501c3 = "Being in Covenant with Baal"

Michael Collum said:

Been reading the comments, I think the idea that creating an organization where the money goes into the pastor's personal account instead of an organizational account (since they're unable to create one) may be the motive here. (being that it doesn't make too much of a difference if churches register specifically, since the IRS will categorize your organization if you do not categorize yourself.)

Click to expand...

That's my thinking in general. Organizations have to be legally defined and there are various legal definitions available for an organization. I think Daniel on this thread may be correct that a church specifically is not required to file for 501c3 status, however they still have to comply with the rules for tax exempt organization in order to remain tax exempt and they must file an SS-4 and check the "Church" box to receive an EIN. So whether or not they organize as 501c3, they at least still have to meet tax exempt requirements and still have to declare themselves as a church to the IRS (at least to receive an EIN) - so they still have to be recognized as tax exempt by the IRS. So Mark Taylor's "problem" doesn't seem to be solved by simply not organizing as a 501c3. The org is still governed by and must comply with US law.

And this makes sense too. Otherwise, what's to prevent me and my family from defining ourselves as a "church?" If an org, church or otherwise, doesn't have to comply with tax exempt requirements, then there is a gigantic loophole in the tax code. And call me funny,, but I don't think such a loophole exists.

All of this makes me suspect that Mark Taylor really just wants his org's money sent to a personal account.

Yekcidmij said:

That's my thinking in general. Organizations have to be legally defined and there are various legal definitions available for an organization. I think Daniel on this thread may be correct that a church specifically is not required to file for 501c3 status, however they still have to comply with the rules for tax exempt organization in order to remain tax exempt and they must file an SS-4 and check the "Church" box to receive an EIN. So whether or not they organize as 501c3, they at least still have to meet tax exempt requirements and still have to declare themselves as a church to the IRS (at least to receive an EIN) - so they still have to be recognized as tax exempt by the IRS. So Mark Taylor's "problem" doesn't seem to be solved by simply not organizing as a 501c3. The org is still governed by and must comply with US law.

And this makes sense too. Otherwise, what's to prevent me and my family from defining ourselves as a "church?" If an org, church or otherwise, doesn't have to comply with tax exempt requirements, then there is a gigantic loophole in the tax code. And call my funny,, but I don't think such a loophole exists.

All of this makes me suspect that he really just wants his org's money sent to a personal account.

Click to expand...

I'd agree,

Otherwise, why not every household register as a house church and avoid taxes?

Daniel Martinovich said:

I’m quite the expert on the subject having studied it extensively many years ago. As far as a church or church based organization is concerned. There are 0 federal laws, statutes or IRS rules that a church registers with it. Lots of churches don’t. Even some quite large ones and they are all tax exempt. They don’t need an EIN because pastors are treated as independent contractors. Banks that require an EIN are not doing that because there is a federal or state law or rule. It’s simply the banks policy due to ignorance of the law. In my state AZ. A church or church based ministry is required to register with the state. More like a trade name registration than anything else. I have done that and that was all Wells Fargo needed. The other banks. Not so much. You would have to be some big church with a lawyer who knows his stuff and threaten them with a lawsuit if they did not let you open an account. Just depends on the bank.

Now when your getting into church employees. teachers, janitors, grounds keepers, secretaries. Big church stuff outside of pastors. Then your talking something different. You talking employment laws. As a church. If this is really important to them. They can get around it in a number of ways that may be to much of a hassle to deal with. I would suggest putting all those employees in a different, registered 501c3 organization with an EIN. You could go to bat and say your a church and pay them all as private contractors and withhold with 1099. The IRS is not going to mess with a church unless they are crooked. Some states might try.

the IRS tried to sue a church back in the 60’s that was not registered. The judge said to the IRS that they were claiming that a church can’t operate the same way the founders of their religion operated. And threw out the case. That is presidence. There was a lawyer who had an organization who helped churches set up in various ways like this. Don’t know if it is still around.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks.

Michael Collum said:

Been reading the comments, I think the idea that creating an organization where the money goes into the pastor's personal account instead of an organizational account (since they're unable to create one) may be the motive here. (being that it doesn't make too much of a difference if churches register specifically, since the IRS will categorize your organization if you do not categorize yourself.)

If the offerings were sent to the church bank account, then agreed upon rules regarding it's spending would be in effect. However, if it's sent to a personal account, he can spend it however he likes.

Click to expand...

Not true. A bank account can be held by a non registered church under a trade name. Depends on the state and bank. There are no federal statutes regarding any of this because that would be federal regulation of churches. Something specifically forbidden by the first amendment and recognized by the feds and the courts as such. States and banks are different entities.

Daniel Martinovich said:

Not true. A bank account can be held by a non registered church under a trade name. Depends on the state and bank. There are no federal statutes regarding any of this because that would be federal regulation of churches. Something specifically forbidden by the first amendment and recognized by the feds and the courts as such. States and banks are different entities.

Click to expand...

Good to know, thanks.

Michael Collum said:

I'd agree,

Otherwise, why not every household register as a house church and avoid taxes?

Click to expand...

That is the biggest canard on this whole subject. That churches don’t pay taxes registered or not. All income is taxed no matter who it goes to. Church employee, pastor, janitor. It’s all taxed, no exemptions. What is not taxed is corporate income. Whether the church is registered as a 501c3 or not. So if a church had a million dollars in the bank at the end of the year. That million dollars isn’t subject to a corporate tax. On top of all the income and payroll taxes already being paid either by the church or by the individuals getting paid.
now some states may not charge churches for property tax. Different story.

Daniel Martinovich said:

Not true. A bank account can be held by a non registered church under a trade name. Depends on the state and bank. There are no federal statutes regarding any of this because that would be federal regulation of churches. Something specifically forbidden by the first amendment and recognized by the feds and the courts as such. States and banks are different entities.

Click to expand...

And how does one get a trade name that a bank will accept? Register for it (DBA, which I also have). What you are saying is just basically kicking the can down the road. Truth is you need some form of government recognition to open an account. In light of the OP video, it shouldn't really matter if it is federal, state or local. It would all be Baal anyway.

Michael Collum said:

I'd agree,

Otherwise, why not every household register as a house church and avoid taxes?

Click to expand...

By the way. Some crooked individuals have tried to avoid property taxes this way. It doesn’t work.

Daniel Martinovich said:

By the way. Some crooked individuals have tried to avoid property taxes this way. It doesn’t work.

Click to expand...

Of course people tried it.

Yekcidmij said:

And this makes sense too. Otherwise, what's to prevent me and my family from defining ourselves as a "church?" If an org, church or otherwise, doesn't have to comply with tax exempt requirements, then there is a gigantic loophole in the tax code. And call me funny,, but I don't think such a loophole exists.

All of this makes me suspect that Mark Taylor really just wants his org's money sent to a personal account.

Click to expand...

I vaguely remember reading years ago about people trying to register as 501c3 organizations as "tax planning".

topher694 said:

And how does one get a trade name that a bank will accept? Register for it (DBA, which I also have). What you are saying is just basically kicking the can down the road. Truth is you need some form of government recognition to open an account. In light of the OP video, it shouldn't really matter if it is federal, state or local. It would all be Baal anyway.

Click to expand...

I’m not talking about the individuals assertions here, or to what degree or not a church can open themselves up to demonic influence through registering with the irs. I realize that is the subject of the OP. But if no one understands the law. Then the spiritual aspect will not be able to be properly grasped. So I’m just talking about the law. Registering with the IRS and registering for a trade name is like a truck load of oranges verses one apple. A trade name is simply filling out a form for an individual or group to be called .....Emanuel Christian Church and pay the $15. Banks who understand he law will accept that. Now the feds could coerce the banks into not accepting that. I can totally see this lawless crew running the feds now doing something like that. But I don’t know that has happened.

I will remind everyone here that when Congress subpoenad a bunch of big ministries a ways back to answer to accusations of being crooked. Only one submitted. That’s because the feds don’t have oversight of church’s or church based ministerys as per the first amendment. So why give them creeping oversight by voluntarily becoming a 501c3? To do so is to just satisfy some fears based in ignorance or the pressure to conform to societal norms.

More importantly than all of this. And although I’d say using the term Baal to describe compromise with evil isn’t right and the guys got some wackadoodle ideas. His inate suspicions are correct. Let me tell you how. If the 1st amendment protects churches from any sort of government oversight. Also sighting freedom of the printing press and assembly and such which were all church based activities back then. News papers were a novelty at that time. Press does not mean news service. It literally meant the right of individuals, churches to print things and disseminate information and political discourse via the printed page.
What it means is that the federal government cannot interfere in the expression of the people’s or ther states religious principle in their communities and laws of their states. But the secularists turned this all around with the courts in the 60’s. Now they say that The feds cannot allow any of the people’s religious principle to be expressed in the laws or standards of their communities or their states. So if for instance, if gross sexual immorality is dangerous to the welfare and health of the community or state. All the feds have to say is that’s religious principle and therefore it can’t be allowed to influence the law regarding sexual immorality or drug use or any of many other subjects. They have made the first amendment say the exact opposite of its intended purpose and most churches fearful of 501c3 regulations have accepted the lie. Now THAT is coming under the influence of evil.
If you want to see exactly what the first ammendment meant to the founders the best place to look is at the original state constitutions. I have a web page that lists the religious principle in them that is always on the first page of a Google search.
The Original State Constitutions

Daniel Martinovich said:

I’m not talking about the individuals assertions here, or to what degree or not a church can open themselves up to demonic influence through registering with the irs. I realize that is the subject of the OP. But if no one understands the law. Then the spiritual aspect will not be able to be properly grasped. So I’m just talking about the law. Registering with the IRS and registering for a trade name is like a truck load of oranges verses one apple. A trade name is simply filling out a form for an individual or group to be called .....Emanuel Christian Church and pay the $15. Banks who understand he law will accept that. Now the feds could coerce the banks into not accepting that. I can totally see this lawless crew running the feds now doing something like that. But I don’t know that has happened.

Click to expand...

So you basically admit your comparing apples to oranges when it comes to the subject of the OP, then say the conversation about registering is apples and oranges???

I think you aren't seeing the forest for the trees here. The whole point is that these 501c3/Baal guys don't understand the law (or more importantly, don't care), nor the Bible, nor much else in general AND that there are perfectly legitimate reasons for being a 501c3. Which, btw, go beyond bank accounts. I would argue that setting up a 501c3 actually creates LESS government interference in the long run. One way or another a church/ministry will likely face some form of scrutiny. When you are a 501c3 you get that scrutiny done ahead of time (unless you do something illegal of course).

Daniel Martinovich said:

They have made the first amendment say the exact opposite of its intended purpose and most churches fearful of 501c3 regulations have accepted the lie. Now THAT is coming under the influence of evil.

Click to expand...

I agree 1000% on the twisting of the original meaning of the 1st amendment, but where are you getting this "most churches" statistic from? I don't have official statistics myself, but I can tell you as a pastor myself, and with every single pastor I have ever talked to about this (which is a good number) my personal statistic on this is zero. Zero pastors I know are fearful of the regulations and zero pastors have accepted the lie. Most are quite knowledgeable about this topic and know full well what is going on.

Pavel Mosko said:

This thread could potentially fit a number of boards depending on how it develops. I put it here because I think this teaching/preaching is nuts and therefore controversial. I really wanted to title this thread something like "You might be in Covenant with Baal and not know it!"

Because that is the actual gist of the claim by some of the Charismatic preachers who proclaim this (who incidentally are some of the same people with the various enthusiastic prophesies about Trump winning the election, and various Qanon stuff.)

Rather than me trying to explain the claim why don't you just watch the clip? It's less that 2 minutes.

This has been a topic, been wanting to talk about for years because it's so crazy 1) because it means that 99% of churches and other ministries are corrupt, 2) In the Bible covenant making and breaking is kind of a deliberate obvious thing unlike this.

I guess I held off on this topic because I do think that 501c3 has muzzled the conservative churches on speaking out on certain issues especially during the political season, and that it is good that churches know about the older tax system that is still on the books, but this is way over the top!

OK will be interesting if this thread stays on this board, or gets kicked over to some place like Ethics or Denominational theology, Covenant theology etc.

Click to expand...

This guy takes things too far!

Churches should not be involved in political activity in any country. We should be on the mission that Christ called us to.

If a government allows churches to be tax free and the rules governing that do not hamper our mission as given by jesus there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of the world. We live in the world but are not of the world.

topher694 said:

I agree 1000% on the twisting of the original meaning of the 1st amendment, but where are you getting this "most churches" statistic from? I don't have official statistics myself, but I can tell you as a pastor myself, and with every single pastor I have ever talked to about this (which is a good number) my personal statistic on this is zero. Zero pastors I know are fearful of the regulations and zero pastors have accepted the lie. Most are quite knowledgeable about this topic and know full well what is going on.

Click to expand...

Donors to a church that isn't clearing qualified to be a 501(c)(3) may have problems getting their contributions accepted as a deduction by the IRS. If they were to be audited it is on them to prove the status of their church if it's not recorded with the IRS as a 501(c)(3).

[STAFF EDITED DELETED QUOTE]
? Kenneth Copeland Ministries is a 501(c)(3) and his ministry is one of the ministries that thumbed their nose at the IRS and gave them nothing.

Hank77 said:

Donors to a church that isn't clearing qualified to be a 501(c)(3) may have problems getting their contributions accepted as a deduction by the IRS. If they were to be audited it is on them to prove the status of their church if it's not recorded with the IRS as a 501(c)(3).

Click to expand...

Yes, that's part of what I was referencing

Pavel Mosko said:

This thread could potentially fit a number of boards depending on how it develops. I put it here because I think this teaching/preaching is nuts and therefore controversial. I really wanted to title this thread something like "You might be in Covenant with Baal and not know it!"

Because that is the actual gist of the claim by some of the Charismatic preachers who proclaim this (who incidentally are some of the same people with the various enthusiastic prophesies about Trump winning the election, and various Qanon stuff.)

Rather than me trying to explain the claim why don't you just watch the clip? It's less that 2 minutes.

This has been a topic, been wanting to talk about for years because it's so crazy 1) because it means that 99% of churches and other ministries are corrupt, 2) In the Bible covenant making and breaking is kind of a deliberate obvious thing unlike this.

I guess I held off on this topic because I do think that 501c3 has muzzled the conservative churches on speaking out on certain issues especially during the political season, and that it is good that churches know about the older tax system that is still on the books, but this is way over the top!

OK will be interesting if this thread stays on this board, or gets kicked over to some place like Ethics or Denominational theology, Covenant theology etc.

Click to expand...

Why would anyone have to get permission from the government to have a church?

Also, please explain why the Lord commands us to pay taxes, but if we get permission, for our church, from the government, then we don't have to pay taxes: why is that?

Bear with me, please, cause I really don't get it.