Tony Spell has church in spite of the ban

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Ehud

Can you provide the source of exemption if not 501(c)(3). If I am wrong, and there is another source, I am more than willing to admit my error. I'm just repeating what the IRS has said. [/INDENT]

IRS writing is generally trying to give an impression that is in their favor, and making you think you should go through their hoops.

Can we be a church and not a 501(c)(3)?
https://www.nonprofitissues.com/to-t...-and-not-501c3

If you meet the IRS definition of a “church” — generally an organization organized and operated for religious worship — you are automatically considered a tax-exempt charity described in section 501(c)(3). You don’t have to file an application to be recognized and don’t have to file annual tax information returns to retain the status.

Many folks go into this.

You simply ARE a church.
The IRS can claim otherwise, as they also do with many who have received 501(c)(3) status.

However, if you actually function as a church, you do not need the status. Your folks can similarly claim their donations as non-deductible. They should simply keep good records, or you can do it for them. However, I like this quote:

"Enticing to give via tax write-offs is not Biblical giving."
https://www.creationliberty.com/articles/501c3.php

501c3 Facts
http://hushmoney.org/501c3-facts.htm

One need not look far to see the devastating effects 501c3 acceptance has had to the church, and the consequent restrictions placed upon any 501c3 church. 501c3 churches are prohibited from addressing, in any tangible way, the vital issues of the day.

For a 501c3 church to openly speak out, or organize in opposition to, anything that the government declares "legal," even if it is immoral (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, etc.), that church will jeopardize its tax exempt status. The 501c3 has had a "chilling effect" upon the free speech rights of the church. LBJ was a shrewd and cunning politician who seemed to well-appreciate how easily many of the clergy would sell out.

Lets say you set up an arm of your church to help fight abortion and perversion. Or say that Tony would make a good governor, he is a moral and upright person, with sound economic principles (End the Fed!). Or he wants to vote out the martial law pandemic tyranny crew.

The government can say that you are not really a church. And start going after income. However, my sense is they are far more likely to do that if you are 501(c)(3), since you have put it in writing that you will be docile little nice church people, who really desire IRS approval.

501c3: The Devil's Church
Christopher E. J. Johnson
https://www.creationliberty.com/articles/501c3.php

Have not read the whole page, what I have read makes sense.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Ehud

Yes, if an organization meets the requirements of section 501(c)(3), they are exempt from paying income taxes.

So, if an organization meets the requirements of 501c3 they are not required to pay taxes. They don’t have to be incorporated as a 501c3, but of course if they are, they don’t have to pay taxes. So, if churches are churches, as we know a church to be, they are not required to pay taxes. Whether they are a 501c3 or not. That is what I said from the beginning, was it not? Then you said I was wrong, I was “over my head”, then you said the same thing I did, as far as I can tell.

Originally Posted by Ehud

If a church is not exempt under section 501(c)(3), then they are not exempt from paying income taxes. There is no other code section granting exemption to churches that I am aware of. Perhaps they qualify as a different type of organization under one of the other classifications given in section 501(c)?

This is like the question, “which came first, the chicken, or the egg. Esaias posted that this 501c3 tax code was codified in 1954. That seems right to me, just going from memory. So, it seems that you are saying that there was no such thing as a “legal” church, until the IRS defined what a church is. So, back to the chicken and the egg. Did the IRS invent the church? Or did the IRS define the church that already existed? I’m saying that the IRS described a church that was already legal, and allowed exemptions that were already being taken , so in essence, NOTHING changed. MANY churches are not incorporated under 501c3 guidelines today. Regardless of what the IRS says, they are not and have not required them to pay taxes on contributions. They really acknowledged what was already happening. Unless you can show me that churches paid taxes BEFORE 1954, I will continue to believe this is the case.

Originally Posted by Ehud

If you are in Illinois and truly are trying to operate as a church (loophole finding and boundary pushing is a whole different discussion, ha!), you complete your articles of incorporation, send them to the secretary of state along with a check, and you are done. Churches aren't required to apply for and obtain formal recognition of tax exempt status from the federal government.

Once again, you seem to be saying what I said originally. I said the Church is incorporated under the laws of the state. Before they incorporate, there is separation. After they incorporate they are under the law of the state.

Maybe you should tell us what you understand separation of church and state to be. It’s beginning to seem to me you don’t believe there is such a thing.

Originally Posted by Ehud

I feel like what some posters in this thread are driving at is that the first amendment alone -- separation of church and state -- should be sufficient for churches to be tax exempt. I don't necessarily disagree with the 'should be' portion of that, but am pointing out that isn't how the system currently operates. Under today's system, income is generally taxable unless specifically exempted by law. The exemption for churches just happens to be under section 501(c)(3).

In my study of tithing, I studied colonial America tithing. In early colonial America, tithes were rendered to the state, which at the time was England. They were rendered in tobacco, at least at one point. The tithe went to the representative of the Crown, and was then distributed to the Church. Which was the Church of England. The ornery citizenry didn’t like tithing to the Church of England, because they didn’t believe the doctrine that it taught. Imagine, if you will, forcing Apostolics to tithe to the Roman Catholic Church. It is a good analogy.

So separation of church and state had much to do with tithing. It also addressed other issues, such as forced church attendance.

BUT, when the revolutionary war was fought, and won, the new country of the United States, put in their constitution that there would be separation of church and state. The state wouldn’t force anyone to tithe to a church nor to attend that church, that was established, and headed up by the king. Hence the new practice of passing the plate was born. Under English law, the government supported the church. They supported the church through agricultural tithes. After the separation of church and state under the NEW republic, it was no longer the business of the state to distribute to the church.

That’s the condensed version.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

...

Elder, you are venturing off into waters I have no desire to tread. I simply don't have the patience or the willpower at this time to continue. I will bow out with only a few thoughts.

• You cannot incorporate under section 501(c)(3). That is not a thing.
• You asked about starting a 501(c)(3) CORPORATION, so I gave the requirements under my state's law to become a nonprofit corporation. That filing is not required under section 501(c)(3).
• Unless your local assembly is in violation of section 501(c)(3), they are a 501(c)(3) entity whether they desire to be or not because that honor is bestowed upon churches automatically. Not a single shred of paper need ever be sent to a government agency.
• The IRS list of characteristics of a church for federal income tax purposes are quite lenient, and IRS authority to audit is very limited. Because of this, even when a church does something improperly, it will often never be questioned.

God bless you, brother. Have a wonderful day!

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Ehud

Elder, you are venturing off into waters I have no desire to tread. I simply don't have the patience or the willpower at this time to continue. I will bow out with only a few thoughts.

• You cannot incorporate under section 501(c)(3). That is not a thing.
• You asked about starting a 501(c)(3) CORPORATION, so I gave the requirements under my state's law to become a nonprofit corporation. That filing is not required under section 501(c)(3).
• Unless your local assembly is in violation of section 501(c)(3), they are a 501(c)(3) entity whether they desire to be or not because that honor is bestowed upon churches automatically. Not a single shred of paper need ever be sent to a government agency.
• The IRS list of characteristics of a church for federal income tax purposes are quite lenient, and IRS authority to audit is very limited. Because of this, even when a church does something improperly, it will often never be questioned.

God bless you, brother. Have a wonderful day!

You have a wonderful day as well. I’m still a little confused. But evidently I’ll stay that way.

Would you care to give an accountant’s opinion on a pastor automatically receiving any contributions marked tithes, in relation to the “inure to any individual rule”?

God bless you brother. Thanks for the perspective.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

You have a wonderful day as well. I’m still a little confused. But evidently I’ll stay that way.

Would you care to give an accountant’s opinion on a pastor automatically receiving any contributions marked tithes, in relation to the “inure to any individual rule”?

God bless you brother. Thanks for the perspective.

My apologies for being so abrupt. If you don't mind asking less involved questions, I am more than happy to continue. But I know you like to get deep quick. Ha!

I actually think the majority of our disagreement is over what terms mean. Our profession is notorious for making words mean things that no normal person would think them to mean. For instance, you bristle when I tell you a church isn't "tax-exempt" if it don't fall under section 501(c)(3), but if a church *was* in violation of code section 501(c)(3), the reality is that the organization wouldn't technically be a church for federal tax purposes, donations would become non-deductible and little else. (As has been enumerated many times now, who cares what the government calls us? They can define *a* church for their purposes, but they cannot define *the* church.) Most churches don't operate actual businesses. Simply collecting non-deductible donations and paying collective bills is not a a business venture. The organization would no longer be "tax-exempt," but it also would not have some massive tax filing requirement and likely would never owe a dime of income tax. So it is absolutely my fault for adding to the confusion by not more strictly defining what I mean and what the implications actually are. I do apologize for that as well.

Now this is probably where we become best friends... I think it can be a legitimate problem as it pertains to section 501(c)(3). Here is a court case stating why. It's an old case and a dry read, but I think it answers your question.

https://www.leagle.com/decision/198020275htc1271195

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Ehud

My apologies for being so abrupt. If you don't mind asking less involved questions, I am more than happy to continue. But I know you like to get deep quick. Ha!

I actually think the majority of our disagreement is over what terms mean. Our profession is notorious for making words mean things that no normal person would think them to mean. For instance, you bristle when I tell you a church isn't "tax-exempt" if it don't fall under section 501(c)(3), but if a church *was* in violation of code section 501(c)(3), the reality is that the organization wouldn't technically be a church for federal tax purposes, donations would become non-deductible and little else. (As has been enumerated many times now, who cares what the government calls us? They can define *a* church for their purposes, but they cannot define *the* church.) Most churches don't operate actual businesses. Simply collecting non-deductible donations and paying collective bills is not a a business venture. The organization would no longer be "tax-exempt," but it also would not have some massive tax filing requirement and likely would never owe a dime of income tax. So it is absolutely my fault for adding to the confusion by not more strictly defining what I mean and what the implications actually are. I do apologize for that as well.

Now this is probably where we become best friends... I think it can be a legitimate problem as it pertains to section 501(c)(3). Here is a court case stating why. It's an old case and a dry read, but I think it answers your question.

https://www.leagle.com/decision/198020275htc1271195

Thank you my brother, and my new best friend.

So would it be accurate to say this is the gorilla in the room?

Or is it the elephant in the room?

Of course, you’re going to have to go into the witness protection program since you posted that link. You do realize that don’t you?

As for me getting in deep real quick, when I get in way over my head? I just start swimming.

Maybe you should start a thread on the subject?

Just a thought.

Thanks again.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

...

Any time, brother. And again, I apologize for my rudeness. I should have known better than to attempt to be civil this time of year. There is a reason i maintain the office furthest away from the front doors. Ha!

If you will give me some time to gather my thoughts, I will do my best to start that thread. Feel free to remind me at a later date if I have failed to do so.

Have a good evening, friend!

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Ehud

Any time, brother. And again, I apologize for my rudeness. I should have known better than to attempt to be civil this time of year. There is a reason i maintain the office furthest away from the front doors. Ha!

If you will give me some time to gather my thoughts, I will do my best to start that thread. Feel free to remind me at a later date if I have failed to do so.

Have a good evening, friend!

You do the same. I look forward to learning more from you.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

We are told to be...

Matthew 10:16
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

Jesus tells us he’s sending us in the midst of wolves, and were sheep! Why would Jesus tell us to be wise as serpents and HARMLESS as doves? Do we fight with force? Does a sheep fight against a wolf? Will the sheep win?

Personally, I'm a Liberty Sheep, the one that's well armed and prepared to dispute the "democratic" vote of the wolves.

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

Did Jesus have a sword?

And yes brother, if your church starts selling doves and oxen, and sheep for sacrifice please overthrow the tables.

Jesus didn't, but his disciples did. Peter even used his sword to cut off the ear of one of the men coming to arrest Jesus.

As for Jesus overthrowing the money changers tables, I believe that's taken out of context. As I understand it, the issue was that these priests would take the animals from people, claiming they weren't spotless. They would then sell a replacement one, likely taken from another worshiper there to sacrifice. The problem was their hypocrisy, not that they were providing a (arguably useful) service.

Originally Posted by n david

Two things:

1) James O’Keefe and Project Veritas struck again. They filmed a drive thru testing center in New Rochelle, NY, where he claims the epicenter is. National Guard was assisting at the site and the asked a few how busy it was and if it’s as bad as the media is saying it is.

You can read about it and watch the video here: https://www.projectveritas.com/news/...the-flu-im-in/

One guard says, “It’s just the flu.” No one says it’s as being portrayed in the news.

2) Candace Owens caused a stir on Twitter the other day when she questioned NY hospitals and how she had someone inside who claimed it was overblown. Several replies to her tweet from different areas around the US said their ERs are mostly empty and certainly not as busy as the news claims.

Read the comments

https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/sta...04578087059467

I've been hearing reports that NY is reporting ANY deaths that include someone having C19, as being a C19 related death. If someone dies of a heart attack, for example, and they test positive for C19. I haven't been able to corroborate it yet, though.

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

6,059 Americans have died of covid-19 so far. I doubt their families feel it is a hoax or overblown or that their loved ones died due to biased press coverage.

Compassion and care is needed during this pandemic more than inefficacious criticism.

And every year, 50-60,000 people (or more) die from the flu and/or influenza-like symptoms. Where's the shutdown from that? Why isn't there been a national disaster declaration over the flu?

Compassion is essential, but we still need to keep our wits about us and use reason and logic.

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Personally, I'm a Liberty Sheep, the one that's well armed and prepared to dispute the "democratic" vote of the wolves.



Jesus didn't, but his disciples did. Peter even used his sword to cut off the ear of one of the men coming to arrest Jesus.

As for Jesus overthrowing the money changers tables, I believe that's taken out of context. As I understand it, the issue was that these priests would take the animals from people, claiming they weren't spotless. They would then sell a replacement one, likely taken from another worshiper there to sacrifice. The problem was their hypocrisy, not that they were providing a (arguably useful) service.


I've been hearing reports that NY is reporting ANY deaths that include someone having C19, as being a C19 related death. If someone dies of a heart attack, for example, and they test positive for C19. I haven't been able to corroborate it yet, though.


And every year, 50-60,000 people (or more) die from the flu and/or influenza-like symptoms. Where's the shutdown from that? Why isn't there been a national disaster declaration over the flu?

Compassion is essential, but we still need to keep our wits about us and use reason and logic.

Personally, I'm a Liberty Sheep, the one that's well armed and prepared to dispute the "democratic" vote of the wolves.

Your going to dispute it how? With Guns? Yeah, that’s the best you can come up with?

Jesus didn't, but his disciples did. Peter even used his sword to cut off the ear of one of the men coming to arrest Jesus.

What did Jesus tell Peter?

Matthew 26:51-54 KJVS
[51] And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. [52] Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
[53] Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
[54] But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Even Jesus had restraint not to call on 12 legion of Angels. Do you have restraint?
Also, show me where he used his sword after his conversion. Maybe thats the answer, some of you that need your guns for your militia need to be converted.