IRS jerking non-profits around, no regard for 1st amendment

[Anty Ep]

IRS regularly jerks around non-profits. The big precedents are discussed here, in the famous case US v National Alliance-- 710 F2d 868. Yes, THAT national alliance.

Here is a current example of the IRS yanking the chain of some antiwar Episcopalians:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060922/ap_on_re_us/religion_irs

[Halophyte]

Proof positive "non profit" status is just another form of hush money.


.

[blueice]

Here is a current example of the IRS yanking the chain of some antiwar Episcopalians:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060922/ap_on_re_us/religion_irs

AE, the LIBERAL pastor was making politcal statement durning mass. When I go to church I not want to hear a politcal lecture. BTW, the labor unions break this separation all the time.

[Halophyte]

AE, the LIBERAL pastor was making politcal statement durning mass. When I go to church I not want to hear a politcal lecture. BTW, the labor unions break this separation all the time.

Yeah, but the labor unions are taxed ..... get the drift ?


.

[blueice]

Yeah, but the labor unions are taxed ..... get the drift ?


.

Sorry Master Halo, me no get???

[NUTS!]

I think churches should stop playing these legal structure games. Why have your religious group even registered with the IRS? Is a church only valid when it has a government stamp on it as a "legitimate non profit"?

Things like this where the government restricts freedom of expression through tax threats are exactly why we shouldn't have these legal structures for our churches.

I've gone to conservative churches, I've gone to liberal churches. They're just political machines for different ends of the same spectrum. Some are still interested in Jesus, but that's often a smaller subset within the church. The rest seem more interested in protesting for their pet causes or politicians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchianity

[blueice]

Any politics or deficit spending at my Lords House and I am gone.

[Halophyte]

Well grasshopper, there are those who benifit from an agreement. To be recognized as non profit corporate 'it' by another 'it', one mnust accept being an 'it'. 'Its' cannot have opinions. 'It's are make believe names. Not real, not human, not live.

Solve the riddle of 'it' and know the secret agreement.

.

[NUTS!]

Well grasshopper, there are those who benifit from an agreement. To be recognized as non profit corporate 'it' by another 'it', one mnust accept being an 'it'. 'Its' cannot have opinions. 'It's are make believe names. Not real, not human, not live.

Solve the riddle of 'it' and know the secret agreement.

.


Halophyte-- that's exactly what I'm talking about. I find it so bizarre that Christians seem to be the least likely to see the problem with validation as an "it" from another "it." You would think that they would believe that God establishes the Church, not an "it" validating another "it" to create a complete legal fiction.

Apparently I expect too much from many of my brothers and sisters.

[blueice]

It depends what "it" is.

[GoldWampum]

It depends what "it" is.

"IT", in this case, is all Bullshit.

"IT"s are actually taxable, while for the most part individuals are not. Yet "IT" works the opposite.

[Anty Ep]

I think churches should stop playing these legal structure games. Why have your religious group even registered with the IRS? Is a church only valid when it has a government stamp on it as a "legitimate non profit"?

Things like this where the government restricts freedom of expression through tax threats are exactly why we shouldn't have these legal structures for our churches.



1. The first and biggest reason is to clarify the deductibility of contributions. You are talking about billions of dollars of tithes here my good fellow-- not inconsiderable sums.

2. When you speak of "churches" in the case of the major Christian denominations you are speaking of millions of members and again, billions of dollars of assets. These amounts of property have to be carefully protected from foe and socalled "friend" alike. Internal controls, accountability, asset protection-- we're not talking about 20 families renting a store front eh? example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_USA

[demosfen]

NUTS! is right. IRS is not a licensing agency. Neither is it an agency of US government. Applying for non-profit status with them is like applying to motor vehicle department for a marriage license

[Anty Ep]

NUTS! is right. IRS is not a licensing agency. Neither is it an agency of US government. Applying for non-profit status with them is like applying to motor vehicle department for a marriage license

No its not a licensing agency but it sure in hell is a government agency. That it isnt is a pipe dream lots of people around here apparently share.

But what you say is in part true and even recognized by the IRS to some extent. Note that they presume that newly organized churches are 501-c-3s without any paperwork at all. Its the non-church entities that expect to gross over $50K in a year that the IRS expects to fill out form 1023, "APPLICATION FOR RECOGNITION OF EXEMPTION UNDER 501C3 OF THE IRC." So they are not claiming to "license churches" just acknowledge the deductibility of contributions to those entities which have applied.

An interesting corrolary of this, is that a deduction to an entity that has not made a 501c3 application-- but has not been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction NOT to be "nontaxable" or exempt from the income tax-- could not be successfully challenged. So there are lots of small entities operating presumptively as nontaxable, which have not filed the 1023, and for which people are taking deductions-- but which the tax-trolls might say, if they bent their attention to it, that they would try to disallow. But they will go for the entity first, not deductions from contributors. Even if they get the entity's exemption revoked in court however-- they will still not go after good faith deductions, in general-- unless they believe that the deductions were part of a scam. And they can and have done this-- a recent boondoggle was a thing called the "ark" or something like that. Its promoters when threatened with heavy time, cracked, cooperated for leniency, and rolled over on their customers ie Contribtors, and the IRS rolled up lots of them too.

[electric-amish]

The Church was Silenced when the Laws changed not allowing political speech. This was done by Johnson if I remember. He didn't want people speaking out against him and his ideas.

Since then the Unelected Judges have forced Abortion on the people, Homosexual rights and Marriage attempted and in some Mass. Marriage forced on the people. School busing, Public prayer curtailed,Etc.

When the Church is silenced you won't like the results.(Political Correctness)

I wish every Church would ignore 501c3 status and force the issue.

E-A

[Halophyte]

No its not a licensing agency but it sure in hell is a government agency. That it isnt is a pipe dream lots of people around here apparently share.



Correction; its a Fedgov agency under the colorable law of commerce I.A.W. the rules of the UCC.

As long a the church wants to do business under the legal fiction of a "recognized" non profit entities, they must recognize the legal fiction of the corporate state, by asking permission to unite two people in otherwise holy matrimony.

The reason for this is to establish the couple being married, and the marriage itself, as a merger of corporate entities for tax purposes.

Applying for a 'licence' is to ask the state's permission to do something that is otherwise illegal. The corporate state makes it 'illegal' to unite couples by unrecognized churches A.K.A., common law marriage. It is illegal, but not unlawful.

No church need ask permission of the corporate state to unite two people as one, this is a natural act under god, not a legal corporate fiction.

Common law marriage is not a 'pagan' wedding. It's holy matrimony done without asking the corporate state's permission.

Essentially, the churches who participate in this tax shelter system of 'non profit' status place the state (and their non profit status) above God.


.

[demosfen]

No its not a licensing agency but it sure in hell is a government agency.
It's A government agency, just not US government. According to US Code it's domiciled in Puerto Rico.
Since it's not a licensing agency, it has no authority to determine if organization is for-profit or not

[Anty Ep]

It's A government agency, just not US government. According to US Code it's domiciled in Puerto Rico.
Since it's not a licensing agency, it has no authority to determine if organization is for-profit or not

My good fellow, that is hogwash.

[demosfen]

US Code is hogwash?

[NUTS!]

Essentially, the churches who participate in this tax shelter system of 'non profit' status place the state (and their non profit status) above God.

While that is stating it more strongly than I would, I have to agree. The word "Eccleisia" is by nature a political term. It's like parliament or congress-- with God at the head. It's one of the reasons the Romans came down so hard on early Christians. They denied the deity and authority of the Roman empire whenever it tried to apply it's force to God's jurisdiction.