NARTH’s Tax Exempt Status: Do They Care?

Typical of NARTH, much of the world is talking about them and they haven’t made a public comment on the loss of their tax exempt status. I have heard from people who have written them and the response from NARTH is to claim there is a mistake and they anticipate maintaining their status.

Maintaining, of course, is not the right word since they don’t have it now. They would have to regain it which is possible but involves re-submitting applications and paying fees. If there is some reason why they did not file that would be acceptable to the IRS then they might get the status retroactively. However, I imagine it would have to be a pretty good story.

This means that donations made to NARTH are not tax deductible and there is pretty good chance that donations made now never will be deductible until they regain their status. However, they have offered no official recognition or advisory notice on their website so that donors are warned. Donors who attempt to deduct gifts to a non-eligible organization are subject to penalty.

Here’s another thing, thus far, I know of no religious media source who has written about this. While I can imagine that they might not want to write an embarrassing article, they are not helping their readers.

Last week, I asked NARTH’s Executive Secretary David Pruden for a comment or reaction but thus far, silence.

UPDATE: Surprisingly, One News Now (AFA) covered this story. And they quote someone who knows all about losing one’s IRS status – Peter LaBarbera. Not letting a crisis go to waste, LaBarbera makes the IRS action about government persecution. However, his own group which is even more anti-gay than NARTH got their non-profit status back after filing the necessary papers.

It still seems odd that NARTH did not comment on their status even in what is a friendly venue for them.

"And then there is your inability to deal with the facts. Cambridge, Oxford, etc.Facts mean ..."

Fact and Fiction in Ravi Zacharias’ ..."
"There's no need to target Jefferson to show the United States was founded as a ..."

Fact and Fiction About Thomas Jefferson ..."
"Hastily? You mean by writing them in his books and repeating them in media appearances ..."

Fact and Fiction in Ravi Zacharias’ ..."
"Btw, why are there 2 Steve Baughman profiles --one that is greyed out, and one ..."

Fact and Fiction in Ravi Zacharias’ ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • David Cary Hart

    By now, they have probably filed a return which gets them reinstated. As long as they cure the default within 12 months, the tax deductibility of contributions is retroactive.

    In theory, they are losing some money on local sales taxes.

    The bigger story is the utter sloppiness. The 990 is trivial for an organization of NARTH’s (small) size.It could be spun out with home budgeting software.

  • David Cary Hart

    Warren: I love the blog – hate your commenting system. I should have included that it may take a year to actually get reinstated but that is somewhat irrelevant.

  • Jarred

    @David Cary Hart:

    By now, they have probably filed a return which gets them reinstated.

    Upon what do you base this assumption/prediction?

  • David Cary Hart


    It’s trivial to file one return to gain reinstatement which is probably why they are still accepting tax deductible contributions. They can pretty much sign a blank form and get reinstated (which is essentially what Porno Pete did).

    I am actively working with one of my senators to change the system. Three years of un-filed returns is close to five years. It’s nuts and it should be one-and done. In other words, if I started a 501(c)3 on January 1, 2013 and filed nothing, it would be spring of 2017 before I was revoked. The system is a joke.

  • Michael C

    The AFA decided to report on this! Of course they’ve spun the story into victimhoodness. You’re apparently a “homosexual activist group” now! Congratulations.

  • Jarred


    It’s trivial to file one return to gain reinstatement

    Well yes, but that fact doesn’t necessarily mean that they are going to do so or have done so. I mean, it would have been trivial for them to file the form each year for the past three years, and yet they have not done so. So why assume they’ve done it now?

  • Josh

    Warren, you seem to have a mean-spirited attitude towards them.

    Have they done anything wrong to you?

  • Zoe Brain

    I think he’s not a fan of those who deliberately bear false witness.

    I personally don’t think Christians are mean-spirited for that.

  • Warren Throckmorton

    Josh – You should use the search engine on the blog here to search for NARTH. There are numerous problems with NARTH which call for a skeptical, critical stance. Rather that reproduce them all here, I encourage you to read the many posts I have written about them.