I WANT MY MONEY BACK!!

[Kathy (ImOut)]

Not worth the effort. And I can only imagine that it might be worse. But, I may just take a look at the returns and do a quick math problem and see how it turns out. I'm afraid the interest and penalties would be too great on the years I would have owed money. Would the IRS tack on interest and penalties from the time the tax return was due or from when I re-filed? Not a question I expect an answer to, just something I'd have to find out.

And we know, once I pay 2007 taxes and if I re-file, it would probably be years before I got a "refund". And my tax guy is swamped. Glad I got my information to him early and before he got swamped.

[Bea Kiddo]

I messed up my 2005 filing of my taxes (first year being out of SO and thought I knew what to do, but I didnt file right). I got penalized for it. Plus I had to pay interest from the time I filed to current. Interest accrues.

[Kathy (ImOut)]

I messed up my 2005 filing of my taxes (first year being out of SO and thought I knew what to do, but I didnt file right). I got penalized for it. Plus I had to pay interest from the time I filed to current. Interest accrues.

That's why I'm sure it's not worth re-filing three years worth of tax returns. I look at it as a lesson learned - stay away from the CofS. I'm more than certain they (the CofS) put the IRS on us. Our donations got questioned within a couple of months of getting our repayments. We're currently "proving" our donations were legitimate for 2004 and 2005. What a pain that was - getting all those records together.

[Div6]

That's why I'm sure it's not worth re-filing three years worth of tax returns. I look at it as a lesson learned - stay away from the CofS. I'm more than certain they (the CofS) put the IRS on us. Our donations got questioned within a couple of months of getting our repayments. We're currently "proving" our donations were legitimate for 2004 and 2005. What a pain that was - getting all those records together.

Care to elaborate on that? That seems "across the line" to me 1st amendment wise re: "Establishment of Religion"....imho, ianal, etc.

[Zinjifar]

I'd suggest not revealing any more personal information than you're absolutely sure you want to here, in a public and definitely OSA read space

Not that they can't find the stuff anyway, but, it's valuable to make them pay for it.

Zinj

[Kathy (ImOut)]

Care to elaborate on that? That seems "across the line" to me 1st amendment wise re: "Establishment of Religion"....imho, ianal, etc.

Div 6,

See the PM I sent you.

[Div6]

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." Together with the Free Exercise Clause, ("...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.



This page has some details of the IRS closing agreement:

http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/d...singagrmt.html



"And IRS can without get away with it, without worrying about messy and inconvenient church/state Constitutional issues. Why? Because, as we have pointed out repeatedly throughout this site: CST is not a church; it is a corporation. Ref. U.S. Claims Court No. 581-88T, Judge Bruggink:

"CST is not a church...CST represents that it is a religious corporation organized to accomplish the activities of a church. Despite its name, CST is not itself a church... ."


And that completes the fraud."

CST = "Church of Spiritual Technology" despite its name. is NOT a church.

[grundy]

I messed up my 2005 filing of my taxes (first year being out of SO and thought I knew what to do, but I didnt file right). I got penalized for it. Plus I had to pay interest from the time I filed to current. Interest accrues.

I am soooo happy, that I have used online tax software from Intuit every year. I started to use them because at first I could do it for free because I wasn't making enough money for them to charge me.

Then their rules changed but I still use them every year. E-File. Direct Deposit. no fuss, no muss.

Anybody who is recently out, doesn't really know how to file, and that doesnt want to actually pay an accountant should use TurboTax. It asks all the questions like an accountant would it's pretty cheap.

One of the things I had to learn when I left ....

[DartSmohen]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------



If enough people go after them on the basis that they want their money back, then they are the ones who will tail spin.

It is certainly worth thinking about

Now that there seems to be a flow of people coming out of the cult, i am sure there are more who have monies sitting there. As income is their primary stat and their supply appears to be drying up, perhams we should contribute to the motion and empty their accounts even more.

[Wisened One]

I think ex staff members should add up all their hours and multiply by minimum wages for those years and ask to be recompensed for what they are due.

HERE, HERE!