Why would being an unincorporated association have any effect on tax status of a church?
In a message dated 03/11/09 15:55:44 Central Daylight Time, smkrie...@verizon.net writes: Marc and Marci - If a congregation registers under the Not for Profit Corporation law , does that thereby allow ecclesiastical decisions to be subject to approval by lay governance or review by the courts? Are we elevating form over substance?? Can the lay board of directors direct that the Rabbi of an Orthodox Jewish congregation allow a female cantor to officiate or that he hold Sabbath sevices on Sunday ?? I would submit not - Davis v Scher , 97 N.W.2d 137, 356 Mich. 291 (1959). What happens if on the other hand the Rabbi wamts to introduce these practices over board or membership opposition.? see,. Katz v Singerman 241 La. 103, 127 So.2d 515. (1960). Two additional notes- 1.Many of the cases in this area have courts straining to find a "property interest" and thereby granting jurisdiction to a secular court .. See PARK SLOPE JEWISH CENTER, ,v.CONGREGATION B'NAI JACOB, 90 NY2d 517, 686 N.E.2d 1330 (1997) . (fascinating procedural history) 2. Retaining unincorporated status may result in making the benefits of IRC Section 501 (c) (3) unavailable to the congregation. SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ. Krieger & Prager LLP 39 Broadway, Suite 920 New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 363-2900 Fax: (212) 363-2999 ----- Original Message ----- From: Douglas Laycock To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:19 PM Subject: NY Religious Corporations Law So that's the escape route. Makes sense that there had to be one. Quoting Marc Stern <mst...@ajcongress.org>: > In New York, a religious institution is generally permitted to > register under the secular not for profit corporation law. > > ________________________________ > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Friedman, > Howard M. > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:54 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: Connecticut bill > > > > To the extent that the entire NY Religious Corporations Law is > mandatory, as opposed to merely default provisions that apply in the > absence of contrary rules in the organization's charter or bylaws, I > think there are serious constitutional issues with very many of the > internal governance provisions. > > > > ************************************* > Howard M. Friedman > Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus > University of Toledo College of Law > Toledo, OH 43606-3390 > Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 > E-mail: howard.fried...@utoledo.edu > ************************************* > > ________________________________ > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of SAMUEL M. > KRIEGER > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:11 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Connecticut bill > > > > Just for the sake of perspective on the proposed Connecticut > legislation, I would welcome any comments on Section 200 of the > New York Religious Corporations Law (codified in Article 10 > applicable to "Other Denominations" - including Jewish Congregations > ) compared to sub- sections (e) and (h) of the proposed Connecticut > legislation. > > > > ------ > > > > "ยง 200. Control of trustees by corporate meetings; salaries of > ministers. > > > > A corporate meeting of an incorporated church, whose > trustees are elective as such, may give directions, not inconsistent > with law, as to the manner in which any of the temporal affairs of the > church shall be administered by the trustees thereof; and such > directions shall be followed by the trustees. The trustees of an > incorporated church to which this article is applicable, shall have no > power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister, or without > the consent of a corporate meeting, to incur debts beyond what is > necessary for the care of the property of the corporation; or to fix or > charge the time, nature or order of the public or social worship of such > church, except when such trustees are also the spiritual officers of > such church." (emphasis supplied) > -------------------- > > > > The provison has been in NY law in some form since 1813 and was > last amended in 1909 . > > > > > > SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ. > Krieger & Prager LLP > 39 Broadway > New York, NY 10006 > > Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713 _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
