Invent A Church, Skip Taxes, Enrage IRS, Go To Jail

[cbayer]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/09/28/invent-a-church-skip-taxes-enrage-irs-go-to-jail/


Robert W. Wood

9/28/2014 @ 10:17PM

Pass Christian is a city in Mississippi. The name seems fitting for a tax case about a church the feds say is pure tax scam. A Pass Christian physician named Timothy Dale Jackson was found guilty of four counts of felony tax evasion and one of obstruction of due administration of the internal revenue laws.

Prosecutors say the 50-year-old orthopedic physician funneled his practice income through the “Church of Compassionate Service,” a church the feds call a scam. Dr. Jackson took a ‘vow of poverty,’ claiming that as a minister, he was tax exempt. Despite his vow of poverty, he had a successful practice. Still, he hadn’t filed tax returns or paid any taxes since 2003.

Compassionate Service Church members “donate” to the church, renouncing all worldly possessions and transferred title to a Church trust. Ministers signed over their paychecks to the Church. In return, the Church provided debit cards for living expenses. The Church even paid their mortgage.

In fact, 90 percent of Dr. Jackson’s income was returned to him, say the feds. On $1.8 million of income just between 2006 and 2009, the doc owed the IRS $650,000. When he is sentenced, Dr. Jackson could face five years and a $250,000 fine for each count of tax evasion, plus three years and a $250,000 fine for obstructing the IRS.

more at link

[gcomeau]

1. Hmm... well since all churches are "invented" when do they move on to the others?

Come on IRS, get on it.

[cbayer]

2. What do you mean all churches are invented?

The IRS has a definition and criteria. Are you suggesting that they prosecute all churches as "fake"?

[gcomeau]

3. It seems like a clear enough statement.

Last edited Wed Oct 1, 2014, 09:20 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm honestly confused how it could require explanation.


And the IRA has some definitions and criteria, but in practical application they generally amount to "we know a 'real' religion when we see it." and whether said religion specifically meets all of the guidelines laid out is not always relevant to that determination.

For example, the non profit group "Young Life", was granted the status of a "church" by the IRS despite not having any formally established place of worship despite that being part of the guidelines it uses for determining whether something is legitimately a church. They really just make it up as they go along in practice because what else are they going to do? All religions are made up, there's no logically consistent way to say which ones are 'real'. They just grant legitimacy on an ad hoc basis wherever they feel like whatever group they're looking at is acceptable or not and hand wave at some vague guidelines to justify it all. Old and lots of people like it? Sure, call it real, why not. New but kind of harmless as far as the investigator is concerned? Also real, probably, hey whatever... New but the investigator doesn't like it? Find a guideline it violates and declare it fake... even if other organizations that don't meet the same guideline have been declared legit.




And the point here was not that the church was "fake" per se, but that the church was being used to shield funds from taxes when tax exemption was inappropriate.



Since one of the things that makes church tax exemption invalid is, for example, using the funds you shield from those taxes to promote that religion/church's own political agenda... what percentage of all churches in the country do you suppose should be similarly prosecuted?


(If the number you come up with is not very large, someone isn't paying attention)

[cbayer]

4. Forget it. I regret responding to you.

[gcomeau]

5. What exactly is your problem now?

I responded directly to the question you asked, laid out a clear and simple explanation of what I was saying, and you storm off in a huff without dealing with one single word of it. This seems to be something of a pattern with you.

[cleanhippie]

6. That's a pretty typical response when she gets her nonsense destroyed like that.

Take it for what it is; she's running away because she cannot disagree with anything you said.

Well done.

[cbayer]

7. My problem is exactly this. I don't like engaging with you.

It's not complicated. I forget that though, and then I am reminded.

Yes, it is a pattern, a pattern pretty unique to my interaction with you.

Have a wonderful evening.

[trotsky]

8. You are correct, it is a pattern.

When someone disagrees with you, and presents a clear case why, and you can't dispute any of the facts presented, then you start impugning their character like you did with this post and make it personal about them.

A very clear pattern indeed. Lots of us are aware of it.

[cleanhippie]

24. It's a pattern, alright. A pattern you have with most everyone that disagrees with you.

A pattern where when your position or argument or passive-aggressive, condescending blather is confronted, refuted, and exposed for what it is, you always respond with "I don't know why I bother to respond..." And get very defensive.

Yeah, it most certainly is a pattern.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

28. When she gets the impression that he doesn't want to discuss religion

But rather wants to sneer at it, then her attitude and behavior is quite reasonable.

[okasha]

9. She probably regretted getting downwind of all that bullshit.

Just so you know, the IRS makes no judgement on the doctrine or teaching of any religious non-profit group. (1st Amendment--you know what that is?) It has a number of criteria that it uses to establish whether any organization qualifies as a non-profit, and additional criteria for any kind of religious body.

Occasionally, the IRS gets scammed by bogus organizations of all sorts. The results are pretty unpleasant for the scammer who gets caught, as here we see.

[trotsky]

10. You seem very confident in your knowledge about the IRS and rules regarding religious groups.

Can you perhaps explain what qualifies you to have your opinion on this taken more seriously than anyone else's?

I'm guessing you can't, which is why you resorted to simply labeling another poster's words "bullshit." Way to raise the level of discourse, okasha.

[gcomeau]

12. I provided a specific real world example of those criteria being ignored.

So just telling me the criteria exists (which I obviously was already aware of since I referred directly to that fact ) is pretty pointless as a rebuttal, don't you think?

[okasha]

13. You say the criteria were ignored.

I doubt that because I have prepared the requisite documentation for a number of non-profit organizations and have first-hand experience of just how nit-picky the IRS can be.

I suspect that what actually happened with your example was what happened with with the dentist/"minister." The scammer lied on the application. Obviously, like our good dentist, "Young Life" got caught and was no doubt penalized. Otherwise, you wouldn't be aware of the scam, now, would you?

[gcomeau]

14. No, Young Life was not "caught".

They remain, today, to be considered a legitimate church by the IRS with tax exemption. Despite NOT fulfilling at least one of the known criteria the IRS uses to determine that classification. The IRS is apparently perfectly well aware they don't fulfill that criteria, Young Life never claimed they did as far as I'm aware so there's nothing to "catch..." they just don't appear to give a crap.

Someone on the IRS side decided they thought this group was ok, so they declared them ok.


The fact that they're self identified fundamentalist Christian probably has something to do with that of course... of course anything that calls itself Christianity is a "real" religion/church...

[okasha]

15. What criterion did they not fulfill?

[gcomeau]

16. Already said that, but...

Among the criteria the IRS uses are:

Distinct legal existence
Recognized creed and form of worship
Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
Formal code of doctrine and discipline
Distinct religious history
Membership not associated with any other church or denomination
Organization of ordained ministers
Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study
Literature of its own
Established places of worship
Regular congregations
Regular religious services
Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young
Schools for the preparation of its members


Young life does not have, for one thing, any established places of worship. No church buildings, etc... but they still get to be called a church where other organizations that don't have established places of worship can and do get rejected as qualifying as churches if the IRS decides they want to cite that criteria as a reason to reject their claim.


Yes, the list of criteria exists, but as I said, *in practice* it can and does become an exercise in "we know a 'real' religion when we see one".


And on to the other main point, in order for the church to qualify for tax exemption, among other things:

---no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to
influence legislation,
--- the organization may not intervene win political campaigns


Show me all the big popular churches that have had their tax exempt status revoked or been prosecuted for tax evasion because they lie their asses off about meeting those criteria.

[okasha]

17. "An established place of worship"

does not have to be a church building. It can be a storefront or other rental, or even homes. (Native American Church meetings, for example, use temporary structures such as sweat lodges and teepees.)

Tell you what. Let's test your assertion. Report them to the IRS and see what happens.

[gcomeau]

19. I said "etc" for a reason.

And you don't seem to be getting me. I already told you point blank there is ZERO reason to think the IRS doesn't know this. What the heck do you think reporting them would be testing?


The bottom line is you seem to think the IRS just checks these items off and if you meet them all you're a church and if you don;t you're not. but even the IRS's own publications set the grounds for all the fudging they can do on which criteria get applied. To quote their own guide directly:

"The IRS generally uses a combination of these characteristics, together with other facts and circumstances, to determine whether an organization is considered a church for federal tax purposes"

Or, in other words, they'll apply these characteristics in any combination they feel like based on however they're deciding to evaluate things based on the situation and who it is doing the applying (a.k.a 'other facts and circumstances').


Or... as I've said already, "they know a real religion when they see one".

[okasha]

20. I'm getting you fine, thanks.

You have no idea what was on the group's application or what constellation of criteria they do meet. You have no idea why the IRS granted the exemption. You have no idea whether they're legitimate or not. Your whole argument is pure speculation.

But hey, it makes a great rant.

[gcomeau]

21. Uh-huh

So even faced with the IRS ITSELF telling you in their own words in their own damn documentation that they can and will apply the criteria in their list in the combinations they feel appropriate and modify their findings based on unspecified "other facts and circumstances" that are of course in no way detailed and thus will necessarily be left up to whoever is making any individual determination... thus rendering the ENTIRE PROCESS a subjective exercise in determining what whatever person responsible for making the call decides is a real church or not... you still know better and no they don't do exactly what they say they do.


Awesome.

[okasha]

22. See previous post.

Put up or shut up: report them and see what happens.

[gcomeau]

23. FFS

How do you still not comprehend this??????

If What I Am Saying Is Correct Reporting Them Would Result In Nothing Happening.

If what You are saying is correct reporting them would result in.... Nothing Happening.

So just what the fuck do you think reporting them is supposed to test?????

[okasha]

25. Two things.

1. You've made it glaringly obvious that you have no idea why the IRS granted this organization an exemption or whether they are actually a church.

2.You base your comments on the assumption that the organization does not have a regular place of worship, despite the fact that the IRS does not require an established location. The code you quoted and the example of other recognized religious bodies that do not have a designated place of worship.make that quite clear.

Now, maybe you're right and they aren't legitimate. Or maybe you're just stirring shit. I lean toward the latter.

[gcomeau]

26. Good grief...

1. You've made it glaringly obvious that you have no idea why the IRS granted this organization an exemption or whether they are actually a church.

2.You base your comments on the assumption that the organization does not have a regular place of worship, despite the fact that the IRS does not require an established location. The code you quoted and the example of other recognized religious bodies that do not have a designated place of worship.make that quite clear.

Which is my entire damned point. That the IRS does NOT have some ironclad check off the boxes objective measure of whether something is a church or not, but rather a fluid and subjective measure utilizing criteria that can combine in different ways as they see fit depending on whatever they decide to judge the circumstances are. Thus resulting, in practice, in "we know a real religion when we see it" evaluative processes.


If you are now granting that we're DONE.

[okasha]

27. Well, no.

The IRS makes no judgement whethrr something is a "real teligion" or not. It makes judgements about whether non-profit organizations qualify for tax-exempt status. The criteria have to be flexible because different religious bodies have widely different practices. That does not mean that they're arbitrary.

[okasha]

18. I agree with you absolutely

that churches that support specific candidates ought to have their exemptions pulled.

[goldent]

11. Given the long history of special treatment

of Churches by the government and the IRS, starting with the 1st amendment, you'd think this kind of fraud would have a long history also.

I imagine the IRS has pretty much seen everything.