« Back to story "An Assault on Authentic Compassion by Peter Wehner and on National Review Online"

Story Comments

Posted by: hyperbola 9 months, 3 weeks ago

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

  • 67%
    hyperbola9 months, 3 weeks ago

    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

    ...Tax scams are cyclical in nature. An abusive strategy that is discovered and then
    prohibited by a change in the law will eventually resurface after a few years in a slightly
    modified form. One such scam that has survived in various forms since the inception of the Internal Revenue Code has been that of converting yourself, your business, and your family into a “church” that thereafter lives, according to promoters, a perpetually tax-free existence.

    The most recent incarnation of the church scam is the so-called “corporation sole”. There are, actually, statutes on the books of many states that authorize a form of
    corporation called the “corporation sole”, and it is meant to provide a limited liability
    form of organization for a true church organization. However, tax scam promoters are
    marketing the corporation sole as the ticket for the average American to make him and
    his business tax free. According the website of one corporation sole promoter: “Once you declare your pauper status, your income is tax-free to you and your assets cannot be encumbered with a property tax. Your earnings are also tax-free and are considered the Income of the religious organization.”2

    ... Unfortunately, however, a seemingly increasing number of foundations are being created not to serve any public purposes, but merely as thinly-disguised tools to further the lifestyles of the wealthy persons who create them and to pass assets between generations with minimal, if any, tax consequences.

    During the course of my professional practice I have run across private foundations whose activities to benefit the public were little more than annually paying
    for the expenses of the donors to review the reefs off the coast of Cozumel to make sure that they were still there. To the extent that these foundations made bona fide charitable contribution, there was often a significant quid pro quo that was received, ... There also seems a perception ( 5 ) among some wealth planners that private foundations are not regularly audited, and that there are only slight penalties for a client who uses a private foundation as essentially a form of family trust.
    That private foundations are marketed as wealth accumulation and estate planning
    tools emphasizes that many, if not the majority of, donors consider the assets of the
    foundation to continue to be family assets even after the donation is made. Thus, private foundations are sometimes marketed as a “get your donation now, and let your children live off the management fees forever after” sort of arrangement....

    http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/testimony/2004t...

    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply

    1 Reply

    loading loading ...
    • Neutral
      FairNBalanced9 months, 3 weeks ago

      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

      People have a personal responsibility to look into the organizations that they give to. There are many charities that rely on giving and you have managed to lump them all together is your quest to "stand by your party".

      This is not a good idea. Good and honest charities will suffer. If you don't see that then you are choosing to discount a basic logic.

      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      loading loading ...

    Post Reply

    You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.

    People Who Liked This Comment (2)

    People Who Didn't Like This Comment (1)