Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Tax Break for Clergy Questioned

Tax Break for Clergy Questioned


For the Wall Street Journal

The U.S. Tax Court approved tax-free allowances of $408,638 for a minister's second home, including 'mortgage payments … lawn care, painting and repairs.'

As Congress scrutinizes every nook and cranny of the budget for possible revenue, a surprising court decision is allowing clergy members to buy or live in multiple homes tax-free.

The U.S. Tax Court ruled that Phil Driscoll, an ordained minister and Grammy Award-winning trumpeter who went to prison for tax evasion, didn't owe federal income taxes on $408,638 provided to him by his ministry to buy a second home on a lake near Cleveland, Tenn.

Under a provision of the tax code known as the parsonage allowance, first passed in 1921, an ordained clergy member may live tax-free in a home owned by his or her religious organization or receive a tax-free annual payment to buy or rent a home if the congregation approves.

The Tax Court ruling, made final in March, extends the parsonage allowance to an unlimited number of homes, which may be owned either by the religious organization or the clergy member.

In a 7-6 ruling, a panel of Tax Court judges sided with Mr. Driscoll's argument that the word "home" is equivalent to "homes," just as "child" is interpreted to mean "children" elsewhere in the tax code.

The Internal Revenue Service declined to comment on the decision. In May, the agency appealed it to a federal appeals court in Atlanta.

Experts say the parsonage allowance was originally included as a way to minimize taxes on clergy members, whose compensation was often meager. It still is widely used for that purpose, church officials said, although the IRS doesn't track usage of the benefit.

"For most of them the housing allowance is modest because their compensation is modest," says Daniel Gary, an attorney with the United Methodist Church in Nashville.

Similarly, D. August Boto, general counsel of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, says for leaders of the organization's 46,000 churches "the housing allowance is critically important for making ends meet—it is not a luxury."

Some members of the clergy are taking advantage of a little-known tax break that allows them to avoid the IRS when they are buying a "parsonage," even when it is a palatial mansion or their second home. Laura Saunders has details on The News Hub.

However, some experts are concerned that the new ruling opens the door for the allowance to be applied to multiple homes used by leaders of wealthier ministries.

John "Buck" Chapoton, a former assistant secretary of the Treasury for tax policy, said he believes the decision to broaden the parsonage allowance to include multiple homes "invites abuse." He is now a partner at investment-management firm Brown Advisory in Baltimore.

The issue also is receiving congressional scrutiny.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, said he wants to ensure that the spirit of the provision isn't violated.

"It's fair to question why a clergy member needs a tax-free allowance for more than one home, and whether tax-exempt churches should subsidize millionaire ministers," he says.

Before the Driscoll decision, most tax experts believed the parsonage allowance only applied to one home, says Ellen Aprill, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who studies tax issues involving religious institutions.

There is no restriction on the value of the home that can be claimed under the exemption. The chief limit is that the annual payment to buy or rent the home may not exceed its rental value, Ms. Aprill says.

In January, the Senate committee released the results of an investigation into several high-profile ministries that raise money through radio, television and the Internet. It cited evidence of large parsonage allowances at several groups, although the groups declined to answer questions submitted by the committee, citing constitutional protections.

According to the report, Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, who lead Kenneth Copeland Ministries in Fort Worth, Texas, live in an 18,280 square-foot lakefront parsonage on 25 acres. The report said county officials valued the church-owned property at $6.2 million in 2008.

David Middlebrook, a lawyer for Mr. Copeland, says the house is "a wholly owned and appreciating asset of Kenneth Copeland Ministries.…The ownership and operation of the parsonage is completely in accordance with IRS rules and regulations."

Mr. Driscoll, who won the Tax Court ruling, leads Mighty Horn Ministries of Greensboro, Ga., which had income of more than $6 million from 2005 to 2009, according to tax filings.

Mr. Driscoll turned to the ministry after a popular music career that included playing a trumpet solo on the last "Ed Sullivan Show" in 1971 and composing for Joe Cocker and the band Blood, Sweat and Tears.

In 2005, a federal grand jury accused him of diverting ministry funds for personal expenses. Prosecutors said he used ministry funds from 1996 to 1999 for luxury cars, funeral bills for his mother and other personal items.

A Chattanooga, Tenn., jury convicted Mr. Driscoll in 2006 of conspiracy and tax evasion. He was sentenced to a year in prison and ordered to pay nearly $25,000 in court costs. He also paid $426,398 in extra tax and penalties.

Prosecutors alleged that he also evaded taxes related to his second home, since he already owned one residence bought with ministry funds.

Mr. Driscoll's lawyer argued the wording of the tax code was vague and could apply to more than one home. The judge in the criminal case agreed with Mr. Driscoll's argument, and the dispute wound up in U.S. Tax Court. Mr. Driscoll declined to comment.

Write to Laura Saunders at laura.saunders@wsj.com

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Amazon debate: Is the Golden State just desperate for more gold?

Opinion L.A.

Observations and provocations
from The Times' Opinion staff

Amazon debate: Is the Golden State just desperate for more gold?

July 28, 2011 California's sales tax rule for online retailers kicked in July 1, but Amazon isn't collecting the tax and instead cut ties with its affiliates in the state; now, it's working on a referendum to overturn the law in the next election.

A recent poll by USC and the Los Angeles Times showed that voters were divided on whether the company should collect sales taxes: 46% were in favor of using the tax revenue to help balance the budget, while 49% were opposed to the new law. And, not surprisingly, younger voters were more likely to be against the law than older voters. Commentators seem to be split as well.

An Op-Ed by Steve Forbes called the law both unconstitutional and desperate pickpocketing. The potential revenue to be gained from online retailers is small in comparison to the budget shortfall in the state, and could adversely affect the economy and consumers across the nation, he wrote. It is a desperate attempt to gain revenue when California legislators should really be trying to fix the dire fiscal situation of the state, Forbes said.

That California, where modern high-tech industry was born, should wage war against Internet-based entities is bizarre. It demonstrates the madness of its political class. California faces a budget shortfall of $10 billion. 

This new tax might collect $200 million from Amazon and others. That's hardly a drop in the bucket. More fundamentally, it will force Amazon to sever its relationships with thousands of its affiliates. This new tax law will hurt other online retailers and their affiliates, which will damage the state economy by considerably more than that $200 million. Talk about being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

The Times' editorial board took the opposite position: Amazon has the unfair advantage of lower prices without sales tax that brick-and-mortar retailers don't have. Most consumers don't know they're required to pay sales tax regardless of whether it is collected for them, so the current debate will, at the very least, make them aware of that obligation.

Simple: The so-called Amazon-tax law isn't a tax at all. It doesn't impose any new obligation on Californians, who have been required for decades to pay sales taxes on goods purchased from out-of-state sellers. The law that has driven Amazon to such fits governs solely whether the tax gets added to the bill at checkout or, instead, the buyer bears the full legal burden of calculating and remitting the tax. Amazon and other online retailers may claim that it's just too hard and too expensive for them to figure out the different sales taxes levied by each state, but of course what they really don't want to lose is the tax-cheat business model that gives them a bottom-line advantage over their brick-and-mortar counterparts.

--Samantha Schaefer

Kansas, California scrutinize ATT/T-mobile deal

By Greg Bensinger

NEW YORK -(MarketWatch)

Add Kansas, home of Sprint Nextel Corp. and California to the growing list of attorneys general investigating AT&T Inc.'s proposed $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile USA.

The offices of Kansas's and California's top prosecutors, Derek Schmidt and Kamala Harris, respectively, are seeking information related to the AT&T merger bid, according to a July letters to the Federal Communications Commission posted Mondy to the agency's website. Schmidt and Harris join attorneys general from New York, Minnesota, Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania and Washington in seeking additional information about the deal, proposed in March.

Sprint has been one of the most vocal opponents of the AT&T deal, saying it will stifle competition and damage smaller carriers' ability to keep prices down. The deal will expand AT&T's planned fourth-generation network offering to more Americans, the Dallas-based carrier has said.

AT&T was recently up 2.1%, or 59 cents, to $28.81. T-Mobile USA is a subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom AG. 

California's Public Utilities Commission is conducting a formal review of the deal.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

IRS: Woman claims 19 non-existent children


The Associated Press
Published: Monday, Aug. 15, 2011 - 9:38 pm
Last Modified: Tuesday, Aug. 16, 2011 - 7:40 am

LOS ANGELES– The Internal Revenue Service says a 40-year-old Northern California woman is facing charges that she helped prepare false tax returns and obtained fraudulent Social Security numbers for at least 19 non-existent children.

Norma Coronel was indicted on 35 counts earlier this year in Los Angeles.  She was arrested July 12 in Livermore and made her initial court appearance in Los Angeles on Monday.
The IRS says Coronel claimed that all the children had been born to her at a Los Angeles hospital on Dec. 11, 2002, then obtained fraudulent Social Security numbers for them and claimed them as dependents. Hospital records show she gave birth to one child, a boy, on that date.

Coronel faces up to 143 years in prison and $5.6 million in fines if convicted of all charges.