Legal authority in support of j2j existence and activities:

Bob Jones University v. U.S., 461 U.S. 574, 103 S.Ct. 2017, 76 L.Ed.2d 157(1983);
Walz v. Tax Commission of City of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 90 S.Ct. 1409, 25 L.Ed.2d 697(1970);
Holy Trinity Church v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457, 465-472, 12 S. Ct. 511, 514-516, 36 L. Ed. 226 (1892);

 

69 A.L.R. 2d 871 (Originally published in 1960)

When is corporation, community chest, fund, foundation, or club "organized and operated exclusively" for charitable or other exempt purposes under Internal Revenue Code

§ 12. Attempting to influence legislators or voters
    But the courts, including the Tax Court, later recognized that if the legislative activity was a necessary incident to an exempt activity, or if the legislative activity was so limited in scope that it could not be deemed a substantial part of its activities within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code, the organization was operated exclusively for exempt purposes in spite of the effort to secure the passage of legislation. Slee v Commissioner (1930, CA2) 42 F2d 184, 72 ALR 400; Seasongood v Commissioner (1955, CA6) 227 F2d 907, revg 22 T Ct 671 (A); Old Colony Trust Co. v Welch (1938, DC Mass) 25 F Supp 45; Liberty Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v United States (1954, DC Ky) 122 F Supp 759; Huntington Nat. Bank v Commissioner (1949) 13 T Ct 760 (A); Davis v Commissioner (1954) 22 T Ct 1091 (A).

    An organization which has a charitable purpose does not cease to be exclusively charitable merely because it seeks legislative relief with respect to a matter which affects its charitable activities. "A charity may need a special charter allowing it to receive larger gifts than the general laws allow. It would be strained to say that for this reason it became less exclusively charitable, though much might have to be done to convince legislators. A society to prevent cruelty to children, or animals, needs the positive support of law to accomplish its ends. It must have power to coerce parents and owners, and it does not lose its character when it seeks to strengthen its arm. A state university is constantly trying to get appropriations from the Legislature; for all that, it seems to us still an exclusively educational institution…All such activities are mediate to the primary purpose, and would not, we should think, unclass the promoters. The agitation is ancillary to the end in chief, which remains the exclusive purpose of the association." Slee v Commissioner (1930, CA2) 42 F2d 184, 72 ALR 400.

    The New England Anti-Vivisection Society was organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes where it was organized to engage in systematic scientific research relative to the practice of vivisection, to oppose painful experiments upon living animals, and to educate the public and promote legislation against such experimentation. Old Colony Trust Co. v Welch (1938, DC Mass) 25 F Supp 45. With respect to the occasional promotion of legislation, the court said: "The circumstances of the society favoring the passage of the legislation described above did not in any way place the society outside the provisions of the Act. This legislation was merely incidental to carrying out the purposes and accomplishing the purposes of the society. The help of the Legislature was necessary to enable it to advance its aims…This incidental activity does not militate against the contention that this organization was 'exclusively' organized and operated for charitable purposes."   
    
    The Kentucky Welfare Association was held to have been organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes, in Davis v Commissioner (1954) 22 T Ct 1091 (A), where it appeared that it was planned as a statewide body to investigate social welfare conditions, to determine those which called for relief, and to plan the best way to satisfy those needs through other organizations; and that it had 18 committees, of which one was a legislative committee. The legislative committee occasionally contacted the governor and members of the committees of the legislature concerning social welfare problems. The association occasionally passed resolutions commending particular bills enacted for social benefit or urging the passage of bills to alleviate conditions which the association was trying to remedy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some courts have held that if it is a religious or educational purpose to teach a religious, social, or economic principle to individuals, the teaching of the same principle to legislators is likewise a religious or educational purpose. Girard Trust Co. v Commissioner (1941, CA3) 122 F2d 108, 138 ALR 448, revg 41 BTA 157; International Reform Federation v District Unemployment Comp. Board (1942) 76 App DC 282, 131 F2d 337, cert den 317 US 693, 87 L ed 555, 63 S Ct 324. See National Campaign Committee v Rogan (1945, DC Cal) 69 F Supp 679, infra. And see Old Colony Trust Co. v Welch (1938, DC Mass) 25 F Supp 45, infra.

    In International Reform Federation v District Unemployment Comp. Board (1942) 76 App DC 282, 131 F2d 337, cert den 317 US 693, 87 L ed 555, 63 S Ct 324, the objects of incorporating the plaintiff, as stated in its constitution, were "the promotion of those reforms on which the churches sociologically agree while theologically differing, such as the enactment and enforcement of laws prohibiting the alcoholic liquor traffic, the white slave traffic, harmful drugs and kindred evils…;the defense of the Sabbath and purity; the suppression of gambling and political corruption." It boasted of having written 36 bills on moral subjects for submission to state legislatures, and 18 bills had been passed by Congress. The court said that where legislative activity supports a purpose that some think to be in the public interest, the court is not concerned with its wisdom; that in law there is no difference between the education of individuals and the education of legislators; and that activities in educating legislators did not cause plaintiff to lose its exemption as a charitable and educational organization. A contrary conclusion had been reached concerning the International Reform Federation in Appeal of Fales (1927) 9 BTA 828.

    In Girard Trust Co. v Commissioner (1941, CA3) 122 F2d 108, 138 ALR 448, revg 41 BTA 157, the testatrix bequeathed money to the Board of Temperance, Prohibition, and Public Morals of the Methodist Episcopal Church. This board had been incorporated by order of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, which conference was the governing body of the church. The objects stated in the certificate of incorporation were "to promote the cause of temperance by every legitimate means; to prevent the improper use of drugs and narcotics; to render aid to such causes as in the judgment of the board of trustees, tend to advance the public welfare." The General Conference first met in 1784; in its first general rules there were statements dealing with and condemning the liquor traffic; and since 1784 the church had regarded personal practices of its members with regard to intoxicating liquors as an inherent part of its religious practices. The Board, prior to the death of the testatrix in 1933, had participated actively in opposing political candidates who favored the repeal of prohibition, and in opposing a constitutional amendment and legislation permitting the sale of intoxicating liquor. The court apparently thought that the propaganda efforts were a permissible religious activity in furtherance of the religious principles of the organization in question, and it said: "Religion includes a way of life as well as beliefs upon the nature of the world…The step from acceptance by the believer to his seeking to influence others in the same direction is a perfectly natural one, and it is found in countless religious groups. The next step, equally natural, is to secure the sanction of organized society for or against certain outward practices thought to be essential.…The advocacy of such regulation before party committees and legislative bodies is a part of the achievement of the desired result in a democracy."
________________________________
    Nevertheless, in International Reform Federation v District Unemployment Comp. Board (1942) 76 App DC 282, 131 F2d 337, cert den 317 US 693, 87 L ed 555, 63 S Ct 324, the court said: "Undoubtedly some cases may be found sustaining the view that organizations seeking changes of law are engaged in political activity and therefore neither charitable nor educational, whatever the motive. The ground for such holdings is that the court has no means of judging whether a proposed change in the law will or will not be for the public benefit. But this reasoning is not convincing, and we prefer the more modern view that so long as the purpose can be thought by some to be in the public interest, the court is not concerned with its wisdom."  And the court held that an antisaloon and antivice organization was exempt in spite of an extensive legislative program.

    And it was held in Girard Trust Co. v Commissioner (1941, CA3) 122 F2d 108, 138 ALR 448, revg 41 BTA 157, supra, that a bequest to the Methodist Board of Temperance, Prohibition, and Public Morals was deductible in spite of its vigorous opposition to the liquor traffic. Obviously, the beneficiary was engaged in advocating a controversial view, but this was held not to affect the right to an exemption.