The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion;
that is part of the problem. charitable is too loose a definition. most of that definition is fine but what business does the gov't have in helping "advance a religion"?
that sounds very much like a obliteration of the seperation of church and state
the other stuff is great stuff and it fills a hole that gov't can't fill at present and those expenses should be exempt
this is a pretty big loophole imo:
The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.
sounds to me like they'd take that tax out on the individual(s) and still treat the organization as a non-taxable entity.
so if that's the case, it's sounding very much like a pastor, reverend, whatever, can pay himself a ton and depending on the circumstances, might not be penalized for it at all. what's 'reasonable' after all?
looking at how ministerial pay is 'set' the more it seems that this is a very exploitable system which might explain why tvevangelists look so damn snazzy