|
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 |
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 10:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| I'd need solid evidence that an injustice took place. |
OK, well this kind of answers my question. Now you seem to be suggesting that if someone were hypothetically denied tax exempt status for a church despite having followed all the relevant tax codes, this would be an "injustice." I care more about the principle of the issue here than I do about whether Joe Stack actually embodied this principle. Assuming Joe Stack violated all sorts of literal tax codes somehow, it still wouldn't eliminate the question of where one stands on the general issue of the IRS ignoring literal tax codes for the sake of perceived common sense.
| Fox wrote: |
| 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. |
It's relevant in that it makes sense out of how someone could both abide by all the rules and still benefit from doing so. If there were no way to do this, then there would be no hypothetical question of discretion overriding the official rules in what constitutes a tax exempt eligible church. Since the actual rules are such that individuals can benefit from tax exempt churches, we're left with a perfectly valid question of why some churches and corresponding individuals should receive these benefits while others shouldn't in situations where no clear tax code violations can be pointed to. Stack's conclusion was that there were two separate applications of the law in practice: one of the rich and one for the poor. This brings us back to the following claim:
| Fox wrote: |
| 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. |
Stack answered the question of how a group like Scientology could have gained tax exempt status while another potential church which hadn't violated anything written in the relevant tax codes couldn't. He claimed the real difference between him and them wasn't the tax codes, but rather the money. It's not hard to believe that organizations large enough and powerful enough aren't controlled by the same evenhanded application of tax codes and laws that less wealthy individuals deal with.
And kind of unrelated, but I forgot to comment earlier:
| Fox wrote: |
| 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. |
I agree because the concept of what defines a "church" doesn't make sense to me at all. More fundamentally, I can't really figure out why religious freedoms ought to be dealt with independent of the freedom of speech, but it's in the 1st amendment so it's pretty well guaranteed to stay with us as an underlying premise for US laws for the conceivable future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| OK, well this kind of answers my question. Now you seem to be suggesting that if someone were hypothetically denied tax exempt status for a church despite having followed all the relevant tax codes, this would be an "injustice." I care more about the principle of the issue here than I do about whether Joe Stack actually embodied this principle. Assuming Joe Stack violated all sorts of literal tax codes somehow, it still wouldn't eliminate the question of where one stands on the general issue of the IRS ignoring literal tax codes for the sake of perceived common sense. |
Well, yes, the law needs to be followed or changed. I simply strongly suspected -- and continue to strongly suspect -- that the rejection of Mr. Stack's "church" was entirely in accordance with the law as it stands.
| Street Magic wrote: |
| It's relevant in that it makes sense out of how someone could both abide by all the rules and still benefit from doing so. |
Except as you noted, "benefitting" as you described involved being taxed. Going through the process of getting tax exempted only to pay tax seems like a total waste of time to me. It's entirely possible they told him, "Okay, you can have your organization, but if you do what you're planning on doing, we're going to tax you accordance with this law," and he freaked out (since it's fairly clear his goal was avoiding taxation; being told he was going to get taxed is essentially equivalent to outright rejection). Is that what happened? I doubt it, I think it's far more likely his plan was never as good as he thought and he was rejected outright. None the less, I suppose it's possible.
| Street Magic wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| 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. |
Stack answered the question of how a group like Scientology could have gained tax exempt status while another potential church which hadn't violated anything written in the relevant tax codes couldn't. He claimed the real difference between him and them wasn't the tax codes, but rather the money. |
He claimed it, but that doesn't make it necessarily true. I suppose I can't prove it isn't the case, but what I do know is that when I look at Scientology I see something that is obviously a religion, even if it's an exceptionally retarded one. When I look at Mr. Stack's case, I see a group of guys who were reading the tax code, learned about the tax exempt status of churches, and tried to benefit from those tax exemptions. I would expect the former group to successfully gain tax exempt status as a church, and I'd expect Mr. Stack to fail, and that's what happened. Claims of conspiracy due to wealth and influence simply don't need to be appealed to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Street Magic wrote: |
| It's relevant in that it makes sense out of how someone could both abide by all the rules and still benefit from doing so. |
Except as you noted, "benefitting" as you described involved being taxed. Going through the process of getting tax exempted only to pay tax seems like a total waste of time to me. |
Well, the excise tax might be far less than the tax he'd have to pay without the benefit of a church to donate his earnings to before making some sort of transaction with it to get new, church filtered money back. It sounds sketchy as Hell and I'm surprised the tax code actually says something like that literally the next line after saying no earnings can inure to an individual, but yeah, I'd guess you'd still save some money going that route. Alternatively, the excise tax apparently only applies to someone who benefits too much, so you might figure out what too much is and fly just below it to get the most out of the deal.
| Fox wrote: |
| Street Magic wrote: |
| Stack answered the question of how a group like Scientology could have gained tax exempt status while another potential church which hadn't violated anything written in the relevant tax codes couldn't. He claimed the real difference between him and them wasn't the tax codes, but rather the money. |
He claimed it, but that doesn't make it necessarily true. I suppose I can't prove it isn't the case, but what I do know is that when I look at Scientology I see something that is obviously a religion, even if it's an exceptionally retarded one. When I look at Mr. Stack's case, I see a group of guys who were reading the tax code, learned about the tax exempt status of churches, and tried to benefit from those tax exemptions. |
| L. Ron Hubbard wrote: |
| Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion |
Taken from the Reader's Digest reprint, May 1980, p. 1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. 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. |
I don't know how good and consistent IRS agents are on this stuff. I know someone who had his house declared a church. "Worshipers" came every week, there was a school, community outings, etc., but I'd say this guy had more in common with Stack than Scientology.
IRS agents change people's tax bills all the time. I don't see why they wouldn't change or deny 501(c)3 or church status either rather arbitrarily. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| 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. 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. |
I don't know how good and consistent IRS agents are on this stuff. I know someone who had his house declared a church. "Worshipers" came every week, there was a school, community outings, etc., but I'd say this guy had more in common with Stack than Scientology. |
What you just described sounds like a normal, if small, church, with worshippers, education, and community as a focus, rather than, "Hey, we were reading the tax code and it looks like we might be able to avoid taxation if we labelled ourselves a church - let's try." The fact that the IRS granted this small church tax exempt status while denying Stack implies to me there was a difference in their eyes. It also removes plausibility from the idea that Stack was denied because he didn't have a lot of money.
| bacasper wrote: |
| IRS agents change people's tax bills all the time. I don't see why they wouldn't change or deny 501(c)3 or church status either rather arbitrarily. |
IRS agents change people's tax bills, but I wouldn't say they do so arbitrarily. Cutting a deal with someone who is remiss on their taxes is pretty different than just saying, "Screw you," for the Hell of it to someone who otherwise has a legitimate case for 501c3 tax exemption. It's also worth noting that if they did deny him arbitrarily, as Happy Warrior mentioned there was recourse for him in tax court. If Mr. Stack was really educated on the subject by "some of the best lawyers" then no doubt they would have immediately recommended this option to him, and if his denial was truly arbitrary then it probably would have been overturned.
I still think the most plausible explanation is that he tried to cheat the system and failed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| 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. |
I don't know how good and consistent IRS agents are on this stuff. I know someone who had his house declared a church. "Worshipers" came every week, there was a school, community outings, etc., but I'd say this guy had more in common with Stack than Scientology. |
What you just described sounds like a normal, if small, church, with worshippers, education, and community as a focus, rather than, "Hey, we were reading the tax code and it looks like we might be able to avoid taxation if we labelled ourselves a church - let's try." The fact that the IRS granted this small church tax exempt status while denying Stack implies to me there was a difference in their eyes. It also removes plausibility from the idea that Stack was denied because he didn't have a lot of money. |
Perhaps you are right, but the guy I knew was ordained out of a Cracker Jack box or some such. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
For those interested in a psychological profile of Stack, here's one:
I spoke with several experts in mass murder Thursday, and we identified seven deadly traits of impending danger in Stack's manifesto.
Narcissism/egocentricity: Joseph Stack ended his life with a supreme act of narcissism, and that quality leaps out of every line of his rationalization. It's all about him. Through 30 years of his torture, "thieves, liars and self-serving scumbags" in Congress continually targeted Stack personally. The IRS and his own accountant joined in to make him their personal whipping boy. When the Senate redrew the tax code in 1986, "they may as well have put my name right in the text of section (d)," Stack writes.
Grandiosity: Stack's grievances are wildly overblown and his swipes at powerful institutions grand and hyperbolic: "the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church . . . monsters of organized religion," "thugs and plunderers" in corporate boardrooms driven by "gluttony and overwhelming stupidity" committing "unthinkable atrocities."
Martyr/injustice collector: Killers like Stack love to project themselves as martyrs, but that thinking often emerges from a long history of collecting injustices, while ignoring his ever-growing wealth.
Superiority masking self-loathing (projection): Stack lashes out at "the incredible stupidity of the American public": "brainwashed" "zombies" who follow along dutifully, incapable of his keen insights to look right through the horror of "the real American nightmare."
Isolationist thinking: This served as an aggravating factor for Stack. He presents himself as battling a monolithic series of adversaries: big business, big government, Big Brother, big religion. He sees himself as a shrunken David unable to match this Goliath. There is a suggestion of paranoia here.
Unnamed, but ever-present in his commentary, is his immersion in a fringe group or groups who believed they were exempt from the federal income tax.
Construing selfishness as selflessness: Stack needed a coping strategy, a rationalization for his financial failure. He found one in patriotism.
Helplessness/hopelessness: Joseph Stack committed both homicide and suicide this week, but all the signs point to suicide as the driver.
For the whole thing: http://www.slate.com/id/2245337/pagenum/2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
That Stack was definitely an odd duck. If I'm reading his suicide note correctly, he did in fact get involved in the church exemption scheme to make a point about the alleged absurdity of religious exemptions. And he says that he was following advice from "the best" tax lawyers in pursuing his claims.
But, setting aside for a moment the Fox/Street Magic debate about whether or not the laws as written SHOULD have mandated tax exemption for Stack's house, surely Stack's crackerjack lawyers could have foreseen that the government might very well use its discretionary powers to deny exemption in that case.
So basically, Stack was told by some lawyers that he was 100% guaranteed to get a religious exemption on his house. And Stack thought this sounded credible enough to justify handing over tens of thousands of dollars to these lawyers. Then he's shocked to the core to discover that he's flushed his money down the proverbial toilet.
Overall, Stack sounds like the guy who gets taken in by pyramid schemes and Nigerian e-mail fraud. I think at some level, he probably realized that he was the master of his own misfortune, but wanted to go out in style rather than just wasting away his days in a homeless shelter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
So basically, Stack was told by some lawyers that he was 100% guaranteed to get a religious exemption on his house. And Stack thought this sounded credible enough to justify handing over tens of thousands of dollars to these lawyers. Then he's shocked to the core to discover that he's flushed his money down the proverbial toilet.
Overall, Stack sounds like the guy who gets taken in by pyramid schemes and Nigerian e-mail fraud. I think at some level, he probably realized that he was the master of his own misfortune, but wanted to go out in style rather than just wasting away his days in a homeless shelter. |
That's the way I'm seeing it, too. Stack went out in search of a group who agreed with him and they all sought legal advice to justify what they wanted to do. The lawyers were happy to be paid to tell the anti-tax group what they wanted to hear. It's peculiar that he would call them the 'finest lawyers' if they lawyers gave him bad advice.
I'm not sure a man who owns a $250,000 house and a private plane fits into my definition of 'homeless', much less a loser at the capitalist game, however.
I see that his daughter has retracted her statement that he is a hero. No doubt someone explained to her that killing an innocent person and injuring a dozen more doesn't add up to hero in most people's eyes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Shouldn't Stack's Daughter be Waterboarded?
The following link has an interesting idea about how to go forward.
"So, using this "slightest belief" moral calculus Krauthammer recommends, then surely, there is at least the *chance* that this woman is linked to other extremists and terrorists. She was, after all, raised by an extremist and terrorist and she publically acclaims him as a hero. So according to the Krauthammer Doctrine (as applied to Maher Arar), we are obliged to torture her for life-saving info that she may (or may not) possess. Sure, she said the attack was wrong, but she also said that, since he stood up to the system by this Al Quaeda-like act of terrorism, "now maybe people will listen". "
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2010/02/she-says-her-dad-was-hero.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Shouldn't Stack's Daughter be Waterboarded?
The following link has an interesting idea about how to go forward.
"So, using this "slightest belief" moral calculus Krauthammer recommends, then surely, there is at least the *chance* that this woman is linked to other extremists and terrorists. She was, after all, raised by an extremist and terrorist and she publically acclaims him as a hero. So according to the Krauthammer Doctrine (as applied to Maher Arar), we are obliged to torture her for life-saving info that she may (or may not) possess. Sure, she said the attack was wrong, but she also said that, since he stood up to the system by this Al Quaeda-like act of terrorism, "now maybe people will listen". "
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2010/02/she-says-her-dad-was-hero.html |
Guaranteed that if Obama did order her to be waterboarded you'd be all for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Shouldn't Stack's Daughter be Waterboarded?
The following link has an interesting idea about how to go forward.
"So, using this "slightest belief" moral calculus Krauthammer recommends, then surely, there is at least the *chance* that this woman is linked to other extremists and terrorists. She was, after all, raised by an extremist and terrorist and she publically acclaims him as a hero. So according to the Krauthammer Doctrine (as applied to Maher Arar), we are obliged to torture her for life-saving info that she may (or may not) possess. Sure, she said the attack was wrong, but she also said that, since he stood up to the system by this Al Quaeda-like act of terrorism, "now maybe people will listen". "
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2010/02/she-says-her-dad-was-hero.html |
Guaranteed that if Obama did order her to be waterboarded you'd be all for it. |
Especially if he said he was doing it to "protect our children."  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This isn't about the domestic terrorist attack in Austin, but it seems remotely related in some principle-driven sense, so I'm including it in this thread. Article here.
| Quote: |
Indiana RTV6 reports that �an increasing number of Indiana residents� are taking radical right-wing �tenther� beliefs to their logical extreme, declaring themselves �sovereign citizens� exempt from federal law and from paying taxes. These individuals claim their homes are embassies and have started �using identification cards that show them as diplomats.� The state reports that about 10 people a month have been asking for an official seal which supposedly exempts them from paying taxes. Some �sovereign citizens� have even refused to use drivers licenses or plates. When challenged by police, they show a homemade ID and claim that �no one can delay, detain or arrest them without facing damages of $2 million�:
There are plenty of American flags draped on homes along U.S. 36, a road that leads to the home of Donald Moore, who claims to be a diplomatic agent and ambassador � a mark of a so-called sovereign citizen.
Moore, a father of seven, and his wife invited 6News to their home, but decided not to appear on camera.
Moore is equipped with an official looking identification card and a badge, which he said means United States law doesn�t apply to him.
�It gives me diplomatic immunity,� Moore said, referring to the ID card. �The way I understand it, the federal government is incorporated, and all the states are incorporated. This takes me out of the corporation.�
Not surprisingly, state officials call these claims �both illegitimate and illegal.� �Just because you allege something or concoct yourself a document doesn�t mean you�re getting off the hook,� said Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita. Indeed, �sovereign citizen� Jonathan Dilley is serving a nearly 4-year sentence in federal prison after he tried to pay off more than $800,000 of debt by making his own currency. Similar groups of �sovereign citizens� have been reported in several other states as well. |
What is wrong with people? I thought the idea of declaring your home a Church to avoid taxes was exceptionally retarded, but the idea that you could simply grant yourself diplomatic immunity and not only avoid taxes, but immunize yourself to the law -- while seemingly being under the impression you could continue working and living in the United States and enjoying all the benefits of citizenship -- blows it right out of the water.
The real shame is that these people no doubt genuinely believe the scam they've been sold on works, and that they're legitimately immune to taxation and arrest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| What is wrong with people? I thought the idea of declaring your home a Church to avoid taxes was exceptionally retarded, but the idea that you could simply grant yourself diplomatic immunity and not only avoid taxes, but immunize yourself to the law -- while seemingly being under the impression you could continue working and living in the United States and enjoying all the benefits of citizenship -- blows it right out of the water. |
I'd say it's about as retarded as the idea that the Bill of Rights doesn't necessarily apply to state governments or the idea that corporations have human rights. I know you, like most sane, "offended by murder" types, aren't a fan of Stack, but I think he did make the appropriate rebuttal to the ridiculousness of individual citizens gaming the system like this. If the system itself is founded on a bunch of pedantic technicalities and common sense defying loopholes, why shouldn't the people be able to make the same exact variety of claims on their own behalf? Without saying I agree with all of it or disagree with all of it, I think I can safely say that all of it falls into the same category. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| What is wrong with people? I thought the idea of declaring your home a Church to avoid taxes was exceptionally retarded, but the idea that you could simply grant yourself diplomatic immunity and not only avoid taxes, but immunize yourself to the law -- while seemingly being under the impression you could continue working and living in the United States and enjoying all the benefits of citizenship -- blows it right out of the water. |
I'd say it's about as retarded as the idea that the Bill of Rights doesn't necessarily apply to state governments or the idea that corporations have human rights. I know you, like most sane, "offended by murder" types, aren't a fan of Stack, but I think he did make the appropriate rebuttal to the ridiculousness of individual citizens gaming the system like this. If the system itself is founded on a bunch of pedantic technicalities and common sense defying loopholes, why shouldn't the people be able to make the same exact variety of claims on their own behalf? Without saying I agree with all of it or disagree with all of it, I think I can safely say that all of it falls into the same category. |
I agree that concepts like corporations having human rights or the Bill of Rights not applying to state governments are retarded, and actually even more retarded than what the individuals in question are doing here. I just don't think retardation is the appropriate response to retardation, especially when the individual citizens are only hurting themselves by doing it. People doing stupid, self-destructive things makes their views less acceptable to the general public, not more acceptable. I remember Stack's daughter said something like, "Maybe now people will listen," but foolishness like this just makes people less likely to listen.
We need people making clear, simple, articulate cases to one another with conviction behind them, not people suicide bombing the IRS or declaring themselves sovereign entities. |
|
| 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
