Obama-trashers sink to a new low every day. At this point your conduct is worse than that of the RWNM.

You stated that his church is IN VIOLATION.  The letter starts an investigation, it does not confirm a violation.  Your diary title contains a lie.

Actually, allowing campaigning on church grounds once is not a per se violation that requires loss of non-profit status.  Typically there might be a fine if this is found to be a clear vioation, but this is not as eggregious as if the church would have verbally or otherwise asked its members to vote for a partisan candidate.

I don't think the letter was sent to HIM.

It was not addressed to him and he is not cc'ed on it.

Consequently, it seems pretty clear the letter was not sent to HIM, as you indicate.

BTW...working in this field (various federal compliance issues, including IRS/tax law and reg compliance) - such letters aren't all that unusual.  Don't get me wrong - I'm quite certain the church in question will have an attorney responding to the letter... but this isn't that big of a deal.

The letter is basically a form letter that more or less says "we've received complaints and we're giving you chance to respond before we decide if we'll proceed with a formal investigation".

In effect, the letter doesn't even technically ask or imply that the church has violated any regulations (much less any laws) - it's simply stating that complaints were received, how do you respond to these complaints.

Any decent tax attorney will dispute the overriding issue of the complaint and simply respond with a point by point rebuttal of how all IRC sections and IRS regulations were complied with... It's as simple as saying "all candidate tables were X number of feet from Y entrance", no parish funds were used for Z, etc.

Now... the IRS could certainly respond to the church's response with a "not good enough, we're opening a formal investigation" -- then things might get serious -- but this letter is nothing all that special.