CHURCH OF THE CHOSEN PEOPLE, ETC. v. United States

• Decision Date: 18 October 1982
• Docket Number: No. Civ. 4-81-311.,Civ. 4-81-311.
• Citation: 548 F. Supp. 1247
• Parties: CHURCH OF THE CHOSEN PEOPLE (NORTH AMERICAN PANARCHATE) Also Known as Demigod Socko Pantheon, Plaintiff, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

548 F. Supp. 1247

CHURCH OF THE CHOSEN PEOPLE (NORTH AMERICAN PANARCHATE) Also Known as Demigod Socko Pantheon, Plaintiff, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.

No. Civ. 4-81-311.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Fourth Division.

October 18, 1982.

Lynn M. Roberson, Robins, Zelle, Larson & Kaplan, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff.

Mary Frances Clark, Trial Atty., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER INCORPORATING FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT

MacLAUGHLIN, District Judge.

This is an action by plaintiff Church of the Chosen People (North American Panarchate) also known as Demigod Socko Pantheon for the refund of federal income taxes paid for the years 1976, 1977, and 1978.¹ The plaintiff seeks a refund in the amount of $472 on the basis that the plaintiff qualified as a tax exempt organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1), which provides for a de novo determination of the exemption issue. A trial before the Court was held on August 16 and 17, 1982. This memorandum constitutes the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).

FACTS

Plaintiff Demigod Socko Pantheon (DSP) was incorporated in Minnesota on August 31, 1976. DSP filed federal income tax returns for tax years 1976, 1977, and 1978, and paid taxes in the amounts of $45.60, $1.40, and $425.00 for the respective years. In April, 1979, DSP filed a claim for refund for each of the three years on the basis that it was a tax exempt organization. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) never issued a formal disallowance of these refund requests. The plaintiff commenced this suit on June 10, 1981. More than six months have elapsed since the filing of the refund requests. Thus, the Court has jurisdiction.² See Tate v. Knox, 131 F.Supp. 514, 516 (D.Minn.1955).

The plaintiff's articles of incorporation contain a list of several of the organization's purposes.³ According to Richard John Baker (Baker), an attorney for and Archon of the DSP,⁴ the plaintiff's primary purpose and activity is the preaching of a doctrine called The Gay Imperative. The plaintiff defines The Gay Imperative as "the philosophic fundamental whereby the Gods direct that ever increasing numbers of persons expand their affectional preferences to encompass loving Gay relationships to hasten their full development for the control of overbreeding, and to ensure the survival of the human species and the multitude of terrestrial ecologies." Exhibit 14, Attachment 1 at 1. Baker testified that "gay relationships" are positive, self-fulfilling emotional and physical bonds between two members of the same gender. Although Baker stressed the importance of the emotional bond, he stated that such relationships include physical relationships. A major goal of the doctrine is the control of "overbreeding" or population growth.

At trial Baker testified⁵ that The Gay Imperative includes the belief that there are three equally valid human pair-bonds: male-male, female-female, and male-female. According to Baker, each can be viewed as a leg of a triangle; all are necessary to the species. Baker stated that religions that the IRS views as mainstream promulgate doctrines that state only male-female relationships are valid in the eyes of God and that other relationships are perversions. In contrast, DSP promulgates doctrines affirming the validity of male-male bonds. Adherents to The Gay Imperative believe that only 10 percent of the population has to reproduce in order to be self-fulfilled; another 10 percent of the population needs a female-female bond for self-fulfillment; and another 10 percent of the population needs a male-male bond for self-fulfillment. According to this doctrine, the remaining 70 percent of the population can be persuaded to join religions advocating any of the three pair-bonds. Baker testified that individuals have a duty to develop "viewpoints" and "ideologies" to counterbalance mainstream or traditional religions. An often-stated goal of the plaintiff is the conversion of "breeders" to the plaintiff's beliefs and espoused lifestyle. See, e.g., Exhibit 5, Attachment 2 at 2.

The plaintiff's organization or structure is pyramidal. Archons occupy the highest governing positions in the DSP. Only Archons can be elected to serve in the corporate positions of president and secretary, but only members who are not Archons can be elected to serve as vice president and treasurer.⁶ According to Baker, Archons are divinely appointed and are not required to complete any formal training. During the period from 1975 to 1978, four individuals were Archons. Baker and J. Michael McConnell (McConnell) are the only Archons presently active in the DSP. Both testified at trial.⁷ The plaintiff's organizational structure includes other functionaries known as proselytes, demigods, and heroes. Baker testified that during the period at issue he was not sure whether anyone served as a functionary. Baker stated that one person may have served as a proselyte and another person may have served as a demigod. Functionaries, like the members and officials, are only required to take one vow, which is to preach The Gay Imperative to the "Chosen" and "breeders" alike.⁸

In addition to officers and functionaries, the plaintiff has members.⁹ The plaintiff presented conflicting evidence concerning the number of its members. In a letter to the IRS dated October 27, 1975, the plaintiff claimed to have 10 members. See Exhibit 3, Attachment 1 at 10. However, Baker testified that the plaintiff had no list of the members of the congregation. Baker also stated that the secretary of the DSP had not enrolled any members during the period at issue.

In addition to members, the plaintiff has, according to Baker, adherents who "identify" with the DSP and The Gay Imperative. The plaintiff maintains no record of the names or numbers of these adherents. Adherents are not required to attend any ceremonies, to participate in any instruction, or to read any publications. According to Baker, adherents are automatically trained by associating with members of the DSP.

The plaintiff possesses no outward characteristics that are analogous to those of other religions. The plaintiff has no published literature explaining its traditions. The plaintiff's doctrines are not formalized in any written equivalent of the Bible, Talmud, Koran, or Bhagavadgita. Nor does the plaintiff claim to have any oral literature reflecting its beliefs or history. During the years in question, the plaintiff conducted only two ceremonies. One of the ceremonies was a memorial to a gay victim; the other was the dedication of an archacy or subunit of the geographic area known as a Panarchate. The plaintiff held no regular religious services although it declared certain parts of an annual Gay Pride Week a "Festival of the Chosen." The plaintiff claims to have performed one marriage between two members of the same sex. The Minnesota Supreme Court has declared that such same sex "marriages" are not authorized and are in fact prohibited under Minnesota statutes. Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185, 186 (1971).

The plaintiff itself emphasizes the secular nature of its ideology. The plaintiff's sacerdotal functions are "all bodily functions normal to the adult human ..." Exhibit 3, Attachment 1 at 7. The plaintiff's secular nature is also revealed in its advertising. For example, the following advertisement appeared in the Minneapolis Tribune on June 18, 1977:

The Chosen. Dedicated, strong, growing. Religious explorations and a secular lifestyle for men and women who won't worship a god who oppresses Gays.

The Chosen preach The Gay Imperative, proselytizing Gay affections as a healthy and fulfilling personal option. We sanctify unions, commune sacramentally, deprogram guilts and inadequacies left over from repressive religious training, and have an active Youth Ministry. We fully expect our members to change the world.

Gay Pride Week is a traditional Festival of the Chosen, and this year our observances are expressly dedicated by the Archons as a Memorial to the Gay Victim. Join us in the Parade .... and maybe you'll discover you've been Chosen all along.

Exhibit 12 at 16 (emphasis added). Baker testified that the main activity of the plaintiff's adherents is preaching The Gay Imperative which can be done anywhere on the planet and encompasses all of daily life. This "preaching," according to Baker, involves attaining a state of consciousness that can be exhibited anywhere including walking down the street or at poker games. No words are required to "preach" the doctrine.

No clear distinction existed between the plaintiff's business affairs and those of Baker and McConnell. The plaintiff's income from donations and the sale of religious artifacts was used to pay the rent at 2929 South 40th Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota, in 1977. Baker and McConnell used the residence as their personal residence and only one room was occasionally used for church administrative matters. On a few occasions the residence was used for social gatherings by the plaintiff's adherents. The rent was not prorated to reflect a division between personal and church use. The plaintiff's revenues also were used to pay the utilities and telephone bills for the residence. In addition, the plaintiff paid for subscriptions to Time magazine, local newspapers, and other periodicals in Baker's and McConnell's names. The plaintiff's bank account was in Baker's name, not its own name.

DISCUSSION

The issue before the Court is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a refund for the years in question because it satisfied the requirements for a tax exempt organization, pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code...