It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ending tax-exemption: why not?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:16 PM
reply to post by drmeola

Now lets say that would be the case as you have suggested, how would that be enforced?
Would that mean some sort of oversight committee and if so how would they get paid.

Do you mean how would it be made known that a church is breaking their tax-exempt status agreement? The way it is now, the IRS just has to be notified and they'll start investigating. And they'd get paid the way the IRS does now. I don't think that any drastic change would be needed. People would just have to keep an ear open for things, just like with the LDS church last year.

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:25 PM
reply to post by Badgered1

Forgive my pedantic nature, but true spirituality should come from within, not without. A building is not the basis of faith.

I didn't mean to imply that the building itself provides the spirituality. But, if you go to a mega-church and compare the average congregant there to one of a smaller church, it's like night and day in most cases. The faith that people have in a smaller church tends to be more authentic while the average person in a large church is there for the show or to just be there. (That's not to say though that there aren't authentic believers in a big church and non-authentic in smaller, this is just a generalization.)

Will somebody be sending me a check for my contributions to the tax base to keep these buildings tax-free? (I think I once read that it worked out to be about $900 per household, per year. I could be wrong). The point is that the tax-payer is supporting an intangible.

Um, how is you paying taxes keeping churches open? It doesn't. For example, my homechurch back in America doesn't receive any money from the federal government. They are simply exempt from paying property taxes, income taxes, and sales taxes in certain instances. Them being exempt from taxes doesn't mean that you're some how paying for them.

Or am I eligible for tax exemption too because I have a belief and I have property? All amounts to the same thing in my books.

If you and like minded individuals meet on your property solely for the purpose of practicing your beliefs, feel free to go and apply for the 501(c)3 exemption. That is what sets places of worship apart from business or homes they're used for a different purpose.

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:08 PM
The debate shouldn't be about churches and their tax exemption, it should be about tax exemption overall. I'm totally against getting rid of it, because it would accomplish the same end as simply raising taxes.

Tax an item or activity, and you reduce how often that item is consumed or activity is done. In the church example, it would mean less churches. If you tax sugary soda, people will consume less of it. If you tax big macs, people will eat less of them. Most people would say "Well fine, tax fast food and sugar, it'll make us healthier". True, but everyone's got a line that will be crossed, when they should never have crossed the first.

The other problem is when you tax an activity or item, and the natural reduction of consumption occurs, it reduces the tax collected on it. Unfortunately, government spends before it makes, and it never makes what it projects to make, which leaves us the only option of increasing the tax on that item or activity. Look at cigarettes if you've got any questions about how this system works.

It's about liberty and freedom. I don't care if you don't like big macs, tobacco, or churches, it's not up to you or some bureaucrat to tell others they can't indulge in them. What we need is more information and less control. Let people make their own decisions after they learn about the decision they're about to make. I support dietary labels on food, for example, because it allows people to make informed decisions, but doesn't control them in the process.

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:25 PM
One of the problems that taxing churches would cause, is a reduction in the social work done by churches. Most churches have soup kitchens, provide food, lodging and clothing for the poor, and provide aid to disaster areas. Taking that money from churches would just mean that:
1.) the social work does not get done
2.)the government has to pick it up, and that means increased taxes for everyone else.

Also, consider the fact that the church's social work is done by UNPAID volunteers. When was the last time you heard of a government agency having UNPAID workers? The simple fact is that churches can perform social work much more efficiently, with more money being used for the needy, than any government agency.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 07:35 AM
Ok first let me say I am a Christian and I in no way am trying to deny the need for small churches, or any churches. But like all laws loopholes exist, and how by definition can one be considered for 501 and another not that meets the same general guidelines. Such as the none mainstream religions, KKK, Wiken, and Satanic cults. Not that I am for these groups but for debate purpose I mentioned them.

In this post are some general outlines of a 501. in the following post I will put the requirements for a 501 and it is on that topic I would like to discuss.
Lets keep it friendly please this is for information and to help open our eyes on how organizations brake the law out rite and still maintain there status.

501(c) is a provision of the United States Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)), listing 26 types of non-profit organizations exempt from some federal income taxes. Sections 503 through 505 list the requirements for attaining such exemptions. Many states reference Section 501(c) for definitions of organizations exempt from state taxation as well.
[edit] Types
According to the IRS Publication 557, in the Organization Reference Chart section, the following is an exact list of 501(c) organization types and their corresponding descriptions.[1]
• 501(c)(1) — Corporations Organized Under Act of Congress (including Federal Credit Unions)
• 501(c)(2) — Title Holding Corporation for Exempt Organization
• 501(c)(3) — Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations
• 501(c)(4) — Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees
• 501(c)(5) — Labor, Agricultural, and Horticultural Organizations
• 501(c)(6) — Business Leagues, Chambers of Commerce, Real Estate Boards, etc.
• 501(c)(7) — Social and Recreational Clubs
• 501(c)(8) — Fraternal Beneficiary Societies and Associations
• 501(c)(9) — Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Associations
• 501(c)(10) — Domestic Fraternal Societies and Associations
• 501(c)(11) — Teachers' Retirement Fund Associations
• 501(c)(12) — Benevolent Life Insurance Associations, Mutual Ditch or Irrigation Companies, Mutual or Cooperative Telephone Companies, etc.
• 501(c)(13) — Cemetery Companies
• 501(c)(14) — State-Chartered Credit Unions, Mutual Reserve Funds
• 501(c)(15) — Mutual Insurance Companies or Associations
• 501(c)(16) — Cooperative Organizations to Finance Crop Operations
• 501(c)(17) — Supplemental Unemployment Benefit Trusts
• 501(c)(18) — Employee Funded Pension Trust (created before June 25, 1959)
• 501(c)(19) — Post or Organization of Past or Present Members of the Armed Forces
• 501(c)(21) — Black lung Benefit Trusts
• 501(c)(22) — Withdrawal Liability Payment Fund
• 501(c)(23) — Veterans Organization (created before 1880)
• 501(c)(25) — Title Holding Corporations or Trusts with Multiple Parents
• 501(c)(26) — State-Sponsored Organization Providing Health Coverage for High-Risk Individuals
• 501(c)(27) — State-Sponsored Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Organization
• 501(c)(28) — National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust

501(c)(3) exemptions apply to corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, educational purposes, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, promote the arts, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.[7][8]
Another provision, 26 U.S.C. § 170, provides a deduction, for federal income tax purposes, for some donors who make charitable contributions to most types of 501(c)(3) organizations, among others. Regulations specify which such deductions must be verifiable in order to be allowed (e.g., receipts for donations over $250). Due to the tax deductions associated with donations, loss of 501(c)(3) status can be highly challenging to a charity's continued operation, as many foundations and corporate matching programs will not grant funds to a charity without such status, and individual donors often will not consider making a donation to such a charity due to the unavailability of the deduction.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 07:36 AM

Exemption Requirements - Section 501(c)(3) Organizations

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.
The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.
Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

Inurement/Private Benefit - Charitable Organizations

A section 501(c)(3) organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator's family, shareholders of the organization, other designated individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such private interests. No part of the net earnings of a section 501(c)(3) organization may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. A private shareholder or individual is a person having a personal and private interest in the activities of the organization.

Ok we can take this one line at a time but I want to start hearing from you first. And see if you see how by legal definition no-one should really qualify for an exemption. I will tell you latter how I come up with that.

Again lets have some fun, and be open minded we are not here trying to hurt anyone, or to put down any religion, we are discussing the laws of the land and hopefully can find away to get our government back on track and fire those who out right just brake the laws with no consequences. I do have a means of point I am trying to get too but will not reveal that until later.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 07:53 AM

Originally posted by drmeola
A section 501(c)(3) organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator's family, shareholders of the organization, other designated individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such private interests.

That's pretty funny right there. Isnt the status of 'tax-exempt' a benefiting interest for everyone involved?

By that logic absolutely nothing should be tax exempt.

Morons over in D.C. writing these things.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:00 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Good one ok so I wasn’t the only one that saw that.
Keep it up, there is so much more to find. lol

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in