Minute # 1. Worship and Opening Exercises

The meeting settled into worship at the appointed hour of 6:00 p.m. at Arch Street Meetinghouse, Philadelphia, PA.

The clerk noted that when Philadelphia Yearly Meeting became incorporated last year, Interim Meeting was designated to function as the Board of the corporation at certain times. Tonight is one of those times. This special called session of Interim Meeting is for the purpose of considering our response to a legal action brought against Philadelphia Yearly Meeting by the U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting is in addition to the regular September Interim Meeting to be held next week on September 25. The hurricane now bearing down on Philadelphia may serve to encourage focus and discipline in our actions tonight.

The clerk introduced herself, Chris Mahon (Woodstown), and asked others at the clerk's table to introduce themselves - Chris Nicholson (Germantown), alternate clerk, and Susan White (Princeton), recording clerk.

The clerk stated that it is important that everyone sign in at the registration table tonight, both representatives and visitors. She also noted that for all representatives who have email, it is very important that Connie Blood have their email address. It is especially helpful in an emergency situation, such as when we needed to decide on whether to have this meeting due to developing weather conditions. Connie is the Yearly Meeting staff member who supports our work in Interim Meeting. Friends can send their email address to Connie at connieb@pym.org. If we did not get two email notices about having this meeting tonight from Connie, it means that she does not have our email address, and we should send it to her.

The clerk then welcomed the following new members, alternates and visitors.
New representatives were David Barclay III (Haddonfield), Vivian Carlson (Valley), Fred Carrier (Haverford), and Suzanne Day (Westfield). New alternates were: John McKinstry (Swarthmore) and Ann Yasahara (Princeton).

Guests were:

Abington Quarter: Jane Bauer (Norristown), Christine Greenland (Horsham), Joan M. Johnston (Gwynedd), Allen Reeder (Abington), and Sam T. Swansen (Gwynedd).
Bucks Quarter: Michael Barrett (Lehigh Valley) Jackie Bowers (Falls), Will Bowers (Falls), Gretchen Castle (Doylestown), Walter S. Farley (Bristol), Robin Harper (Southampton), Sean Mather (Falls), and Marge Schier (Falls).
Burlington Quarter: Marge Larrabee (Mt. Holly), Liz Smith (Cropwell), and Mitsuru Yasuhara (Princeton).
Concord Quarter: Anne Boyd (West Chester), Penelope Boyd (West Chester), and Richard Thompson (West Chester).
Haverford Quarter: Jacqueline Meile Brown (Haverford), Anne Moore (Valley), and Tom Moore (Valley).
Haddonfield Quarter: Priscilla Adams (Haddonfield), John M. Caughey (Moorestown), John P. Caughey (Moorestown), Susan Genovese (Moorestown), Bob Gray (Moorestown), Sandy Heath (Moorestown), Karen Norton (Westfield), and Warren Sawyer (Moorestown).
Philadelphia Quarter: Phil Anthony (Chestnut Hill), TylaAnn Burger (Green Street), Arthur Larrabee (Central Philadelphia), Libby Marsh (Green Street), Jason Millard (Arch Street), Rita Varley (Central Philadelphia), George Willoughby (Central Philadelphia), and Gail Woodbury (Germantown) - Meeting on Worship and Ministry.
Salem Quarter: Mario Cavallini (Mickleton) - Meeting on Worship and Ministry, Dana Houghton (Woodstown), and George Houghton (Woodstown).
Southern Quarter: Cathy Robert (Third Haven) and Norval Thompson (Third Haven).
Conscience, Militarism and War Tax Concerns Working Group: Kathryn Mariani.

Minute # 2. Response to the IRS Suit.

The clerk noted that this session is different from other business meetings we have been in, since we have met to carry out our business not only under the leadings of the Spirit, as is our usual practice, but also with the legal guidance of our attorney in these matters. She further noted that the current case is not against Priscilla Adams (Haddonfield), but is rather against us - that is, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. Therefore a letter from Priscilla stating her position was distributed, but we will not hear from her in any formal way tonight.

The clerk reminded Friends that we have a very narrow focus in this meeting. We are not here to talk about war tax resistance, or about the Yearly Meeting policy on supporting the witness of Friends and employees, or about Priscilla's witness. We may decide to discuss those concerns at future meetings, but tonight we must decide how to answer the suit that has been brought against us. The clerk also reminded us that we all need to have our minds open and be ready to accept the leadings of the Spirit, wherever that takes us tonight.

We have received a number of Minutes from Monthly and Quarterly Meetings, and communications from both Baltimore Yearly Meeting and New York Yearly Meeting. These support our work tonight, and state that many Friends in diverse locations are now holding us in the Light as we approach the issues we will address. A letter from Linda Chidsey, clerk of New York Yearly Meeting was read. It said in part, "May your meeting be deep, covered, and imbued with the Spirit", and concluded with advice from Romans 12:12: "Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer".

Minute # 3. Background

Thom Jeavons, General Secretary of our Yearly Meeting, presented the view that this highly complex case is really about our relationship with the world and with our government. He quoted from Edward Burroughs, one of the leaders of early Quakerism, who observed that we need to obey legal and state authority in all matters, both actively and passively, but also to resist when anything is commanded of us “which is not according to equity, justice and a good conscience towards God.” Thom noted that tonight we are seeking to find a way to acknowledge the legitimate authority and functions of our government, and to support those. But it is also important that we claim for our religious community and its members the right not to be forced by law to do things which we understand to be contrary to God’s will and intentions for us.

Thom then introduced Peter Goldberger. A 1971 graduate of Haverford College, Peter has been our attorney in these matters for the last fifteen years. He also has represented other religious bodies, including certain Mennonites, in matters of conscience.

Peter reminded Friends of Interim Meeting that this is a civil case and not a criminal case. The government is not trying to send anyone to jail, or to punish anyone. The case is from the civil side of the law. The Department of Justice is acting as a debt collector. They view the suit as something ordinary and simple. We view it as something complex and difficult.

The suit is about a policy which has its roots in one adopted by Philadelphia Yearly Meeting in 1975, following many years of recording support for Friends "who in good conscience are called to refuse to pay taxes for war" (Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1968). The policy stated: "Philadelphia Yearly Meeting should refuse to honor a levy or to pay over the money voluntarily, setting forth our belief that it is wrong to force an employee to violate his/her conscience." In 1988, the current policy for employee war tax resistance was approved. This policy outlines detailed procedures which we follow to honor the conscience of our employees who have scruples against voluntarily paying taxes which may be used for war. The policy is complex because it creates a process we follow so that Philadelphia Yearly Meeting can comply with the law as closely as possible without violating our own religious precepts or those of our employees in matters of conscience. The policy states that Interim Meeting will be the body to respond to any suit brought against Philadelphia Yearly Meeting in these matters.

Acting in compliance with this policy, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting has refused, by formal decisions in 1995 and again in May of 2001 to honor an IRS request to garnish Priscilla Adams' wages to collect the taxes they say that she owes for the period 1986-1996. The suit they have brought now asks the court to force us to pay those funds and a 50% penalty for having refused previously.

Peter reminded us again that our policy is not a policy of war tax resistance. Instead, it is a policy of corporate support for individual Friends or employees who have been through a clearness process for a leading which arises from historic Friends testimonies. Philadelphia Yearly Meeting is not a tax resister. While we are exempt from income taxes, we pay other taxes such as the excise taxes on telephone bills.

The present situation arises from the Internal Revenue Service asking Philadelphia Yearly Meeting to withhold a certain amount from Priscilla's wages. We do this, but rather than paying the funds over to the IRS we deposit them into a bank account, in accordance with our policy. Several times a year the IRS goes into that account and takes those monies. The problem has arisen because they have not told us to withhold enough money. Priscilla has not asked us to withhold any more or less than the IRS demands.

Peter suggested that we may wish to choose among four possible actions in response to this suit:

1. Decide that this witness has been taken as far as it ought to go, and pay "under protest" the amount due under the tax law, or a negotiated amount.
2. Take no further action on the suit.
3. Inform the court in a formal Answer that we have no defense or other response to make to the suit.
4. File an Answer to the Complaint asserting a defense to levy compliance by invoking the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a 1994 statute which says that federal agencies must allow any reasonable accommodation that they can of sincere religious exercise which prevents compliance with any obligation arising from federal law.

Why is the IRS doing this?
The IRS wants Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, like any other employer, to collect for them from an employee, who in this instance is a war tax resister.

Why are they suing us? Why don't they just take the money?
Government can only collect delinquent taxes directly from the delinquent taxpayer; they need a court order to take the tax from a third party like us.

Why will a judge hear this? Couldn't there be a jury trial?
No, in a lawsuit with the government, we do not have a right to a jury trial unless granted by Congress, which for cases such as this has not happened.

Would we be able to bring in other groups on our behalf? Oftentimes we are amazed at the energy that can be collected when we turn to both Friends and other religious groups.
Yes, other witness could support us in this suit.

Can we appeal a decision which is made against us?
Yes, either side can appeal.

Can we do anything about this being a matter of religious conscience?
Peter is emphasizing this aspect in all responses he makes on our behalf. Any one of the four options could include statements about religious conscience.

What defense do we have?
Both the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act can be argued to offer us protection under the law.

Is there a chance that a fine would be more punitive than the $21,000 stated?
No. The IRS has already asked for the maximum penalty allowed under the tax laws.

Is one or another of the four options likely to include or not include the penalty?
No. Any could.

Are all four options legal?
Yes.