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