"Ministers" - there ought to be a law!

[Paths of the Sea]

Following my name below is an article I found easy enough on the Internet after hearing a segment on FoxNews about the story.

As some are aware, I lament the fact that the media has yet to really investigate and provide an informed public presentation of all that is involved in the legal use and abuse of the ministerial tax advantages.

Where is Professor Chemerinsky on this? (

The real story behind Revenue Ruling 70-549 has yet to be told!

I would also propose that the local Detroit story doesn't touch the "tip of the iceberg" as to the extent tax revenues are lost because of this gimmick.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

----------------------------

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar ... 0416&imw=Y

Saturday, March 17, 2007
Doug Guthrie / The Detroit News

(excerpts)

Detroit World Outreach Church considers its purchase of this mansion proof of God's blessing.

No taxes on $4M parsonage

Northville Township loses $40,000 annually after church buys home.

NORTHVILLE TOWNSHIP -- A Redford Township church that believes wealth is God's reward is raising eyebrows for buying its pastor a $3.65 million mansion and taking it off the tax rolls.

This month, township officials grudgingly conceded they had no choice but to remove the 11,000-square-foot home overlooking Maybury State Park from its assessment rolls, losing $40,000 annually in taxes.

They concluded the plush pad is a parsonage, but that hasn't quelled debate among township officials and neighbors about whether Christian charity extends to the Detroit World Outreach Church's purchase in September of the home for Pastor Ben Gibert and his wife and co-pastor, Charisse Gibert.

Detroit World Outreach Church isn't apologizing. In fact, members say the mansion is proof God has blessed them.

Ben Gibert said God surrounds the faithful with beautiful things.

Born in the 1950s, prosperity theology has a strong following among some fundamentalist and nondenominational churches. It's gained popularity among mega-church ministries of such well-known national pastors as Joel Osteen, T.D. Jakes and Pat Robertson.

Even so, most Christian denominations disparage the belief as consumerism run amok, said David G. Myers, professor of psychology at Hope College in Holland who has written about the movement.

Wilder said the four-bedroom mansion "isn't flamboyant" and is compensation for Ben Gibert leaving his job as a high-paying automotive executive with DaimlerChrysler's minivan division after the sudden death in 2005 of church founder Bishop Jack Cameron Wallace.

The mansion sits on 12 acres and behind a quarter-mile-long driveway and a tall, electronically controlled gate. That's necessary because the church has spoken out against homosexuality and Islamic violence, Wilder said Wallace once had a live bullet delivered in the offering plate, Wilder said.

Gibert, who left a 7,000-square-foot home in Franklin for the mansion, agreed security is a concern.

Thelma Kubitskey, the township's finance director, said officials weren't thrilled, but had to remove the house from the tax rolls. Tax-free status can be granted to church-owned residences if clergy live there, even if they're not in the same communities as the churches.

Township Clerk Sue Hillebrand complained that Northville schools can ill afford to lose more revenue. She said she's amazed by the church's generosity.

You can reach Doug Guthrie at (734) 462-2674 or dguthrie@detnews.com.

--------------------------

[grammarian44]

Where is Professor Chemerinsky on this?

Raking in too much money from Barbri, perhaps?

[jg]

...The real story behind Revenue Ruling 70-549 has yet to be told!

I would also propose that the local Detroit story doesn't touch the "tip of the iceberg" as to the extent tax revenues are lost because of this gimmick.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

Please excuse my incomprehension; but what does a Rev. Ruling have to do with local property tax exemptions or exclusions?

[Paths of the Sea]

[quote="jg"]Please excuse my incomprehension; but what does a Rev. Ruling have to do with local property tax exemptions or exclusions?[/quote]

You are excused! )

The "having to do with" is in the eye of the beholders, I guess.

The church gets to own the property tax free.

The minister gets to live in the house and, effectively, receives thousands of dollars a year in tax free benefits.

The church doesn't pay tax on the property. The minister doesn't pay tax on the benefits he receives from the property. See the connection now?

Chemerinsky of course, was the amicus in the Rick Warren case and had indicated he would challenge the constitutionality of the housing allowance law. I guess he just hasn't gotten around to it; perhaps, as another indicated, because there is too much money to be made elsewhere?

In Warren's case, he was excluding something like $80,000.00 a year as tax free housing.

Don't ask me, I have no idea what that $4M dollar mansion is worth as a place to sleep at nights.

And these same benefits are now, as a result of the Bush/Burleson finagling of 70-549 out of the IRS, extended to the basketball ministers, et al, at such private schools as Pepperdine, Abilene Christian, Lipscomb, etc., etc..

I think one of the reasons tax protestors are able to operate as successfully as they do is because they simply attempt to do illegally what Bush/Burleson did for Abilene Christian, allegedly legally. Gotta make that connection, I guess to give a semblance of being on-topic here.

However, in the case of 70-549, the record indicates that everyone knew the ruling was contrary to the facts and the law, but not the politics. So, the politics won out and we have another, yes another, ruling contrary to the law. That is not the way it is supposed to be.

Why should "I" be concerned about paying my taxes when "I" see that the "big boys" simply agree to construct a scheme such as 70-549 that allows "them" to not have to pay "their" taxes?

Why should Detroit property owners be compelled to pay property taxes when that preacher gets his $4M digs tax free?

Maybe the issue will get steamed up and somebody will actually do something about changing what Cherminsky, and others, indicated he believed unconstitutional.

70-549, in one sense, is a symptom of how far folks are willing to go in order to cash-in on such a giveaway. Every one is a minister and everyone at private schools and other similar institutions want to be paid tax free as ministers.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that 70-549 is simply a case where the illegal tax protestors were able, via Bush/Burleson, to get the IRS in their pockets and ride tax free.

It is, indeed, a story that no one in the popular public media is willing to document.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[grixit]

I'm completely against religious tax exemptions.

1. Any religious organization that cannot survive without it either has no divine sanction or else lacks a membership that cares.

2. It violates separation of church and state by having the government, specifically the IRS, decide who is a legitimate church or not.

3. Minister is a job, worship is a cultural activity. All other jobs and cultural organizations pay taxes.

4. Charity work, you say? There are already tax exemptions for charities. They just don't extend to the home of the president of the United Way or the American Cancer Association or the SPCA, why should Reverend BillyJoJimBob be any different?

[LPC]

I'm completely against religious tax exemptions.

The repeal of 501(c)(3) probably wouldn't affect most churches at all (other than the requirement of filing a return), because most of their "income" is in the form of donations, and gifts are excluded from gross income. The only gross income would be fees from the use of facilities for weddings and such and investment income if they have an endowment, but those incomes are usually dwarfed by operating expenses (utilities and building maintenance) and pastoral salaries.

What bothers me is "nonprofit" hospitals, which charge the same fees as for-profit hospitals for providing the same services. The *only* charitable obligation of a tax-exempt hospital is that it must provide emergency room care (and *only* emergency room care) to anyone that walks in the door, regardless of ability to pay (and can still charge fees to those able to pay). At least museums call their entrance fees "donations." Hospitals don't even pretend that their fees are voluntary in any way.

Medical care is a business. Pretending that it is not is a crock.

[Red Cedar PM]

I'm completely against religious tax exemptions.

The repeal of 501(c)(3) probably wouldn't affect most churches at all (other than the requirement of filing a return), because most of their "income" is in the form of donations, and gifts are excluded from gross income. The only gross income would be fees from the use of facilities for weddings and such and investment income if they have an endowment, but those incomes are usually dwarfed by operating expenses (utilities and building maintenance) and pastoral salaries.

What bothers me is "nonprofit" hospitals, which charge the same fees as for-profit hospitals for providing the same services. The *only* charitable obligation of a tax-exempt hospital is that it must provide emergency room care (and *only* emergency room care) to anyone that walks in the door, regardless of ability to pay (and can still charge fees to those able to pay). At least museums call their entrance fees "donations." Hospitals don't even pretend that their fees are voluntary in any way.

Medical care is a business. Pretending that it is not is a crock.

Not to mention the fact that some of the executives at nonprofit hospitals are paid astronomical amounts. Take a look at some of the hospital executive pay on 990's posted on Guidestar and you may start to think you're in the wrong business.

[LPC]

Take a look at some of the hospital executive pay on 990's posted on Guidestar and you may start to think you're in the wrong business.

Start?

Most lawyers begin to think they're in the wrong business within a few hours of starting their first job.

[Paths of the Sea]

Prompted by the Gibert story, I did a little more lobbying on my own behalf and managed to get about 25 minutes of air time on AM 650 KGAB out of Cheyenne, WY on Wednesday, April 4, between 7:35 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. It was the Dave and Amy morning show.

We talked, mostly me, about the 70-549 issue; just the basics, not enough time for details to be adequately developed.

Anybody happen to catch the program?

Nobody has been knocking down my door to followup.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

Now that the Winkler trial is back in the news, I've noticed several articles that discuss the Winkler family connections to certain private schools affected by 70-549.

All the ones I've noticed used such language as "affiliated with" or "associated with" instead of what the schoolmen and feds like to us which is "integral agency".

As I've noticed on a number of occasions, the 70-549 secret is still pretty well kept by the church, the IRS, and the schoolmen. At least the popular press is still way behind in recognizing the issue.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!