A man's home is his......church?

[webhick]

Coming in late to this conversation.

I don't have a problem with churches being tax exempt as a religious organization. I do have a problem with the fact that they're treated "special." They should have to register with the state, file a 1023, and register with the Attorney General (or other appropriate state division) to obtain the right to claim exemption and solicit for donations. Churches can already choose to do those things, but they're special, so it's optional. Other non-profits don't have that benefit. It's also my understanding that pastors can opt out of payroll taxes. No more of that. The 990 would make them more accountable since it has you list your highest paid employees, all employees who get paid more than $100k, all the board members and any compensation they received, has you prove whether or not you're publicly supported, has you list any contributors who gave you more than $5k over the course of the year (this bit isn't open to public inspection), etc.

Once we get enough of them to file, we'd be able to see how badly paying taxes would hurt the non-profit sector. I mean, I'm thinking that a %0 tax rate for all non-profits pulling in less than $100k in money (not goods, since the food pantry did about $200k in donations last year, of which only roughly $15k) wouldn't hurt that much. I did the books for a non-profit which was one of many chapters that was considered part of a national organization in addition to cleaning up the books for a different chapter whose CPA went AWOL. They had to pay 13% of all monies they received to the national organization and was still able to pay their bills, make payroll, etc. Both chapters pulled in far more than $100k a year. They could afford to pay some taxes.

I'd like to see the tax based on the monies they received, not the profit. My reasoning is this: If it's based on the profit you'll have organizations blowing donor funds (can anyone say exorbitant employee bonuses?) at the end of a fiscal year to come in under the limit, which is wrong and irresponsible. If you base it off the amount they receive, they'll be forced to spend a little more wisely to make the tax payment. It wouldn't have to be a big tax. I mean a 1% tax would be $1000 for an organization raking in $100k.

There should also be a small tax on employee salaries over $100k. Hey, non-profits already list it on the 990 (except churches, but that would change in my world), so it's not like there'd be additional reporting. I'm gonna throw out...1% on any amounts over $100k. That $100k would not only include their gross wages, but other compensation (such as "rent" on a multi-million dollar home, use of the gold plated jet, etc.), contributions to employee benefit plans and deferred compensation, and expense account allowances.

I think that just about covers it for now. I know my proposals are full of holes. Shut up. I have non-profit angst.

[Imalawman]

Coming in late to this conversation.

I don't have a problem with churches being tax exempt as a religious organization. I do have a problem with the fact that they're treated "special." They should have to register with the state, file a 1023, and register with the Attorney General (or other appropriate state division) to obtain the right to claim exemption and solicit for donations. Churches can already choose to do those things, but they're special, so it's optional. Other non-profits don't have that benefit. It's also my understanding that pastors can opt out of payroll taxes. No more of that. The 990 would make them more accountable since it has you list your highest paid employees, all employees who get paid more than $100k, all the board members and any compensation they received, has you prove whether or not you're publicly supported, has you list any contributors who gave you more than $5k over the course of the year (this bit isn't open to public inspection), etc.

Once we get enough of them to file, we'd be able to see how badly paying taxes would hurt the non-profit sector. I mean, I'm thinking that a %0 tax rate for all non-profits pulling in less than $100k in money (not goods, since the food pantry did about $200k in donations last year, of which only roughly $15k) wouldn't hurt that much. I did the books for a non-profit which was one of many chapters that was considered part of a national organization in addition to cleaning up the books for a different chapter whose CPA went AWOL. They had to pay 13% of all monies they received to the national organization and was still able to pay their bills, make payroll, etc. Both chapters pulled in far more than $100k a year. They could afford to pay some taxes.

I'd like to see the tax based on the monies they received, not the profit. My reasoning is this: If it's based on the profit you'll have organizations blowing donor funds (can anyone say exorbitant employee bonuses?) at the end of a fiscal year to come in under the limit, which is wrong and irresponsible. If you base it off the amount they receive, they'll be forced to spend a little more wisely to make the tax payment. It wouldn't have to be a big tax. I mean a 1% tax would be $1000 for an organization raking in $100k.

There should also be a small tax on employee salaries over $100k. Hey, non-profits already list it on the 990 (except churches, but that would change in my world), so it's not like there'd be additional reporting. I'm gonna throw out...1% on any amounts over $100k. That $100k would not only include their gross wages, but other compensation (such as "rent" on a multi-million dollar home, use of the gold plated jet, etc.), contributions to employee benefit plans and deferred compensation, and expense account allowances.

I think that just about covers it for now. I know my proposals are full of holes. Shut up. I have non-profit angst.

Just a note - I think that in order for a minister to be exempt from payroll taxes, they must have taken a vow of poverty required for their position. In other words, almost all ministers must pay payroll taxes. Most small church ministers probably don't pay payroll, but that doesn't mean its allowed. Its not a heavily audited area.

As far as adding taxes. Hey, it'd make me more money. But I think it would cause shenanigans to occur. I think you'd see a lot of sister organizations set-up, disguised payments for salary. I think you either treat them like a for-profit or generally don't tax them. Its already goofy enough to have the UBIT and excess benefit rules, adding another set of taxes would just complicate matters. But I identify with your sentiment. I'd rather see a more restrictive definition of a non-profit, to prevent some entities from receiving that treatment to begin with.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Coming in late to this conversation.

I don't have a problem with churches being tax exempt as a religious organization. I do have a problem with the fact that they're treated "special." They should have to register with the state, file a 1023, and register with the Attorney General (or other appropriate state division) to obtain the right to claim exemption and solicit for donations.

What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is so ambiguous that you would think a religion needs to seek the approval of any state agency to obtain the "right" to solicit donations?

... I have non-profit angst.

That explains a lot!

[webhick]

Coming in late to this conversation.

I don't have a problem with churches being tax exempt as a religious organization. I do have a problem with the fact that they're treated "special." They should have to register with the state, file a 1023, and register with the Attorney General (or other appropriate state division) to obtain the right to claim exemption and solicit for donations.

What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is so ambiguous that you would think a religion needs to seek the approval of any state agency to obtain the "right" to solicit donations?

They're not seeking the approval of the state agency to obtain the "right" to be a church or to practice their religion and I'm definitely not saying that religious purposes shouldn't be tax-exempt, but I can see your point nonetheless. I feel as though the spirit of it is that a church shouldn't be discriminated against or for. That means that they should be allowed to automatically get things that other organizations have to work hard at. I mean, if filling out these forms and paying those fees don't prevent my non-profit from practicing its tax-exempt purpose, then churches should have no problems doing the same.

I should point out that there is one requirement that is the same as other non-profits: registration for group exemption. If I start a church and end up with affiliates that I want to extend my tax-exemption, then I have to apply for group exemption. Like if I start my own church and (for lack of a better term) "franchise" it, I would have to apply for group exemption so that the little off-shoots could use the tax-exempt status of my church. One could easily argue that it impedes my hypothetical religion from practicing freely, but the requirement still exists.

... I have non-profit angst.

That explains a lot!

Well, I hope you can understand why. I'm a more than a bit tired of hearing about some local-ish churches which "own" "non-profits" of which have no religious or other tax-exempt purpose. They're never going to be caught because churches get a free pass. If they had to explain every penny like the rest of us then they'd have a harder time getting away with it.

[aitchel]

I don't care if churches are taxed or not, but I would like to point out that it has been argued in this forum that natural rights and those enumerated in the Constitution may be taxed. Saying that a church cannot be taxed sounds a lot like the TP argument that the right to earn a living can't be taxed.

[Famspear]

Hypothetical: Church X has the following official policies:

1. There is to be no interracial dating by members of the Church.

2. Members who are partners in an interracial marriage will be expelled from membership.

3. Members who are members of or affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage will be expelled.

4. Members who date outside of their own race will be expelled.

5. Members who espouse, promote, or encourage others to violate the Church's dating rules and regulations will be expelled.

Issue: Does the church qualify as a tax exempt organization under IRC section 501(c)(3)?

[Judge Roy Bean]

Hypothetical: Church X has the following official policies:

1. There is to be no interracial dating by members of the Church.

2. Members who are partners in an interracial marriage will be expelled from membership.

3. Members who are members of or affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage will be expelled.

4. Members who date outside of their own race will be expelled.

5. Members who espouse, promote, or encourage others to violate the Church's dating rules and regulations will be expelled.

Issue: Does the church qualify as a tax exempt organization under IRC section 501(c)(3)?

Yes.

[LaVidaRoja]

Didn't Bob Jones University run into problems because of policies of that sort?

[Famspear]

Didn't Bob Jones University run into problems because of policies of that sort?

Ding! Ding!Ding! Ding!Ding! Ding!Ding! Ding!Ding! Ding!Ding! Ding!

Yes, the fact pattern is taken verbatim from Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), except that I changed the pattern from "university" to "church." The United States Supreme Court stated that for the university to qualify under 501(c)(3), it had to qualify as a "common law charity." One of the requirements for a common law charity, said the Court, is that the organization cannot violate public policy. The Court concluded that the University was discriminating on the basis of race -- and that this violated public policy. And it didn't matter that the University applied the "no-interracial dating" etc., rules "equally" to whites and blacks.

I haven't Shepardized the case in a gazillion years, so I don't know how the courts in subsequent cases may have applied the Bob Jones University rule to churches.

EDIT: Just to be specific: The Court ruled that the IRS was correct in revoking the tax exempt status of the University.

EDIT 2: The other point I should make is that Bob Jones University was (or still is?) a nonprofit corporation, the purpose of which was "to conduct an institution of learning . . . , giving special emphasis to the Christian religion and the ethics revealed in the Holy Scriptures." The University was not affiliated with any religious denomination, but was dedicated to the teaching and propagation of its fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs. The sponsors of the University, according to the Court, "genuinely believe[d] that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage."

[wserra]

The sponsors of the University, according to the Court, "genuinely believe[d] that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage."

But God woke up one morning about ten years ago and said, "You know, I think I got that one wrong".

How can anyone believe these guys?

[Imalawman]

Didn't Bob Jones University run into problems because of policies of that sort?

Ding! Ding!Ding! Ding!Ding! Ding!Ding! Ding!Ding! Ding!Ding! Ding!

Yes, the fact pattern is taken verbatim from Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), except that I changed the pattern from "university" to "church."

That's a rather big change. A church may still do a lot of things that would otherwise violate "public policy". There are limits, but nothing compared to a university.

[Imalawman]

The sponsors of the University, according to the Court, "genuinely believe[d] that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage."

But God woke up one morning about ten years ago and said, "You know, I think I got that one wrong".

How can anyone believe these guys?

Well, I certainly don't believe much of what they say. However, simply because they change their mind about their beliefs is no reason to discredit them. I'm certain there are statements you have made about things you regarded as true in your past that now you would not make. I certainly have stated one thing and then later said, "you know, I had that wrong". I disagree with Bob Jones on many, many grounds, but not simply because they change their minds and interpretations. In fact, I applaud someone for looking at their belief system and admitting that they had that one wrong. I think you are being a bit harsh and hypocritical because you find the Bob Jones crowd repugnant (not that I blame you).

[jg]

The sponsors of the University, according to the Court, "genuinely believe[d] that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage."

But God woke up one morning about ten years ago and said, "You know, I think I got that one wrong".

How can anyone believe these guys?

Unless you are referring to Bob Jones III as God, the link says nothing about God getting anything wrong.

[bmielke]

The sponsors of the University, according to the Court, "genuinely believe[d] that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage."

But God woke up one morning about ten years ago and said, "You know, I think I got that one wrong".

How can anyone believe these guys?

Unless you are referring to Bob Jones III as God, the link says nothing about God getting anything wrong.

I think what Wserra meant is that Bob Jones based their policy in scripture, and one morning they read the scripture completely different. Obviously God changed his mind and it was ok.

[Famspear]

The sponsors of the University, according to the Court, "genuinely believe[d] that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage."

But God woke up one morning about ten years ago and said, "You know, I think I got that one wrong".

How can anyone believe these guys?

Well, I certainly don't believe much of what they say. However, simply because they change their mind about their beliefs is no reason to discredit them. I'm certain there are statements you have made about things you regarded as true in your past that now you would not make. I certainly have stated one thing and then later said, "you know, I had that wrong". I disagree with Bob Jones on many, many grounds, but not simply because they change their minds and interpretations. In fact, I applaud someone for looking at their belief system and admitting that they had that one wrong. I think you are being a bit harsh and hypocritical because you find the Bob Jones crowd repugnant (not that I blame you).

I don't see Wes as being harsh or hypocritical. I do agree that the Bob Jones people should be credited for changing their beliefs in this case. But credibility is a problem, as I see it, for anyone who professes to preach the Will of God and later changes his or her view as to what the Will of God is.

EDIT: Another point I want to make is that the credibility, the believability of the Bob Jones people, or any other group espousing beliefs about God, would depend in part on how forcefully they propound their beliefs. People who pretend to be absolutely sure and infallible about God are going to have a harder time with credibility if they later change their views than are people who simply say, "This is my interpretation of God's Will, and I don't pretend to be omniscient." I don't know which category the Bob Jones people fell into.

[Judge Roy Bean]

re: Racism in churches - my answer to the question was yes and I was referring to the Nation of Islam. Whites are deemed unworthy.

[wserra]

simply because they change their mind about their beliefs is no reason to discredit them.

You miss the point. They didn't just "change their mind about their beliefs". In being racist assholes, they claimed that they were only doing as the revealed word of God required. That was precisely what they claimed to no less a secular authority than the Supreme Court, in an effort to preserve their tax exemption. Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983). "Taking away our exemption for discrimination would violate the Free Exercise Clause" - that was their argument.

And they didn't just take that position in courts. Several years ago, someone by the name of James Landrith ran a site called multiracial.com (which is now defunct). BJU officials wrote Landrith a well known letter which is available on several sites. Vide:

God has separated people for His own purpose. He has erected barriers between the nations, not only land and sea barriers, but also ethnic, cultural, and language barriers. God has made people different one from another and intends those differences to remain. Bob Jones University is opposed to intermarriage of the races because it breaks down the barriers God has established. It mixes that which God separated and intends to keep separate. . . . Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man. . . . When Jesus Christ returns to the earth, He will establish world unity, but until then, a divided earth seems to be His plan.

That, of course, is abject horseshit biologically as well as theologically. BJU did not admit any black students until 1971, unmarried black students until 1975, and the ban on interracial dating persisted until just ten years ago. Based on God.

I'm certain there are statements you have made about things you regarded as true in your past that now you would not make.

Absolutely. But I never claimed that I was right because God was on my side.

[LPC]

God has separated people for His own purpose. He has erected barriers between the nations, not only land and sea barriers, but also ethnic, cultural, and language barriers. God has made people different one from another and intends those differences to remain. Bob Jones University is opposed to intermarriage of the races because it breaks down the barriers God has established. It mixes that which God separated and intends to keep separate. . . .

But suppose God created different races in order to create more interesting porn?

Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry,

Well, THAT has got to be embarrassing. A fundamentalist faith that believes in the literal word of the scripture that also has a firmly held belief that it considers divine and yet lacks any foundation in scripture.

I guess that, when it comes to racism, even fundamentalists are willing to make exceptions.

[Imalawman]

I'm certain there are statements you have made about things you regarded as true in your past that now you would not make.

Absolutely. But I never claimed that I was right because God was on my side.

Ah, well, that makes it SO much better. To me its no different if one says, "logic dictates this" and "God says this". Only to later say, "I was wrong". Look, I despise most of what BJU does. I'm just not going to mock them for the sole reason that they changed their mind. Kudos to them for changing a racist stand and recognizing that they were wrong about God's will. That's my two cents, your mileage may vary.

[PrinceAlbert12]

The links to the news article no longer work. Does anyone know the names of the parties in question or have any further information? I would also like to know more about the 5 page letter sent by the Diplomat of the Kingdom of God?