Started By
Message

re: IRS made deal to scrutinize churches

Posted on 8/1/14 at 11:13 am to
Posted by BigJim
Baton Rouge
Member since Jan 2010
14543 posts
Posted on 8/1/14 at 11:13 am to
In theory, as long as they were enforcing the prohibition on endorsing candidates, I am cool with this.

In practice I think the IRS has demonstrated that they are not capable of enforcing this in an even handed manner. Expect future lawsuits.
Posted by S.E.C. Crazy
Alabama
Member since Feb 2013
7905 posts
Posted on 8/1/14 at 12:37 pm to
This is only a futile intimidation play.

Everyone knows that any church can print the positions of all candidates on a card/brochure without advocating a candidate.

So in esence if one candidate gets a check on being for abortion and homosexuality, the church has raised the issues and spotlighted their candidate without officially endorsing anyone, and this is 100 percent legal.

But the government wants to intimidate those that don't understand the facts.
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
57517 posts
Posted on 8/1/14 at 1:36 pm to
I still don't understand how exercising one first amendment right (religion) means you surrender another first amendment right (speech).
Posted by SoulGlo
Shinin' Through
Member since Dec 2011
17248 posts
Posted on 8/1/14 at 1:56 pm to
Is Mr "Hillary ain't never been called a ****!" still tax exempt?
Posted by Sid in Lakeshore
Member since Oct 2008
41956 posts
Posted on 8/1/14 at 2:29 pm to
quote:

That's the difference between conservatives and liberals. You expect conservatives to support something because it "hurts" black churches. In reality the conservatives are more concerned with freedom than hurting the "other side". A democrat will give up freedom in a heartbeat if it means hurting the "other side". To a dem it's an us vs them amongst Americans.


This is utter and complete bullshite. The attacks from the Right on both Clinton (for getting a blow job) and Obama (for everything he has tried to do) have proven this to me beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The attacks against George Bush were much the same.

Each side cares about winning first. Ideology comes second, every time.
Posted by Sid in Lakeshore
Member since Oct 2008
41956 posts
Posted on 8/1/14 at 2:31 pm to
quote:

I still don't understand how exercising one first amendment right (religion) means you surrender another first amendment right (speech).


It doesn't. It just means you forfeit the right to claim tax exempt status. I personally think we should do away with TE status for everyone. Couple it with a flat tax and we would have a fair system. But I really don't trust our reps to do anything fair.
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
57517 posts
Posted on 8/1/14 at 2:44 pm to
quote:

It doesn't. It just means you forfeit the right to claim tax exempt status.
why would that only apply to churches?

Wouldn't that mean anyone that participates in a political campaign loses their deductions and exemptions, too?

Further applying... Can we suspend second amendment and voting rights for anyone that takes welfare? I mean... They don't have to take the welfare...
Posted by mmcgrath
Indianapolis
Member since Feb 2010
35510 posts
Posted on 8/1/14 at 3:21 pm to
quote:

We just need to abolish the IRS altogether. I believe the Fair Tax would pretty much cover this.
Your "Fair Tax" would eliminate tax exempt entities?
Posted by CubsFanBudMan
Member since Jul 2008
5124 posts
Posted on 8/1/14 at 3:30 pm to
quote:

Wouldn't that mean anyone that participates in a political campaign loses their deductions and exemptions, too?


There's a huge difference for the donor. A donation to a church is tax deductible by anyone. A donation to a political entity (candidate, PAC, etc) is non-deductible for everyone.

My biggest complaint is the second F in the FFRF. There is no suck thing as freedom FROM religion, it's freedom OF religion. What ever judge allowed the of to become from ruined the country.

The best thing for churches to do is present the facts of each candidates' position without endorsing any candidate.
Posted by Cosmo
glassman's guest house
Member since Oct 2003
120770 posts
Posted on 8/1/14 at 3:36 pm to
ANN ROMNEY HAS HORSES!
BINDERS FULL OF WOMEN!
Posted by Mr. Misanthrope
Cloud 8
Member since Nov 2012
5585 posts
Posted on 8/1/14 at 3:54 pm to
quote:

A political organization subject to section 527 is a party, committee, association, fund, or other organization (whether or not incorporated) organized and operated primarily for the purpose of directly or indirectly accepting contributions or making expenditures, or both, for an exempt function.

A political organization must be organized for the primary purpose of carrying on exempt function activities. A political organization's primary activities must be exempt function activities. A political organization may engage in activities that are not exempt function activities, but these may not be its primary activities.

The exempt function of a political organization is influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election or appointment of an individual to a federal, state, or local public office or office in a political organization. The election of Presidential or Vice-Presidential electors is also part of the exempt function of a political organization.Activities that directly or indirectly relate to or support an exempt function are exempt function activities.


So, a church, whose theology and core beliefs run against the current tide of morality and are inimical to current popular, important or trendy "political issues" can have their teachings and sermons closely monitored for the faintest whiff of electioneering (as determined by the report of an unbiased IRS stooge) and possibly lose their tax exempt status or be forced to spend vast sums on expensive litigation in self-defense, yet a PAC, whose raison d'etre is electioneering is tax exempt for that purpose and that purpose alone.

Well, first, churches should reincorporate using 527 rules under the theory they are the moral leaven of society and seek to influence political elections from the pulpit through preaching the gospel and making disciples and those are their only reasons to exist.

IRS attention will not fall on churches with a progressive or liberal Democratic track record but on churches which profess being biblical and remain orthodox. The IRS will never hire enough "agents" to monitor churches. They will rely on "complaints" from "disinterested" citizens who attend churches and record violations. It would not surprise me if a large number of these concerned citizens were militant atheist liberal ideologues and secularist cranks with axes to grind and donning their Sunday's best. (not really, they'll probably be wearing cargo shorts and Whale Wars T-shirts)

BTW, I agree with your flat tax comment and that our representatives are suspect or corrupt.
Posted by ironsides
Nashville, TN
Member since May 2006
8153 posts
Posted on 8/1/14 at 3:58 pm to
quote:

My biggest complaint is the second F in the FFRF. There is no suck thing as freedom FROM religion, it's freedom OF religion. What ever judge allowed the of to become from ruined the country.


While I agree with you, the "judge" of which you speak is the politically correct fist that seems to rule everything these days.

I used to live in NYC. On Sundays, some people went to church, others went to synagogues, others went to Mosqueues (well maybe not sundays but whenever they celebrate), some went for a walk, and still others showed up at nice restaurants hungover at noon and got bombed. Nobody really gave a shite about someone else's religeon, they only gave a shite about their own religeon.

Now that I have left and moved to another part of the country, the libs here assume that because I'm from NY I'm a raging liberal and need to be claimed. I have a friend that invited me to his Athiest group. For curiousity / entertainment purposes, I asked him a few questions about it. Bro was as passionate about it as the different friends that have tried to recruit my catholic arse to their baptist, nondenominational superchurch, shite even the jahova's witness that shows up once a year at my door.

Athiesm has the same symptoms of a religeon, but the participants don't realize it. I just don't get why they have so many preconceived notions, in some cases, borderline hatered of those that do want to worship. Whatever happened to live and let live?

/rant
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
57517 posts
Posted on 8/1/14 at 4:05 pm to
quote:

The best thing for churches to do is present the facts of each candidates' position without endorsing any candidate.
So, you're saying that the threat of losing their tax deductions should be a tool used to keep them out of politics?

Freedom!
Posted by ironsides
Nashville, TN
Member since May 2006
8153 posts
Posted on 8/2/14 at 7:38 am to
quote:

So, you're saying that the threat of losing their tax deductions should be a tool used to keep them out of politics?


But what is politics, if its not a
Discussion and means to govern ourselves? And if a person or group of persons hold a set of beliefs, should they not be allowed to discuss those beliefs in terms of how the people should be governed?

Posted by ChineseBandit58
Pearland, TX
Member since Aug 2005
43172 posts
Posted on 8/2/14 at 8:00 am to
quote:

IRS settles and says they'll monitor sermons for said abuse.

I'll bet the black churches are all upset about this.
Posted by TotesMcGotes
New York, New York
Member since Mar 2009
27884 posts
Posted on 8/2/14 at 8:39 am to
I'd rather churches say what they want and endorse who they want but lose their tax exempt status.
Posted by TotesMcGotes
New York, New York
Member since Mar 2009
27884 posts
Posted on 8/2/14 at 8:40 am to
I'll bet you're the sixth person to say that in this thread.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
124698 posts
Posted on 8/2/14 at 8:53 am to
quote:

One would think, the way black churches blatantly flaunt electioneering restrictions, that conservatives would favor this.
Frankly, I don't favor it either way. But obviously based on the IRS's recent partisan malfeasance, conservatives will have zero confidence in provisions for fair enforcement.
Posted by La Place Mike
West Florida Republic
Member since Jan 2004
28909 posts
Posted on 8/2/14 at 9:15 am to
quote:

As far as enforcing the 2009 law that the IRS was sued for not enforcing, I imagine it'll have 99% to do with endorsing candidates and discussing issues specifically tied into politics.

If you speak about abortion, that's fine.

If you speak about a specific candidate's views on abortion and why those views are right or wrong, then it's probably not.

This is true and how it should be. Will the IRS start attending black churches in the south to monitor them? Black churches down here are very involved in politics.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 3Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram