Dr. Dino Thread

[jg]

Although apparently not a church, perhaps these organizations would be tax exempt with no requirement to file an Application for Recognition of Exemption, Form 1023, as an "Integrated Auxiliary of a Church"

From http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/charities/ch ... 50,00.html

The term integrated auxiliary of a church refers to a class of organizations that are related to a church or convention or association of churches, but are not such organizations themselves. In general, the IRS will treat an organization that meets the following three requirements as an integrated auxiliary of a church. The organization must:

Be described both as an Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) organization and be a public charity under Code section 509(a)(1), (2), or (3),
Be affiliated with a church or convention or association of churches, and
Receive financial support primarily from internal church sources as opposed to public or governmental sources.
Men's and women's organizations, seminaries, mission societies, and youth groups that satisfy the first two requirements above are considered integrated auxiliaries whether or not they meet the internal support requirement.

Source: Publication 1828, Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations

From http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1023/ar01.html

Form 1023 not necessary. The following types of organizations may be considered tax exempt under section 501(c)(3) even if they do not file Form 1023.

Churches, including synagogues, temples, and mosques.

Integrated auxiliaries of churches and conventions or associations of churches.

Any organization that has gross receipts in each taxable year of normally not more than $5,000.


Even though the above organizations are not required to file Form 1023 to be tax exempt, these organizations may choose to file Form 1023 in order to receive a determination letter that recognizes their section 501(c)(3) status and specifies whether contributions to them are tax deductible.

[LPC]

Although apparently not a church, perhaps these organizations would be tax exempt with no requirement to file an Application for Recognition of Exemption, Form 1023, as an "Integrated Auxiliary of a Church"

Of what church would they be an "integrated auxiliary"?

[Paths of the Sea]

An interesting question, Dan!

Reminds me of Revenue Ruling 70-549 where those private schools just had to show that they had some folks running things that were members of some church.

Presto, chango and the private schools became an "integral agency" to that church.

Of course, the Bush/Burleson squeeze helped to bring all that about.

See paragraph #35 of the FFRF Complaint for further details as to how that matter figures into arguing that IRC 107 is unconstitutional.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[jg]

Although apparently not a church, perhaps these organizations would be tax exempt with no requirement to file an Application for Recognition of Exemption, Form 1023, as an "Integrated Auxiliary of a Church"

Of what church would they be an "integrated auxiliary"?

Sorry, I do not have (and do not desire) any knowledge of the facts or circumstances of these particular agencies. They may or may not be affiliated with any church.
I was only stating that there may not be an issue (hence "perhaps") with such an organization not being on record as having had the Form 1023 filed and approved as a tax exempt organization in the case of an "Integrated Auxiliary of a Church".

[Paths of the Sea]

Kent Hovind says:

> "We did not know anything
> we did was even questionable."

Who can believe it!

Of course, you will notice that Kent does not even dare to try and address his pending Tax Court case!

See:

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

http://www.cseblogs.com

Knee-Mail: The Scoffer

Date: August 2nd, 2010
From: Kent Hovind
Sent: May 19, 2010
Posted: August 2, 2010
To: Jon

Subject: Scoffers

(excerpts)

Dear Jon,

Thank you so much for your letter!

To save time and space, I will quote portions of your letter and embed my comments/answers within your letter.

Jon:

> “I could hardly believe you
> were in prison over taxes when
> you always say,

>> ‘I don’t want my tax dollars
>> going to teach evolution,’

> when you never were paying them
> illegally.”

Kent:

First, scores of people have reviewed our case and realize that we did not do anything illegal.

We believe in obeying the law.

We did not know anything we did was even questionable.

Read the details on www.drdino.com/legal and check Proverbs 18:13 before you speak next time.

Second, our case is still not over.

There are several more appeals yet to be completed. We may yet be exonerated in the courts.

Third, even a quick review of history will show that innocent people often go to prison.

Lots of the Bible was written from prison.

Fourth, school tax money comes from real estate taxes, not income taxes. Our case was not about either.

I suggest you read the charges and our responses and understand the real issues.

Have a nice day, Jon!

Sincerely,
Kent Hovind

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

[Paths of the Sea]

Here's a related message from one of Eric's administrators:

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

From: kwinkler@drdino.com
To: Maury enthusiast
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010

Subject: Re: DrDino.com Blog

(excerpts)

I apologize if you feel your questions are not fully answered.

Currently, CSE has chosen to limit correspondence regarding the legal case to drdino.com/legal and e-mail...

I hope you will understand.

At the current time, there are many unknown variables in the case that up-to-date facts are hard to come by.

Unfortunately, this causes a delay in what can be published or announced.

Please know that CSE strives for transparency in what it knows.

Kyle Winkler
Creation Science Evangelism
kwinkler@drdino.com
P: 850-479-3466 x107
F: 850-479-8562
http://www.drdino.com

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

My comments:

I figure Eric is being anything but "transparent" regarding what is going on with the litigation and alleged negotiations regarding the property.

Up to date facts are easy enough to come by, for those close to the action, but those close to the action are not reporting such facts.

I think I do understand, but not the way Kyle might suppose.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

Could some legal sort here offer an opinion as to what has just been posted to the Hovind Tax Court case?

It appears Dr. Dino (aka Kent Hovind) has in recent days filed a couple of responses and objections as well as a motion for something "instanter" regarding such goings on there.

The motion was DENIED yesterday.

I figure that Dr. Dino is not wanting to answer questions and doesn't want the Court to "deem admitted" any answers to the questions.

However, an observation from a more legally inclined sort would be appreciated.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[LPC]

Could some legal sort here offer an opinion as to what has just been posted to the Hovind Tax Court case?

It appears Dr. Dino (aka Kent Hovind) has in recent days filed a couple of responses and objections as well as a motion for something "instanter" regarding such goings on there.

The motion was DENIED yesterday.

I figure that Dr. Dino is not wanting to answer questions and doesn't want the Court to "deem admitted" any answers to the questions.

However, an observation from a more legally inclined sort would be appreciated.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

It's a bit of a puzzle to me also.

Here's the text of the court's order:

O R .D E R
On July 23, 2010, in accordance with Rule 37(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, respondent filed ,a Motion for Entry of Order That Undenied Allegations in Answer Be Deemed
Admitted . On July 29, 2010, petitioner filed a Response and Objection To Motion To Deem Admitted .the Further Answer, filed a Motion To File Instanter the Response and Objection To The Further Answer, and lodged a Response and Objection To Further Answer.

Upon due consideration, it is

ORDERED that petitioner's Motion To File Instanter the Response and Objection To The Further Answer is denied. Petitioner is advised that a proper Reply, i.e., a reply that comports with the requirements of Rule 37(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, is due on or before August 16, 2010 . If petitioner fails to file a proper Reply, respondent's motion for entry of order may be granted or such other action taken as the Court deems appropriate.

Here's the text of Rule 37(c):

(c) Effect of Answer: Every material allegation set out in the petition and not expressly admitted or denied in the answer shall be deemed to be admitted.

Now, why would the Commissioner be asking for an order that the allegations in the petition that he has not answered should be deemed admitted?

I think that what is happening is that the answer filed by the Commissioner included counter-allegations (which is often known in civil procedure as "new matter") and Hovind failed to respond, so the Commissioner wanted the allegations in the answer be deemed to be admitted. Hovind asked for special dispensation and the court said no, file a reply to the answer and deny the allegations in the answer.

At least, that's what it looks like to me.

[Paths of the Sea]

By contrast, Jo Hovind, Dr. Dino's wife, filed her Reply to the Government's Answer to her petition back in April and there has been no further action in her case.

Looks like she and her representatives are taking a different course than Dr. Dino.

Dr. Dino and his wife have asked for separate places for trial.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[Dr. Caligari]

I think that what is happening is that the answer filed by the Commissioner included counter-allegations (which is often known in civil procedure as "new matter") and Hovind failed to respond, so the Commissioner wanted the allegations in the answer be deemed to be admitted. Hovind asked for special dispensation and the court said no, file a reply to the answer and deny the allegations in the answer.

At least, that's what it looks like to me.

That's pretty much what happened. In Tax Court, the Petitioner files a Petition, listing his factual and legal allegations in numbered paragraphs. The IRS then files an Answer, denying or admitting each of those paragraphs. It can then add "new matter." In cases filed by convicted tax evaders, like Hovind, there will usually be "new matter" added to the IRS's Answer, asserting that the Petitioner was convicted of a tax crime and is therefore subject to collateral estoppel (i.e., the facts found in the criminal case are presumed true and can't be re-litigated in Tax Court).

When the IRS's Answer adds new matter, the Petitioner can file either a Reply, specifically admitting or denying each paragraph of the new matter, or he can ignore the new matters, in which case it is assumed that he denied all of them. But if the Petitioner ignores the new matter, the IRS can then file a motion asking the Tax Court to deem all their new matter admitted unless the Petitioner files a Reply. That's what happened here. Hovind must now file a Reply specifically admitting or denying the IRS's new facts; if he doesn't, they will be treated as if he admitted them. Since those new facts are probably the ones about his criminal conviction, he must either admit them (in which case his Tax Court case is pretty much cooked), or he can deny them (in which case he will be subject to sanctions for denying what the IRS will easily prove to be true through the court records of the criminal case).

[Paths of the Sea]

It appears Dr. Dino has been on the move lately.

He's also got a new blog, new address, new look; see:

See:

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

http://www.kenthovindblog.com/

Update on Dr. Hovind
August 11th, 2010
by sgagne

Dr. Hovind has moved from the correctional facility in Edgefield, SC to Atlanta,
GA!

Here's a note from Mrs. Hovind:

> Kent called this morning and conditions
> are better than when he was in Atlanta
> before, and better than "the hole" in
> Edgefield.

> He is supposed to get out of the cell
> for one hour per day, and so far has
> actually been given that opportunity
> at the Atlanta prison, whereas he was
> not in the hole in Edgefield for the
> past three weeks.

> During this one hour, he can shower,
> eat lunch, do his laundry exchange,
> and have limited phone privileges, and
> limited email something he has not had
> previously!

> He does not know how long he will be
> there, but typically it is about three
> to four weeks.

> However, the man across the hall from
> him has been there for FIVE YEARS
> waiting to be moved!

> You can write to him now at:

>> Kent Hovind #06452-017
>> USP Atlanta, U.S. Penitentiary
>> P.O. Box 150160
>> Atlanta, Ga 30315

> All mail is supposed to be forwarded
> to him when he moves.

> Thank you for writing him.

> Mrs. H

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

[grixit]

Or just contact him directly, via Kneemail.

[Paths of the Sea]

I also notice that Dr. Dino filed, at the end of July, a second "independent action" motion to dismiss his criminal conviction.

A few days ago, August 6th I think it was, the Court quickly again DENIED his motion without bothering with an analysis of his claims.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

The U.S. Tax Court accepted a certain recently filed document by Dr. Dino and his attorney as being sufficient to constitute a reply and so thwart the government's effort to have deemed admissions to the earlier questions from the government.

It will be interesting to see how that develops.

More importantly is the observations and admonitions to Dr. Dino and attorney as copied below

---Begin Quote From Tax Court Order-------

Although the Court will deny respondent's Rule 37(c)
motion, the Court notes that the record in this case is replete
with patently frivolous and groundless arguments by petitioner,
acting by and through his counsel, Mr. Jerold W. Barringer.

Petitioner is advised that I.R.C. section 6673(a) (1) authorizes
the Tax Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States
a penalty of up to $25,000 whenever it appears that proceedings
have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for
delay or that the taxpayer's position in such proceedings is
frivolous or groundless.

See, e.g., Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576 (2000); White v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 1126 (1980).

Petitioner's counsel, Mr. Jerold W. Barringer, is advised that
I.R.C. section 6673(a) (2) authorizes the Tax Court to require an
attorney whose actions and arguments unreasonably and
vexatiously multiply the proceedings in a case, to pay the
excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred
because of such conduct.

Takaba v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 285, 296-305 (2002); Harper v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 533, 545 (1992); Powell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-174.

We take this opportunity to admonish both petitioner and his counsel, Mr. Jerold W. Barringer, that the Court will consider imposing such
penalties should they continue to advance arguments that are
frivolous or primarily for delay.

----------End Quote-------------

[LPC]

Petitioner's counsel, Mr. Jerold W. Barringer, is advised that I.R.C. section 6673(a) (2) authorizes the Tax Court to require an attorney whose actions and arguments unreasonably and vexatiously multiply the proceedings in a case, to pay the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.

Takaba v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 285, 296-305 (2002); Harper v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 533, 545 (1992); Powell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-174.

The citation to Powell v. Commissioner is most apt, because Barringer himself was the lawyer sanctioned in that case. The Tax Court ordered him to pay $4,725 for time spent by government lawyers responding to what the Tax Court described as "frivolous discovery requests" that amounted to "unreasonable and vexatious conduct" and conduct that was "reckless and in bad faith." Sanctions of $25,000 were also imposed against Barringer's client for maintaining frivolous arguments for which Barringer himself was not considered responsible.

[ASITStands]

The citation to Powell v. Commissioner is most apt, because Barringer himself was the lawyer sanctioned in that case. The Tax Court ordered him to pay $4,725 for time spent by government lawyers responding to what the Tax Court described as "frivolous discovery requests" that amounted to "unreasonable and vexatious conduct" and conduct that was "reckless and in bad faith."

Barringer has appealed the sanction to the D.C. Circuit at 09-1266

Respondent moved to transfer the case to the Sixth Circuit. Barringer filed his opening brief, and Respondent has until 09/30 to file its opening brief with the reply brief due 10/14

Meanwhile, the D.C. Circuit is retaining jurisdiction (apparently denying the transfer) by scheduling oral argument for 11/18 Appellant's argument is the lack of revenue districts.

[Paths of the Sea]

The Tax Court posted today a notice of trial for Dr. Dino:

> 09/24/2010-NOTICE of Trial on 02/28/11 at Jacksonville, FL.

When I checked today, no trial had yet been posted for his wife's related case.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

----Copied from U.S. Tax Court website-----

UNITED STATES TAX COURT
WASHINGTON, DC 20217

DRB

KENT HOVIND,
Petitioner,

v. ) Docket No. 4245-10.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent

O R D E R

This case is presently calendared for trial at the Trial
Session of the Court scheduled to commence at Jacksonville,
Florida on February 28, 2011. For cause, it is

ORDERED that the parties, on or before December 16, 2010,
advise the Court by a joint status report as to what meetings
are scheduled between the parties towards reaching a complete
stipulation of facts, narrowing of issues, preparation for
trial, and progress made towards settlement. The schedule
should set forth dates for discussing specific issues and for
exchanging witness lists, documents, and expert witness reports.
The parties should also advise the Court as to whether an
informal telephone conference with the Court would be helpful to
the parties.

(Signed) Elizabeth C. Paris
Judge

Dated: Washington, D.C.
October 18, 2010

SERVED Oct 19 2010

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

[Paths of the Sea]

In the latest action Jo Hovind has moved to change her trial to Mobile, AL from Tampa, FL. Perhaps because that is closer to where she lives.

The Government has responded by filing a motion to consolidate the separate cases of Jo and Kent (aka Dr. Dino) Hovind.

Looks like there might also be a continuance.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[wvfoos]

> God Quest, Inc. is an independent parachurch > ministry, formed as a non-profit corporation in
> the state of Florida. Under the leadership of
> Eric Hovind, God Quest has acquired all operations
> of Creation Science Evangelism and continues to
> successfully operate it as a ministry.

The new website notes that they are now using an employee leasing company to meet employment tax liabilities and have a legitimate accounting firm otherwise handling their affairs.

Parachurch?

Is that something like a "paralawyer?"