What are the actual steps needed to get the IRS to revoke?

[He-man]

What are the actual steps needed to get the IRS to revoke the Co$ "Religious Cult, hence we are tax exempt" Status?

Can a citizen of the U$ simply file a complaint with evidence added to it that the Co$ abuses its exempt status or does it have to come from some other federal institution?

Curious to know what it would actually entail to bring the behemoth down.

 

[He-man]

I found this text, which I think is a good summary of how it can loose its tax exempt status, but not how to actually initiate any such proceedings.

https://info.legalzoom.com/can-church-lose-its-501c-status-21743.html

 

[He-man]

So after some reading, I think the only recourse within the IRS is to submit a 13909:

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/eo-abusive-tax-avoidance-transactions

Tax-exempt organizations, by definition, are exempt from federal income tax under various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. However, some are directly involved in abusive tax avoidance transactions (ATATs). In addition, because they are tax-indifferent, tax-exempt organizations are, at times, used by for-profit entities as accommodation parties in these transactions. Identifying and responding to ATATs involving tax-exempt organizations is critical to the IRS objective of discouraging and deterring non-compliance within tax-exempt and government entities. Former Commissioner Everson emphasized this in a hearing conducted by the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate on Charitable Giving Problems and Best Practices.

You may use Form 13909, Tax-Exempt Organization Complaint (Referral) Form, to report an abusive transaction involving an exempt organization. To send a written complaint by mail, send to the following address:
IRS
EO Referrals
MC 4910DAL
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas, TX 75242
In addition, the IRS Office of Tax Shelter Analysis maintains a hotline that can be used to provide information about abusive tax shelters.

These are the violations that can and should be reported:
Directors/Officers/Persons are using income/assets for personal gain
Organization is engaged in commercial, for-profit business activities
Income/Assets are being used to support illegal or terrorist activities
Organization is involved in a political campaign
Organization is engaged in excessive lobbying activities
Organization refused to disclose or provide a copy of Form 990
Organization failed to report employment, income or excise tax liability properly
Organization failed to file required federal tax returns and forms
Organization engaged in deceptive or improper fundraising practices
Other (describe)


Can it really be that hard to prove that the excessive fundraising for the ideal orgs are abusive? Or is that the reason the church are focusing on that particular line of fundraising publicly?

Can it really be that hard to provide evidence of OSA using church funds to perform illegal activities?

Is there no evidence of DM using income/assets for personal gain?

Can auditing and academy regging not be defined as a commercial activity(since they clearly provide no personal gain)?

 

[Voodoo]

Can auditing and academy regging not be defined as a commercial activity (since they clearly provide no personal gain)?

This last one is a non-starter in any court room. No court can determine whether such a subjective experience has merit.

I can see possibilities with your preceding lines of attack.

 

[He-man]

This last one is a non-starter in any court room. No court can determine whether such a subjective experience has merit.

I can see possibilities with your preceding lines of attack.

Not sure that filing a complaint to the IRS would end up in court, but I am not a US citizen, I live in Europe and have no experience with your federal system apart from what I can read meself to.

I do believe though that hard regging to sell intensives and academy courses as an abusive commercial activity, based on the sums of money we are discussing and that it is done in an abusive way. One should be able to prove that it was an involuntary action to, for instance, hand over ones credit card to the reg so that the money could be set on that persons "account".

At the end of the day, it's a matter if such activity should be considered tax exempt, not criminal in itself.

Do you see what I mean?

 

[Voodoo]

I do believe though that hard regging to sell intensives and academy courses as an abusive commercial activity, based on the sums of money we are discussing and that it is done in an abusive way.

One should be able to prove that it was an involuntary action to, for instance, hand over ones credit card to the reg so that the money could be set on that persons "account".

I don't think it's possible to prove coercion in the case of regging for Scientology services. I can easily see an IRS investigator asking the simple question:

"Weren't you involved in this activity through your own free choice, and further, couldn't you have said 'No' to the registrar's request for more donations?"

Answering in the negative to either question would be a lie in all but the most extreme cases.

The 'they made me do it' defense is a non-starter, where it comes to using it as a tool to compel government action against a church or corporation.

I think a person would have better luck pursuing a case against the cult for straight donations, like the Ideal Orgs or IAS, but even then you'd have to prove fraud or undue coercion on the part of the regges. The Garcias have gone down that road, and have gotten nowhere.

 

[He-man]

to make this thread more appealing, I invite you to listen to this song.

 

[Alanzo]

Nobody cares about this here. They just act like they do.

 

[Dotey OT]

I think that the amount of falsification of credit information on behalf of the person applying for the credit. I have personally witnessed and would testify being regged and having the reg doing the application process, and specifically telling the applicant to FALSIFY the application. The choich regges don't have any liability in this, but it would look VERY, VERY badly in public.

I also think that one could get lost in the semantics of trying such a case. I have experience working with the creating of not for profit tax returns, in fact, Narconon facility returns. It should be attempted, but would be a long road to hoe. It may actually be the most fruitful in the long run, as I look at this data and see what was known and how long ago it was known. The beast still lives and that's spooky.

 

[TheOriginalBigBlue]

Note only 4% of organizations that lost their tax exempt status in this study due to Automatic Revocation were religious. Automatic Revocation is probably mostly due to failure to make filings. I seriously doubt Scientology would fail to make filings which probably leaves special investigations or court cases that prove gross violations with an extensive and consistent history clearly authorized by top management. Scientology is expert at tossing people under the bus so I would expect that if anything became an issue they would use a fall guy to say it was an exception and not intentional. Because the IRS recognizes them as a religion they probably are not held to as strict a standard as non-religious organizations. The IRS has provisions for regaining revoked status and I would expect Scientology to exploit that process to the max.

It might be possible but even with valid grounds I think it would be very difficult.

https://trust.guidestar.org/blog/for-whom-the-revocations-tolled-an-in-depth-analysis

 

[Ammo Alamo]

People have come to believe that the IRS-revocation angle is a non-starter. There is way too much money available to COB and his COS lawyers. The COS has a nearly-impenetrable corporate structure. The controlling organization, the Sea Org, does not even exist in the eyes of the law. But, with every new changing of the guard in Washington DC the cumulative effect of many complaints could get the proper people involved, if it fit with their career goals.

Jeffrey Augustine knows much more than I about this over at the Scientology Money Project. He shows how to make effective complaints to the proper authorities. However, apparently only one, two or maybe three people at the top of the IRS can look into revoking an exemption, so there are no promises.

https://scientologymoneyproject.com...-report-the-church-of-scientology-to-the-irs/

 

[He-man]

Note only 4% of organizations that lost their tax exempt status in this study due to Automatic Revocation were religious. Automatic Revocation is probably mostly due to failure to make filings. I seriously doubt Scientology would fail to make filings which probably leaves special investigations or court cases that prove gross violations with an extensive and consistent history clearly authorized by top management. Scientology is expert at tossing people under the bus so I would expect that if anything became an issue they would use a fall guy to say it was an exception and not intentional. Because the IRS recognizes them as a religion they probably are not held to as strict a standard as non-religious organizations. The IRS has provisions for regaining revoked status and I would expect Scientology to exploit that process to the max.

It might be possible but even with valid grounds I think it would be very difficult.

https://trust.guidestar.org/blog/for-whom-the-revocations-tolled-an-in-depth-analysis

Thanks Blue, I put this in herejust to clarify what Automatic Revocation is, I dug up this from IRS:

"Organizations that do not file for three consecutive years automatically lose their tax-exempt status. An automatic revocation is effective on the original filing due date of the third annual return or notice. (Section 6033(j) of the Internal Revenue Code)"

That would also explain why it only seems to affect organisations with low revenues.

I do think it is possible, but there is no organisation that works to lobby for this cause.

Just a few disorganized crusaders that don't always see eye to eye...

It is clear to me that the path to revoke the church tax exempt status is there. Why is no one treading it?

Not saying it is going to be easy, or that it could even be achievable. I'm curious to know why not a single individual, and there are so many who are objecting to the church, that has started up a non profit organization to bring them to the authorities in the US?

Has the scene not changed enough since the Milton years to make people believe that ex Scientologists and others can organize to do that?

 

[TheOriginalBigBlue]

Thanks Blue, I put this in herejust to clarify what Automatic Revocation is, I dug up this from IRS:



That would also explain why it only seems to affect organisations with low revenues.

I do think it is possible, but there is no organisation that works to lobby for this cause.

Just a few disorganized crusaders that don't always see eye to eye...

It is clear to me that the path to revoke the church tax exempt status is there. Why is no one treading it?

Not saying it is going to be easy, or that it could even be achievable. I'm curious to know why not a single individual, and there are so many who are objecting to the church, that has started up a non profit organization to bring them to the authorities in the US?

Has the scene not changed enough since the Milton years to make people believe that ex Scientologists and others can organize to do that?

We tend to define Scientology by Hubb's doctrine and abuse but technically it is probably best defined as a RICO problem. We have seen how difficult it is for governmental agencies to deal with organized crime in spite of knowing exactly what and how they do things. For all practical purposes Scientology is The Mob with a New Age front. Mobs use waste management and casinos - Scientology uses religion.

Scientology is complex in both it's doctrine and organizational structure by design much like the mob and this has been extremely effective. Anyone who has ever tried to explain Scientology to a non-Scientologists understands how difficult this can be. I don't think it would be possible to revoke their tax exempt status once given without a very extensive public education campaign. I think this has been Mike and Leah's strategy.

I have called the COS a Church to underscore the IRS's mistake in granting them "church" status but I think we should be calling it what it is - a corporation. It shouldn't be the COS as in "Church of Scientology". It should be COS as in "Corporation of Scientology". We call it organized Scientology but it is more accurate to call it Corporate Scientology because these aren't just orgs, they are specifically and exactly businesses being managed by a corporation with a board of directors and not some religious administrative body.