Upozornenie: Prezeranie týchto stránok je určené len pre návštevníkov nad 18 rokov!
Zásady ochrany osobných údajov.
Používaním tohto webu súhlasíte s uchovávaním cookies, ktoré slúžia na poskytovanie služieb, nastavenie reklám a analýzu návštevnosti. OK, súhlasím









A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | CH | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington
 

Regan v. Taxation with Representation
Argued March 22, 1983
Decided May 23, 1983
Full case nameDonald T. Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington
Citations461 U.S. 540 (more)
103 S. Ct. 1997; 76 L. Ed. 2d 129; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 33; 51 U.S.L.W. 4583; 83-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9365; 51 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1294
Case history
Prior676 F.2d 715 (D.C. Cir. 1982); probable jurisdiction noted, 459 U.S. 819 (1982).
Holding
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code does not violate the First or Fifth Amendments.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by unanimous
ConcurrenceBlackmun, joined by Brennan, Marshall
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. I, V

Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540 (1983), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld lobbying restrictions imposed on tax-exempt non-profit corporations.[1]

Background

Internal Revenue Code

The case involved several provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954:

  • Section 501(c)(3) grants tax exemption to certain nonprofit organizations "no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation."[2]
  • Section 170(c)(2) permits taxpayers who contribute to § 501(c)(3) organizations to deduct the amount of their contributions on their federal income tax returns.[3]
  • Section 501(c)(4) grants tax-exempt status to certain nonprofit organizations but contributions to these organizations are not deductible.[4] 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(4) organizations, but not § 501(c)(3) organizations, are permitted to engage in substantial lobbying to advance their exempt purposes. 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(4) grants exemption to civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.

Facts

Taxation with Representation of Washington (TWR), a non-profit corporation organized to promote certain interests in the field of federal taxation, was formed to take over the operation of two other nonprofit organizations, one of which had tax-exempt status under § 501(c)(3) and the other under § 501(c)(4), applied for tax-exempt status under § 501(c)(3). The Internal Revenue Service denied the application under § 501(c)(3), because it appeared that a substantial part of the corporation's activities would consist of attempting to influence legislation, which is not permitted by § 501(c)(3).

Procedural history

TWR brought their initial challenge before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the United States. TWR challenged the prohibition against substantial lobbying as violative of the First Amendment and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, and sought declaratory judgment that it qualified for the exemption granted by § 501(c)(3), claiming that § 501(c)(3)'s prohibition against substantial lobbying is unconstitutional under the First Amendment by imposing an "unconstitutional burden" on the receipt of tax-deductible contributions, and is also unconstitutional under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because the Code permits taxpayers to deduct contributions to veterans' organizations that qualify for tax exemption under § 501(c)(19).

The District Court granted summary judgment against TWR. On appeal, the en banc United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, holding that while § 501(c)(3) did not violate the First Amendment, it did violate the Fifth Amendment's due process guarantees.[5] The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Secretary of the Treasury and the United States, challenged the decision of the D.C. Circuit.

Opinion of the Court

On appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed. In an opinion by Justice Rehnquist, a unanimous Court held:

(1) Congress was not required to provide appellant with public money with which it was to lobby; the prohibition against lobbying in § 501(c)(3) did not violate the First Amendment, since Congress, pursuant to § 501(c)(3), had not infringed on any First Amendment rights or regulated any First Amendment activity, and
(2) the prohibition against lobbying in § 501(c)(3) did not violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, even though veteran's organizations were allowed under § 501(c)(19) to carry on substantial lobbying and still qualify to receive tax deductible contributions, since qualified veteran's organizations were entitled to receive tax deductible contributions regardless of the content of the speech they used, and it was not irrational for Congress to decide that taxpayers should not subsidize the lobbying of tax exempt charities, or to decide that although it would not subsidize substantial lobbying by charities in general, it would subsidize the lobbying of veterans' organizations. The Court concluded that § 501(c)(3) did not employ any suspect classification, and the lower appellate court erred in applying strict scrutiny to it. The Court concluded that Congress could have granted funds to an organization, but conditioned the grant by providing that none of the money received from congress be used to lobby state legislatures.

Concurrence

Justice Blackmun, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, concurred. While he joined the Court's opinion, the holding that § 501(c)(3) did not violate the First Amendment depended entirely on the Court's necessary assumption that the Internal Revenue Service, in enforcing the lobbying restrictions, required an organization qualified under § 501(c)(3), and its lobbying affiliate with tax exempt status under § 501(c)(4), only to be separately incorporated and to keep records adequate to show that the tax deductible contributions were not used to pay for lobbying.

See also

References

  1. ^ Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540 (1983). Public domain This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. ^ 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3).
  3. ^ 26 U.S.C. § 170(c)(2).
  4. ^ 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(4).
  5. ^ Taxation with Representation of Washington v. Regan, 676 F.2d 715 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

External links

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Regan_v._Taxation_with_Representation_of_Washington
>Text je dostupný pod licencí Creative Commons Uveďte autora – Zachovejte licenci, případně za dalších podmínek. Podrobnosti naleznete na stránce Podmínky užití.




Hladanie1.

Supreme Court of the United States
Donald T. Regan
United States Reports
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 461
Lawyers' Edition
U.S. LEXIS
CCH (company)
F.2d
D.C. Cir.
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 459
United States Reports
Internal Revenue Code
Warren E. Burger
William J. Brennan Jr.
Byron White
Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist
John Paul Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
United States Supreme Court
Internal Revenue Code
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Summary judgment
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
William Rehnquist
Harry Blackmun
William J. Brennan, Jr.
Thurgood Marshall
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 461
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 461
United States Reports
Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States
Internal Revenue Code
Internal Revenue Code
Internal Revenue Code
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 461
United States Reports
Template:US1stAmendment
Template talk:US1stAmendment
Special:EditPage/Template:US1stAmendment
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Establishment Clause
Marsh v. Chambers
Lynch v. Donnelly
Board of Trustees of Scarsdale v. McCreary
County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union
Van Orden v. Perry
McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union
Pleasant Grove City v. Summum
Salazar v. Buono
Town of Greece v. Galloway
American Legion v. American Humanist Association
Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York
Bob Jones University v. United States
Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc.
Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos
Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock
City of Boerne v. Flores
Cutter v. Wilkinson
Everson v. Board of Education
Flast v. Cohen
Lemon v. Kurtzman
Tilton v. Richardson
Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State
Mueller v. Allen
Aguilar v. Felton
Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind
Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District
Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet
Agostini v. Felton
Mitchell v. Helms
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
Carson v. Makin
McCollum v. Board of Education
Zorach v. Clauson
Engel v. Vitale
Abington School District v. Schempp
Epperson v. Arkansas
Stone v. Graham
Wallace v. Jaffree
Edwards v. Aguillard
Westside Community Board of Education v. Mergens
Lee v. Weisman
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District
Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District
Capitol Square Review & Advisory Board v. Pinette
Rosenberger v. University of Virginia
Good News Club v. Milford Central School
Shurtleff v. City of Boston
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District
Watson v. Jones
United States v. Ballard
Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church
Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States of America & Canada v. Milivojevich
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano
Flast v. Cohen
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State
Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation
Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn
McGowan v. Maryland
Braunfeld v. Brown
Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc.
Torcaso v. Watkins
McDaniel v. Paty
Harris v. McRae
Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc.
Bowen v. Kendrick
Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet
Trump v. Hawaii
Free Exercise Clause
Reynolds v. United States
Davis v. Beason
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Minersville School District v. Gobitis
Jamison v. Texas
Murdock v. Pennsylvania
United States v. Ballard
Tucker v. Texas
Niemotko v. Maryland
Kunz v. New York
Fowler v. Rhode Island
Braunfeld v. Brown
Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Massachusetts, Inc.
Torcaso v. Watkins
Sherbert v. Verner
Cruz v. Beto
Wisconsin v. Yoder
McDaniel v. Paty
Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division
United States v. Lee (1982)
Bob Jones University v. United States
Bowen v. Roy
Goldman v. Weinberger
O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz
Employment Division v. Smith
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah
Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo
Tandon v. Newsom
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District
Locke v. Davey
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
Carson v. Makin
Ministerial exception
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Zubik v. Burwell
Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania
Tanzin v. Tanvir
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
Holt v. Hobbs
Ramirez v. Collier
Freedom of speech in the United States
Portal:Freedom of speech
Sedition
Alien and Sedition Acts
Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten
Schenck v. United States
Debs v. United States
Abrams v. United States
Gitlow v. New York
Whitney v. California
Fiske v. Kansas
Dennis v. United States
Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board
Yates v. United States
Clear and present danger
Bond v. Floyd
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Imminent lawless action
Hess v. Indiana
Libel
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
United States v. Alvarez
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus
Fighting words
Heckler's veto
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
Terminiello v. City of Chicago
Feiner v. New York
Gregory v. City of Chicago
Cohen v. California
National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul
Snyder v. Phelps
True threat
Watts v. United States
Virginia v. Black
Elonis v. United States
Counterman v. Colorado
Obscenity
Rosen v. United States
United States v. One Book Called Ulysses
Roth v. United States
One, Inc. v. Olesen
Smith v. California
Marcus v. Search Warrant
MANual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day
Jacobellis v. Ohio
Quantity of Books v. Kansas
Ginzburg v. United States
Memoirs v. Massachusetts
Redrup v. New York
Ginsberg v. New York
Stanley v. Georgia
United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs
Kois v. Wisconsin
Miller v. California
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton
United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film
Jenkins v. Georgia
Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville
Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc.
American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut
People v. Freeman
United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union
United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc.
City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc.
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union
United States v. American Library Ass'n
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union#Second Opinion of the Court
Nitke v. Gonzales
United States v. Williams (2008)
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland
United States v. Kilbride
United States v. Stevens
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2012)
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
New York v. Ferber
Osborne v. Ohio
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
United States v. Hansen
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar
Smith v. Goguen
Board of Airport Commissioners of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc.
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky
Symbolic speech
Stromberg v. California
United States v. O'Brien
Cohen v. California
Spence v. Washington
Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence
Dallas v. Stanglin
Texas v. Johnson
United States v. Eichman
Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc.
City of Erie v. Pap's A. M.
Virginia v. Black
Lamont v. Postmaster General
Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego
Boos v. Barry
Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Crime Victims Board
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul
Reed v. Town of Gilbert
Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc.
City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC
Schneider v. New Jersey
Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.
City of Ladue v. Gilleo
Packingham v. North Carolina
Public forum
Davis v. Massachusetts
Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization
Thornhill v. Alabama
Martin v. City of Struthers
Niemotko v. Maryland
Edwards v. South Carolina
Cox v. Louisiana
Brown v. Louisiana
Adderley v. Florida
Carroll v. Town of Princess Anne
Coates v. City of Cincinnati
Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe
Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence
Frisby v. Schultz
Ward v. Rock Against Racism
Burson v. Freeman
Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc.
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York
Hill v. Colorado
McCullen v. Coakley
Widmar v. Vincent
Rosenberger v. University of Virginia
Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski
Lehman v. Shaker Heights
Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky
Minersville School District v. Gobitis
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo
Wooley v. Maynard
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston
Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc.
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
Moody v. NetChoice, LLC
Updating...x




Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok.
Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.