Letter to an IRS Director

[Bought Yahoo]

God you are a f...g moron. Give me an example where a provable fraud religion gets a religious exemption from paying taxes

S C I E N T O L O G Y

You're as thick as DCP's fanny alger.

So what court in the land has held scientology a provable fraud.

[Bought Yahoo]

God you are a f...g moron. Give me an example where a provable fraud religion gets a religious exemption from paying taxes

How about Mormonism.

What court or admin agency has so held. And they do hold. A Pasadena church lost its exemption by devoting more than 50 percent of its effort against the Gulf War.

Look. I don't believe in tax exemption for religion. At all. But you're the biggest buffoon here on the issue.

[drumdude]

S C I E N T O L O G Y

You're as thick as DCP's fanny alger.

So what court in the land has held scientology a provable fraud.

It's like talking to a brick. You're useless.

[Bought Yahoo]

So what court in the land has held scientology a provable fraud.

It's like talking to a brick. You're useless.

Answer my question you dolt.

[Bought Yahoo]

The lesson here, friends, about the "Letter to an IRS Director," is that such a letter is completely meaningless as to whether the Church has taken actions to lead to the loss of its tax exemption. (I particularly oppose tax exemptions for charities and religions.) As the IRS has taken no administrative position in response to the letter, then the conclusion must be that there was no wrong. (In administrative law, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.)

Particular criticism is made of the Church's failure to donate to charitable causes -- floods, earthquakes, pet cats that need rescuing, AIDs, hurricanes, and the like. That particular criticism isn't true, but the Church's use of the interest on its mega-endowment is in fact being used to construct temples and meeting houses, run missions and, yes, support further investments in the endowment such as City Creek and bailouts. These are all religious missions. The New Testament talks about the Church receiving wealth from donations and testamentary transfers, so this is nothing new or unprecedented. If the Church's EPA is expending all of its surplus solely upon Church projects, then it is fulfilling the objective of the tax law.

The tax law takes no position as to whether a religion is a legitimate religion. But, if the 501(c)(3) takes on secular projects in excess of 50% of its purported religious mission, it may lose its tax exempt status. There is history of that, recent history.

I don't give a sheet as to how much money the Church has, just as I don't give a sheet as to how much my next door neighbors have. It has no effect on me. Am I at peace? Am I confortable with my charitable donations. If yes, it doesn't matter what somebody else has. Really.

[drumdude]

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

S C I E N T O L O G Y

You're as thick as DCP's fanny alger.

So what court in the land has held scientology a provable fraud.

France. Or are you just talking about the US?

- Doc

[drumdude]

So what court in the land has held scientology a provable fraud.

France. Or are you just talking about the US?

- Doc

He's best left ignored...

[Moksha]

He's best left ignored...

Bob could simply be on a high after hearing a favorable e-meter reading.

[Morley]

The lesson here, friends, about the "Letter to an IRS Director," is that such a letter is completely meaningless as to whether the Church has taken actions to lead to the loss of its tax exemption. (I particularly oppose tax exemptions for charities and religions.) As the IRS has taken no administrative position in response to the letter, then the conclusion must be that there was no wrong. (In administrative law, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.)

Particular criticism is made of the Church's failure to donate to charitable causes -- floods, earthquakes, pet cats that need rescuing, AIDs, hurricanes, and the like. That particular criticism isn't true, but the Church's use of the interest on its mega-endowment is in fact being used to construct temples and meeting houses, run missions and, yes, support further investments in the endowment such as City Creek and bailouts. These are all religious missions. The New Testament talks about the Church receiving wealth from donations and testamentary transfers, so this is nothing new or unprecedented. If the Church's EPA is expending all of its surplus solely upon Church projects, then it is fulfilling the objective of the tax law.

The tax law takes no position as to whether a religion is a legitimate religion. But, if the 501(c)(3) takes on secular projects in excess of 50% of its purported religious mission, it may lose its tax exempt status. There is history of that, recent history.

I don't give a sheet as to how much money the Church has, just as I don't give a sheet as to how much my next door neighbors have. It has no effect on me. Am I at peace? Am I confortable with my charitable donations. If yes, it doesn't matter what somebody else has. Really.

Thank you, Bought. I'm pretty sure you've hit on the uncomfortable truth. This is a wee essay on "The Banal Evil of Religious Exemptions in the US Tax Code."