Lead Stories

The Internal Revenue Service has joined with two Evangelical churches in Texas and the National Association of Religious Broadcasters in proposing a settlement of their litigation to overturn the so-called “Johnson Amendment” to the Tax Code that prohibits churches and other charities from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office.  (See Nonprofit Issues^®, Vol. XXXIV, No. 4)

Directors of a Minnesota nonprofit corporation who were sued by another director for defamation are immune from liability under the state’s volunteer immunity law, an appellate court in Minnesota has ruled.  The director’s claim for vicarious liability of the corporation has also been denied because the organization had already dissolved.

The U.S. Supreme Court, as expected, has reversed a decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and held that the Catholic Charities Bureau and four affiliates in Superior WI qualify for the religious exemption to the state unemployment compensation law.  In a unanimous decision, the Court had held that the state court’s interpretation of the rule does not survive strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has clarified its standard for determining whether a charity should lose its state charitable tax exemption for violating its requirement to operate “entirely free” from private profit motive.  It has held that an executive compensation bonus based in part on the economic results of a hospital is permissible where the total compensation is reasonable and is within the fair market value when compared to similar executives in similar institutions.

The National Council of Nonprofits, which has been in the forefront of challenging the “pauses” and cutbacks in federal contracts for nonprofit organizations under the Trump Administration, has warned of numerous threats to nonprofits in the Tax Bill being considered by the House of Representatives.  It has urged nonprofits to contact their legislators to oppose new taxes and to support new incentives for charitable giving.

Whether a local land use regulation imposes a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion is a question of law for the court and not a question of fact for a jury, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held.  It has joined the reasoning of the First and Sixth Circuits in determining that the decision-maker under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) is the court and not the jury.