Global Warming Climate Models Have Made a Successful Prediction

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 7:27:54 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 15:52:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

From IRS 1828:

"Recognition of Tax-Exempt Status
Automatic Exemption for Churches
Churches that meet the requirements of IRC Section 501(c)(3) are automatically
considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS."

They may be granted automatic 501(c)(3) status. As such, they are
required to file annual paperwork.

Word salad. What you meant to say was that they would -qualify- for 501(c)(3) status. They do not actually have to -seek- 501(c)(3) status.

Correct. Under many circumstances they are automatically granted
501(c)(3) status. Note that this only applies if they meet the
qualifications for 501(c)(3) status, including (specifically) not
engaging in substantial efforts to influence legislation and not
intervening in or participating in political campaigns. Many churches
need to annually file Form 990-T if they have any business interests,
and a Form 1023 if they participate in any way in a variety of
programs with charities. They also must have a federal tax ID number.

Failure to do so can result in loss of tax exempt status.

Incorrect. They would be tax exempt anyway.

Not if they don't operate under the rules for 501(c)(3) corporations.

Also,
failure to maintain filings can cause a church to lose any local tax
exemptions (property, sales) that it grants to non-profit entities.

Also incorrect. Local tax laws are subject to the same Constitutional restrictions as federal laws.

There are no Constitutional restrictions on taxing churches.

“The divorce between Church and State ought to be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state or in the nation, should be exempt from equal taxation; for if you exempt the property of any church organization, to that extent you impose a tax upon the whole community.�
― James A. Garfield

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:03:24 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

When you said that "the Constitution is not the law," even though the Constitution -itself- says that it is part of the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Just because it is treated as the "supreme law of the land" does not
mean that the Constitution is law in any normal sense of the word. A
distinction that John clearly understood.

Ah, we see that you are playing word games again, peterson.

No. Using words effectively. Not a concept you're familiar with.

Dissension within the Supreme Court is irrelevant to the
interpretation of law. Once SCOTUS rules, it does not matter what the
individual justices argued for.

If fact it does matter and it becomes part of public record.

So what? It doesn't become a matter of law, which is what we're
talking about here.

No, for the umpteenth time, they do not have to seek tax exemption, they already have it because they ARE churches and they do NOT have to file.

And for the umpteenth time, I did not say they need to seek tax
exemption.

You did say it:

"They are required to file tax forms and claim 501(c)(3) status to avoid income taxes."

A statement which I subsequently expanded on.

They are automatically treated as tax exempt 501(c)(3)
organizations. They are required to meet the qualifications of such.

They are NOT required to meet the qualifications of such in order to be tax exempt, peterson. Nor are they required to file.

They most certainly are required to adhere to the rules for 501(c)(3)
organizations, because if they claim tax-exempt status, they are
operating under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The
fact that they are not explicitly required to file for such status
doesn't change that. They generally are not required to file annual
reports, although they frequently do because it provides benefits (and
many churches operate in ways that do require reporting).

You will have to prove otherwise, peterson.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-pr...-organizations
https://www.irs.gov/uac/charities-churches-and-politics


Those jurisdictions' laws are in violation of the First Amendment.

It is not legally possible to be in violation of the First Amendment.
They can only be in violation of the law. It is up to a court to then
decide (if challenged) if a given law is in violation of the First
Amendment.

Yes, it is possible to be in violation of the First Amendment. When a right is violated a violation has occurred.

Good luck trying to take someone to court for a constitutional
violation, or reporting a constitutional violation as a crime that law
enforcement will do anything about.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:46:59 -0700 (PDT), Razzmatazz
wrote:

There are no Constitutional restrictions on taxing churches.

“The divorce between Church and State ought to be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state or in the nation, should be exempt from equal taxation; for if you exempt the property of any church organization, to that extent you impose a tax upon the whole community.”
? James A. Garfield

There are, of course, many legitimate opinions on this subject. My own
is that religion should not even be mentioned in the Constitution. Of
course, making such a change (or any change) in the Constitution is
nearly impossible now.

That said, there is a vigorous debate going on around the country now
regarding taxing churches. After all, a reasonable reading of the
First Amendment arguably suggests that allowing them to be tax exempt
is a violation, since it treats them differently than other
organizations. I think we will see states starting to remove
exemptions from property taxes- this is eminently reasonable given
that churches utilize the same public services as other businesses and
organizations, and are therefore seen as being subsidized by those
others. There is no federal law that prevents states from taxing
churches. I have little doubt that if states start doing this, we will
see churches suing, and it will ultimately be decided by SCOTUS if the
First Amendment does or does not allow such taxation- a determination
that has not yet been made and incorporated into legislation or case
law.

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 1:55:19 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:03:24 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

When you said that "the Constitution is not the law," even though the Constitution -itself- says that it is part of the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Just because it is treated as the "supreme law of the land" does not
mean that the Constitution is law in any normal sense of the word. A
distinction that John clearly understood.

Ah, we see that you are playing word games again, peterson.

No. Using words effectively. Not a concept you're familiar with.

No, you aren't "using words effectively." You are playing word games, as usual.

Dissension within the Supreme Court is irrelevant to the
interpretation of law. Once SCOTUS rules, it does not matter what the
individual justices argued for.

If fact it does matter and it becomes part of public record.

So what? It doesn't become a matter of law, which is what we're
talking about here.

Quoting out of context. You deleted the rest of my comment:

"If we are smart we vote for candidates who will correct blatant misinterpretation of the Constitution by appointing judges and justices who -respect- the Constitution instead of urinating on it."


No, for the umpteenth time, they do not have to seek tax exemption, they already have it because they ARE churches and they do NOT have to file.

And for the umpteenth time, I did not say they need to seek tax
exemption.

You did say it:

"They are required to file tax forms and claim 501(c)(3) status to avoid income taxes."

A statement which I subsequently expanded on.

No, you didn't.

They are automatically treated as tax exempt 501(c)(3)
organizations. They are required to meet the qualifications of such.

They are NOT required to meet the qualifications of such in order to be tax exempt, peterson. Nor are they required to file.

They most certainly are required to adhere to the rules for 501(c)(3)
organizations, because if they claim tax-exempt status, they are
operating under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

They can claim tax exempt status WITHOUT any involvement in 501(c)(3).


You will have to prove otherwise, peterson.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-pr...-organizations

That isn't proof, peterson.

https://www.irs.gov/uac/charities-churches-and-politics

That isn't proof either, peterson.

Those jurisdictions' laws are in violation of the First Amendment.

It is not legally possible to be in violation of the First Amendment.
They can only be in violation of the law. It is up to a court to then
decide (if challenged) if a given law is in violation of the First
Amendment.

Yes, it is possible to be in violation of the First Amendment. When a right is violated a violation has occurred.

Good luck trying to take someone to court for a constitutional
violation, or reporting a constitutional violation as a crime that law
enforcement will do anything about.

Strawman argument, peterson.

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:40:21 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 11:29:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

From IRS 1828:

"Recognition of Tax-Exempt Status
Automatic Exemption for Churches
Churches that meet the requirements of IRC Section 501(c)(3) are automatically
considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS."

They may be granted automatic 501(c)(3) status. As such, they are
required to file annual paperwork.

Failure to do so can result in loss of tax exempt status. Also,
failure to maintain filings can cause a church to lose any local tax
exemptions (property, sales) that it grants to non-profit entities.

Odd, that seems to directly contradict what he quoted from the IRS.

John Savard

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 11:19:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Dissension within the Supreme Court is irrelevant to the
interpretation of law. Once SCOTUS rules, it does not matter what the
individual justices argued for.

If fact it does matter and it becomes part of public record.

So what? It doesn't become a matter of law, which is what we're
talking about here.

Quoting out of context. You deleted the rest of my comment:

"If we are smart we vote for candidates who will correct blatant misinterpretation of the Constitution by appointing judges and justices who -respect- the Constitution instead of urinating on it."

I didn't respond to that because it is nothing more than a statement
of opinion I disagree with, not relevant to the issue of what defines
law in the U.S.

A statement which I subsequently expanded on.

No, you didn't.

They are automatically treated as tax exempt 501(c)(3)
organizations. They are required to meet the qualifications of such.

They are NOT required to meet the qualifications of such in order to be tax exempt, peterson. Nor are they required to file.

They most certainly are required to adhere to the rules for 501(c)(3)
organizations, because if they claim tax-exempt status, they are
operating under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

They can claim tax exempt status WITHOUT any involvement in 501(c)(3).

No, they cannot. They are only tax exempt because their tax exemption
is defined under IRC 501(c)(3), complete with its special exceptions
for churches.


You will have to prove otherwise, peterson.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-pr...-organizations

That isn't proof, peterson.

https://www.irs.gov/uac/charities-churches-and-politics

That isn't proof either, peterson.

Both links are directly to the IRS regulations regarding taxation and
churches. The evidence supporting my comments can't get much better
than that.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 11:24:35 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:40:21 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 11:29:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

From IRS 1828:

"Recognition of Tax-Exempt Status
Automatic Exemption for Churches
Churches that meet the requirements of IRC Section 501(c)(3) are automatically
considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS."

They may be granted automatic 501(c)(3) status. As such, they are
required to file annual paperwork.

Failure to do so can result in loss of tax exempt status. Also,
failure to maintain filings can cause a church to lose any local tax
exemptions (property, sales) that it grants to non-profit entities.

Odd, that seems to directly contradict what he quoted from the IRS.

He is correct that they are not necessarily required to make annual
filings (which I subsequently noted). However, many churches operate
in ways that do require filings (as when they operate auxiliary
businesses). And regardless of any possible filing requirements, their
tax exempt status is provided only by IRC 501(c)(3), and as such they
are required to operate under the rules for 501(c)(3) organizations,
which provides certain exemptions for churches, but no exemption from
the restriction on engaging in political speech or action.

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 2:47:32 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 11:24:35 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:40:21 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 11:29:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

From IRS 1828:

"Recognition of Tax-Exempt Status
Automatic Exemption for Churches
Churches that meet the requirements of IRC Section 501(c)(3) are automatically
considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS."

They may be granted automatic 501(c)(3) status. As such, they are
required to file annual paperwork.

Failure to do so can result in loss of tax exempt status. Also,
failure to maintain filings can cause a church to lose any local tax
exemptions (property, sales) that it grants to non-profit entities.

Odd, that seems to directly contradict what he quoted from the IRS.

He is correct that they are not necessarily required to make annual
filings (which I subsequently noted).

IOW, you were wrong and you are failing to admit that.

However, many churches operate
in ways that do require filings (as when they operate auxiliary
businesses).

Irrelevant. The "auxiliary business" might be profitable and therefore subject to a tax and filing, but the Church, otherwise, is not subject to a tax or filing.

And regardless of any possible filing requirements, their
tax exempt status is provided only by IRC 501(c)(3),

NO, it is NOT.

and as such they
are required to operate under the rules for 501(c)(3) organizations,

NO, they are NOT.

which provides certain exemptions for churches,

NO, the exemptions were RECOGNIZED long before 501(c)(3).

but no exemption from
the restriction on engaging in political speech or action.

Such restrictions quite definitely infringe upon free speech and free exercise of religion. That is damage done by LBJ in the '50s for ulterior motives.

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 2:44:02 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 11:19:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Dissension within the Supreme Court is irrelevant to the
interpretation of law. Once SCOTUS rules, it does not matter what the
individual justices argued for.

If fact it does matter and it becomes part of public record.

So what? It doesn't become a matter of law, which is what we're
talking about here.

Quoting out of context. You deleted the rest of my comment:

"If we are smart we vote for candidates who will correct blatant misinterpretation of the Constitution by appointing judges and justices who -respect- the Constitution instead of urinating on it."

I didn't respond to that because it is nothing more than a statement
of opinion I disagree with, not relevant to the issue of what defines
law in the U.S.

Regardless of whether you agree with it, you quoted me out of context, one of your usual tricks.


A statement which I subsequently expanded on.

No, you didn't.

They are automatically treated as tax exempt 501(c)(3)
organizations. They are required to meet the qualifications of such.

They are NOT required to meet the qualifications of such in order to be tax exempt, peterson. Nor are they required to file.

They most certainly are required to adhere to the rules for 501(c)(3)
organizations, because if they claim tax-exempt status, they are
operating under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

They can claim tax exempt status WITHOUT any involvement in 501(c)(3).

No, they cannot. They are only tax exempt because their tax exemption
is defined under IRC 501(c)(3), complete with its special exceptions
for churches.

NO, it is NOT. 501(c)(3) might just happen to -describe- the exemptions that Churches have long been recognized to have, but it does not -prescribe- those exemptions.



You will have to prove otherwise, peterson.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-pr...-organizations

That isn't proof, peterson.

https://www.irs.gov/uac/charities-churches-and-politics

That isn't proof either, peterson.

Both links are directly to the IRS regulations regarding taxation and
churches.

Neither link does that.

The evidence supporting my comments can't get much better
than that.

You might try quoting the parts that YOU think support your view. But you can't.

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 6:12:56 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 6:56:06 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 2:40:21 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 11:29:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:47:35 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:30:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

That link has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing. So

Incorrect. It shows that the IRS does not understand its own "laws"
well enough to explain them.

It is well known that the tax code is so complex that even the IRS
isn't always consistent in its interpretation.

IOW, the IRS is confused.

We're not talking about
subtle things here, however.

To citizens raising a legitimate dispute with the IRS there are no
"subtle things," peterson.

We're talking about who has to file.

Churches do not have to file.

Good
luck finding misinterpretations there.

From IRS 1828:

"Recognition of Tax-Exempt Status
Automatic Exemption for Churches
Churches that meet the requirements of IRC Section 501(c)(3) are automatically
considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain
recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS."

They may be granted automatic 501(c)(3) status. As such, they are
required to file annual paperwork.

Word salad. What you meant to say was that they would -qualify- for
501(c)(3) status. They do not actually have to -seek- 501(c)(3) status.

Failure to do so can result in loss of tax exempt status.

Incorrect. They would be tax exempt anyway.

Also,
failure to maintain filings can cause a church to lose any local tax
exemptions (property, sales) that it grants to non-profit entities.

Also incorrect. Local tax laws are subject to the same Constitutional
restrictions as federal laws.


Surely exempting religions from tax is "respecting an establishment of
religion" and therefore unconstitutional.

No, individuals get together and establish or observe their own
religions, form congregations, build churches, etc. US governments can
have no part in that under the US Constitution.

US governments cannot do anything that would prohibit free exercise of
religions. A tax on the property or activities would affect the free
exercise of religion. A government, which could potentially be
displeased with a particular religion or religions, is prohibited from
using its powers to persecute religion in general. That is as it should be.

Things might be different in your country, but certainly not better.


Garbage.

Not garbage. Just common sense, which seems to be sorely lacking in the UK.


Exempting religions from a tax paid by non religious organisations is
"respecting an establishment of religion and therefore unconstitutional.

No, the religion is established by people, not by their government.

The phrase "respecting and establishment of religion" means that there is to be no -state- religion. That is something that children in the US are taught in early elementary school. Things might be different in your country and certainly worse.


Why do you think the Dianetics became Scientology?

If followers of Scientology wish to call it a religion, then it's a religion and should get automatic exemption from government interference, as provided for by the US Constitution for example.