [a1] Judge, United States Court of Claims, and

Page 1067

BREITENSTEIN and HICKEY, Circuit Judges.

BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.

Christian Echoes National Ministry, Inc., the taxpayer, brought suit to recover taxes paid pursuant to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, 26 U.S.C. § 3111. The question is the validity of an order of the trial court, made under Rule 34, F.R.Civ.P., requiring the United States to produce certain documents. This court permitted an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b).

Section 501(a) and (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 exempts from federal income taxation religious and educational corporations which meet certain standards. 1 This exemption is made applicable to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b)(8)(B).

The taxpayer is an Oklahoma corporation with its principal office in Tulsa. In 1953, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ruled that the taxpayer was a religious and educational organization which was exempt from federal income tax. In 1966, this ruling was revoked on the grounds that the taxpayer was not operated exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes; that a substantial part of its activities was an attempt to influence legislation; and that it had intervened, directly and indirectly, on behalf of candidates for public office. The taxpayer then paid FICA taxes and now sues to recover.

On this appeal the government seeks a decision that arbitrary and discriminatory action by the tax officials is no defense to the refund claim. The circumstances require a review of the record.

The complaint, and amended complaint, of the taxpayer aver that it is exempt from the taxes. By incorporation of the claims for refunds, it alleges arbitrary and discriminatory treatment but does not say that such treatment...

To continue reading