Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Atheist group sues IRS for ‘discriminating against’ secular non-profits « previous next »
Page: 1

Kelly Thomas

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2750
Online
« : December 30, 2012, 12:49:27 PM »

The Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) has filed a lawsuit with the Internal Revenue Service, alleging that churches and religious non-profits receive unconstitutional preferential treatment unavailable to secular groups.

Tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations must file a detailed application form, fee and annual information to obtain and maintain their tax-exempt status. However, churches and other religious organizations are exempted from the requirement to file the reports and fees, which the lawsuit describes as “detailed, intrusive, and expensive.”

The FFRF alleges it is unconstitutional for the IRS to provide benefits to churches and religious organizations “while discriminating against” secular non-profit groups “solely on the basis of religious criteria.”


“The preferential treatment provided to churches and other affiliated religious organizations constitutes an exclusive and discriminatory benefit to religion in violation of the Establishment Clause, as well as the equal protection rights required by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” states the lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Madison.

The lawsuit seeks a court order to stop the IRS “from continuing to exempt churches and other affiliated religious organizations from the application and annual information filings required of all other non-profit organizations under §501(c)(3).”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/30/atheist-group-sues-irs-for-discriminating-against-secular-non-profits/


dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21495
Offline
« #1 : January 01, 2013, 10:59:26 AM »

So they want to require more paperwork for everyone not to end the paperwork for the secular groups? Morons.

Reminds me of NOW sued in Maryland because men and women had different driving insurance rates (men were higher) so the insurance companies caved and said, ok, we'll charge women more too.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

BucfanNC12

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2001
Offline
« #2 : January 02, 2013, 08:43:42 AM »

I wonder if this grou is tax exempt.

Kelly Thomas

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2750
Online
« #3 : January 02, 2013, 09:44:16 AM »

They are exempt from federal Income Tax.

Here's their 2011 filing if anyone cares to look. It's roughly about 30 pages long. As the story above explains churches are exempt from the application and information filings required by the rest of the non-profits.

https://ffrf.org/uploads/files/2011-990-form.pdf

They seek to require churches be subject to the same requirements.

Yes, in a perfect world one could make an argument that neither should be subjected to this burden of voluminous paperwork. But in reality the likelihood of that happening is about nil. So they are taking the opposite approach of "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".

Though it may not be ideal it at least would be equitable.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21495
Offline
« #4 : January 02, 2013, 12:25:58 PM »

Yes, in a perfect world one could make an argument that neither should be subjected to this burden of voluminous paperwork. But in reality the likelihood of that happening is about nil. So they are taking the opposite approach of "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".

Though it may not be ideal it at least would be equitable.

Even as a atheist this doesn't rate with me. I'm not sure how making the lives of religious people worse (and doing federal paperwork is just that) makes anyone else's life better.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7035
Online
« #5 : January 02, 2013, 12:39:00 PM »

I am thinking religious based health services like the Adventist Health probably have to file the paper work don't you? Churches as a rule of thumb aren't really into making a profit are they? Therefore I think it is probably cheaper to have them NOT send in the paperwork and have a few inspectors checking up on them randomly, than forcing every one to do the paperwork and hiring a whole bunch of people to process and verify it. We are all for streamlining Govt yes? But when something makes pretty good sense we don't because someone takes "offense?"

Chief Joseph

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4309
Offline
« #6 : January 02, 2013, 12:45:21 PM »


So you wouldn't even attempt to preserve the appearance of impartiality, based on the misconception that all churches are good? Does the name "Scientology" ring a bell?

Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7035
Online
« #7 : January 02, 2013, 01:26:58 PM »


So you wouldn't even attempt to preserve the appearance of impartiality, based on the misconception that all churches are good? Does the name "Scientology" ring a bell?

Trying to be practical. There is always going to be exceptions. 'Preserving appearances' is inefficient and wastes a boat load of money we don't have. Have a general set of common sense rules then  deal with the exceptions accordingly.

BucfanNC12

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2001
Offline
« #8 : January 02, 2013, 04:35:48 PM »

They are exempt from federal Income Tax.

Here's their 2011 filing if anyone cares to look. It's roughly about 30 pages long. As the story above explains churches are exempt from the application and information filings required by the rest of the non-profits.

https://ffrf.org/uploads/files/2011-990-form.pdf

They seek to require churches be subject to the same requirements.

Yes, in a perfect world one could make an argument that neither should be subjected to this burden of voluminous paperwork. But in reality the likelihood of that happening is about nil. So they are taking the opposite approach of "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".

Though it may not be ideal it at least would be equitable.

I skimmed through it thanks. Their mission appears to be on the offensive against religion and separation between church and state.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21495
Offline
« #9 : January 02, 2013, 05:33:01 PM »


So you wouldn't even attempt to preserve the appearance of impartiality, based on the misconception that all churches are good? Does the name "Scientology" ring a bell?

Scientology isn't a not for profit operation to be blunt so they can't fall under this rubric anyway.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

Kelly Thomas

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2750
Online
« #10 : January 02, 2013, 06:03:27 PM »


So you wouldn't even attempt to preserve the appearance of impartiality, based on the misconception that all churches are good? Does the name "Scientology" ring a bell?

Scientology isn't a not for profit operation to be blunt so they can't fall under this rubric anyway.

Perhaps you know something on this that I don't but it's my understanding they are a 501 (3) (c) non-profit.

** I just checked wiki (The ultimate source of absolute fact) which states the same.

*** or maybe you are being sarcastic?
« : January 02, 2013, 06:05:26 PM Durango 95 »

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21495
Offline
« #11 : January 03, 2013, 10:01:13 AM »


So you wouldn't even attempt to preserve the appearance of impartiality, based on the misconception that all churches are good? Does the name "Scientology" ring a bell?

Scientology isn't a not for profit operation to be blunt so they can't fall under this rubric anyway.

Perhaps you know something on this that I don't but it's my understanding they are a 501 (3) (c) non-profit.

** I just checked wiki (The ultimate source of absolute fact) which states the same.

*** or maybe you are being sarcastic?

Sarcasm. They're more of a criminal enterprise than religion.  I actually weep I wasn't ballsy enough to come up with such a bald faced scam to get rich.

In the end, the problem with the 501 status is that it subjects churches to government scrutiny in terms of their finances and their activities and that is a bit more intrusive into private spheres than the government needs to be getting.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

Kelly Thomas

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2750
Online
« #12 : January 03, 2013, 07:02:21 PM »


So you wouldn't even attempt to preserve the appearance of impartiality, based on the misconception that all churches are good? Does the name "Scientology" ring a bell?

Scientology isn't a not for profit operation to be blunt so they can't fall under this rubric anyway.

Perhaps you know something on this that I don't but it's my understanding they are a 501 (3) (c) non-profit.

** I just checked wiki (The ultimate source of absolute fact) which states the same.

*** or maybe you are being sarcastic?

Sarcasm. They're more of a criminal enterprise than religion.  I actually weep I wasn't ballsy enough to come up with such a bald faced scam to get rich.

In the end, the problem with the 501 status is that it subjects churches to government scrutiny in terms of their finances and their activities and that is a bit more intrusive into private spheres than the government needs to be getting.

I'm all about less government intrusion into peoples lives.

What I suspect is at the heart of this thing is to try and send a message to churches that involve themselves in politics.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #13 : January 03, 2013, 11:09:03 PM »

Which is far too many. Most churches are apolitical, but an ever increasing amount seem to be advocating for a political party and even specific candidates.


Chief Joseph

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4309
Offline
« #14 : January 04, 2013, 11:33:35 AM »


 " Have a general set of common sense rules then deal with the exceptions accordingly."

Now there's an outline for abuse of the system, and a convenient label of "victim" status for those who would commit such abuses.


Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.
  Page: 1
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Atheist group sues IRS for ‘discriminating against’ secular non-profits « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools