Bob jones university interracial dating rules

Because of this admissions policy, the IRS revoked the University's tax-exempt status. Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (IRC) provides that "[c]orporations . But in 1970, the IRS concluded that it could no longer justify allowing tax-exempt status under 501(c)(3) to private schools that practiced racial discrimination, and in 1971 issued Revenue Ruling 71-447 providing that a private school not having a racially nondiscriminatory policy as to students is not "charitable" within the common-law concepts reflected in 170 and 501(c)(3). 81-3, petitioner Bob Jones University, while permitting unmarried Negroes to enroll as students, denies admission to applicants engaged in an interracial marriage or known to advocate interracial marriage or dating. William Bentley Ball argued the cause for petitioner in No.

bob jones university interracial dating rules-29bob jones university interracial dating rules-39

or educational purposes" are entitled to tax exemption. With him on the briefs were Acting Solicitor General Wallace and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Cooper. Coleman, Jr., pro se, by invitation of the Court, 456 U. 922 , argued the cause as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

After paying a portion of such taxes for certain years, Goldsboro filed a refund suit in Federal District Court, and the IRS counterclaimed for unpaid taxes. (a) An examination of the IRC's framework and the background of congressional purposes reveals unmistakable evidence that underlying all relevant parts of the IRC is the intent that entitlement to tax exemption depends on meeting certain common-law standards of charity - namely, that an institution seeking tax-exempt status must serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established public policy. (b) The IRS's 1970 interpretation of 501(c)(3) was correct.

The District Court entered summary judgment for the IRS, rejecting Goldsboro's claim to tax-exempt status under 501(c) (3) and also its claim that the denial of such status violated the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. Held: Neither petitioner qualifies as a tax-exempt organization under 501(c)(3). Thus, to warrant exemption under 501(c)(3), an institution must fall within a category specified in that section and must demonstrably serve and be in harmony with the public interest, and the institution's purpose must not be so at odds with the common community conscience as to undermine any public benefit that might otherwise be conferred. It would be wholly incompatible with the concepts underlying tax exemption to grant tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private educational entities.

And the actions of Congress since 1970 leave no doubt that the IRS reached the correct conclusion in exercising its authority. Petitioners' asserted interests cannot be accommodated with that compelling governmental interest, and no less restrictive means are available to achieve the governmental interest. Goldsboro admits that it maintains racially discriminatory policies, and, contrary to Bob Jones University's contention that it is not racially discriminatory, discrimination on the basis of racial affiliation and association is a form of racial discrimination.

Assistant Attorney General Reynolds argued the cause for the United States in both cases. 12 More than a century ago, this Court announced the caveat that is critical in this case: "[I]t has now become an established principle of American law, that courts of chancery will sustain and protect .

Leave a Reply