I said that I didn’t think paying to build a gym at a church for the member’s use should count as a charitable donation*. Ok? With me so far?
That was countered by someone saying that not all donations need to be for the benefit of the less fortunate. For example, donations to a university are not generally going to help the poor.
THEN I said that it’s true that not all donations need to go to the poor, but I think they ought to be used to benefit someone other than oneself. For example, a person may donate to a university, but paying one’s tuition to said university is not a charitable donation. Ok? Do you understand the link between these things now?
See, in one case the money given benefits others. In that instance it is a tax-deductible charitable donation. In the other case the money benefits oneself, and is NOT considered a charitable donation. I am comparing the second situation to my earlier pet peeve, where a church member considers the money they give to build a gym for their own use to be charity. I do not believe such an act (morally) counts as charity. I believe it is akin to paying your own tuition at a university; in other words it’s an act that primarily benefits yourself.
Have I cleared it up for you?
for the benefit of Munch: I realize it does count, I don’t think it should count. Fact and opinion. I know these concepts trouble you.
I understand what you’re saying, but I have no idea why you felt obligated to include a non-sequiter. Nobody gives a damn about tuition, as it has nothing to do with this discussion, and isn’t analogous to charitable donations to a church.
You’ve certainly cleared up what a terrible argument you’ve made. An enormous amount of money that is donated to churches goes to other people. Paying tuition is a payment for a service received. Donating to a gym that hundreds of children will use for many years, and that your chldren are welcome to use even if you don’t donate, is not payment for a service received.
You didn’t make your analogy at all clear, and it was so terrible that nobody could ever be expected to know what you were talking about.
What you don’t seem to grasp is that it doesn’t matter what the law says. I’m not interested in what the law says. I know I disagree with where the law draws the line between for-profit and non-profit organizations. I don’t need to understand every detail of it to disagree with it, because my disagreements aren’t small and detail based.
I also don’t care a particular lot about this issue. I have other things which I care about that fill my time. I educate myself on those policies, because they matter more to me. My opinion isn’t deeply informed, but then, since I’m only posting it in the opinion section of a message board, I don’t think it needs to be. Were I out, advocating for changing the tax laws or something, you are right that it would be good to educate myself further. But I’m not doing that. I’m spouting off on how I’d structure the tax system if I were made emperor tomorrow, and in such a discussion you don’t need a lot of knowledge of the system as it stands.
How you couldn’t figure that out, based on the ludicrous and deeply hypothetical OP, is beyond me. I thought it seemed obvious that this discussion wasn’t particularly fact-based.
Heartland Presbytery v. Gashland Presbyterian Church.
In that case: First–the deed clearly named the local church as owner of the property with no expression whatsoever of any intent to hold in trust for the district Presbytery or the national denomination (Presbyterian Church of the United States–”PCUSA”). Indeed, the 1948 deed named “Gashland Community Church, Gashland, Missouri” as the sole owner.
Keep flailing though, it’s funny to watch.
Awesome, thanks for the cite. In other words, the church owns itself, and there are no shareholders. Or did you think that somehow contradicted anything I’ve said? Please do elaborate, I cannot wait to see how you think I’m flailing.
Obviously a church is the owner of the church property. Likewise, countless other non-religious non-profits are the owners of their properties. Hence you have provided evidence that a church functions exactly like a non-profit, and undermined your own claim that “churches are businesses”. There is no rational reason to consider a church as a business.
miss_elizabeth, I’d love your opinion on what I think you’re tying to say:
A donor provides funds for a university gym: a-ok.
A donor provides funds for a community center gym: a-ok.
A donor provides a church funds for a gym: TAX EVASION!!!
Is that right, or would you like to tell me how an IRS agent is going to determine if my donation ever has the slimmest of chances of ever benefitting me? If I donate an expensive painting to an organization, should I have to avert my gaze should I ever visit?
OH MY FUCKING GOD WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOUR BRAIN? Do you understand this is a hypothetical situation? No, you obviously don’t. You must be super fun to watch movies with, holy hell.
If a donor provides funds for a university gym, I do not think that should be tax deductible. For a community center, yes, because everyone gets to use it. For a church, no.
And I think donating expensive paintings to decorate some offices of an organization shouldn’t be tax-deductible either. If you are donating it to be auctioned, and the money from the auction is going to basic overhead and charity, then it should be.
On the stpauler/ITRChampion discussion: Whether an entity is a corporate “legal person” or some other such kind of entity that can own and hold property is not a determinant of whether it is “a business”, and vv. . Meanwhile, in this thread some people are using “business” to mean a for-profit merchant which is not always accurate either.
And I know it isn’t tax evasion! I’ve said that, like, 15 different ways already. I understand the law as it stands is VASTLY different from how I think it ought to be. I get that. I am not a delusional person. I realize church donations, and paintings, and donations to university gyms are considered charitable, and are tax deductible. I just disagree. If I were in a position to make my whims law (as was the premise of the OP) I would structure it differently.
Which is precisely why I don’t need to understand the nuances of American tax law as it stands. I just (hypothetically) dumped the whole thing and started over.
It’s not at all obvious to me, since he keeps bringing up current tax law and IRS agents. He seems to believe that the law as it stands has bearing on my fantasy land.
It’s all about time travel and ant armies and shrinking people! We all know that doesn’t exist! You better hurry up and educate these dummies about science before they have a fun discussion!
No, he’s trying to understand where you draw the line, using hypotheticals that expand on the first one you presented.
Your statments are very foolish, and I can’t believe you honestly think he’s taking any of these hypotheticals literally. It’s almost as if you’re having a very difficult time following what is a very, very basic exchange. The last part of your post is just embarrassing.
Just for the record, you do realize you’re drawing a nearly indistinguishable line here, right?
“Decorate some offices”? Do please stop putting words in my mouth, or at least stop resorting to really sad strawmen. There are plenty of arts organizations out there that serve as free to the public galleries, and rely strongly on donated pieces of art. Many pieces of public art are donated pieces - should those donors avoid those particular public areas in your fantasyland lest the tax man come a-knockin’?
And I’m simply pointing out that what you think is “structure” is, in fact, a jumbled mess of nonsense. I’m not asking you to understand subtle nuances here - it’s clear you’re just having a hard time with the basic concepts.
In your fantasy land, the world would be riddled with IRS agents running around trying to delve deeply into your private life trying to determine whether any particular donation had any benefit to you, rather than just relying on easy to understand guidelines that seem to be completely incomprehensible to you. But since you seem to think that “if it benefits the donor, it’s not tax deductible” is simple, then a few easy to follow hypotheticals that illustrate the absurdity of that opinion shouldn’t be too out of bounds.
In my fantasy land, the world would be riddled with dragons who roasted anyone who disagreed with me.
But I do think it’s funny that you said tax law is “easy to understand”. Yeah, there’s never been any confusion or controversy about what should qualify as a non-profit. :rolleyes:
If it primarily benefits the donor(s), it shouldn’t be tax deductible.
And I’m done. Like I said, I don’t care about this, and I’m not coming back here to fight about it anymore. Argue with the other people who think churches aren’t charitable-- this thread is full of them.
The idea that charities must serve everyone in a community in order to be tax exempt seems fraught with problems. That would mean you couldn’t have a woman’s shelter run by a charity if you follow it to the logical conclusions. Charities can benefit the community without being open to all.
As compelling as wikipedia is, I’ll just go by what the IRS says:
For these purposes, the IRS defines “inurement” as:
Businesses have shareholders or private owners. Non-profits (specifically to this topic, 501(c)(3) non-profits) do not (in fact, they are specifically prohibited from this). This is a clear, precise and fundamental difference. Your examples only illustrate that fact, despite your blindness to that. I believe you are stumbling upon the use of the word “corporate” in your first example - in this instance, “corporate” refers to the organization that was formed as part of an Articles of Incorporation, which all registered non-profits are required to do. This does not, however, mean that that corporate entity is a business.
Edit: Maybe you could just show me where the IRS mentions non-profits in its business section.That’d be pretty definitive, I’d think.