Mastering Meeting Basics

A five-part series providing simple and straightforward guidance to church leaders.

Church business meetings take place any time church members, boards, or committees get together to conduct official church business—from annual member meetings to weekly or periodic board or committee meetings where votes are taken and decisions are made.

This five-part article series is designed to provide simple and straightforward guidance to church leaders on parliamentary procedure and best practices for business meetings.

Sarah E. Merkle is a professional parliamentarian and presiding officer. One of five lawyers worldwide to have earned the credentials Certified Professional Parliamentarian-Teacher (CPP-T) and Professional Registered Parliamentarian (PRP), she helps boards, associations, corporations, and public bodies navigate rules applicable to governance and business meetings.

Part 5 of 5

Running a Virtual Church Business Meeting

A quick guide to conducting church business virtually.

Prior to March 2020, virtual business meetings were rare or nonexistent for most churches. Many churches had never even entertained options for including members virtually in a business meeting hosted online. And then COVID-19 changed the world. Virtual church business meetings became a necessity—even commonplace.

Now, hybrid meetings—where some members attend in person and others attend virtually—are the norm in many places. But what are the elements of a properly run, fully virtual or hybrid meeting? How can you be sure that a quorum is present, that members are properly recognized, and that votes are accurately counted?

This article will tackle these and other questions with the goal of ensuring your meetings with members attending virtually follow proper parliamentary procedure.

Are virtual business meetings a permissible option for your church?

The first step to holding a proper virtual church business meeting is to determine whether your church is permitted to conduct business virtually. The default rule under Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, the rule book that many churches follow, is that a church is not permitted to hold a virtual business meeting unless the state law that applies to that church or the bylaws of that church explicitly allow such meetings.

To determine this permissibility, look first in your church’s bylaws for provisions that address telephonic meetings, electronic meetings, or virtual meetings. Sometimes bylaws will state that a church can hold meetings by any method that allows all participants or members to hear each other simultaneously. If this type of provision exists, your church can permissibly hold a virtual business meeting.

If there is nothing in the church bylaws regarding virtual meetings, the next step is to check the state law that applies to your church to see if it includes any blanket provisions allowing organizations to meet virtually even without bylaws language to that effect.

Check state laws and church bylaws

If neither state law nor your church’s bylaws allow for virtual business meetings, holding one and taking action at it is technically impermissible and definitely inadvisable.

If a church needs to take action that simply cannot wait for an in-person meeting, it can hold a virtual business meeting and then ask the members to ratify the action taken at a later, in-person meeting. But this procedure is risky since the church is under no obligation to sanction the decisions made at the virtual meeting.

The best course is to amend your church’s bylaws to include a provision that allows virtual attendance and participation at any business meetings to be held by the members or any smaller group (e.g., deacons, elders, committees, and so on).

How does a church confirm that a quorum is present at a virtual business meeting?

A quorum is the minimum number of members that must be present for an organization to conduct business. This term applies to small boards and committees, as well as general members meetings. For a business meeting of all members, that number, usually expressed as a percentage, should be specified in your church’s bylaws. If your church’s bylaws do not state a quorum requirement, follow the requirement found in the state law that applies to your church.

Guidelines for determining a quorum

For a general members business meeting, an accurate roll of church members—or as close to an accurate roll as possible—is the place to start when determining whether a quorum is present. Follow these guidelines:

    Step one:

    Calculate the number needed for a quorum by multiplying the decimal version of the percentage stated in your bylaws or state law by the total number of church members on the most-current membership roll.For example, if the current membership roll includes 150 members, and the bylaws state a quorum requirement of 20 percent, multiply .20 times 150. A quorum for meetings would need to be a minimum of 30 members present either in person or virtually.

    Step two:

    Organize the roll alphabetically by last name and include the name of each individual member, even if one household includes multiple members.

    Step three:

    Use a virtual meeting software that allows members to be placed in a waiting room before entering the meeting, and then ask members in the waiting room to change their screen name to be their full name plus the name of the individuals in the household that are attending the meeting through that specific device.For example, if a husband and wife are viewing and participating in the meeting together using the same computer, one of their names should be the primary screen name and the name of the spouse should be in parentheses, like this: Larry Long-Time Member (Lisa). This format indicates to the staff helping with the meeting that there are two members present in that household and that both members should be counted to determine whether a quorum is present.

    Even if your church isn’t concerned about meeting its quorum requirements, using this format to identify the individuals present at the meeting is helpful for recognizing members and facilitating discussion.

    Step four:

    At the announced start time of the meeting, those confirming the presence of a quorum should total the members present in person and those participating virtually, then verify the quorum requirement is met before starting the meeting.

    A similar process would be followed for determining that a quorum is present for a small group, committee, or board meeting.

    How does a church facilitate discussion at a virtual business meeting?

    Discussion in a virtual business meeting can mirror what might happen in person but cannot replicate or replace it.

    Meeting in person is still the best way to allow for as effective and inclusive of a discussion as possible on a topic. Virtual meetings may allow for greater attendance, but more people at a meeting does not necessarily equal more participation, and a virtual environment often slows the democratic process such that fewer total members can speak in a given time frame.

    When a motion is made and the chairperson asks for discussion, it is helpful to use the reaction buttons within virtual meeting software to seek recognition.

    Depending on the size of the meeting and the nature of the topics being discussed, the chairperson could simply ask members who want to speak to select the software’s “raised hand” icon. The chairperson could also provide more options for participation by asking members to select specific icons to indicate that they want to speak in favor or in opposition, or to indicate that they want to make a motion that has priority (such as a point of order).

    Caution. Allowing members to engage in discussion on an item of business through a software’s chat feature is undesirable because that format removes all limits on the amount of time or number of times that one member can speak on a topic and, therefore, violates one of the most fundamental principles of parliamentary law—that each member has an equal right to speak.

    How does a church facilitate voting at a virtual business meeting?

    When determining how to allow virtual voting, the first question to ask is whether both members and nonmembers will attend the meeting. If only members will attend, voting can likely be accomplished through the virtual meeting software that you are using.

    The next question to ask is whether votes must be secret (i.e., by ballot). Votes are not required to be secret unless the bylaws specify this requirement or unless a vote is taken to require that all or certain types of votes be conducted by ballot.

    If only members are voting and votes do not need to be taken by ballot, you can use the raised hand button in the virtual meeting software to take a vote. On a noncontroversial matter, a chairperson may be able to determine whether a motion is adopted simply by eyeballing the number of hands raised just as would occur if the members were meeting in person.

    On a closer vote, though, the chairperson may need to count the raised hands to determine the result. If this is the case, and you have a large group, you may want to consider using the software’s polling feature, which automatically counts the votes. The difficulty with that option is that it does not account for multiple members who are attending under one login. In this case, manual counting would be necessary.

    If nonmembers are virtually attending a meeting, there are two main options for taking a vote and ensuring that the non-members are not voting.

    Option 1. Transfer all nonmembers to a “breakout room” within the software while the members vote in the main meeting room. Once the voting is completed, you can move the nonmembers back to the main meeting room. This may sound complicated, but it can be done efficiently with a little practice, preparation, and knowledgeable staff.

    Option 2. Use a voting software separate from the virtual meeting software and provide that voting link by email to the members in virtual attendance at the meeting. If your bylaws require secret ballot voting, it would be important to select software that allows for that option.

    The choice to utilize hybrid or virtual formats

    Though many churches have now become very comfortable operating in the virtual space, it is important to realize that meeting logistics become much more complicated when a hybrid meeting format is used. When attendees are present both virtually and in person, leadership will face many more challenges than they would deal with in an all-virtual or all-in-person meeting.

    Something intangible is lost by meeting virtually. Though the same decisions can be made, collaboration is minimized, the informal conversations in the hallways disappear, and the “feel” of the group is different when some or all of the participants are not in one physical space together. Additionally, transacting the business in virtual and hybrid meetings takes longer.

    In short, physical presence matters. Allowing virtual participation, even with the intent of greater member attendance, is not necessarily better, and leaders should give serious thought to the details of quorum and discussion before allowing a hybrid format.

    Return to the series homepage.

    For related infographics and downloadable resources from the author, visit The Law of Order blog at civility.co.

    Sarah E. Merkle is a professional parliamentarian and presiding officer. One of five lawyers worldwide to have earned the credentials Certified Professional Parliamentarian-Teacher (CPP-T) and Professional Registered Parliamentarian (PRP), she helps boards, associations, corporations, and public bodies navigate rules applicable to governance and business meetings.

    Part 4 of 5

    Taking Minutes at a Church Business Meeting

    How to properly document the official actions taken at a meeting.

    If you’re reading this article, you’ve likely found yourself in a position where you need an explanation of business meeting minutes.

    That’s where this article will come in handy. Here you’ll find answers to four common questions related to taking minutes.

    What are business meeting minutes and why do they matter?

    Business meeting minutes are the official record of a group’s action. Taking minutes is important for at least two reasons.

    First, the law expects that organizations will keep an official record of the proceedings of a group’s members, committees, and governing bodies.

    The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires tax-exempt organizations that file a Form 990 to verify that, as an organization, they have documented their actions. Even though the IRS does not require churches to file a Form 990, state nonprofit laws often include a requirement that nonprofit organizations located in that state keep an official record of actions taken.

    Second, and arguably more important on a practical level, properly taken minutes eliminate confusion and disagreement about what occurred at a meeting.

    Ask most church members what occurred at a business meeting and the odds are low that they will remember the actions taken with any precision. They may remember topics discussed and comments made, especially if there was any controversy, but their memory of the wording of motions made and adopted will not be reliable. Carefully taken minutes provide clarity when a member cannot remember what happened.

    Who should take business meeting minutes?

    In general, it is important to have a designated minutes-taker. Most commonly, this responsibility falls to the individual elected or appointed to the office of secretary, and this person may be different than the individual employed as the church secretary.

    The minutes-taker has two important duties: (1) to ensure the minutes actually get taken, and (2) to ensure that the minutes are stored in a designated place that’s easily accessed by those who need them now and in the future.

    So, if achieving these goals means that someone other than the elected or appointed secretary takes the minutes, that is completely allowable. It is better to go this route than to have no minutes taken at all or to be unable to find them later.

    What should business meeting minutes include?

    Very simply, business meeting minutes should include a record of what was done, not what was said. In other words, minutes should include a record of the actions taken on various items of business, but they need not (and should not) include a record of which individuals discussed those items of business or what those individuals said.

    Even with the best of intentions, any attempt to summarize the comments made tends to result in inaccuracies or biased presentation. If there’s a reason for the church to have a record of the discussion on various items, the best course of action is to hire a court reporter so that you have a reliable transcript.

    What to include:

    If you are the person charged with taking minutes, the first part of the record should include a paragraph containing the following information:

    • the type of meeting (e.g., regular, special, continued);
    • the name of the group that is meeting;
    • the date, time, and place of the meeting;
    • an acknowledgement that the person in charge of the group (e.g., chairman, president, pastor) and the secretary were present; and
    • an acknowledgement that a quorum was present, and in a smaller group (a dozen or fewer), a list of the members who were present.

    Here’s an example:

    A regular meeting of the Deacon Board of the One and Only Church was held on January 15, 2022, at 7 p.m. at the church building. Chairman Smith and Secretary Brown were present. A quorum was present.

    After the opening paragraph, the minutes should follow the same order as the meeting agenda and should contain a separate paragraph for each item on the agenda.

    • If the agenda item is a report, the minutes can state under the report heading that a certain individual presented a report.
    • If the agenda item results in a main motion or several, the minutes should state the final wording of the motion as stated just before the vote, and then note whether the motion was adopted, defeated, or otherwise disposed of (e.g., referred to a committee or tabled).
    • If the motion was amended before it was put to a vote, the minutes can say as much, but they only need to state the final wording of the motion and do not need to include all the iterations that occurred from the time the motion was initially proposed until the vote. It is generally wise to include the name of the individual who made the motion in the minutes, but there’s no need to include the name of the person who seconded it.

    Here’s an example of an action recorded in meeting minutes:

    After presenting a report on the status of the church property, Deacon Dave, Chairman of the Building Committee, moved on behalf of the Building Committee that the church request proposals from three architecture firms for the design of a new addition to the sanctuary. The motion was adopted as amended.

    How are business meeting minutes approved or corrected?

    Minutes become the official record of a group’s actions when that group approves them. Typically, minutes are presented for approval at the next regular meeting after they were taken, and they are circulated to the group in a reasonable amount of time before the meeting so that the members can review them ahead of the meeting if they choose to do so.

    At the meeting where the minutes are presented for approval, there’s generally no need to read them aloud to the group unless someone specifically requests that they be read. Instead, the chairperson should simply ask, “Are there any corrections to the minutes from the January 15, 2022, meeting as distributed?” If there is no response after a brief pause (three to five seconds), the chairperson should say, “Hearing no corrections, the minutes are approved as distributed.”

    If there’s a correction to fix the minutes so that they accurately reflect what occurred during the previous meeting, the chairperson should ask if there is any objection to that correction. If not, the chairperson should state that the correction will be incorporated into the circulated draft.

    As long as any requested correction is truly that—meaning, it is an adjustment that fixes the minutes so that they are an accurate reflection of what occurred during the meeting—then, objections to that correction should be rare. But if there is disagreement, the group should take a vote on the proper wording.

    Note.

    It is important to remember that making a correction to the minutes is not a way to change what occurred during the meeting where the minutes were taken. What happened at the meeting is in the past, and changing the action taken there can happen only if the group takes a vote to that effect. Approving the minutes is simply a way to confirm that the record of what happened is accurate.

    Return to the series homepage.

    For related infographics and downloadable resources from the author, visit The Law of Order blog at civility.co.

    Sarah E. Merkle is a professional parliamentarian and presiding officer. One of five lawyers worldwide to have earned the credentials Certified Professional Parliamentarian-Teacher (CPP-T) and Professional Registered Parliamentarian (PRP), she helps boards, associations, corporations, and public bodies navigate rules applicable to governance and business meetings.

    Part 3 of 5

    Voting at a Church Business Meeting

    Four primary methods of voting that members and leaders should understand.

    Whether you’re casting a vote, taking a vote, or calculating a vote at a church business meeting, it is valuable for both members and leaders to understand the voting process and feel confident about how the result of a vote is determined.

    To equip you with the skills needed to take and count a valid vote, this article will explain the four primary voting methods and define three important terms.

    What are the different methods of taking a vote?

    There are four primary methods for taking a vote: general consent, voice, raised hand or standing, and ballot. No one voting method is inherently better than another although some tend to work better than others in certain circumstances.

    First, it is important to understand that no vote must be counted or be secret unless a group has decided that a count or a secret ballot should be used for a specific vote or category of votes.

    • For example, a church’s bylaws may include a provision that requires all elections to be conducted by ballot. If so, all election votes will necessarily be counted and secret, even if only one person is running.
    • Or, a church may decide at a business meeting that it wants (or needs) a record of the number of votes in favor of or opposed to a specific motion rather than simply a record of whether the motion passed or failed.In that case, the members would need to take a vote directing that the vote on the substantive motion be counted. Unless the members give that type of directive, votes do not need to be counted, even if they are taking a vote by raised hand or by standing.

    The rationale here is that counting votes takes time, and a group’s time shouldn’t be used to count votes unless the group has agreed to it.

    Here, then, are the primary methods for voting.

    Voting Method #1: General or unanimous consent vote

    A general consent or unanimous consent vote is a vote used for decision-making on noncontroversial matters. The goal of taking a vote by unanimous consent is efficiency. This type of vote skips the discussion portion of the motions process and eliminates the need for the chairperson to say, “All those in favor. … All those opposed. …” Instead, the chairperson can simply ask if there are any objections to the action proposed by the motion.

    For example, if the proposed action is approval of the meeting agenda, the chairperson would ask, “Are there any objections to approving the meeting agenda as distributed?”

    After pausing briefly (three to five seconds) to listen for any objections, the chairperson would then say, “Hearing none, the agenda is approved as distributed,” and would move to the next item of business. If there is an objection, the chairperson would say, “There is an objection,” and would move to the discussion portion of the motions process as described here.

    Voting Method #2: Voice vote

    A voice vote asks members to state whether they are in favor of or opposed to a motion by saying “aye” or “no.” When taking this type of vote, the chairperson determines the winner by listening to which side is louder.

    Sometimes, there is need for clarification of the results of this type of vote.

    • If the result is not clear to the chairperson, he or she can retake the vote by asking the members to raise their hands or stand (the next voting method listed in this article). If necessary, the chairperson can take a count of the vote.
    • If the result is clear to the chairperson but not to one or more of the members, a member can call out, “Division,” which is the parliamentary procedure term for requesting that the chairperson retake the vote by another method that more clearly indicates the result.

    This scenario is not uncommon, especially in a large group, because an individual may be sitting in a section of the room in which the side (ayes or noes) that is louder differs from the side that is louder overall.

    As discussed above, calling out “Division” does not require a counted vote—a raised hand or standing vote can clarify the result.

    Voting Method #3: Raised hand or standing vote

    A raised hand or standing vote is a good way to take a vote if the results are too close to call through a voice vote, or if a counted vote is needed or required. This is also a helpful method for taking votes when individuals with voting privileges are seated together with individuals who do not have voting privileges.

    For example, some churches allow visitors or regular attenders to stay for business meetings or may allow families to attend business meetings even if not all of them are members. Taking a voice vote in this type of setting may not allow for confidence in the result, especially if the result is close. A raised hand or standing vote can provide a good alternative.

    A raised hand or standing vote can be easily counted by having the members count off, starting at the front of the room and working row by row to the back. The chairperson or a teller (a designated vote counter) can cue the first person in the front row to say “1” and lower their hand or sit down, and then cue the person next to them to say “2” and lower their hand or sit down—working all the way through the room until all votes have been counted.

    This may sound time consuming, but it doesn’t take much, if any, more time than having a teller go row by row and count all of the votes. The advantage is that the members are involved in the counting and are less inclined to question whether the votes have been accurately tabulated.

    Voting Method #4: Ballot vote

    A ballot vote is a secret vote by default unless the bylaws require that a ballot be signed. Ballots are generally used for elections and votes on very consequential matters (e.g., a vote to consider a large expense, dissolve a church, merge with another church, or ask an individual to be a pastor, and so on).

    When ballot votes are counted, at least two tellers should work together to count them. In the case of an election, each candidate may appoint one representative in addition to the tellers to oversee the counting.

    After the ballots are counted, the tellers should prepare a report that includes the total number of ballots cast, the number of votes necessary for election or for adoption of a motion, and the number of votes received by each candidate or votes in favor and opposed to a motion.

    The tellers should give the report to the chairperson for announcement of the results and give the ballots to the secretary or a designated person to keep until the time for ordering a recount has passed.

    What do the terms majority, two-thirds, and plurality mean?

    Various terms are commonly used within bylaws to describe the number of votes needed for a motion to be adopted or for an individual to be elected. It’s important to know the requirements for each vote taken and how to calculate results for that type of vote.

    Majority vote

    In voting contexts, the term majority is defined as more than half. If a church’s governing documents or rules use the term majority without qualification, the baseline or denominator from which a majority is calculated is the number of votes cast. For example, if 120 individuals are present, but only 100 individuals cast a vote, at least 51 votes would be required for the adoption of the proposal.

    Qualifiers can be added to the term majority, however, to change the calculation. For example, to adopt any proposal or to adopt proposals on certain topics, governing documents can require a majority of those present or a majority of the entire membership.

    Two-thirds vote

    In voting contexts, the term two-thirds generally means at least two-thirds of the individuals present and voting. But as with the term majority, two-thirds can be qualified to mean at least two-thirds of the individuals present or at least two-thirds of the entire membership.

    It is also important to understand that two-thirds is not necessarily the same as 66.6 percent or 67 percent. The best way to calculate two-thirds is to multiply the total number of individuals of which two-thirds is needed times 2, then divide that number by 3, and then round the result to the nearest whole number.

    Plurality

    The term plurality means more votes than any other option but not enough votes to constitute a majority. Here’s an example of a plurality vote calculation: Three candidates are running for office. There are 100 members present and voting. Candidate #1 receives 40 votes; candidate #2 receives 41 votes; candidate #3 receives 19 votes. If bylaws specify that the winning candidate must receive a plurality of the votes, candidate #2, in this case, would be the winner.

    Return to the series homepage.

    For related infographics and downloadable resources from the author, visit The Law of Order blog at civility.co.

    Sarah E. Merkle is a professional parliamentarian and presiding officer. One of five lawyers worldwide to have earned the credentials Certified Professional Parliamentarian-Teacher (CPP-T) and Professional Registered Parliamentarian (PRP), she helps boards, associations, corporations, and public bodies navigate rules applicable to governance and business meetings.

    Part 2 of 5

    Making Motions at a Church Business Meeting

    Four questions to help ensure your motions follow proper parliamentary procedure.

    Have you ever attended a business meeting and wondered what exactly is happening when people make motions? Maybe you’ve wondered why it’s necessary at all. Or perhaps the process is generally familiar to you, but you get tripped up from time to time on the little details of how motions work.

    Whatever your level of understanding, this article explores four questions to help ensure your motions follow proper parliamentary procedure.

    What is a motion?

    A motion is a proposal for specific action. It’s the vehicle by which a group makes an official decision to do or not do a certain thing.

    If you think generally about how decisions are made when more than one person is involved, they typically follow a standard format: (1) they start with the proposal of an idea (e.g., “Let’s get Taco Bell for lunch!”); (2) they often involve some level of discussion (e.g., “McDonalds is better than Taco Bell!”); and (3) they end with individuals expressing their choices.

    Motions are the way of formalizing that process in a group that is conducting official business.

    There are two types of motions: main motions and secondary motions. Main motions propose substantive action—e.g., “I move that the church repave the parking lot.” Secondary motions propose procedural action related to the group’s meetings—e.g., “I move to refer this main motion to a committee,” or “I move to adjourn.”

    How does a member make a motion?

    To make a motion, ask to be recognized by raising your hand or going to a microphone, and then say the words, “I move that. …” Follow those words with your substantive or procedural proposal.

    There are a few pitfalls to avoid here.

    • Avoid discussing the topic of your motion before you make it. In other words, if you’re frustrated that the church parking lot has potholes and cracks, save your expression of that frustration until after you’ve made the motion and the chairperson has asked if anyone would like to discuss the proposal.
    • Avoid using phrases like “I think we should” or “I’ve been thinking about” to introduce a motion. These phrases aren’t clear indicators of what you’re trying to do, and they may not result in your idea actually being put to the group for discussion. “I move that” is always the best place to start.
    • Avoid making a main motion when there is another main motion already being discussed. This rule supports efficiency: Discussing one topic at a time and then voting on it tends to streamline business and lessen confusion.

    What happens to a motion after it is made?

    After a member makes a motion, there are three events that should occur before the proposal becomes an official action taken by the group.

    Second

    A second is the word used in business meetings to indicate that more than one person thinks an idea is worth the group’s time. One member makes a motion, and another member has to say “second” for the motion to get any traction.

    Note. When a member says “second,” it doesn’t necessarily mean that the member agrees with the idea proposed. It simply means that he or she thinks the group should talk about the idea.

    Discussion

    Once a second is made, the chairperson of the meeting should repeat the motion and then ask if the members want to discuss it. There are a few secondary (procedural) motions where discussion is not permitted, but discussion is allowed on all main motions.

    Typically, the chairperson should say the following words, or something similar, to invite discussion: “It has been moved and seconded that the church repave the parking lot. Is there any discussion?”

    To participate in discussion, members should seek recognition by raising their hands or coming to a microphone, then wait for the chairperson to recognize them, and then state their comments in favor of or in opposition to the motion that is before the group. Often, the chairperson will alternate between individuals in favor and in opposition.

    According to Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, the most well-known parliamentary authority and the rulebook most commonly used by churches, members can speak only two times, for ten minutes each time, on any issue, but alternative discussion limits can be adopted via the setting of special rules. After each speaker, the chairperson’s response to the member’s comments should simply be, “Thank you. Is there any further discussion?”

    Ideally, the chairperson will keep his or her own views private. But to participate in the discussion, the chairperson should ask someone else to preside over that motion through the discussion and the vote.

    Vote

    When there is no more discussion on a motion, the chairperson should take a vote. Once a vote is taken and the results are tabulated, that is the group’s decision on that topic. If the motion is adopted, the group should proceed with the action proposed in the motion. If the motion is defeated, the group should continue with the status quo.

    As for whether a topic can ever be proposed again if it is defeated, common business meeting procedure says that the topic is off limits until enough time has passed or circumstances have changed to allow the topic to essentially be a new one. In other words, a topic cannot be proposed and re-proposed because such continued discussion wastes the group’s time.

    How do secondary motions work?

    Secondary motions are motions that relate to the procedure of a group’s meetings. They are typically (but not always) made while a main motion is being discussed. Here are three examples of secondary motions.

    • Amend. A proposal to change the words of the motion that the group is discussing
    • Previous Question. A proposal to close discussion on a motion that the group is discussing and move directly to a vote on that motion with no further discussion (for additional insights, see my article, “4 Answers to Your Questions about ‘Previous Question,’” on The Law of Order blog)
    • Refer to Committee. A proposal to refer a main motion to a smaller group for research and in‑depth discussion so that they can make a recommendation on a course of action to the full group

    If a secondary motion is made while a main motion is being discussed, the secondary motion becomes the highest priority for the group, and the group must discuss and vote on that secondary motion before it goes back to the main motion. Here are three examples using the secondary motions listed above.

    Example 1: Motion to Amend. While a group is discussing a main motion to repave the church parking lot, a member thinks that perhaps the church could improve the parking lot a little and go to less expense if it just relined the parking spaces. He or she could seek recognition and say, “I move to amend the main motion by striking ‘repave’ and inserting ‘reline.’”

    This amendment would need to be seconded, and then the group would discuss and vote on whether to strike “repave” and insert “reline.” If the amendment is adopted, the group would then go back to discussing the main motion as amended. If the amendment is defeated, the group would go back to discuss the main motion as originally stated.

    Example 2: Previous Question. While a group is discussing a main motion to repave the church parking lot, a member thinks that the discussion has gone on too long and the group needs to move business along. He or she could seek recognition and say, “I move the previous question.”

    This motion (Previous Question) would need to be seconded, and then the group would vote on whether to stop discussing the main motion and move directly to a vote. The group would then vote on whether to stop discussing the main motion.

    Unlike with most motions, the group would not discuss whether to stop discussing. And, for adoption of the motion to stop discussing, at least two-thirds of the members voting must vote in favor. If the motion to stop discussing is adopted, the group would move directly to a vote on the main motion with no more discussion. If the motion to stop discussing is defeated, the group would continue discussing the main motion.

    Example 3: Refer to Committee. While a group is discussing a main motion to repave the church parking lot, a member thinks that perhaps the building committee should request proposals from different paving companies and research the overall pros and cons of the project. He or she could seek recognition and say, “I move to refer the main motion to the building committee to research the costs and benefits of the proposal and report back at the next regular business meeting.”

    This motion (Refer to Committee) would need to be seconded, and then the group would discuss and vote on whether to refer the main motion to the building committee. If the motion to refer is adopted, the main motion would be referred to the building committee, and the group could move to discussion of a new topic. If the motion to refer is defeated, the group would go back to discussing the main motion as proposed.

    Return to the series homepage.

    For related infographics and downloadable resources from the author, visit The Law of Order blog at civility.co.

    Sarah E. Merkle is a professional parliamentarian and presiding officer. One of five lawyers worldwide to have earned the credentials Certified Professional Parliamentarian-Teacher (CPP-T) and Professional Registered Parliamentarian (PRP), she helps boards, associations, corporations, and public bodies navigate rules applicable to governance and business meetings.

    Part 1 of 5

    Preparing for a Church Business Meeting

    How to structure effective, legally sound meetings—and set their agendas.

    It’s probably safe to say that business meetings are not a church calendar highlight for most staff and church members. Perhaps you view them as necessary but burdensome, and maybe the thought of preparing for one makes you cringe or even panic. Well, be encouraged.

    This article aims to help leaders simplify business meetings and streamline the preparation. Let’s dive in by considering three key questions.

    Church business meetings take place any time church members, boards, or committees get together to conduct official church business—from annual member meetings to weekly or periodic board or committee meetings where votes are taken and decisions are made.

    What documents and rules govern a church business meeting?

    The first step in preparing for a church business meeting is understanding the documents and rules that apply to the timing and format of a church meeting, as well as the specific matters to be covered.

    Consider the following three points:

    • The law in your state that governs nonprofits likely includes certain rules about how often the board and members should meet, how to give notice of meetings, and how to take votes.These rules can be mandatory, or they can apply only if not contradicted or qualified by a church’s bylaws. In some states, they apply only to churches that are incorporated. The laws vary from state to state, but every church would do well to designate at least one staff member or church member to become familiar with the law that applies.
    • After state law, your church’s constitution and bylaws are the authority for business meetings.
    • Where the church’s constitution and bylaws are silent, the parliamentary authority that your church has chosen applies next.Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised is the most common parliamentary authority used by churches, and it covers topics such as the process for making, discussing, and voting on proposals, and the methods by which nominations are made and elections are conducted.If your church has not chosen to follow a specific parliamentary authority, it should consider doing so, or it should adopt a set of its own rules that address the details of how business is conducted at a meeting and how elections occur.

    What should a church business meeting agenda include?

    The contents of the agenda should be guided by the church bylaws. First, do the bylaws outline quarterly business meetings or an annual meeting only? What do the bylaws say about when a church budget is approved or how deacons, elders, and other church leaders are elected?

    Becoming familiar with the bylaws is the first step in determining the timing of business meetings and the necessary topics that should be covered.

    Outside of matters specifically designated for member input and voting, a church business meeting agenda should include the following items:

    • approval of the minutes from the last meeting
    • a financial update
    • reports on key areas of focus for the quarter or year

    How should a church business meeting agenda be organized?

    There are three main categories in a business meeting agenda: preliminary items, reports, and substantive business.

    • Preliminary items include adoption of the agenda and approval of the minutes from the previous meeting.
    • Reports include updates from individuals, task forces, focus groups, and committees on the topics assigned to them.
    • Substantive business includes the consideration of any proposals brought by an individual or group.

    Unfortunately, business meeting agendas are often created by following a template of sorts from previous meetings, without much strategic thought as to the priorities of the church or the attention span of the individuals attending the meetings. Here is some guidance for improving your business meeting agendas.

    • Putting preliminary items at the beginning makes sense because the group needs to agree on the agenda and the record of what has happened at previous meetings before proceeding further.
    • After preliminary items are dealt with, however, the remainder of the agenda should be structured according to the church’s priorities as a whole and for that specific meeting. The following scenarios describe possible processes for considering and deciding on agenda priorities:

    Scenario 1.

    Are finances generally top of mind for leadership because of recent giving trends? Or have there been some unexpected, significant expenses for the church in the last quarter? Or is there an ongoing giving campaign for a certain special fund? If finances take precedence over other areas of concern, you might consider putting the financial update at the beginning of the agenda.

    Scenario 2.

    On the other hand, maybe there’s no notable financial update, and instead, the church needs to hear from the building or facilities committee about plans to expand or make updates to the property. If so, then this would be placed high on the agenda.

    Scenario 3.

    Or perhaps the pastor search committee should provide a report first since this is a next big step for the church this year, and the church property concerns are not imminent. If so, the search committee update would come ahead of the property one.

    The point is that the order of the agenda should be driven by the present needs of the church, not by what’s been done in the past.

    Key point. There is a tendency in many organizations to save the most important topics for the end of the agenda. Maybe this is done in an effort to ensure people stay to the end or to help members focus on the important items by taking care of everything else first.

    Whatever the reason, this agenda order typically does not serve the group well because members are often too tired or unable to stay the full length of the meeting to actually participate in that critical part of the church’s business. Putting the important topics at the top of the agenda can help ensure the church makes headway on matters of priority.

    Return to the series homepage.

    For related infographics and downloadable resources from the author, visit The Law of Order blog at civility.co.

    Sarah E. Merkle is a professional parliamentarian and presiding officer. One of five lawyers worldwide to have earned the credentials Certified Professional Parliamentarian-Teacher (CPP-T) and Professional Registered Parliamentarian (PRP), she helps boards, associations, corporations, and public bodies navigate rules applicable to governance and business meetings.

    Part 5 of 6

    Title VII and Church Employment Practices

    How the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Title VII’s term “sex” affects church employment.

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects workers from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Since Title VII’s inception, the statute has included an exemption for “religious organizations.”

    This exemption became more critical for many churches after the US Supreme Court interpreted Title VII’s term “sex” to include sexual orientation, sexual perception, gender identity, and transgender individuals (Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). But, the Supreme Court stated that its decision should not apply to religious organizations.

    The Court’s words regarding the religious exemption bring little comfort to many in the religious community. But the Court did not indicate how it might rule regarding the religious exemption and the new definition of “sex.” Churches and the courts had already struggled with the application of the exemption for religious organizations. Now they face greater challenges in determining its application to the employment practices of religious organizations. This is especially true of the new definition of “sex,” if compliance with the new definition violates an organization’s religious beliefs.

    This article examines the scope of this exemption and explores how the statute applies to churches and religious ministries.

    History of Title VII

    In 1963, President Kennedy asked Congress to pass comprehensive civil rights legislation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed the following year. The statute protected voting rights and prohibited discrimination in federal programs and public accommodations.

    The Civil Rights Act was controversial from its initial drafting, with many in Congress opposing one part or another. Like many other difficult-to-pass bills, the bill was altered to gain enough congressional support to make it into law. For example, since the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution limits the federal authority to matters of interstate commerce, Title VII was limited to employers engaged in interstate commerce with 15 or more employees for each workday during 20 weeks of a calendar year (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), et seq).

    Note. The italics used in the quoted matter in the following section have been added for emphasis.

    Another sticking point was its application to churches and other religious employers. The First Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits Congress from passing statutes restricting the free exercise of religion. The House Judiciary Committee requested a complete exemption for religious organizations from Title VII to reflect this constitutional requirement. The Senate disagreed, believing the request was broader than necessary under the First Amendment.

    The Senate changed the exemption to read:

    [Title VII] shall not apply … to a religious corporation, association, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such[organization] of its religious activities.

    Afterward, the House agreed to the amended exemption, and President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law.

    But problems immediately arose in the enforcement of the religious exemption. The US Department of Labor (DOL) interpreted the exemption to apply only to members of that religious group employed to perform religious activities. This interpretation forced the DOL to decide what activities were religious and how many religious activities were required before the exemption could be applied to a specific position.

    Congress reconsidered the religious organization exemption in 1972. The issue arose in the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The final bill creating the EEOC deleted the word “religious” before the word “activities” in the statute.

    Currently, Title VII states that it “shall not apply … to a religious corporation, association, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such … [organization] of its activities” (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a)).

    The United States Congress Conference Report after the 1972 amendment stated:

    The limited exemption … for religious corporations, associations, educational institutions or societies has been broadened to allow such entities to employ individuals of a particular religion in all their activities instead of the present limitation to religious activities.

    The Conference Report also noted, however, that religious organizations “remain subject to the provisions of Title VII with regard to race, color, sex or national origin.”

    What qualifies as a religious organization for a Title VII exemption?

    Since 1972, the courts have created tests and criteria to determine a “religious organization” for Title VII’s exemption.

    Lack of congressional guidance has left the exemption open to different interpretations by DOL, EEOC, law professors, and the courts. Even within some judicial districts, the judges do not interpret the exemption consistently. No universally accepted definition exists to identify a religious organization used in Title VII.

    No single test exists, and no test is used universally for determining whether an entity qualifies as a religious organization. An IRS determination that the organization has church status has little or no bearing on whether the organization meets the Title VII religious organization test because the tests are different. After making that observation, the courts will typically look at, and weigh, one or more of these factors:

    1. whether the entity operates for a profit,
    2. whether it produces a secular product,
    3. whether the entity’s articles of incorporation or other pertinent documents state a religious purpose,
    4. whether it is owned, affiliated with or financially supported by a formally religious entity such as a church or synagogue,
    5. whether a formally religious entity participates in the [entity’s] management, for instance, by having representatives on the board of trustees,
    6. whether the entity holds itself out to the public as secular or sectarian,
    7. whether the entity regularly includes prayer or other forms of worship in its activities,
    8. whether it includes religious instruction in its curriculum, to the extent it is an educational institution, and
    9. whether its membership is made up of coreligionists.

    LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Community Center, 503 F.3d 217, 226 (3d Cir. 2007).

    While traditional churches may easily qualify, parachurch ministries have more difficulty. For example, the US Supreme Court rejected an appeal from the Washington Supreme Court, finding the state exemption from its state nondiscrimination statute for “religious organizations” did not protect the Seattle Gospel Mission from liability for failing to hire an attorney in a same-sex marriage case (Seattle Gospel Mission v. Woods, 142 S.Ct. 1094 (2022)).

    Likewise, another court found that a downtown mission organization was not a religious organization for Title VII because it was not affiliated with a particular denomination or church (Scaffidi v. New Orleans Mission, 2020 WL 1531266 (E.D. La. 2020)).

    In contrast, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that World Vision qualified for the religious organization exemption from Title VII. In a 2–1 decision, the court held that World Vision could terminate three employees because they changed their religious beliefs (Spencer v. World Vision, Inc., 619 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2010)).

    But the three judges could not agree on the test to evaluate whether an entity meets the definition of a religious organization. The dissenting judge would have limited the exemption to organizations that gather members together for prayer and religious instruction.

    One of the judges affirmed World Vision’s status under this test:

    (1) does the organization self-identify as a religious organization in its governing documents?

    (2) does the organization engage in religious activities to further its religious purposes, and

    (3) does it hold itself out to the public as a religious organization?

    The other affirming judge added another factor to the above three-item list: Does the organization not engage in the exchange of goods and services for money?

    From these brief examples, one can conclude that churches and parachurch ministries should examine the nine criteria listed above. From there, the church may determine how they can best meet the criteria for obtaining a Title VII exemption.

    At a minimum, they should review their governing documents, incorporate a statement of beliefs into governance documents and policies, and represent to the public that they are a religious organization.

    Title VII’s application

    Once an organization believes it meets the qualifications required to be classified as a religious organization, it must determine what portion of Title VII’s nondiscrimination provisions apply.

    An examination of the applicable court cases reveals three plausible, but inconsistent, interpretations (discussed below).

    Understanding the foundation for various interpretations requires some basic understanding of the rules for statutory interpretation. All three interpretations utilize differing rules for statutory interpretation to reach different conclusions.

    Since the US Supreme Court has not instructed the lower courts on the correct or preferred way to interpret the Title VII religious organization exemption, each court is free to interpret the statute using the US Supreme Court rules for statutory interpretation.

    The US Supreme Court has adopted a general guide to statutory interpretation for use by the lower courts.

    A complete review of the statutory interpretation rules isn’t possible for this article.

    However, a few relevant rules should be noted.

    First, the law should be given its plain meaning whenever possible.

    Second, plain meaning should not be used if the language is ambiguous. Ambiguous means a reader could reasonably interpret the language in two or more ways.

    If the language is ambiguous, the court should interpret the statute to give effect to every word because every word has a purpose.

    If the statute remains ambiguous, the court should choose the interpretation to implement the congressional intent based on the legislative history.

    Here, then, is a discussion of each interpretation and what each one might mean for a court’s decision.

    Note. The italics used in the quoted matter in this section have been added for emphasis.

    Interpretation 1: Textual or religiously motivated interpretation

    The first interpretation is called the textual or religiously motivated interpretation. It indicates that the statute’s plain meaning requires that no part of Title VII applies to the employment practices of religious organizations.

    Key point. This interpretation utilizes the first statutory interpretation rule: The statute should be given its plain meaning whenever possible.

    The plain language of Title VII states that it “shall not apply … to a religious corporation, association, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such … [organization] of its activities” (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a)). If this interpretation is utilized, no other rules of statutory interpretation apply.

    Under this interpretation, none of Title VII applies to the religious organization. A church is free to discriminate regarding applicants and employees based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Based on this interpretation, if the church chooses not to hire a woman for a position because she is a woman, it is free to do so.

    However, Congress has twice considered—and rejected—a blanket exemption for religious organizations. If a court found that the statute is ambiguous, the congressional rejection of this interpretation could invalidate this interpretation. Further, this interpretation potentially ignores the “employment of individuals of a particular religion” language.

    Example. In 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals left intact a lower court’s ruling in which it used the textual or religiously motivated interpretation method to find that Bear Creek Bible Church was exempt from Title VII as a religious organization (Briarwood Management, Inc. v. EEOC, ____ F.3d _______ (5th Cir. 2023)). This decision means the church could discriminate based on sexual orientation, sexual perception, gender identity, and transgender status without violating Title VII. The Fifth Circuit panel also ruled that the church could have different dress codes for men and women and require that employees use the bathroom associated with their biological gender.

    Interpretation 2: The coreligionist interpretation

    The coreligionist interpretation indicates that religious organizations may refuse to hire anyone not part of their denomination or church group.

    Key point. This interpretation allows religious organizations to restrict employment to their denomination or church group.

    The plain language of Title VII states that it “shall not apply … to a religious corporation, association, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such … [organization] of its activities” (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a)).

    Applications vary

    Some courts believe this language is ambiguous because it does not explicitly address how the exemption applies to the other protected classes. Some courts then looked at the legislative history. The 1972 amendment to Title VII added a statutory definition of religion. It states, “The term “religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief” (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(j)).

    The authors of the 1972 amendment claimed the new language was to protect the religious rights of employees—not to expand the religious exemption of employers. Supposedly, the amended statute protected all religious organization employees instead of only those involved in religious activity.

    Some courts have used this background in interpreting the Title VII religious organization exemption to prevent the application of Title VII to religious organizations only employing individuals who are part of the same denomination or church group.

    This interpretation means that a Baptist church can require all its employees to be Baptist. It can also terminate an employee for failing to adhere to Baptist beliefs. It can refuse to hire Methodists. But the Baptist church must not discriminate against the other Title VII protected classes unless its discrimination is related to the church’s sincerely held religious beliefs.

    Caution. All violations of such beliefs should provide comparable disciplinary actions. The inconsistent application of variances from their religious beliefs could lead a church into a potential Title VII violation if one of the protected classes is involved.

    The US Supreme Court used this interpretation to allow a church to fire a gym worker at a facility owned by the church for failing to adhere to church beliefs and requirements (Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987)).

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed this approach twice. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has also adopted this approach.

    Interpretation 3: Belief and conduct interpretation

    The third interpretation, called the belief and conduct interpretation, indicates that religious employers may discriminate based on religious beliefs as long those beliefs do not contradict the other protected classes of race, color, sex, or national origin.

    Key point. This line of interpretation rejects the coreligionist and textual interpretation cases.

    With the addition of the definition of religion, some courts believe that the artificial lines of church association were eliminated. Accordingly, no statutory basis exists for limiting the religious organization exemption to those who employ only individuals that are part of the denomination or church group.

    Since the purpose of Title VII is to protect workers from specific types of discrimination, the exclusions from its coverage should be narrowly interpreted. These courts’ interpretation means that religious organizations may discriminate only based on the employee’s self-identified religious beliefs and practices that vary from the employing religious organization—and only if those beliefs do not relate to another Title VII protected class.

    Example. A court affirmed the right of a Christian school owned and operated by a church to terminate a teacher who remarried after a divorce, contrary to the church’s teaching.

    While the teacher was not of the same faith as the employer, she had agreed to follow the church’s teachings and beliefs while employed by the school. Since the teacher’s religious beliefs differed from the employer’s and were evidenced by her actions, the school could terminate her because it met the definition of a religious educational employer (Little v. Wuerl, 929 F.2d 944 (3d Cir. 1991).

    With this interpretation, all potential applicants must review the organization’s religious beliefs before applying for the job and determine if such beliefs align with the applicants’ beliefs. Religious organizations may require potential applicants to take this step before applying for a position to attempt to come into alignment with this interpretation.

    Suggestions for determining how to comply

    Each church must determine how it will comply with Title VII. Here are four suggestions.

    Purchase employment practices liability insurance

    Every church with 15 or more employees should purchase employment practices liability insurance. This insurance benefits the church in two ways. First, it provides access to the insurance company’s risk management employment attorneys and HR professionals. Second, the insurance company will assist with the defense should an employee claim a Title VII violation. The policy should also cover employment related claims under the state equivalent of Title VII.

    Identify ministerial exception positions

    The church or ministry should distinguish and document ministerial exception positions from every other position. Since Title VII does not apply to the ministerial exception positions, the church does not face Title VII risk with those positions. (For more on this subject, see “Applying the Ministerial Exception to Church Employees.”

    Review all pertinent documents

    The church should review its governance documents, EEOC statements made by the church, the church’s employee handbook, and the church’s employment-related policies. If the EEOC statement includes “religion” as a protected class, the church will have a hard time claiming that it may discriminate based on religion. Further, the church should qualify its EEOC statement to say the church follows Title VII only to the extent that Title VII applies to it.

    Require employment applicants to agree with the church’s beliefs statement

    The church should require all potential applicants to agree with the church’s statement of beliefs before applying for any position. The employee handbook and employment policies should require employees to follow the church’s sincerely held beliefs and disciplinary action should occur for all identified violations. This practice will isolate the Title VII issue to religious discrimination. Religious discrimination cases without considering the other protected classes will likely be easier to defend.

    Preparation creates clarity in employment practices

    Title VII may or may not apply to the church or a religious ministry. Title VII may or may not apply to some employment positions. With this statute, it is not always clear. And similar state employment laws may include a different definition of religious organization and protected classes of employees.

    Preparation creates clarity for employment decisions, so a church or ministry must decide its risk tolerance, especially when the church’s sincerely held religious beliefs conflict with Title VII’s protected classes of employees. The church must also indicate whether it believes Title VII applies to all nonministerial exception positions. As part of its determination, every church should engage competent legal counsel to assist in drafting employment practices consistent with its religious beliefs.

    Return to series home page.

    Frank Sommerville is a both a CPA and attorney, and a longtime Editorial Advisor for Church Law & Tax.

    October Key Tax Dates 2022

    Deadline for church employees with six-month extensions for filing 2021 tax returns—and other key dates to note.

    Monthly Requirements

    If your church or organization reported withheld taxes of $50,000 or less during the most recent lookback period (for 2022 the lookback period is July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021), then withheld payroll taxes are deposited monthly. Monthly deposits are due by the 15th day of the following month.

    Note, however, that if withheld taxes are less than $2,500 at the end of any calendar quarter (March 31, June 30, September 30, or December 31), the church need not deposit the taxes. Instead, it can pay the total withheld taxes directly to the IRS with its quarterly Form 941. Withheld taxes include federal income taxes withheld from the employee’s wages, the employee’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes, and the employer’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes.

    Semiweekly requirements

    If your church or organization reported withheld taxes of more than $50,000 during the most recent lookback period (for 2022 the lookback period is July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021), then the withheld payroll taxes are deposited semiweekly.

    This means that for paydays falling on Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, the payroll taxes must be deposited on or by the following Wednesday. For all other paydays, the payroll taxes must be deposited on the Friday following the payday.

    Note further that large employers having withheld taxes of $100,000 or more at the end of any day must deposit the taxes by the next banking day. The deposit days are based on the timing of the employer’s payroll. Withheld taxes include federal income taxes withheld from the employee’s wages, the employee’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes, and the employer’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes.

    October 17, 2022: Form 1040 due for taxpayers who filed for a six-month extension

    Last day to file a 2021 federal income tax return (Form 1040) for taxpayers who obtained an automatic six-month extension by filing a Form 4868 by April 18, 2022 (April 19 if you live in Maine or Massachusetts).

    October 30, 2022: File employer exemption (Form 8274)

    Churches hiring their first nonminister employee between July 1 and September 30 may exempt themselves from the employer’s share of FICA (Social Security) taxes by filing Form 8274 by this date. (Nonminister employees are thereafter treated as self-employed for Social Security purposes).

    The exemption is only available to churches that are opposed on the basis of religious principles to paying the employer’s share of FICA taxes.

    October 31, 2022: File quarterly federal tax return (Form 941) with payment

    Churches having nonminister employees (or one or more ministers who report their federal income taxes as employees and who have elected voluntary withholding) must file an employer’s quarterly federal tax return (Form 941) for the third calendar quarter by this date.

    Enclose a check in the total amount of all withheld taxes (withheld income taxes, withheld FICA taxes paid by the employee, and the employer’s share of FICA taxes) if less than $2,500 on September 30, 2022.

    Richard R. Hammar is an attorney, CPA and author specializing in legal and tax issues for churches and clergy.

    On-Demand Webinar

    Handling A Child Abuse Allegation in Your Church

    Planning well so that your ministry responds well if the unthinkable ever arises.

    Loading the player...

    Churches across the country continue to face allegations of child abuse. Real people are behind these allegations- those who file complaints, those who are accused, as well as those in positions of authority who must respond.

    In most cases, the gospel in not reflected in the responses. Fallout is significant for everyone involved, and Church leaders must find a way to do better with such high stakes- whether spiritual, mental, relational, or legal.

    Watch this video to hear from recognized experts in church leadership and law about responding to allegations, including abuse reporting, investigations, victim care, and more.

    Panelists:

    Jeff Dalrymple | Executive Director, Evangelical Council For Abuse Prevention

    Robert Showers | Attorney & Principal Partner, Simms Showers

    Sally Wagenmaker | Attorney & Partner, Wagenmaker & Oberly

    Theresa Sidebotham | Attorney & Founder, Telios Law

    Reading & Resources: 

    Download the resources and templates mentioned in this webinar below. Or read one of the articles to get a handle on the basics of developing fair compensation in your ministry.

    Key Tax Dates September 2022

    Make quarterly estimated payments and meet monthly or semiweekly requirements.

    Monthly requirements

    If your church or organization reported withheld taxes of $50,000 or less during the most recent lookback period (for 2022, the lookback period is July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021), then withheld payroll taxes are deposited monthly. Monthly deposits are due by the 15th day of the following month.

    Note, however, that if withheld taxes are less than $2,500 at the end of any calendar quarter (March 31, June 30, September 30, or December 31), the church need not deposit the taxes.

    Instead, it can pay the total withheld taxes directly to the IRS with its quarterly Form 941. Withheld taxes include federal income taxes withheld from employee wages, the employee’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes, and the employer’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes.

    Semiweekly requirements

    If your church or organization reported withheld taxes of more than $50,000 during the most recent lookback period (for 2022, the lookback period is July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021), then the withheld payroll taxes are deposited semiweekly.

    This means that for paydays falling on Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, the payroll taxes must be deposited on or by the following Wednesday. For all other paydays, the payroll taxes must be deposited on the Friday following the payday.

    Note further that large employers having withheld taxes of $100,000 or more at the end of any day must deposit the taxes by the next banking day. The deposit days are based on the timing of the employer’s payroll. Withheld taxes include federal income taxes withheld from employee wages, the employee’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes, and the employer’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes.

    September 15, 2022: Quarterly estimated tax payments for certain employees and churches

    Filing for certain ministers and self-employed workers

    Ministers (who have not elected voluntary withholding) and self-employed workers must file their third quarterly estimated federal tax payment for 2022 by this date. A similar rule applies in many states to payments of estimated state taxes.

    Nonminister employees of churches that filed a timely Form 8274 (waiving the church’s obligation to withhold and pay FICA taxes) are treated as self-employed for Social Security, and as a result are subject to the estimated tax deadlines with respect to their self-employment (Social Security) taxes unless they ask their employing church to withhold an additional amount of income taxes from each paycheck that will be sufficient to cover self-employment taxes. Use a new Form W-4 to make this request (the additional withholding is reported on line 4(c)).

    Payments for unrelated business income tax liability

    A church must make quarterly estimated tax payments if it expects an unrelated business income tax liability for the year to be $500 or more. Use IRS Form 990-W to figure your estimated taxes. Quarterly estimated tax payments of one-fourth of the total tax liability are due by April 18 (April 19 if you live in Maine or Massachusetts), June 15, September 15, and December 15, 2022, for churches on a calendar-year basis. Deposit quarterly tax payments electronically using the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS).

    Richard R. Hammar is an attorney, CPA and author specializing in legal and tax issues for churches and clergy.

    Key Tax Dates August 2022

    File employer’s quarterly federal tax return and meet monthly or semiweekly requirements.

    Monthly requirements

    If your church or organization reported withheld taxes of $50,000 or less during the most recent lookback period (for 2022, the lookback period is July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021), then withheld payroll taxes are deposited monthly. Monthly deposits are due by the 15th day of the following month.

    Note, however, that if withheld taxes are less than $2,500 at the end of any calendar quarter (March 31, June 30, September 30, or December 31), the church or organization need not deposit the taxes.

    Instead, it can pay the total withheld taxes directly to the IRS with its quarterly Form 941. Withheld taxes include federal income taxes withheld from employee wages, the employee’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes, and the employer’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes.

    Semiweekly requirements

    If your church or organization reported withheld taxes of more than $50,000 during the most recent lookback period (for 2022, the lookback period is July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021), then the withheld payroll taxes are deposited semiweekly.

    This means that for paydays falling on Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, the payroll taxes must be deposited on or by the following Wednesday. For all other paydays, the payroll taxes must be deposited on the Friday following the payday.

    Note further that large employers having withheld taxes of $100,000 or more at the end of any day must deposit the taxes by the next banking day. The deposit days are based on the timing of the employer’s payroll. Withheld taxes include federal income taxes withheld from employee wages, the employee’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes, and the employer’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes.

    August 10, 2022: Employer’s quarterly federal tax return—Form 941

    Churches having nonminister employees (or one or more ministers who report their federal income taxes as employees and who have elected voluntary withholding) may file their employer’s quarterly federal tax return (Form 941) by this date instead of July 31 if all taxes for the second calendar quarter have been deposited in full and on time.

    Richard R. Hammar is an attorney, CPA and author specializing in legal and tax issues for churches and clergy.

    Postgame Prayers Protected by First Amendment, Supreme Court Says

    Supreme Court says postgame prayers protected by First Amendment while also striking down controversial “Lemon test.”

    Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022)

    In a 6–3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a high school football coach whose postgame prayers on the field were challenged by his employer. The Court found that the school district violated the coach’s rights under both the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment.

    “A government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance doubly protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses.” — Supreme Court majority opinion

    The ruling also overturned a long-standing judicial test used in Establishment Clause cases, reshaping how courts evaluate religion-related disputes involving government actors.


    Background: Coach Kennedy’s Prayers

    • Joseph Kennedy, a Marine Corps veteran, began coaching football at Bremerton High School in Washington in 2008.
    • After games, Kennedy would kneel at midfield and offer a brief, silent prayer, usually lasting about 30 seconds.
    • Initially, Kennedy prayed alone. Over time, players joined voluntarily—sometimes including opponents.
    • Kennedy occasionally added motivational messages to his prayers when students were present.

    For more than seven years, no complaints were made. That changed in September 2015, when the district’s superintendent instructed Kennedy to stop praying on school grounds after games.


    • Kennedy paused his prayers but later resumed them, citing a religious conviction and sending a legal letter requesting the right to “private religious expression.”
    • The district rejected the request, warning that any public religious display—even done privately—would appear to endorse religion and thus violate the Establishment Clause.
    • Despite complying with previous orders, Kennedy resumed praying quietly after three October 2015 games.
    • Following these actions, the district:
      • Placed him on paid administrative leave
      • Barred him from all football-related activities
      • Issued a poor performance evaluation, citing policy violations
    • Kennedy did not return the following season.

    Importantly, the district acknowledged:

    • No evidence of coercion of students to join in prayer
    • Kennedy had complied with requests to stop leading players in postgame prayer

    Kennedy Sues: First Amendment Claims

    Kennedy sued in federal court, alleging violations of:

    • The Free Speech Clause
    • The Free Exercise Clause

    Lower courts sided with the district. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and ultimately ruled in Kennedy’s favor.


    Free Exercise Clause: Two Ways to Prove a Violation

    The Court explained that plaintiffs can show a violation of the Free Exercise Clause by:

    1. Demonstrating hostility to religion, such as public officials showing bias (e.g., Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 2018).
    2. Proving non-neutral or non-general policies that burden religious practice.

    The Court ruled that Kennedy satisfied the second test:

    “The District’s challenged policies were neither neutral nor generally applicable … Prohibiting a religious practice was thus the District’s unquestioned object.” — Majority opinion


    Free Speech Clause: Private or Government Speech?

    The key legal question: Was Kennedy’s prayer private speech or government speech?

    The Court found that:

    • Kennedy was not speaking as a government employee.
    • His prayer did not involve coaching duties or school policy.
    • The act occurred during a brief window when coaches attended to personal matters.

    “Simply put: Mr. Kennedy’s prayers did not owe their existence to Mr. Kennedy’s responsibilities as a public employee.”

    As a result, the district’s restrictions violated Kennedy’s free speech rights.


    The Court’s Conclusion

    To justify its restrictions, the district needed to prove it had a compelling interest and that its actions were narrowly tailored. The Court found it failed to do so.

    “Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic … [This case involved] a brief, quiet, personal religious observance doubly protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses.”


    Major Shift: The End of the Lemon Test

    The decision also struck down the long-standing Lemon test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), which courts used to evaluate Establishment Clause cases.

    The Lemon Test’s 3 Prongs:

    1. Government action must have a secular purpose
    2. Its effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion
    3. It must avoid excessive entanglement with religion

    Over time, courts also used a “reasonable observer” endorsement test, asking whether someone might see the action as religious endorsement.

    The Court said these tests:

    • Invited legal chaos
    • Led to inconsistent rulings
    • Created a “minefield” for public officials

    “[T]he Establishment Clause must be interpreted by reference to historical practices and understandings … consistent with the understanding of the Founding Fathers.”


    Conclusion: Expanded Protections for Religious Liberty

    This landmark ruling affirms the constitutional protections of free speech and free religious expression, especially for government employees acting in a private capacity.

    Most significantly, it marks the formal end of the Lemon test—reshaping how courts will interpret government interaction with religion in the years ahead.

    Case citation: Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 142 S. Ct. 2407 (2022)

    Richard R. Hammar is an attorney, CPA and author specializing in legal and tax issues for churches and clergy.

    Maine’s Tuition Assistance Rule Violated the First Amendment, Supreme Court Says

    Maine’s tuition assistance rule barred use of state funds at religious schools, which violated the First Amendment, Court says.

    A “nonsectarian” requirement included with a tuition assistance program offered in Maine violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise of Religion Clause, the United States Supreme Court ruled last month.

    The 6–3 decision in Carson v. Makin may make it easier for religious schools nationwide, at least in some cases, to benefit from financial aid made available to use at other public and private schools.

    Background

    Maine has enacted a program of tuition assistance for parents who live in school districts that do not operate a secondary school of their own. Under the program, parents designate the secondary school they would like their child to attend—public or private—and the school district transmits payments to that school to help defray the costs of tuition.

    Most private schools are eligible to receive the payments, so long as they are “nonsectarian,” meaning the schools are not religious in nature. The requirement raised two questions: Does such a restriction violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause? And does the absence of such a restriction violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibiting state sponsorship of religion?

    The Supreme Court concluded the presence of the requirement did violate the Free Exercise Clause, while also finding the absence of the requirement would not violate the Establishment Clause.

    The Court said:

    A neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause. . . .

    [Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion] stresses the importance of “government neutrality” when it comes to religious matters, but there is nothing neutral about Maine’s program. The State pays tuition for certain students at private schools so long as the schools are not religious. That is discrimination against religion. A State’s antiestablishment interest does not justify enactments that exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available public benefit because of their religious exercise.

    The Court turned to two past rulings

    In reaching its decision, the Court relied on two of its previous decisions—Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza.

    Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer

    In Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, 137 S.Ct. 2012 (2017), the Court considered a Missouri program that offered grants to qualifying nonprofit organizations that installed cushioning playground surfaces made from recycled rubber tires. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources maintained an express policy of denying such grants to any applicant owned or controlled by a church, sect, or other religious entity.

    The Trinity Lutheran Church Child Learning Center applied for a grant to resurface its gravel playground, but the department denied funding on the ground that the center was operated by a church. The Court deemed it “unremarkable in light of our prior decisions” to conclude that the Free Exercise Clause did not permit Missouri to “expressly discriminate against otherwise eligible recipients by disqualifying them from a public benefit solely because of their religious character.”

    While it was true that Trinity Lutheran remained “free to continue operating as a church,” it could enjoy that freedom only “at the cost of automatic and absolute exclusion from the benefits of a public program for which the Center [was] otherwise fully qualified.” Such discrimination, the Court said, was “odious to our Constitution” and could not stand.

    Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

    In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 140 S.Ct. 2246 (2020), the Supreme Court held that a provision of the Montana Constitution barring government aid to any school “controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or denomination,” violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise of Religion Clause by prohibiting families from using otherwise available scholarship funds at the religious schools of their choosing.

    The Court observed that “a State need not subsidize private education [but] once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.” The Court concluded:

    Montana’s no-aid provision bars religious schools from public benefits solely because of the religious character of the schools. The provision also bars parents who wish to send their children to a religious school from those same benefits, again solely because of the religious character of the school. . . . The provi­sion plainly excludes schools from government aid solely be­cause of religious status,” [just as in Trinity Lutheran]. . . .

    The Free Ex­ercise [of religion] Clause protects against even “indirect coercion,” and a State “punishe[s] the free exercise of religion” by disqual­ifying the religious from government aid as Montana did here. . . .

    [The Constitution] condemns discrimination against religious schools and the families whose children attend them. They are “member[s] of the community too,” and their exclusion from the scholarship program here is “odi­ous to our Constitution” and “cannot stand” (citing Trinity Lutheran).

    The Court’s conclusion in Maine

    The Court concluded in Maine’s Carson case:

    Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Regardless of how the benefit and restriction are described, the program operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

    What this means for churches

    What is the importance of this case? Most importantly, it will allow religious schools nationwide, at least in some cases, to benefit from financial aid made available to other schools (i.e., public and private secular schools).

    Religious schools cannot be excluded from such aid solely on the basis of their religious status. As the Court concluded, religious schools are “members of the community too,” and their exclusion from the scholarship program here is “odi­ous to our Constitution” and “cannot stand” (citing Trinity Lu­theran).

    This case may contribute to a greater degree of school choice, depending on current and future state-enabling legislation.

    Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. ____ (2022)

    Richard R. Hammar is an attorney, CPA and author specializing in legal and tax issues for churches and clergy.

    Supreme Court: Religious Law Allows Clergy to be in Execution Chambers

    Law protecting prisoners’ religious rights allows clergy to be present in execution chambers, Court says.

    A prisoner scheduled to be executed in Texas requested that he be allowed to have his pastor present to provide “spiritual comfort and guidance in his final moments.” The state of Texas denied the request because it bars chaplains of any religion to enter an execution chamber.

    After the denial by Texas, the prisoner sought legal relief for his request only to be denied by a federal district court and a court of appeals. The United States Supreme Court subsequently took up the case.

    The Court, in an 8-1 majority, reversed the lower court decisions. Citing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), it said the restrictions imposed by Texas were not based on “a compelling governmental interest.”

    This article will explore the Court’s analysis, and the general implications of the decision for chaplains and prison ministries.

    Background

    Pablo Castro worked the night shift at the Times Market convenience store in Corpus Christi, Texas. On July 19, 2004, Castro was outside closing up when John Ramirez and an accomplice approached him with a knife. Ramirez stabbed Castro 29 times, searched his pockets, and made off with $1.25. Castro died on the pavement, leaving behind 9 children and 14 grandchildren.

    Ramirez fled to Mexico, where he evaded authorities for more than three years. In 2008, he was finally apprehended near the Mexican border. The state of Texas charged Ramirez with murdering Castro in the course of committing or attempting to commit robbery—a capital offense. Ramirez admitted to killing Castro but denied the robbery that made the murder a capital crime. A jury disagreed, found Ramirez guilty, and sentenced him to death.

    Texas scheduled Ramirez’s execution for September 9, 2020. Ramirez asked to have his pastor accompany him into the execution chamber. Prison officials denied the request. They did so because, at the time, Texas’s execution protocol barred all spiritual advisors from entering the chamber.

    A prior version of the protocol had allowed access for prison chaplains, but at the time, Texas employed only Christian and Muslim chaplains. In 2019, when a Buddhist inmate sought to have his spiritual advisor join him in the execution chamber, Texas declined to grant the accommodation. In response, Texas also amended its execution protocol to bar all chaplains from entering the execution chamber so as not to discriminate among religions.

    Turning to RLUIPA

    Ramirez filed a lawsuit in federal court. He did not challenge his conviction or death sentence. Instead, he asked that his longtime pastor be allowed to pray with him and lay hands on him while he was being executed. He claimed that RLUIPA, a federal law, requires this accommodation.

    Ramirez sought a preliminary injunction ordering Texas to permit his religious exercise if the state went forward with his execution. A federal district court and court of appeals declined to grant such relief. The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on appeal.

    Ramirez’s complaint said that he was a Christian and had received religious guidance from Pastor Dana Moore since 2016. Ramirez is a member of Moore’s church in Corpus Christi.

    Ramirez explained that he wanted his pastor “to be present at the time of his execution to pray with him and provide spiritual comfort and guidance in his final moments,” and that the pastor be permitted to “lay hands” on him and audibly “pray over” him while the execution was taking place. Ramirez’s grievance explains that “it is part of my faith to have my spiritual advisor lay hands on me anytime I am sick or dying.”

    Texas denied this request on the ground that spiritual advisors are “not allowed to touch an inmate while inside the execution chamber.”

    In reviewing the case, the Supreme Court described RLUIPA in this way:

    No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution—including state prisoners . . . unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

    The Court concluded that any restriction on the ability of Ramirez’s pastor to enter the execution chamber, lay hands on him, and audibly pray for him during the execution procedure would impose a substantial burden on his religious exercise.

    The Court further concluded that restrictions imposed by Texas on the presence of clergy during an execution were not based on a compelling governmental interest.

    Rejecting Texas’s arguments

    Texas argued it had two compelling governmental interests that justified its policy.

    First, absolute silence was necessary in the execution chamber so they can monitor the inmate’s condition through a microphone suspended overhead. Prison officials claimed that audible prayer might impede their ability to hear subtle signs of trouble or might prove distracting during an emergency.

    The Court agreed that “audible prayer could present a . . . serious risk of interference during the delicate process of lethal injection. . . . But [prison officials] fail to show that a categorical ban on all audible prayer is the least restrictive means of furthering their compelling interests,” as required by RLUIPA.

    Second, Texas argued about concerns regarding possible disruptions. Prison officials claimed that if they allow spiritual advisors to pray aloud during executions, the opportunity “could be exploited to make a statement to the witnesses or officials, rather than the inmate. . . . [And] such statements might cause further trauma to the victim’s family or otherwise interfere with the execution.”

    The Court agreed that the government has a compelling interest in preventing disruptions of any sort and maintaining solemnity and decorum in the execution chamber. But “there is no indication in the record that Pastor Moore would cause the sorts of disruptions that [prison officials] fear.”

    Historical practices with executions

    With its decision, the Court briefly summarized the history of audible prayer at the time of execution to affirm the central importance of this practice in the Christian tradition:

    As for audible prayer, there is a rich history of clerical prayer at the time of a prisoner’s execution, dating back well before the founding of our Nation. For example, at Newgate Prison—one of London’s most notorious jails—an Anglican priest would stand and pray with the condemned in their final moments. By the early 1700s, that practice had evolved to permit prisoners to be “attended by a minister, or even a priest, of their own communion. Prayer at the time of execution was also commonplace in the American Colonies. . . . And during the Revolutionary War, General George Washington ordered that “prisoners under sentence of death” “be attended with such Chaplains as they choose”—including at the time of their execution. These chaplains often spoke and prayed with the condemned during their final moments. . . . (“Upon the arrival of the criminals at the place of execution, the attending chaplain . . . prayed and recommended them severally to God.”)

    A tradition of such prayer continued throughout our Nation’s history. When, for example, the Federal Government executed four members of the conspiracy that led to the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, the prisoners were accompanied by clergy of various denominations. These “spiritual advisers” ministered to the condemned, and three spoke public prayers shortly before the prisoners were hanged. And in the aftermath of World War II, the United States Army even permitted Nazi war criminals facing execution to be accompanied by a chaplain, who “spoke” prayers on the gallows in the moments before death.

    The practice continues today. In 2020 and 2021, the Federal Bureau of Prisons allowed religious advisors to speak or pray audibly with inmates during at least six federal executions. What’s more, Texas itself appears to have long allowed prison chaplains to pray with inmates in the execution chamber, deciding to prohibit such prayer only in the last several years. (citations omitted)

    What this means for churches

    The ministries of chaplains carry great historical significance in the country and constitute significant and vibrant efforts still today in many parts of the country. This decision is especially relevant to chaplains carrying on that work now and going forward. Likewise, it is relevant to any church with a minister who serves as a prison chaplain, as well as churches with active prison ministries in which ministers visit prisoners, among other services.

    Ramirez v. Collier, 142 S. Ct. 1264 (2021)

    Richard R. Hammar is an attorney, CPA and author specializing in legal and tax issues for churches and clergy.

    Key Tax Dates July 2022

    File 8274 and 941 forms and meet monthly or semiweekly requirements.

    Monthly requirements

    If your church or organization reported withheld taxes of $50,000 or less during the most recent lookback period (for 2022 the lookback period is July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021), then withheld payroll taxes are deposited monthly.

    Monthly deposits are due by the 15th day of the following month. Note, however, that if withheld taxes are less than $2,500 at the end of any calendar quarter (March 31, June 30, September 30, or December 31), the church or organization need not deposit the taxes.

    Instead, it can pay the total withheld taxes directly to the IRS with its quarterly Form 941. Withheld taxes include federal income taxes withheld from employee wages, the employee’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes, and the employer’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes.

    Semiweekly requirements

    If your church or organization reported withheld taxes of more than $50,000 during the most recent lookback period (for 2022 the lookback period is July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021), then the withheld payroll taxes are deposited semiweekly.

    This means that for paydays falling on Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, the payroll taxes must be deposited on or by the following Wednesday. For all other paydays, the payroll taxes must be deposited on the Friday following the payday.

    Note further that large employers having withheld taxes of $100,000 or more at the end of any day must deposit the taxes by the next banking day. The deposit days are based on the timing of the employer’s payroll. Withheld taxes include federal income taxes withheld from employee wages, the employee’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes, and the employer’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes.

    July 30, 2022: File employer exemption—Form 8274

    Churches hiring their first nonminister employee between April 1 and June 29 may exempt themselves from the employer’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes by filing Form 8274 by this date (nonminister employees are thereafter treated as self-employed for Social Security purposes).

    The exemption is only available to churches that are opposed on the basis of religious principles to paying the employer’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes.

    July 31, 2022: File Form 941

    Churches having nonminister employees (or one or more ministers who report their federal income taxes as employees and who have elected voluntary withholding) must file an employer’s quarterly federal tax return (Form 941) for the second quarter of 2022 by this date. Enclose a check in the total amount of all withheld taxes (withheld income taxes, withheld Social Security and Medicare taxes paid by the employee, and the employer’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes) if less than $2,500 on June 30, 2022.

    Richard R. Hammar is an attorney, CPA and author specializing in legal and tax issues for churches and clergy.

    Advantage Member Exclusive

    Retirement Planning for Pastors and Staff

    On-Demand Webinar: Setting successful strategies as your church’s workforce ages.

    Loading the player...


    Editor’s note. This video is part of the Advantage Membership. Learn more on how to become an Advantage Member or upgrade your membership.

    In America, the retirement boom has begun. Yet statistics from annuity.org and elsewhere indicate that most Americans are not financially ready for it.

    Unfortunately, this trend rings true in churches as well. But this doesn’t have to be the case. With a little forward thinking, churches can set their pastors and staff up for success during the retirement years.

    In this webinar featuring CPA Elaine Sommerville, you will learn what to do–or not do–as your workforces age. Watch now to gain an overview of plans that can assist pastors and staff members with setting aside retirement funds, as well as critical considerations they must make regarding housing, spouses, health insurance and Medicare, and life insurance.

    Elaine L. Sommerville is licensed as a certified public accountant by the State of Texas. She has worked in public accounting since 1985.

    Key Tax Dates June 2022

    Review housing allowance designations, make quarterly payments, and meet monthly or semiweekly requirements.

    Monthly requirements

    If your church or organization reported withheld taxes of $50,000 or less during the most recent lookback period (for 2022 the lookback period is July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021), then withheld payroll taxes are deposited monthly.

    Monthly deposits are due by the 15th day of the following month. Note, however, that if withheld taxes are less than $2,500 at the end of any calendar quarter (March 31, June 30, September 30, or December 31), the church or organization need not deposit the taxes.

    Instead, it can pay the total withheld taxes directly to the IRS with its quarterly Form 941. Withheld taxes include federal income taxes withheld from employee wages, the employee’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes (7.65 percent of wages), and the employer’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes (an additional 7.65 percent of employee wages).

    Semiweekly requirements

    If your church or organization reported withheld taxes of more than $50,000 during the most recent lookback period (for 2022 the lookback period is July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021), then the withheld payroll taxes are deposited semiweekly.

    This means that for paydays falling on Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, the payroll taxes must be deposited on or by the following Wednesday. For all other paydays, the payroll taxes must be deposited on the Friday following the payday.

    Note further that large employers having withheld taxes of $100,000 or more at the end of any day must deposit the taxes by the next banking day. The deposit days are based on the timing of the employer’s payroll. Withheld taxes include federal income taxes withheld from employee wages, the employee’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes (7.65 percent of wages), and the employer’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes (an additional 7.65 percent of employee wages).

    June 15, 2022: Quarterly estimated tax payments for certain employees and churches

    Filing for certain ministers and self-employed workers

    Ministers (who have not elected voluntary withholding) and self-employed workers must file their second quarterly estimated federal tax payment for 2022 by this date. A similar rule applies in many states to payments of estimated state taxes.

    Nonminister employees of churches that filed a timely Form 8274 (waiving the church’s obligation to withhold and pay FICA taxes) are treated as self-employed for Social Security, and accordingly are subject to the estimated tax deadlines with respect to their self-employment (Social Security) taxes unless they ask their employing church to withhold an additional amount of income taxes from each paycheck that will be sufficient to cover self-employment taxes (use a new Form W-4, Step 4(c), to make this request).

    Payments for unrelated business income tax liability

    A church must make quarterly estimated tax payments if it expects an unrelated business income tax liability for the year to be $500 or more. Use IRS Form 990-W to figure your estimated taxes. Quarterly estimated tax payments of one-fourth of the total tax liability are due by April 15, June 15, September 15, and December 15, 2022, for churches on a calendar year basis. Deposit quarterly tax payments electronically using the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS).

    June 30, 2022: Review housing or parsonage allowance designations

    Now is a good time to review the 2022 housing or parsonage allowances designated for all ministers on staff. If an allowance designated for 2022 is clearly below actual housing expenses, then the church board should consider declaring a larger portion of the minister’s remaining compensation as a housing or parsonage allowance.

    A church is free to designate any portion of a minister’s compensation as a housing allowance, but remember that clergy who own their home cannot claim a housing allowance exclusion greater than the fair rental value of the home (furnished, including utilities). Therefore, the allowance ordinarily should not be significantly more than this amount.

    Richard R. Hammar is an attorney, CPA and author specializing in legal and tax issues for churches and clergy.

    Can Churches Assist with Medicare Premiums for Eligible Employees?

    Churches must understand several rules and factors when it comes to medicare premiums for eligible employees.

    Can churches assist with medicare premiums for eliglible employees?

    It’s an important question as aging workers stay in the marketplace longer than in past years.

    As a result, churches are facing—or will face—the question of how to handle health insurance coverage for employees reaching Medicare eligibility. Upon reaching Medicare eligibility, a person’s health coverage becomes a maze of options for both the employer and the employee.

    Churches often desire to encourage an employee to leave a group health-care plan and enroll in Medicare to take advantage of cost savings. Many times, the employee also desires this path because it is less expensive than his or her portion of the cost of the church’s group health-care plan. When discussing Medicare as a health-care option, the topic of the church’s ability to assist with Medicare-related premiums invariably comes up.

    While employers may not pay Medicare premiums directly for active employees, they may in some circumstances establish reimbursement plans for the related costs. However, employer assistance with these costs requires great caution and an understanding of multiple, little-known laws.

    Navigation of this complex subject is dependent on several factors requiring skilled analysis and well-thought-out planning. The analysis is intricate and easy to misstep. The purpose of this article is to raise awareness of the rules involved and assist a church in knowing when to seek guidance from a benefits professional.

    Rules to consider in the analysis

    There are two primary sets of rules to consider when deciding whether to assist an employee with Medicare-related premiums and supplemental coverage.

    The first is the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Created in 2010, most churches are now accustomed to navigating the ACA’s intricate rules relating to health-care coverage.

    The second set of rules, which is not as familiar to church employers, is the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) rules.

    The ACA and Medicare

    Medicare is not a group health-care plan under the ACA, so Medicare reimbursements or payments are considered reimbursements of an individual health insurance plan. Therefore, if a church agrees to pay an employee for Medicare premiums, it is reimbursing an individual health insurance plan. If a church has more than one employee, then the provisions of the ACA kick in, and those provisions generally prohibit the reimbursement of individual health insurance premiums.

    In the past few years, two avenues have been approved that allow employers to provide for individual health insurance coverage. These avenues are specific versions of health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs): the Qualified Small Employer Health Reimbursement Arrangement (QSEHRA) or the Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement Arrangement (ICHRA).

    Both HRAs have specific qualifications and operating rules. Reimbursing individual health insurance premiums outside of a qualifying HRA creates an employer-paid health plan subject to the ACA’s penalty of $100 per day ($36,500 per year) per employee.

    Additional ACA rules apply to employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees because they must offer group health insurance to all full-time employees.

    Medicare Secondary Payer rules

    Outside of the ACA rules, any arrangement involving Medicare and employees must also comply with the MSP rules. No one should be surprised to learn that the government does not approve of employers transferring their insurance responsibilities to the government. MSP rules define when Medicare can be the primary payer versus when the federal government insists that Medicare operate as a secondary payer behind other employer-provided insurance plans covering active employees.

    For an employer with 20 or fewer full- or part-time workers that offers group health insurance plans, MSP rules allow greater latitude in working with employees eligible for Medicare. Medicare rules require an employee to enroll in Medicare when eligible and Medicare serves as the primary payer of medical needs.

    But the provisions clearly state that employers of 20 or more employees may not actively encourage or compensate employees for exiting their group health plan in favor of Medicare. The employer must offer the same health-care benefits to those 65-and-older employees that they do to employees under 65. A church’s group health plan must be the primary payer and Medicare the secondary payer. While an employee may choose to exit the group health-care plan in favor of a Medicare option, the employer may not compensate or reward the employee for this decision.

    Note. An employer meets the 20-or-more-employee requirement when an employer has 20 or more full-time and/or part-time employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year.

    Potential solutions

    So, what are a church’s options for employees who desire to enroll in Medicare?

    Churches with fewer than 20 employees that offer group health insurance

    A church with fewer than 20 full- or part-time employees (as defined above)—and that offers group health insurance not consisting solely of benefits excepted from the ACA rules—may take the following steps:

    • establish a group health insurance plan for employees not eligible for Medicare; and
    • create an integrated health reimbursement arrangement for those employees enrolled in Medicare Part A and Part B or D that reimburses the premiums the employee pays for Medicare Parts B and/or D only. (This is a specifically authorized method of integrating this type of HRA into an employer’s group health plan.)

    Churches with fewer than 50 employees not offering group insurance

    A church with no more than 49 full-time equivalent employees and not offering group health insurance may consider establishing an ICHRA or a QSEHRA (see above sidebar). Both types of HRAs may reimburse individual health insurance premiums and the employee’s benefits may be used to pay for Medicare Parts B, C and/or D. However, these plans may not be limited to simply covering Medicare premiums and must comply with nondiscrimination rules.

    Churches with 20 or more employees offering group insurance

    For employers that offer group coverage and meet the 20-employee rule above, compliance with MSP rules is more challenging. To comply, the health-care options offered to qualifying employees and their spouses (if applicable) may not differ based on whether or not employees are eligible for Medicare. Any HRA must comply with ACA rules. The interplay of these rules makes it difficult—if not impossible—to create a plan providing for the reimbursement of Medicare-related premiums for active employees.

    Employer size is the determining factor

    In summary, an employee may enroll in Medicare when he or she becomes eligible and may still participate in his or her employer’s group health plan—or choose to leave the employer’s plan.

    However, the size of the employer determines which plan provides primary coverage for health expenses and which one provides secondary coverage, and it determines the options available (or not) for the employer to reimburse costs.

    Assisting employees with Medicare-related premiums should only be undertaken when a church has actively sought the assistance of a benefits professional skilled in working with these specific rules. Churches and employees may also find assistance through a State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP) that provides free health insurance counseling services. Locate a local SHIP by visiting shiphelp.org or by calling (toll-free) 1-800-633-4227.

    Elaine L. Sommerville is licensed as a certified public accountant by the State of Texas. She has worked in public accounting since 1985.

    Downloadable Checklist: How Various Political Activities Might Affect Your Church’s Tax-Exempt Status

    Which political activities may affect your church’s tax-exempt status, based on IRS guidance.

    Last Reviewed: April 25, 2024

    Election years frequently prompt a common question among church leaders and pastors: What types of political activities and speech are allowed under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code?

    While political activities and speech by churches and pastors are protected by the US Constitution’s First Amendment, the Internal Revenue Code contains specific language that either prohibits or limits certain activities conducted by tax-exempt entities. Violations can lead to excise taxes, the revocation of federal tax exemption, or both. While few public examples exist of the enforcement of these rules over the years by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), churches and church leaders still should understand the prohibitions and limitations, including any potential tax consequences any violations may trigger.

    This chart provides a variety of examples of political activities churches might wish to do and briefly details the related IRS guidance, including the potential effects of those activities on a church’s tax-exempt status. The goal is to provide a quick reference for church leaders that helps them make informed decisions.

    To go deeper on these issues, don’t miss “The Tax Implications of Churches and Political Involvement,” by attorney, CPA, and senior editor Richard R. Hammar, and “Churches, Politics, and Constitutional Protections,” by attorney Erik Stanley on ChurchLawAndTax.com’s Recommended Reading page.

    ACTIVITY

    IMPACT ON TAX- EXEMPT STATUS

    BASIS

    A church makes contributions to a candidate’s campaign fund

    Prohibited

    IRS Publication 1828

    A church makes public statements of position (verbal and written) in favor of or in opposition to candidates for office through official church publications, at official church functions, or both

    Prohibited

    IRS Publication 1828

    A church’s pastor delivers a sermon series addressing what the Bible says about abortion, criminal justice reform, sexual orientation and gender identity, and other topics with social and spiritual implications

    Permitted

    First Amendment of the US Constitution

    A church provides a nonpartisan forum for all candidates to address the church

    Permitted

    IRS Publication 1828

    A church invites all candidates for a political office to address the congregation and informs the congregation before each candidate’s speech that the views expressed are those of the candidate and not the church, and that the church does not endorse any candidate

    Permitted

    Revenue Ruling 74-574; IRS Publication 1828

    A church invites only one candidate in a political campaign to address the congregation

    Prohibited

    Revenue Ruling 2007-41; IRS Publication 1828

    A church provides an opportunity for a candidate to speak in a noncandidate capacity (for example, as a member of the church, public figure, or expert in a nonpolitical field) without providing equal access to all political candidates for the same office. The church ensures that the candidate speaks in a noncandidate capacity; no reference is made to the person’s candidacy; the church mentions the capacity in which the candidate is appearing (without mentioning the person’s political candidacy); and no campaign activity occurs.

    Permitted

    IRS Publication 1828

    A church distributes a compilation of voting records of all members of US Congress on major legislative issues involving a wide range of subjects; the publication contains no editorial opinion, and its text, design elements, and structure do not imply approval or disapproval of any members or their voting records

    Permitted

    Revenue Ruling 78-248; IRS Publication 1828

    A church distributes a voter guide containing questions answered by all candidates. The questions cover a wide range of topics, but the wording of the questions demonstrates bias on certain issues.

    Prohibited

    Revenue Ruling 78-248; IRS Publication 1828

    A church endorses a candidate (by any variety of ways, including verbal or written statements, references to the candidate’s political party, references to the candidate’s distinctive platform or biography, and/or showing the candidate’s picture)

    Prohibited

    Int. Rev. News Release IR-96-23; IRS Publication 1828

    Church employees carry on campaign activities for a candidate within the context of their church employment

    Prohibited

    FSA 1993-0921-1; IRS Publication 1828

    A church fails to “disavow” the campaign activities of persons under “apparent authorization” from the church by repudiating those acts “in a timely manner equal to the original actions” and taking steps “to ensure that such unauthorized actions do not recur”

    Prohibited

    FSA 1993-0921-1

    A church engages in fundraising on behalf of a candidate

    Prohibited

    Int. Rev. News Release IR-96-23; IRS Publication 1828

    A church conducts a neutral voter registration drive

    Permitted

    11 C.F.R. § 111.4(c)(4); IRS Publication 1828

    A church buys and places newspaper ads urging voters to vote for or against a candidate

    Prohibited

    Branch Ministries, Inc. v. Commissioner, 99-1 USTC ¶50,410 (D.D.C. 1999), aff’d, Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, 2000 USTC ¶50,459 (D.C. Cir. 2000)

    A church website contains information either supporting or opposing candidates for public office

    Prohibited

    IRS Publication 1828

    A church website contains links to candidate-related materials, and does not include any text, design elements, or structure indicating support of or opposition to any of the candidates

    Permitted

    Revenue Ruling 2007-41; IRS Publication 1828

    A church website links to third-party websites containing materials supporting or opposing candidates

    Prohibited

    IRS Publication 1828

    A minister who is known well in the community attends a press conference at a political candidate’s campaign headquarters and states that the candidate should be reelected. The minister does not say he is speaking on behalf of his church. His endorsement is reported on the front page of the local newspaper, and he is identified in the article as the minister of his church.

    Permitted

    Revenue Ruling 2007-41; IRS Publication 1828

    A church maintains a website that includes biographies of its ministers, times of services, details of community outreach programs, and activities of members of its congregation. A member of the congregation is running for a seat on the town council. Shortly before the election, the church posts the following message on its website: “Lend your support to your fellow parishioner in Tuesday’s election for town council.”

    Prohibited

    Revenue Ruling 2007-41; IRS Publication 1828

    A church urges its members to contact members of the state legislature and urge them to reject a proposed bill legalizing marijuana

    Prohibited

    IRS Publication 1828

    A church provides its members with educational materials about the legalization of marijuana and hosts an educational meeting on the topic

    Permitted

    IRS Publication 1828

    A church gives a pro-life advocacy group permission to place pamphlets on vehicles in the church’s parking lot during Sunday worship services. The pamphlets urge congregants to support a “pro-life” slate in the upcoming election.

    Unclear based on IRS regulations and current law—but likely prohibited

    A church owns space suitable for events and makes it available for rent to the public on a first come, first served basis. A candidate pays the standard fee to host a campaign dinner.

    Permitted

    IRS Publication 1828

    A church sets up a booth at the state fair where citizens can register to vote. The booth only contains the church’s name, the date of the next statewide election, and notice of the opportunity to register. No reference to any candidate or political party is made in any materials or in any statements given by volunteers.

    Permitted

    IRS Publication 1828

    A church maintains a list containing contact information for its members and has never rented it to a third party. The church allows one candidate to rent the list to send campaign information, but declines similar requests from other candidates.

    Prohibited

    IRS Publication 1828

    A church sets up a telephone bank to conduct a “get-out-the-vote” effort and contacts registered voters in its district. Church volunteers are instructed to ask the registered voters about their positions on certain moral issues, and if the voter’s positions align with a specific candidate running for office in the district, to then remind them about the upcoming election, the importance of voting, and the availability of church-sponsored transportation to the polls.

    Prohibited

    IRS Publication 1828

    For a more detailed discussion about political activities and the church, visit ChurchLawAndTax.com’s Recommended Reading page, “Churches and Political Activities,” as well as chapter 12 of Richard R. Hammar’s annual Church & Clergy Tax Guide.

    The Tax Implications of Churches and Political Involvement

    The tax implications for churches that engage in political campaigns and legislative lobbying.

    To maintain federal tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, churches must follow specific rules. Two key restrictions apply:

    • No political campaign activity—churches may not support or oppose any candidate for public office.
    • Limited lobbying—churches may not devote a substantial part of their activity to influencing legislation.

    While enforcement has historically been limited, violations can carry significant tax consequences. Church leaders should understand these restrictions and evaluate how their activities may be affected.


    Historical Context: A Tradition of Political Engagement

    Political involvement by churches and clergy is nothing new. Common examples include:

    • Inviting candidates to speak at services
    • Distributing voter guides or candidate literature
    • Organizing voter registration drives
    • Recruiting volunteers for campaigns
    • Making statements for or against political candidates during worship

    However, even well-intentioned actions can risk a church’s tax-exempt status.


    What Section 501(c)(3) Requires

    According to the law, a church is tax-exempt only if:

    “No substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, and which does not participate in, or intervene in … any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.”

    This means:

    • No substantial lobbying (even if not related to elections)
    • No political campaign activity whatsoever, even if minimal

    These activities aren’t illegal—but they can result in loss of tax-exempt status.


    IRS Enforcement: Rare but Real

    Although violations have occurred with little IRS response, there have been some notable actions:

    • 1990s: The IRS revoked a church’s exemption for engaging in a presidential campaign.
    • Jimmy Swaggart Ministries (1992): Agreed to cease political activity after IRS findings.
    • 2004 Ruling: A pastor’s comments opposing candidates were imputed to the church. The IRS imposed a tax but did not revoke status.

    Limited enforcement is partly due to the Church Audit Procedures Act, which restricts when and how the IRS can investigate churches. A 2009 federal court ruling further limited IRS authority—though a later settlement in 2014 affirmed the IRS still had enforcement procedures in place.


    Understanding Political Campaign Activity

    What the Law Prohibits

    Churches cannot:

    • Make statements (oral or written) supporting or opposing candidates
    • Distribute biased voter guides
    • Allow use of church property or events to promote candidates

    This includes all levels of government: local, state, and national.

    What the IRS Says (Publication 1828)

    The IRS allows personal political activity by church leaders, but not during:

    • Official church functions
    • Church publications
    • Any event where the leader represents the church

    To protect the church, leaders should clarify when they’re speaking personally—not on behalf of the church.


    Candidates Speaking at Church

    Speaking as a Candidate

    Churches may invite candidates to speak—but must ensure:

    • Equal opportunity is given to all candidates
    • The church does not endorse or oppose the candidate
    • No fundraising occurs
    • The nonpartisan purpose of the visit is clear
    • The church maintains a neutral tone in all announcements

    Speaking as a Noncandidate

    Candidates may also speak in a noncandidate capacity (e.g., as a public figure or expert). In these cases:

    • The event must remain nonpartisan
    • No mention of candidacy or elections is permitted
    • The individual must be invited for reasons unrelated to the campaign

    Hosting Forums or Debates

    Public candidate forums are allowed—but only if they are neutral. The IRS evaluates:

    • Who prepares and asks the questions
    • Whether issues reflect public interest
    • Whether all candidates get equal opportunity
    • Whether the event avoids endorsements or disapproval
    • Moderator neutrality

    Voter Education and Registration

    Churches may conduct:

    • Voter registration drives
    • Distribute nonpartisan voter guides
    • Host educational events

    But they must avoid:

    • Comparing candidate views to the church’s positions
    • Distributing guides with biased design, content, or placement
    • Omitting candidates or editorializing their views

    Even third-party guides may count as political activity if biased and distributed by the church.


    Campaign Literature on Church Property

    If individuals distribute campaign materials on church premises—especially with leadership’s permission—the church risks appearing to endorse a candidate.

    Key point: If church leaders allow this, the IRS may view it as indirect campaign participation.

    Unsolicited pamphleteering (e.g., flyers on windshields without church knowledge) is not a violation—unless church leaders gave permission.


    Business Activities and Campaigns

    Churches must be cautious with:

    • Renting out space
    • Selling mailing lists
    • Accepting political advertising

    IRS will consider:

    • Equal access for all candidates
    • Whether services are offered to the general public
    • Standard pricing practices
    • Whether the church routinely conducts the activity

    Church Websites and Digital Content

    The IRS treats websites like printed materials. Churches are responsible for:

    • Content favoring or opposing candidates
    • Links to outside political websites
    • Context in which links or statements are shared

    Churches should regularly review links and online materials during election seasons.


    Lobbying Restrictions

    Churches may lose tax-exempt status if a substantial part of their activity is lobbying. This includes:

    • Urging the public to contact legislators
    • Supporting or opposing legislation
    • Advocating for ballot measures

    What Isn’t Lobbying?

    • Educating the public on policy issues
    • Hosting educational meetings
    • Distributing materials in an educational, nonpartisan way

    How Much Is Too Much?

    There is no clear IRS rule defining “substantial.” Courts have offered guidance:

    • Less than 5% of a church’s time/resources may be considered insubstantial (Seasongood v. Commissioner, 1955)
    • 16% to 20% was deemed substantial in another case (Haswell v. U.S., 1974)

    The IRS considers all facts, including:

    • Time spent by staff and volunteers
    • Resources and money used for lobbying

    Consequences for Violations

    Political Campaign Violations

    Possible penalties include:

    • Loss of tax-exempt status
    • Loss of tax-deductible contributions
    • Excise taxes, such as:
      • 10% on the church’s political spending
      • 2.5% on responsible managers (up to $5,000)
      • Additional taxes (up to 100%) if not corrected
      • 50% on managers who refuse to correct (up to $10,000)

    Correction involves recovering the funds and creating safeguards to prevent future violations.

    Lobbying Violations

    Excessive lobbying may lead to:

    • Loss of tax-exempt status
    • Federal and state taxes on all income
    • Potential excise taxes on political expenditures (though churches are often excluded)

    What Losing Tax-Exempt Status Means

    If a church loses its status:

    • Income becomes taxable
    • Donors lose their charitable deduction
    • The church may lose:
      • Property tax and sales tax exemptions
      • Exemption from unemployment tax
      • Eligibility for 403(b) retirement plans
      • Preferential mailing rates
      • Protection under the Church Audit Procedures Act
      • Exemption from religious discrimination claims in certain cases

    These consequences are serious—and should be carefully considered when evaluating political involvement.

    Matthew Branaugh, attorney and content editor for ChurchLawAndTax.com, contributed to this article.
    Richard R. Hammar is an attorney, CPA and author specializing in legal and tax issues for churches and clergy.
    ajax-loader-largecaret-downcloseHamburger Menuicon_amazonApple PodcastsBio Iconicon_cards_grid_caretChild Abuse Reporting Laws by State IconChurchSalary Iconicon_facebookGoogle Podcastsicon_instagramLegal Library IconLegal Library Iconicon_linkedinLock IconMegaphone IconOnline Learning IconPodcast IconRecent Legal Developments IconRecommended Reading IconRSS IconSubmiticon_select-arrowSpotify IconAlaska State MapAlabama State MapArkansas State MapArizona State MapCalifornia State MapColorado State MapConnecticut State MapWashington DC State MapDelaware State MapFederal MapFlorida State MapGeorgia State MapHawaii State MapIowa State MapIdaho State MapIllinois State MapIndiana State MapKansas State MapKentucky State MapLouisiana State MapMassachusetts State MapMaryland State MapMaine State MapMichigan State MapMinnesota State MapMissouri State MapMississippi State MapMontana State MapMulti State MapNorth Carolina State MapNorth Dakota State MapNebraska State MapNew Hampshire State MapNew Jersey State MapNew Mexico IconNevada State MapNew York State MapOhio State MapOklahoma State MapOregon State MapPennsylvania State MapRhode Island State MapSouth Carolina State MapSouth Dakota State MapTennessee State MapTexas State MapUtah State MapVirginia State MapVermont State MapWashington State MapWisconsin State MapWest Virginia State MapWyoming State IconShopping Cart IconTax Calendar Iconicon_twitteryoutubepauseplay
    caret-downclosefacebook-squarehamburgerinstagram-squarelinkedin-squarepauseplaytwitter-square