2defense
Susie King Taylor2 360x1000
1albion
storyparadox2
Maurice B Foley 360x1000
Storyparadox1
11632
9albion
2transadentilist
Brendan Beehan 360x1000
Mark V Holmes 360x1000
4confidencegames
2lookingforthegoodwar
7confidencegames
2confidencegames
1trap
1transcendentalist
2jesusandjohnwayne
3albion
Tad Friend 360x1000
3defense
Gilgamesh 360x1000
399
George M Cohan and Lerarned Hand 360x1000
1falsewitness
LillianFaderman
6confidencegames
6albion
7albion
Edmund Burke 360x1000
1madoff
Margaret Fuller 360x1000
1lafayette
5confidencegames
299
Stormy Daniels 360x1000
11albion
1gucci
14albion
2trap
199
Betty Friedan 360x1000
2lafayette
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 360x1000
12albion
10abion
Anthony McCann2 360x1000
4albion
Mary Ann Evans 360x1000
8albion'
Maria Popova 360x1000
Thomas Piketty1 360x1000
Margaret Fuller3 360x1000
2gucci
Samuel Johnson 360x1000
1lauber
Anthony McCann1 360x1000
Margaret Fuller5 360x1000
1theleasofus
Thomas Piketty2 360x1000
James Gould Cozzens 360x1000
1jesusandjohnwayne
1empireofpain
1paradide
AlexRosenberg
2falsewitness
2albion
13albion
2paradise
1lookingforthegoodwar
499
Learned Hand 360x1000
lifeinmiddlemarch1
Lafayette and Jefferson 360x1000
3confidencegames
3paradise
Susie King Taylor 360x1000
5albion
Margaret Fuller2 360x1000
1confidencegames
Margaret Fuller4 360x1000
2theleastofus
Adam Gopnik 360x1000
lifeinmiddlemarch2
Margaret Fuller1 360x1000
Margaret Fuller 2 360x1000
Spottswood William Robinson 360x1000
storyparadox3
Richard Posner 360x1000
Office of Chief Counsel 360x1000
3theleastofus
Thomas Piketty3 360x1000
1defense
George F Wil...360x1000

Thanks in part to “reality” TV, the practice of polygamy may be starting on the path to being normalized.

Polygamy still has a way to go based on a recent IRS ruling (PLR 201310047).  The ruling denied exempt status under 501(d) to an unnamed organization. The identity of recipients of private letter rulings is not disclosed and information that would help identify it is redacted.  The disguise is pretty thin in the case of this ruling though.  For now I will call it “The Group”.

501(d) -What Is That ?

Here is a summary description of 501(d) organizations from the IRS website:

In general, the type of organization exempt under IRC 501(d) is one organized for the purpose of operating a communal religious community where the members live a communal life following the tenets and teachings of the organization. All of the organization’s property is owned in community and, each member, upon leaving, the organization, is entitled to no part of the community assets. The activities often consist of farming and manufacturing. The income of the organization goes into a community treasury and is used to defray operating expenses and the cost of supporting and maintaining the members and their families.

The Group is pretty substantial, operating eighteen companies in a variety of industries.  It appears to have many of the attributes of a 501(d) organization.  All members belong to “Church Y”.  They maintain a common treasury and under the bylaws members agree to report their share of The Group’s income.

So What Is The Problem ?

The problem is polygamy.  The Group argued that their practice was not strictly speaking illegal under the laws of “State 1” where The Group operated.

These beliefs and practices include polygamy or plurality of wives. You stated that you “…have a religious belief known as ‘Celestial Marriage’ which includes a plurality of wives.” You describe “Celestial Marriage” as a private religious relationship between consenting parties of legal age which is not recognized as a marriage by state authorities. You said that you do not allow your members to seek multiple marriage certificates from state authorities, thus, you do not believe that your religious practice “constitutes bigamy or multiple ‘state recognized’ marriages as defined under applicable state law….”

The IRS is not buying it.  It noted a news story in Examiner.com on “Date 3” that a leader of “Y” was found guilty of bigamy under the laws of “State 1”.  They had asked “The Group” to comment on that, but they did not.  Ultimately the IRS denied the exempt status because under its analysis of the penal code of “State 1”, “The Group” was, in fact, promoting an illegal activity.

What Is The Group ?

This was probably the worst job of redacting that I have even seen.  I have not yet identified “The Group”, but that’s because I want to leave it as an exercise for my dedicated readers.  Just to get your started note that Church Y is an offshoot of Church Z.  Check out how many churches talk about “celestial marriage”.  The penal code analysis makes it pretty clear that “State 1” is Texas.  Here is a link to something that looks an awful lot like the news story referred to.  Note, though, that the IRS did not say that the story was necessarily about somebody from “The Group”, just a fellow co-religionist in “Church Y”.  One of my most constant commenters has already taken a stab at it informally.  No prize for the winner of this contest.  Just the glory.

You can follow me on twitter @peterreillycpa.

Originally published on Forbes.com Mar 12th, 2013