Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!jhunix!ins_aame From: ins_aame@jhunix.UUCP (Andrew Marti Elizaga) Newsgroups: net.legal,net.taxes,net.religion,net.politics Subject: Re: RE. Scopes II (non-profit corps and churches) Message-ID: <3401@jhunix.UUCP> Date: Sat, 16-Aug-86 16:01:39 EDT Article-I.D.: jhunix.3401 Posted: Sat Aug 16 16:01:39 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 19-Aug-86 06:13:24 EDT References: <4513@decwrl.DEC.COM> <2456@watdcsu.UUCP> <19925@rochester.ARPA> <3365@jhunix.UUCP> <20089@rochester.ARPA> <2041@mtgzz.UUCP> Reply-To: ins_aame@jhunix.ARPA (Andrew Marti Elizaga) Organization: Johns Hopkins Univ. Computing Ctr. Lines: 85 Xref: mnetor net.legal:3269 net.taxes:529 net.religion:2700 net.politics:9237 In article <2041@mtgzz.UUCP> eme@mtgzz.UUCP (e.m.eades) writes: > I thought that to gain tax free status you had to be a non-profit >organization, and that all religions automatically got that status. Let me make a few statements about "non-profit" corporations. (Note: I am not a lawyer -- this information comes from a time when I helped establish a non-profit organization in the state of Idaho. Laws will be slightly different in your state.) A non-profit corporation is roughly defined as a corporation that does not pay money to the stockholders. (Yes, if Exxon stopped distributing its dividends, that would make it a non-profit corporation. And a darn poor investment. That's why they don't do it....) They are usually established for a definite (if vague) purpose, such as charity (the Salvation Army), research (American Cancer Society), religion (First Church of Christ - Computer Programmers 8-), or education, general do-gooding, etc. Note that only the *owners* of the corporation are not paid. Since employee salaries are not traditionally part of the profits, owners can (and do, in some cases) make out like bandits from the salary(ies) they pay themselves as president, prelate, chief council, or grand poo-bah. This is the usual method for fraud involving non-profit organizations. Non-profit organizations are still taxed, with the exception of religions. This makes sense, if they actually *are* making profits, that they should pay taxes on it. Most show no or a minimal profit. Most of them survive on donations, which are encouraged by our tax system (deductions for "charitable contributions.") Of course, there are a few groups out there who take advantage of the tax laws by depositing all their salaries with a group and having the group as a huge checking acct, but that's normal business $ethics.... Now, why should religions not be taxed when the Red Cross is? I can only offer one real justification -- the power to tax is the power to destroy. How many of you have ever filled out the *real man's* tax form, the one with eight thousand schedules that comes complete with a glossary 8-) Probably all of the little lines in there were put in to encourage or discourage putting your money in one place or another. (IRA's? They encourage saving, not consuming. Long term capital gains? Put it in the stock market! And so on....) You notice you can't deduct gambling losses (unless you win, in which case they can't exceed your winnings....)? Guess who doesn't approve of gambling! I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that if religions were taxed, some dimwit Congress(wo)man (is there any other kind?) would introduce a change in the tax code that would affect some religions more than others. I don't think it's unreasonable that he/she/it would do it deliberately, since his voters are all redneck funnymentalists. (Example : Taxing church real estate at half its market value. Kind of hurts the churches that don't own much real property, doesn't it? Gives a *huge* break to the Catholics, since there aren't many Moslem mosques about to take advantage of it.) Take this to any extreme, and the only religion that can *afford* to practice is the official, state-sponsored one. You can't even hold services in your basement -- that violates the zoning regulations.... Theocracies scare me.... >A religious sect should not be discrimminated >against because it is small and not popular with the mainstream religions. Definitely. >I wonder if the Catholic Church could show >that it is truely a non-profit organization. Which brings up another >point, what is the legal definition of non-profit? If say EXXON plowed >all thier profits back into their own organization instead of distributing >it to share holders would that make it non-profit? It seems that a >large organization like the Catholic church (my apologies to the catholics, >I'm only picking on the Catholic church because it is the only religion >that comes to mind that could compare to a international corporation) >has billions in assets all over the world most of which go to running >sugh a large organization. While the C. church runs massive charities >so do several large organizations (like the ATT Foundation). I'm almost sure that the ATT foundation is a separate company from Ma Bell, that "just happens" to be owned by AT&T. If not, the tax lawyers have found a better loophole to funnel their profits through. The point is that the Pope doesn't make money from "owning" the Catholic church. Heck, I own a bit of AT&T myself, and I enjoy the dividend checks. -- seismo!umcp-cs \ Pat Juola ihnp4!whuxcc > !jhunix!ins_apmj Hopkins Maths allegra!hopkins / When in doubt, lead trump.