|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I came across this tidbit:
"Let�s think this through. Andrew Joseph Stack III, the pilot, was a man with multiple hatreds, from Catholicism to unions, whose rage at the I.R.S. apparently began when the agency refused to allow him to declare his house a church for the purpose of avoiding taxes."
It's from a humor column, so I don't know if it is meant to be taken as stated or as just a joke about the kind of thing those tax protesters used to do. Has anyone else run into this claim? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, this seems like a serious website. And they say...
| Quote: |
Why was Stack so furious at the IRS?
He was apparently busted in the 1980s for claiming his home was a church to avoid taxation � a protest scheme he says cost him "$40,000+" and "10 years of my life." He spent another $5,000 fighting a 1986 tax rule that makes it hard for computer engineers to be labeled private contractors. He also deemed two recent audits unfair.
|
But they say he did it as a "protest scheme". So I don't know if he was seriously trying to get a tax exemption, or just doing it to make some sort of protest about taxes. They say he didn't like the Catholic Church, so maybe he was trying to make an extended, ad absurdum argument along the lines of "Well, if they don't have to pay taxes on their buildings, why should I?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Judging from Stack's note, he was under the impression (as informed by a lawyer assisted reading) that the letter of the law allowed him the option to declare his property/organization/whatever a church. The fact that he wasn't allowed to do this in practice proved to him that the laws themselves were meaningless. I don't think it was a protest in the sense of someone expecting to be prohibited from achieving a status he doesn't really believe in-- I think he expected to be granted that status because he learned and followed all the relevant laws and found the notion that he could be punished for what he did for reasons outside of the literal law to be a disgusting abuse of power.
While I don't know the exact details of the laws in question, I agree with the spirit of his complaint. How much someone at the IRS believes someone establishing his or her own church really buys into some stereotypically religious type concepts should have no impact on whether the church was established in accordance with the literal rules applicable to it. What makes an approved church different from a church like Stack tried to establish? Certainly everyone has vague philosophical musings from time to time-- why shouldn't that qualify as a religious practice? Any church applying for tax exempt status is going to have finances as the primary motive for that particular decision, so I don't see why anyone willing to follow all the relevant rules shouldn't be allowed the same opportunity that all the other already established church organizations have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
What makes an approved church different from a church like Stack tried to establish?
|
Probably the fact that it's a real church, with real worshippers? No matter how you look at it, Mr. Stack was obviously just trying to avoid taxation, not set up a real church. Indeed, I'd consider it a serious fault with the systems in place if he got away with it.
I don't have much respect for churches at all, but they're still generally non-profit organizations that help people. There's a fairly reasonable justification for making them tax exempt. Stack's home wasn't a non-profit organization that helped people, he just didn't want to pay property tax. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Street Magic wrote: |
What makes an approved church different from a church like Stack tried to establish?
|
Probably the fact that it's a real church, with real worshippers? |
You know Scientology has the tax exempt status for religions in the US, right? Not to insult any ESL Cafe dwelling Scientologists, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to claim that the "legitimacy" of a religion (however you want to define "legitimacy" in this context since I can't come up with a good definition myself and that's kind of the problem I'm wrestling with here in the first place) founded by a relatively modern science fiction writer is totally questionable. You could say that both Stack's church and Scientology shouldn't receive tax exempt status, but Scientology clearly has a ton of real worshipers and real non-profit charities/social programs in place. From what I understand, Stack's religion had official members too, granting that it's likely they didn't believe in the validity of their religion as strongly as a fundamentalist would. Without even knowing them though, I think it's safe to say they didn't have any less "belief" than those who go to church for the social benefits and who identify as Christian agnostics/Jewish agnostics/etc.
| Fox wrote: |
| No matter how you look at it, Mr. Stack was obviously just trying to avoid taxation, not set up a real church. Indeed, I'd consider it a serious fault with the systems in place if he got away with it. |
I don't understand what it is you think should define the "real-ness" of a church. The tax exempt laws are in place because the power to tax is the power to restrict and destroy, which would go against the whole freedom of religion deal. It's a clear cut 1st amendment issue. Which brings me to this:
| Fox wrote: |
| I don't have much respect for churches at all, but they're still generally non-profit organizations that help people. There's a fairly reasonable justification for making them tax exempt. Stack's home wasn't a non-profit organization that helped people, he just didn't want to pay property tax. |
While few would argue against the merit of non-profit charities, I don't believe that has anything to do with the actual legal rationale for the tax exempt status of churches. I'm pretty sure there already are tax benefits for non-profit organizations different from those that churches receive, so that facet of their practices doesn't really fit into this argument. Once again, it's a 1st amendment issue rather than a "social benefits of churches" issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| You know Scientology has the tax exempt status for religions in the US, right? |
Although you and I might think Scientology is incredibly stupid, it is a real church with real worshippers. Mr. Stack's home was not.
| Street Magic wrote: |
| From what I understand, Stack's religion had official members too, granting that it's likely they didn't believe in the validity of their religion as strongly as a fundamentalist would. |
If his church had been real, he would have gotten tax exempt status. The IRS does not piss around on these matters; if there is valid cause to be considered a church for tax purposes, they consider it a church. Mr. Stack clearly just wanted to avoid taxes. His response to being denied tax-exempt status makes that clear enough. The IRS was completely right to tell him to go to Hell.
| Street Magic wrote: |
| Without even knowing them though, I think it's safe to say they didn't have any less "belief" than those who go to church for the social benefits and who identify as Christian agnostics/Jewish agnostics/etc. |
Except those individuals who go to church for the social benefits aren't tax exempt, only the church itself is exempt.
| Street Magic wrote: |
| I don't understand what it is you think should define the "real-ness" of a church. |
Here's a simple initial (but not all-inclusive) test: would you be setting up the church even if you didn't get tax benefits for doing so? If not, then with all certainty it's not a real church. These laws aren't in place to avoid people like Mr. Stack to avoid taxes. They're in place to allow churches to operate without a tax burden. The law would have been defective if it allowed him to become a church. If labelling your home a church allowed you to avoid property taxes, why wouldn't we all live in "churches"? It's a totally ridiculous idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It looks increasingly like Mr. Stack got taken in a tax evasion scam [How to Declare Yourself a Church in 3 Easy Lessons--for only $1,000] and rather than accept he was a fool, he blamed the IRS for it.
No doubt the group he joined was more sophisticated than my friend Kool-ade John who sent in his $5 to the Universalist Church (or whatever it was) for his ordination papers. The ad was in the back of Rolling Stone. He had visions of becoming a Church with dope and sex as the holy sacraments (he was a lapsed Catholic). He was real hot on that idea for a time. If I remember right, he got distracted by a plot to take over Wyoming and declare weed the legal state flower or something. Then he got religion and semi-joined the Hari Krishnas. I lost track of him and his antics around that time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Street Magic wrote: |
| You know Scientology has the tax exempt status for religions in the US, right? |
Although you and I might think Scientology is incredibly stupid, it is a real church with real worshippers. Mr. Stack's home was not. |
Where did you hear that his church was his home?
| Fox wrote: |
| Street Magic wrote: |
| From what I understand, Stack's religion had official members too, granting that it's likely they didn't believe in the validity of their religion as strongly as a fundamentalist would. |
If his church had been real, he would have gotten tax exempt status. The IRS does not piss around on these matters; if there is valid cause to be considered a church for tax purposes, they consider it a church. |
This kind of attitude is exactly the problem. It might be the case that the IRS is always right in their decisions regarding what constitutes a church, but you'd never know either way if you assumed this without checking them against the relevant codes that are actually supposed to determine what's legal and what isn't.
In this case, my guess is that the relevant codes were appropriately followed by Stack and inappropriately ignored by the IRS because of the attitude that his church was clearly different from an organization like the Catholic Church. This is just as much an assumption as yours, but I believe the difference is that you would still approve of the IRS's actions even if you were to assume for the sake of argument that my guess is what actually happened. I don't think I'm misrepresenting your argument in saying you've so far established that:
1) Even if Stack's church complied with all the relevant tax codes perfectly, it would still be appropriate to deny his church's tax exempt status and punish those involved with his church.
2) It's OK for the IRS to ignore the literal tax codes in place in situations where it seems obviously appropriate to do so.
3) The previous two points are the case in part because the IRS on the whole is so adept at what it does that it can be trusted to overrule the law with its employees' own discretion.
4) Moreover, in any situation where it appears overwhelmingly obvious that the way the literal law would have a decision made is at odds with the truth (OJ Simpson's murder trial for example), it is not only appropriate but strongly called for that someone overrule the law or laws in place with his or her own discretion.
Those four points amount to throwing away the value of laws altogether. You might say that laws aren't effective if they don't correspond to the reality of intent, but we'll never get it 100%. The question is, what do we do with the significant portion of cases that reward the practically guilty or punish the practically innocent? If we opt for discretion overruling the laws some of the time, then we can never count on the laws being upheld any of the time.
| Fox wrote: |
| Street Magic wrote: |
| I don't understand what it is you think should define the "real-ness" of a church. |
Here's a simple initial (but not all-inclusive) test: would you be setting up the church even if you didn't get tax benefits for doing so? If not, then with all certainty it's not a real church. |
I've already argued that the vast majority of us have already set up churches unofficially, which is all you're asking for given that setting them up officially is the step where you apply for tax exempt status. Most everyone has vague philosophical musings occasionally shared with like minded friends and family. Just because most of us aren't pretentious enough to escalate our vague philosophical musings to the point where strict rituals need to be taught to everyone else so they might become as righteous as we are doesn't mean that our particular musings are any less meriting of the title of "church." As you said before, we ourselves wouldn't be the churches, but buildings aren't churches in the legal sense either. This isn't even a stretch given what most would consider clearly legitimate minimalist religions like Zen Buddhism which make a point of considering mundane activities like dish washing the solution to human suffering.
| Fox wrote: |
| These laws aren't in place to avoid people like Mr. Stack to avoid taxes. They're in place to allow churches to operate without a tax burden. |
I think you made a pretty good counterargument to your above assertion here:
| Fox wrote: |
| Street Magic wrote: |
| Without even knowing them though, I think it's safe to say they didn't have any less "belief" than those who go to church for the social benefits and who identify as Christian agnostics/Jewish agnostics/etc. |
Except those individuals who go to church for the social benefits aren't tax exempt, only the church itself is exempt. |
He wasn't just declaring himself or his house a church; he was working with a group of people and adhered to all the relevant tax codes in establishing a church organization.
| Fox wrote: |
| The law would have been defective if it allowed him to become a church. If labelling your home a church allowed you to avoid property taxes, why wouldn't we all live in "churches"? It's a totally ridiculous idea. |
In response to this last point, here's an excerpt:
| Quote: |
| Unfortunately after more than 16 years of school, somewhere along the line I picked up the absurd, pompous notion that I could read and understand plain English. Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having �tax code� readings and discussions. In particular, [we] zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful �exemptions� that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy. We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the �best�, high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the �big boys� were doing (except that we weren�t steeling from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God). We took a great deal of care to make it all visible, following all of the rules, exactly the way the law said it was to be done. \ |
That's the reason why we wouldn't all live in churches. He wasn't just some guy who declared his house a church illegally. According to his accounts, he performed a careful, lawyer assisted reading of all the relevant tax codes and proceeded to follow them "exactly the way the law said it was to be done." If that isn't enough to make an organization a church, then the laws that decide what makes an organization a church don't actually decide what makes an organization a church. If your answer is that the laws are therefore flawed, then that's fine. As far as I can tell, that was Stack's conclusion too. If, however, your opinion is that the laws aren't flawed, then why would you think the appropriate decision was made when it apparently went against them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Street Magic wrote: |
| You know Scientology has the tax exempt status for religions in the US, right? |
Although you and I might think Scientology is incredibly stupid, it is a real church with real worshippers. Mr. Stack's home was not. |
Where did you hear that his church was his home? |
I remember hearing it, but I don't have a link on hand, so I'll broaden my assertion: nothing Mr. Stack owned was a church.
| Street Magic wrote: |
| This kind of attitude is exactly the problem. It might be the case that the IRS is always right in their decisions regarding what constitutes a church, but you'd never know either way if you assumed this without checking them against the relevant codes that are actually supposed to determine what's legal and what isn't. |
If there is genuine unfairness my response would be to strip all churches of tax exempt status, not to grant tax exempt status to people like Mr. Stack.
| Street Magic wrote: |
| In this case, my guess is that the relevant codes were appropriately followed by Stack and inappropriately ignored by the IRS because of the attitude that his church was clearly different from an organization like the Catholic Church. |
If this was how they went about things, groups like Scientology would never have gained church status. My guess is that the IRS intelligently saw Mr. Stack was just trying to evade taxes and told him to forget it.
| Street Magic wrote: |
This is just as much an assumption as yours, but I believe the difference is that you would still approve of the IRS's actions even if you were to assume for the sake of argument that my guess is what actually happened. I don't think I'm misrepresenting your argument in saying you've so far established that:
1) Even if Stack's church complied with all the relevant tax codes perfectly, it would still be appropriate to deny his church's tax exempt status and punish those involved with his church. |
You keep talking as if he had a church. Punish those involved with his church? You mean punish those involved in his tax dodging scheme. Before you continue insisting he deserved church tax-exemption, please prove it. Show me exactly how and why he qualified as a church, such that he should not have had to pay taxes. Until then, there's no basis upon which to question the IRS' ruling beyond the word of a suicidal terrorist.
| Street Magic wrote: |
| 2) It's OK for the IRS to ignore the literal tax codes in place in situations where it seems obviously appropriate to do so. |
Prove they did this please, because this is not my argument. Rather, my argument is that he almost assuredly didn't qualify because he didn't have a church.
| Street Magic wrote: |
| I've already argued that the vast majority of us have already set up churches unofficially, which is all you're asking for given that setting them up officially is the step where you apply for tax exempt status. Most everyone has vague philosophical musings occasionally shared with like minded friends and family. |
What you describe here isn't a church. It's a casual intellectual discussion. Being tax exempt because you occasionally muse philosophic is an incredibly silly idea.
| Street Magic wrote: |
| He wasn't just declaring himself or his house a church; he was working with a group of people and adhered to all the relevant tax codes in establishing a church organization. |
If he wasn't declaring himself or his home a church, then he would not have had a different tax liability as a result of the ruling. Given he did have a different tax liability as a result of the ruling, I think it's pretty clear he was trying to get something he possessed labelled a church. The IRS said no. Prove they were wrong to, and then we can discuss the proof.
| Street Magic wrote: |
| That's the reason why we wouldn't all live in churches. He wasn't just some guy who declared his house a church illegally. According to his accounts, he performed a careful, lawyer assisted reading of all the relevant tax codes and proceeded to follow them "exactly the way the law said it was to be done." |
The exerpt you quoted makes it pretty clear there was no religion here at all. He was trying to avoid taxes. He and some buddies read a tax code, though they saw a way to get exemptions by making a fake church, and tried to do it. They (he at least, I've no idea about the rest of "them") were clearly trying to exempt their own assets from taxation. The IRS said no. Why did they say no?
| Street Magic wrote: |
| If that isn't enough to make an organization a church, then the laws that decide what makes an organization a church don't actually decide what makes an organization a church. |
The laws are there to recognize a church, not create a church. From what I can see, they successfully disqualified the "Church of Tax Dodge." I don't care if he thinks he did everything right, the IRS clearly disagreed. Given the IRS came to what seems to be the correct conclusion to me, I'd need to see proof that they violated their own systems before agreeing anything incorrect happened here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's some information about 501c3 organizations, which include churches. Here's some general requirements:
| Quote: |
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.
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. |
I'm all ready seeing potential conflicts between Mr. Stack's setup and the regulations in question. The IRS very likely decided it was organized for the benefit of private interests, and that it did not operate exclusively for exempt purposes, and thus didn't qualify. Remember, Mr. Stack -- or even a lawyer -- claiming that it met these requirements doesn't mean it really did. The IRS must agree that it meets the critera for it to do so. If the IRS agent reviewing the case decides your organization is being operated for the benefit of private interests, you're not going to get very far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Street Magic wrote: |
| If that isn't enough to make an organization a church, then the laws that decide what makes an organization a church don't actually decide what makes an organization a church. |
The laws are there to recognize a church, not create a church. From what I can see, they successfully disqualified the "Church of Tax Dodge." I don't care if he thinks he did everything right, the IRS clearly disagreed. Given the IRS came to what seems to be the correct conclusion to me, I'd need to see proof that they violated their own systems before agreeing anything incorrect happened here. |
I thought I made it clear that I was debating on the assumption that he followed the laws in place regardless of what his intent may have been. Trying to figure out if this is what actually happened is missing the point. The issue of whether or not he actually did this is pretty pointless to speculate on since it can only work one of two ways:
1) He didn't follow the relevant tax codes-- I obviously wouldn't argue that he should have gotten tax exempt status for his church by not following the relevant tax codes
2) He did follow the relevant tax codes-- I've already assumed this for the sake of argument, so finding this out for sure wouldn't change anything I've written (aside from getting rid of any wording suggesting a lack of certainty or a hypothetical)
So you can forget we're even talking about Joe Stack and replace him with John Imaginaristein if you want. What I'm arguing is that, assuming the situation I outlined in my previous post is actually the case, would you still support the IRS's use of discretion in ignoring the relevant tax codes? From what I've gathered so far, it seems you would, which is why I had taken the liberty of presenting my arguments against such a view in my previous post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| I thought I made it clear that I was debating on the assumption that he followed the laws in place regardless of what his intent may have been. |
Intent can and does factor into the law. In fact, one's intentions seem to be a key point with regards to the criteria listed on the IRS website. As such, the case you're trying to make doesn't seem to work. You can't set up a church intending to benefit from it financially while simultaneously be in accordance with the law. To this extent, the codes are precisely as I imagined them to be: anyone attempting to abuse them for personal financial gain is weeded out in an entirely legal fashion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Here's some information about 501c3 organizations, which include churches. Here's some general requirements:
| Quote: |
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.
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. |
I'm all ready seeing potential conflicts between Mr. Stack's setup and the regulations in question. The IRS very likely decided it was organized for the benefit of private interests, and that it did not operate exclusively for exempt purposes, and thus didn't qualify. Remember, Mr. Stack -- or even a lawyer -- claiming that it met these requirements doesn't mean it really did. The IRS must agree that it meets the critera for it to do so. If the IRS agent reviewing the case decides your organization is being operated for the benefit of private interests, you're not going to get very far. |
Thanks for this, Fox.
Yes, the IRS must agree, but in the case of a dispute, you can take it to a tax court. Remember, everyone, you do not need to pass the bar exam to represent others in tax court (you can almost always go pro se in any American court of law). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Street Magic wrote: |
| I thought I made it clear that I was debating on the assumption that he followed the laws in place regardless of what his intent may have been. |
Intent can and does factor into the law. In fact, one's intentions seem to be a key point with regards to the criteria listed on the IRS website. As such, the case you're trying to make doesn't seem to work. You can't set up a church intending to benefit from it financially while simultaneously be in accordance with the law. To this extent, the codes are precisely as I imagined them to be: anyone attempting to abuse them for personal financial gain is weeded out in an entirely legal fashion. |
This link you provided makes no mention of "intent."
Which isn't surprising. Had he performed a careful, lawyer assisted reading of a tax code that explicitly prohibited tax exempt church candidates on the basis of a murky notion like "intent," it wouldn't have made much sense for him to write this:
| Quote: |
| We took a great deal of care to make it all visible, following all of the rules, exactly the way the law said it was to be done |
The link you provided says you can't allow any earnings to inure to private shareholders or individuals. If he did anything in terms of abiding by the tax codes like he said he did, it would be to document where the money was going and to make sure the money didn't go anywhere it wasn't allowed to go to. There's literally nothing else he could've done if we acknowledge even the mere assumption that he believed what he wrote is how it happened. The only way to believe that he allowed earnings to inure to private shareholders or individuals is if you believe he totally lied in his note, which would be pretty nonsensical given that his anger at the IRS would have no basis if he secretly knew that he didn't follow the relevant tax codes.
EDIT:
By the way--
| Quote: |
| 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. |
There's a section in the code you linked to that allows for someone to have "substantial influence over the organization" and to engage "in an excess benefit transaction," although it does call for an excise tax. This establishes that one can both abide by the rule that no earnings can inure to an individual or private shareholder while still arranging to benefit from a tax exempt church. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's no direct mention of the word, but it makes it sufficiently clear that if you intend to personally profit off of such an organization, it can be used for denial of your request for 501c3 status, and I suspect that's likely exactly the justification the IRS used in rejecting Mr. Stack's request.
| Street Magic wrote: |
Which isn't surprising. Had he performed a careful, lawyer assisted reading of a tax code that explicitly prohibited tax exempt church candidates on the basis of a murky notion like "intent," it wouldn't have made much sense for him to write this:
| Quote: |
| We took a great deal of care to make it all visible, following all of the rules, exactly the way the law said it was to be done |
|
He did a lot of things that don't make sense from my perspective. This is just a very small example. I've all ready said previously I think this man was a total fool. I'm not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt about anything. And remember, doing everything in accordance with the law only ensures the legally proper result will occur. If you do everything correctly according to the law and are denied, that may simply be because you don't qualify for the exemptions in question. I could follow the procedure for applying for tax exempt status perfectly as well, it doesn't mean I qualify. No amount of careful paperwork changes the reality of the situation: if you're not a church, you're not a church.
| Street Magic wrote: |
| The link you provided says you can't allow any earnings to inure to private shareholders or individuals. If he did anything in terms of abiding by the tax codes like he said he did, it would be to document where the money was going and to make sure the money didn't go anywhere it wasn't allowed to go to. |
The IRS clearly thought otherwise. I'm simply not willing to accept this man did everything right and had a full proof case based purely on his word, and no abstract case based on his specific can be drawn until it's proven he did do everything right.
| Street Magic wrote: |
| The only way to believe that he allowed earnings to inure to private shareholders or individuals is if you believe he totally lied in his note ... |
Or if he's just a fool who didn't really understand what he was doing and was mistaken. I believe this is entirely possible. I've met plenty of people in my life who were just wrong about this or that. I myself have simply been wrong at times. Sometimes it's hard to admit we're wrong. I have a very easy time believing someone willing to crash a plane into a building in attempt to harm innocent people might have a problem admitting they're wrong. No amount of him insisiting they partook in careful reading and insisting that did everything right makes it true if it's not true, and I see no reason to believe it's true without hard evidence. What I see here is a person who I intuitively felt shouldn't qualify for tax exempt status as a church being denied tax exempt status as a church. I also see possible reasons why that denial could have occured. As such, I'd need solid evidence that an injustice took place.
| Street Magic wrote: |
| There's a section in the code you linked to that allows for someone to have "substantial influence over the organization" and to engage "in an excess benefit transaction," although it does call for an excise tax. This establishes that one can both abide by the rule that no earnings can inure to an individual or private shareholder while still arranging to benefit from a tax exempt church. |
So? That has no bearing on the fact that the IRS clearly felt his "organization" didn't meet the criteria in question. Were they wrong? Maybe; I'm certainly not saying the IRS is infallible. I'm just also not willing to presuppose they behaved unjustly based on vague, dataless assertions from a terrorist, especially given everything about the case superficially implies to me that the IRS' ruling was exactly correct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
