Am. Atheists, Inc. v. Shulman

• Decision Date: 19 May 2014
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2012–264 WOB.
• Citation: 21 F.Supp.3d 856
• Parties: AMERICAN ATHEISTS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs v. Douglas SHULMAN, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky

21 F.Supp.3d 856

AMERICAN ATHEISTS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs

v.Douglas SHULMAN, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2012–264 WOB.

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division at Covington.

Signed May 19, 2014.

Edwin F. Kagin, Union, KY, Eric O. Husby, Eric O. Husby, Esq., Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff.

Andrew Charles Strelka, Melissa Lynn Dickey, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION

WILLIAM O. BERTELSMAN, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint (Doc. 19).

The Court held oral argument on this motion on Thursday, November 21, 2013. Edwin Kagin was present for the Plaintiffs. Melissa Dickey was present for the Defendant. Official Court Reporter LaCartha Pate recorded the proceedings. Thereafter, the Court took the motion under further advisement. Doc. 26, Minute Entry Order.

Subsequently, the Court was advised that on November 22, 2013, the U.S. District Court for Western District of Wisconsin issued an Opinion and Order on issues relevant to the controversy before the Court, and the Court ordered the parties to brief the applicability of the opinion to the instant case. Doc. 27, Order.

Having reviewed the written filings and heard from the parties, and being sufficiently advised, the Court hereby issues the following memorandum opinion and order.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs American Atheists, Inc., Atheists of Northern Indiana, Inc., and Atheist Archives of Kentucky, Inc. (collectively, the “Atheists” or “Plaintiffs”) seek injunctive and declaratory relief to enjoin the Defendant in his capacity as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) from enforcing certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (“I.R.C.”), which the Atheists assert are preferentially applied to churches and religious organizations. Doc. 1, Complaint, ¶ 1.

The Atheists assert that “I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) distinguishes between entities that are religious in nature, on the one hand, and those that are charitable, scientific, testing for the public safety, literary, educational, or dedicated to amateur athletics or the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, on the other.” Id. at ¶ 9. According to Plaintiffs, “ ‘Religious organizations' and ‘churches' are treated differently from all other organizations entitled to tax exemptions under I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) ”, and “under the IRS's application of I.R.C. § 501(c)(3), churches receive certain preferences that even religious organizations do not.” Id.

Although the Atheists do not specifically identify the statutes and regulations they attack in their complaint, Defendant's motion to dismiss and the Court's research has established that the following provisions of the I.R.C are those that the Atheists assert are discriminatorily enforced:

1. Churches are not required to file an application for recognition of tax-exempt status.

In order to receive exemption from federal income tax under I.R.C. § 501(c)(3), organizations must file Form 1023. 26 U.S.C. § 508(a) ; 26 C.F.R. § 1.508–1. However, churches and any other organization that is not a private foundation and has annual gross receipts less than $5000 are not required to file Form 1023. 26 U.S.C. § 508(c)(1). A non-church, religious organization (or any other organization) with annual gross receipts over $5000 is required to file Form 1023. 26 U.S.C. § 508(c)(1)(A)-(B).

2. Churches are not required to file an annual information return.

Generally, I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) organizations must file an annual informational tax return on Form 990 or 990–PF.¹ 26 U.S.C. § 6033(a)(1) ; 26 C.F.R. § 1.6033–2(a)(2)(i). However, exemptions for the informational return are granted to churches, the religious activities of a religious order, and any organization that is not a private foundation and has annual gross receipts less than $5000. 26 U.S.C. § 6033(a)(3)(A).

3. Ministers of the gospel are able to receive a parsonage allowance.

26 U.S.C. § 107(1) excludes the rental value of a home furnished as part the compensation of a “minister of the gospel” from his or her gross income. 26 U.S.C. § 107(2) excludes rental allowance paid as part of the compensation of a “minister of the gospel” from his or her gross income.²

4. Salaries of ministers of the gospel are exempted from income tax withholding and FICA taxes.

The I.R.C. provides an exception from the income tax withholding requirement and an exemption from the FICA tax for wages paid for services performed by a minister of the gospel in the exercise of his or her ministry. 26 U.S.C. §§ 1402(c)(4), 1402(e), 3121(b)(8), 3401(a)(9).

5. The IRS is required to follow specific procedures when examining a church.

I.R.C. § 7611 requires the IRS to follow specific procedures when conducting a “church tax inquiry” or a “church tax examination.” 26 U.S.C. § 7611. Generally, a “church tax inquiry” is a determination as to whether that entity meets the qualifications to be exempt from federal income tax. 26 U.S.C. § 7611(h). A “church tax examination” is an examination of a church's records or activities. 26 U.S.C. § 7611(h)(3).

The IRS may commence a church tax inquiry only if an appropriate high-level Treasury official reasonably believes, on the basis of facts and circumstances recorded in writing, that the church may not be exempt from tax or may be carrying on an unrelated trade or business or otherwise subject to tax. 26 U.S.C. § 7611(a)(2). The heightened requirements outlined in § 7611 only apply to churches and not religious organizations or other organizations.

The Atheists allege that the IRS's differing treatment of churches and other tax-exempt entities violates the Equal Protection laws of the Fifth Amendment, the First Amendment and the Religious Test Clause of Article VI, § 3 of the Constitution. Doc. 1, Complaint, ¶ 11. The Atheists claim that upon information and belief “a number of atheist organizations have tried to obtain IRS classification as religious organizations or churches under § 501(c)(3) or to otherwise obtain equal treatment,” and “most of those applications and attempts were rejected by the IRS.” Id. at ¶¶ 21–22.

The Atheists claim they “suffer from unconstitutional discrimination and coercion arising from their inability to satisfy the IRS test to gain classification to secure the same treatment as religious organizations or churches under I.R.C. § 501(c)(3).” Id. at ¶ 32. However, the Atheists admit that they have never sought recognition as a religious organization or church under § 501(c)(3). See Doc. 22, Pl. Response in Opp. to Mot. to Dismiss, pp. 2 n. 1, 4. Rather, the Atheists assert that it would violate their sincerely held believe to seek classification as a religious organization or church from the IRS.

As its form of relief, the Atheists request the Court issue a judgment “[d]eclaring that all Tax Code provisions treating religious organizations and churches differently than other 501(c)(3) entities are unconstitutional violations of the Equal Protection of the Laws required pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Religious Test Clause of Art. VI, § 3, and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of Constitution of the United States of America; [and e]njoining [the IRS] from continuing to allow preferential treatment of religious organizations and churches under § 501(c)(3).” Id. at pp. 12–13.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiffs Lack Standing

1. Lack of Injury

The Atheists lack Article III standing to assert their claims. Standing requires that “[a] plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984), arguably abrogated on other grounds by Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1377, 188 L.Ed.2d 392 (2014). The injury for standing purposes must be an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (citations and internal quotations omitted). Additionally, “[i]n order to satisfy prudential standing, the [Atheists'] claims must 1) assert their own legal rights and interests, 2) be more than a generalized grievance, and, 3) in statutory cases, fall within the zone of interests regulated by the statute in question.” Monroe Retail, Inc. v. RBS Citizens, N.A., 589 F.3d 274, 278 (6th Cir.2009) (citation and internal quotations omitted).

The Atheists argue that as a direct consequence of the IRS's allegedly discriminatory policies, they are injured by being forced “to (1) submit an application for exemption, (2) file Form 1023, or (3) pay the 501(c)(3) application fee that is up to $850,” which establishes their injury is concrete and particularized, and far from conjectural or hypothetical. Doc. 22, Pl. Response in Opp. to Mot. to Dismiss, p. 4.

The Atheists contend that they have not applied for exemption as a religious organization or a church because it would violate their sincerely held belief to seek such a classification. Doc. 1, Complaint, ¶ 36. Plaintiffs also assert seeking classification as a religious organization or church would be futile, as attempts by other atheist groups to do so have been rejected by the IRS.

Defendant, on the other hand, argues that the Atheists voluntarily choose to spend their time and money complying with the alleged discriminatory standards for tax-exempt organizations and their self-inflicted injury fails to rise to an injury in fact and is not traceable to Government action. See Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 1151–52, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013).

Plaintiffs alternatively argue that they need not “twist in the bureaucratic wind” to remedy their alleged injury-in-fact because Establishment Clause and...