non-incorporated baptist churches

[rsr]

And its case didn't involve 501(c)(3) status. It declined to withhold income taxes and submit payroll taxes.

There certainly seemed to be due process; the case was appealed and judgement delayed repeatedly.

And the pastor didn't pay his income taxes. I pay mine; let him pay his.

In addition to the church's tax debt, the elder Rev. Dixon faced a separate debt for income taxes the government claims he failed to pay from 1983 to 1986. On July 24, 2001, Judge Barker issued an order imposing a tax judgment of $136,610.04 against Dixon.

http://www.indystar.com/library/factfiles/religion/churches/baptist_temple/tax_dispute.html

 

[Christian A. Lindsey]

I am firmly convinced that the Baptist church functions in accordance with the Bible in doctrine and philosophy. They adhere to the precepts of God's Word, and for this reason, I embrace the Baptist name. However, if the day were to come when the Baptists no longer stand on the Word of God, and err from the truth, I will throw the name Baptist out and hold to the Truth.

Christian A. Lindsey

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by narrow is the way:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
Furthermore, the issue with using a church to promote a specific political party involves *tax* issues, not issues involving a corporation, so it does not apply to the subject at hand.

Actually, the only reason a church is incorporated is purely for tax purposes. </font>[/QUOTE]Nope. This is patently false.

1.) You do not have to be incorporated to be tax-exempt.

2.) One of the primary reasons churches incorporate is to protect the church members from lawsuits. If someone was to hurt themselves on the property or a staff member of the church were to engage in some inappropriate action (molestation, etc.), everyone who was a member of the church could be held individually financially liable for damages. If the church is incorporated, only the church (corporation) can be sued and risk assets. While the plaintiff may win the suit and end up owning every bit of church property, the church members would be protected from lawsuits.

 

[Christian A. Lindsey]

I beg your pardon, I posted my last statement to the wrong forum. Please forgive the "interruption" of your conversation.

Christian A. Lindsey

 

[Bartimaeus]

Originally posted by rsr:
[QB]And its case didn't involve 501(c)(3) status. It declined to withhold income taxes and submit payroll taxes.

rsr,

The case did involve 501(c)(3) status. The church dissolved their "c-3" status lawfully in the 80's. The Gov't maintained that the church was an "unincorporated association" and attacked the church anyway. Every person who ministered there was audited two times. Not ONE violation was raised. All persons filed as private contractors and all paid their own with holding taxes. The taxes were PAID. The Gov't needed an example and ravaged this church for their own purposes. The church was not required to pay even "if" the regulations were held out.

quote: There certainly seemed to be due process; the case was appealed and judgement delayed repeatedly.

Answ: If what you are basing your information on is a newspaper article in the Indy Star.... be careful, I would not go out on a limb for our liberal, God hating, Christ rejecting, newsmedia.

quote: And the pastor didn't pay his income taxes. I pay mine; let him pay his.

Answ: Most American's have their taxes done by someone who can show them every itemized deduction possible. In other words, "I'll pay every tax that I cannot get out of". Seems strange that a country built on freedom and resistance to tyranny would have citizens who just do not understand.
Lk 23:2 is an interesting verse. This was not a false accusation. No sermon's on that verse last Sunday were there?

[ November 23, 2002, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: Bartimaeus ]

 

[Bartimaeus]

[/QUOTE]Actually, the only reason a church is incorporated is purely for tax purposes. [/qb][/QUOTE]Nope. This is patently false.

quote: 1.) You do not have to be incorporated to be tax-exempt.

Bapt. Bel.,
You are correct in your point. Tax-exemption may be obtained by simply acting like a corporation. It may be obtained by operation as an unincorporated association.

quote: 2.) One of the primary reasons churches incorporate is to protect the church members from lawsuits. If someone was to hurt themselves on the property or a staff member of the church were to engage in some inappropriate action (molestation, etc.), everyone who was a member of the church could be held individually financially liable for damages. If the church is incorporated, only the church (corporation) can be sued and risk assets. While the plaintiff may win the suit and end up owning every bit of church property, the church members would be protected from lawsuits.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Answ: Case: Slip/fall incident. Where: Southlake Fundamental Bapt. Church, Crown Point, Indiana. Pastor Dennis R.

Subject matter of case: elderly woman not member of church was invited to wedding and advised not to use steps to basement. She did anyway and fell braking hip. Lawsuit followed and the corporation was subject to lawsuit and then Pastor, trustees, deacons and members. All parties named were listed as defendants on lawsuit. Corporation would not hold up in court for limited liability. Pastor and all others were at risk. Case was settled out of court by insurance company.

Lawyers are being taught in School how to bust Corporations. Corporations are no longer safe havens for protections against liability in tort claims.

Can you help me with the scripture that teaches we should have limited liability for our actions? Please start another thread.

Thanks ---Bart

 

[rlvaughn]

...he failed to pay from 1983 to 1986. On July 24, 2001, Judge Barker issued an order imposing a tax judgment of $136,610.04 against Dixon...

Wow! What kind of interest must the IRS be charging for someone to owe nearly $150,000 for three years back taxes!!!

 

[Bartimaeus]

Original Quote by Baptist Believer: I haven't responded yet because I'm extremely busy at work and at home and I'm still trying to verify this alleged quote from the IRS manual.

I need to know the context of the quote in order to respond to it. All I have been able to find is a bunch of people on the Internet quoting this exact line without any other supporting evidence.

Obviously what is in an IRS manual is *not* necessarily the law, just operating policy, and our constitutional protections supersede any provisions of corporate law that would apply to non-religious institutions.

Baptist Believer,
I understand that life is hectic at best and we probably won't slow down until we get to be with the Lord. Let me save you a little "leg work" so to speak. A church that is incorporated has no 5th Amend. right and the "powers that be" continually quote this case far more than our church friends who find themselves under the scrutiny of the Gov't.
It is Hale v Hinkle, Supreme Ct. 1905 and this is what it settled:
Quote "The benefits of the Fifth Amendment are exclusively for a witness compelled to testify against himself in a criminal case and he cannot set them up on behalf of a corporation"

Quote "A corporation is a creature of the State and there is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and to find out whether it has exceeded its power."

Quote "There is a clear distinction between an individual and a corporation and the later being a creature of the State has no constitutonal right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the Suit of the State."

There are many more and I do not wish to belabor the issue. We must relize that if the 5th amendment does not apply then the others do not either. It does not take a rocket scientist or a Harvard law school lier, oops I mean lawyer to see this. A Baptist Distinctive given by Orchard in the 1890's was, "The ENTIRE separation of church and state". Emphasis mine. Entire separation means no contracts, league's, nexus, agreements for limited liability, NOTHING! No corporate status. But, alas, the Bride is once again in bed with the state.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Bartimaeus:
It is Hale v Hinkle, Supreme Ct. 1905

Is this the United States Supreme Court or a state Supreme Court? I spent an hour trying to find the text and I've struck out so far...

If it is a state Supreme Court decision, it is obviously not the law of the land -- only that state -- and can possibly be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

[ November 23, 2002, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

[Bartimaeus]

Baptist Believer,

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 74-75 (1905)

Sorry about the misspelling. That is a U.S. Supreme Ct. case. Hope this helps.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Bartimaeus:
Baptist Believer,

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 74-75 (1905)

Sorry about the misspelling. That is a U.S. Supreme Ct. case. Hope this helps.

Thanks... When I have the correct spelling, I can find it quickly on www.findlaw.com.

It is going to take me a day or two to read the text and figure out what is going on... I've got to review my notes on Jonah tonight for church tomorrow morning so I won't be able to get to it until tomorrow night.

Thanks!

 

[Bartimaeus]

Baptist Believer come back! Come back!
Old Smoke Eater, I mean Mike Mck Come back! Come back!

Tanks --------Bart