[counterpointer]

No it's more nuanced than the 51% number.

The actual law passed by Congress says "exclusively for social welfare". IRS interpretation changed that to "primarily social welfare" a few decades ago which is actually wrong since IRS cannot make laws, only implement them as written. There was a huge ruckus in congress over this matter. Can't find the video now but here's an article:

http://www.psmag.com/politics/the-irss-tea-party-tax-row-how...

[samolang]

So there's a law that states "exclusively for social welfare" and there's a law that says its okay to participate in non-social welfare activities? The laws sound contradictory to me and it seems like the IRS has a pretty good justification for their interpretation. Either way, whatever they rules are they should apply equally to all people/organizations.

As an aside, I wonder if you could make the legal argument that political donations are considered social welfare? If planned parenthood can call giving out birth control social welfare, then why can't it call advocating for the availability of free birth control social welfare? If advocating for the availability of free birth control is social welfare and political donations are covered by free speech, then why isn't giving political donations to candidates that support the availability of free birth control considered social welfare?

[counterpointer]

There is only one law which says exclusively. The "primarily" thing is an interpretation of the law by IRS.

[samolang]

I guess we interpreted this differently:

> Spurred by such concerns over unfair competition and lost revenue, Congress enacted the UBIT. It taxed any trade or business regularly carried on by Section 501(c) organizations if the activity is not related—aside from the need for funding—to the organization’s exempt purpose.

[Guvante]

Except thanks to the complexity of laws, the IRS and other federal agencies are tasked with interpreting and enforcing said laws.

If Congress didn't like the interpretation they could have just passed a new law clarifying that fact.

[pyre]

So... if "the sky is blue" is interpreted to mean, "the sky is green," we have to wait for Congress to pass a new law stating, "the sky isn't green?"

[jacques_chester]

Or you appeal to a higher court.

Law is not static. Congress or Parliament makes its legislation, ambiguity arises in corner cases, Courts are asked to sort it out. Courts try to divine the intention of Congress or Parliament. If Congress or Parliament disagree with that interpretation then yes: it's up to them to change the law. Otherwise, by failure to further Act, they conceptually support the Court's interpretation of their intent.

[Guvante]

To be fair, the original wording was pretty bad. If a non-profit had someone pay $1 into a political fund (potentially without approval) they could lose their nonprofit status.

This is obviously not the intent of the law, but would be the 0% everyone throws around.

You could say <1% or something, but now you are arbitrarily drawing a line. Thus I would point out that not drawing a line is by extension impossible.