|
|
Judge: Wal-Mart let a NY church challenge sales
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-12-13 13:10:12
That's interesting about Yankee Stadium. I wonder if there's a loophole that led to that arrangement, because any information I've found says that the tax-free arrangement is only on property that is not used for profit. Here's a source that, although incomplete, seems pretty unbiased.
Tax Exemptions of Religious Property$1/year is hardly profitable. The lessee is allowed to profit, and one would hope pays taxes on that profit. But the holy mother the church wasn't profiting and payed no taxes on the land or the stadium.
Oh, I see what you're saying now. Exploiting tax loopholes such as that are a common practice in business, but it still seems rather shady and dishonest.
Shady, dishonest, and praised by businessmen and shareholders.
In any case, the church should be liable for capital gains on investments even as a non-profit, but I can't seem to find any concrete information on that.
Edit: I don't know if this is 100%, but it seems they are not liable for taxes on any profits made from investments as long as they retain 501(c)(3) status.
Turbo-Tax, not exactly the MOST credible source, but...
By Enuyasha 2014-12-14 18:13:25
The stockholders can still vote it down. All the court said was that Walmart unfairly removed the proposal from the meeting materials. The fact that it was a church that proposed it seems kind of irrelevant since any shareholder could have done the same thing.
Not sure why this was particularly newsworthy. /shrug
I think its because its likely only a tip of the iceberg type of situation. Setting precedence kinda. If a church here is able to start influencing what is allowed to be sold or what not based on there religion then its likely only a matter of time before others try the same thing. And then it spirals out of control like everything always seems to. - And there's already been a lot of 'religion dictating ppls lives' lately. Like that law this week about EMTs don't have to help ppl if there gay. So i could see why ppl are worried about the idea of a church doing this.
On a separate note: Since when is a church allowed to be a shareholder of anything? Arnt they supposed to be a private organization? I don't see how you can claim tax except status as a church and throw you hand into business as well. An individual maybe, but not the organization. I wont pretend to know all corporate law, but it seems wrong to me. INB4: "Organizations are persons too" debate.
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3996
By Odin.Godofgods 2014-12-14 18:47:37
The stockholders can still vote it down. All the court said was that Walmart unfairly removed the proposal from the meeting materials. The fact that it was a church that proposed it seems kind of irrelevant since any shareholder could have done the same thing.
Not sure why this was particularly newsworthy. /shrug
I think its because its likely only a tip of the iceberg type of situation. Setting precedence kinda. If a church here is able to start influencing what is allowed to be sold or what not based on there religion then its likely only a matter of time before others try the same thing. And then it spirals out of control like everything always seems to. - And there's already been a lot of 'religion dictating ppls lives' lately. Like that law this week about EMTs don't have to help ppl if there gay. So i could see why ppl are worried about the idea of a church doing this.
On a separate note: Since when is a church allowed to be a shareholder of anything? Arnt they supposed to be a private organization? I don't see how you can claim tax except status as a church and throw you hand into business as well. An individual maybe, but not the organization. I wont pretend to know all corporate law, but it seems wrong to me. INB4: "Organizations are persons too" debate.
for the record; i hate that word. persons. It annoys the heck outa me. People. Person. Persons
 Garuda.Chanti
Server: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11142
By Garuda.Chanti 2014-12-14 19:00:57
That's interesting about Yankee Stadium. I wonder if there's a loophole that led to that arrangement, because any information I've found says that the tax-free arrangement is only on property that is not used for profit. Here's a source that, although incomplete, seems pretty unbiased.
Tax Exemptions of Religious Property$1/year is hardly profitable. The lessee is allowed to profit, and one would hope pays taxes on that profit. But the holy mother the church wasn't profiting and payed no taxes on the land or the stadium. Oh, I see what you're saying now. Exploiting tax loopholes such as that are a common practice in business, but it still seems rather shady and dishonest. Shady, dishonest, and standard practice for centuries.
I have no idea when it started, but long before Martin Luther and the Protestant reformation.
Entire cities and principalities were given to the church.
By Enuyasha 2014-12-14 19:05:18
The stockholders can still vote it down. All the court said was that Walmart unfairly removed the proposal from the meeting materials. The fact that it was a church that proposed it seems kind of irrelevant since any shareholder could have done the same thing.
Not sure why this was particularly newsworthy. /shrug
I think its because its likely only a tip of the iceberg type of situation. Setting precedence kinda. If a church here is able to start influencing what is allowed to be sold or what not based on there religion then its likely only a matter of time before others try the same thing. And then it spirals out of control like everything always seems to. - And there's already been a lot of 'religion dictating ppls lives' lately. Like that law this week about EMTs don't have to help ppl if there gay. So i could see why ppl are worried about the idea of a church doing this.
On a separate note: Since when is a church allowed to be a shareholder of anything? Arnt they supposed to be a private organization? I don't see how you can claim tax except status as a church and throw you hand into business as well. An individual maybe, but not the organization. I wont pretend to know all corporate law, but it seems wrong to me. INB4: "Organizations are persons too" debate.
for the record; i hate that word. persons. It annoys the heck outa me. People. Person. PersonsI had to google if "Persons" is actually a word after i used it.
It is. Ye olde englishes.
 Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-12-14 22:01:55
The stockholders can still vote it down. All the court said was that Walmart unfairly removed the proposal from the meeting materials. The fact that it was a church that proposed it seems kind of irrelevant since any shareholder could have done the same thing.
Not sure why this was particularly newsworthy. /shrug
I think its because its likely only a tip of the iceberg type of situation. Setting precedence kinda. If a church here is able to start influencing what is allowed to be sold or what not based on there religion then its likely only a matter of time before others try the same thing. And then it spirals out of control like everything always seems to. - And there's already been a lot of 'religion dictating ppls lives' lately. Like that law this week about EMTs don't have to help ppl if there gay. So i could see why ppl are worried about the idea of a church doing this.
On a separate note: Since when is a church allowed to be a shareholder of anything? Arnt they supposed to be a private organization? I don't see how you can claim tax except status as a church and throw you hand into business as well. An individual maybe, but not the organization. I wont pretend to know all corporate law, but it seems wrong to me. The church is a shareholder with voting rights, for all intents and purposes part owner. Of course they can influence what is sold or not.
Churches have pension funds and investments, like any other non-profit organization.
[+]
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-12-14 22:06:26
That's interesting about Yankee Stadium. I wonder if there's a loophole that led to that arrangement, because any information I've found says that the tax-free arrangement is only on property that is not used for profit. Here's a source that, although incomplete, seems pretty unbiased.
Tax Exemptions of Religious Property$1/year is hardly profitable. The lessee is allowed to profit, and one would hope pays taxes on that profit. But the holy mother the church wasn't profiting and payed no taxes on the land or the stadium.
Oh, I see what you're saying now. Exploiting tax loopholes such as that are a common practice in business, but it still seems rather shady and dishonest.
Shady, dishonest, and praised by businessmen and shareholders.
In any case, the church should be liable for capital gains on investments even as a non-profit, but I can't seem to find any concrete information on that.
Edit: I don't know if this is 100%, but it seems they are not liable for taxes on any profits made from investments as long as they retain 501(c)(3) status.
Turbo-Tax, not exactly the MOST credible source, but... If the church purchases the stock/bonds/etc (as far as I understand) they have to pay capital gains taxes.
If it was donated to the church, they do not have to pay capital gains taxes.
Edit
example from a church website on donating
[+]
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3996
By Odin.Godofgods 2014-12-15 00:10:43
The stockholders can still vote it down. All the court said was that Walmart unfairly removed the proposal from the meeting materials. The fact that it was a church that proposed it seems kind of irrelevant since any shareholder could have done the same thing.
Not sure why this was particularly newsworthy. /shrug
I think its because its likely only a tip of the iceberg type of situation. Setting precedence kinda. If a church here is able to start influencing what is allowed to be sold or what not based on there religion then its likely only a matter of time before others try the same thing. And then it spirals out of control like everything always seems to. - And there's already been a lot of 'religion dictating ppls lives' lately. Like that law this week about EMTs don't have to help ppl if there gay. So i could see why ppl are worried about the idea of a church doing this.
On a separate note: Since when is a church allowed to be a shareholder of anything? Arnt they supposed to be a private organization? I don't see how you can claim tax except status as a church and throw you hand into business as well. An individual maybe, but not the organization. I wont pretend to know all corporate law, but it seems wrong to me. INB4: "Organizations are persons too" debate.
[Robin Hood in Reverse]
Here's the church
There's the steeple
Open up the door
Corporations are people!
Wait what did he say?
What the f*** did he say?!
It couldn't last
They had to crash
Some parties are just made that way
But when the bell rings
The boys will sing
Swing low sweet precariat
Let's say we try to get this right
Said the plutocrat to jesus christ
And when the old fox fearing the worst
Made his entrance in a hearse
Then the nine in black robes all went berserk
This is a tale of robin hood in reverse
By Voren 2014-12-15 00:23:34
Still nothing new. Churches have been influencing culture and politics since its inception. Wars have been blessed, kings made/over thrown, and people subjugated.
This is basically the 20th/21st century version and nothing more. They can try to influence what is/isn't sold at WalMart, but in the end they all will bow at give praise at the alter of the almighty dollar.
Garuda.Chanti
Server: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11142
By Garuda.Chanti 2014-12-15 00:28:00
Oh... The concept of the Prince Bishop or Prince arch Bishop seems to go back to the mid 900s.
Can't remember his name, German, sire to all those Ottos who married all those Byzantine princesses. He seems to be the first to appoint clergy as secular rulers.
They probably all had torture chambers and on staff tortures. It was pretty standard back then.
WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE BETTER ABOUT THAT STUFF NOW.
/blush
Sorry still ****** about the current derail in the torture report thread.
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-12-15 00:29:08
That's interesting about Yankee Stadium. I wonder if there's a loophole that led to that arrangement, because any information I've found says that the tax-free arrangement is only on property that is not used for profit. Here's a source that, although incomplete, seems pretty unbiased.
Tax Exemptions of Religious Property$1/year is hardly profitable. The lessee is allowed to profit, and one would hope pays taxes on that profit. But the holy mother the church wasn't profiting and payed no taxes on the land or the stadium.
Oh, I see what you're saying now. Exploiting tax loopholes such as that are a common practice in business, but it still seems rather shady and dishonest.
Shady, dishonest, and praised by businessmen and shareholders.
In any case, the church should be liable for capital gains on investments even as a non-profit, but I can't seem to find any concrete information on that.
Edit: I don't know if this is 100%, but it seems they are not liable for taxes on any profits made from investments as long as they retain 501(c)(3) status.
Turbo-Tax, not exactly the MOST credible source, but... If the church purchases the stock/bonds/etc (as far as I understand) they have to pay capital gains taxes.
If it was donated to the church, they do not have to pay capital gains taxes.
Edit
example from a church website on donating
The difference seems to be on the end of the party doing the donating, not the church. But, it seems that the deciding factor is income incurred outside of the "basic purpose" of the organization. It seems like a bit of a grey area, but yeah, they should be liable for capital gains on Walmart stocks they hold.
 Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13624
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-12-15 00:29:24
Oh... The concept of the Prince Bishop or Prince arch Bishop seems to go back to the mid 900s.
Can't remember his name, German, sire to all those Ottos who married all those Byzantine princesses. He seems to be the first to appoint clergy as secular rulers.
They probably all had torture chambers and on staff tortures. It was pretty standard back then.
WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE BETTER ABOUT THAT STUFF NOW.
/blush
Sorry still ****** about the current derail in the torture report thread.
/comfort. I really hate it when people derail threads. What's your favorite type of doughnut Chanti?
Garuda.Chanti
Server: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11142
By Garuda.Chanti 2014-12-15 00:43:09
Still nothing new. Churches have been influencing culture and politics since its inception. Wars have been blessed, kings made/over thrown, and people subjugated. This has been going on since it was chiefs and shamans.
Quote: This is basically the 20th/21st century version and nothing more. They can try to influence what is/isn't sold at WalMart, but in the end they all will bow at give praise at the alter of the almighty dollar. Not all of them. A few, like the current pope, remember the "If you have two coats give one to the poor" part.
But on the other hand we have "prosperity" theology.
I have studied Christian and Catholic theology as an outsider.
I have often pointed out that if the devil can quote the scriptures he can also open up divinity schools and teach false interpretations of the scriptures. I think "prosperity" theology the single best example of that.
I can't remember a Christian who disagreed with me on that one.
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-12-15 17:00:17
The fact that it was a church that proposed it seems kind of irrelevant since any shareholder could have done the same thing.
I'm more curious how a tax exempt faction/entity is able to hold stock to begin with, for one of the largest, most profitable retail chains in the nation at that. I'm sure it's on the up and up, but it's still just a little unsettling that that's kosher. As long as the income from the ownership of the stock is less than 30% of the total income from the non-profit corporation, the exempt status 501(c)(3) is not in jeopardy.
Plus, the church (is supposed to) pays the taxes on that income at ordinary rates.
Side edit: I mean all income from stock ownership and unrelated business income. The church cannot receive more than 30% of all income from these sources, or it loses it's tax exempt status.
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-12-15 17:04:09
That's interesting about Yankee Stadium. I wonder if there's a loophole that led to that arrangement, because any information I've found says that the tax-free arrangement is only on property that is not used for profit. Here's a source that, although incomplete, seems pretty unbiased.
Tax Exemptions of Religious Property$1/year is hardly profitable. The lessee is allowed to profit, and one would hope pays taxes on that profit. But the holy mother the church wasn't profiting and payed no taxes on the land or the stadium.
Oh, I see what you're saying now. Exploiting tax loopholes such as that are a common practice in business, but it still seems rather shady and dishonest.
Shady, dishonest, and praised by businessmen and shareholders.
In any case, the church should be liable for capital gains on investments even as a non-profit, but I can't seem to find any concrete information on that.
Edit: I don't know if this is 100%, but it seems they are not liable for taxes on any profits made from investments as long as they retain 501(c)(3) status.
Turbo-Tax, not exactly the MOST credible source, but... If the church purchases the stock/bonds/etc (as far as I understand) they have to pay capital gains taxes.
If it was donated to the church, they do not have to pay capital gains taxes.
Edit
example from a church website on donatingThe basis of the stock they receive is at fair market value of the date of the donation. Any gains arise from it is subject to capital gains tax.
However, donated stock is exempt from the 30% UBIT rules. But only donated.
501(c)(3)s still have to separate and report all owned stock per year in their filing of Form 990. Failure to do so revokes their exempt status automatically, and they are penalized up to the full amount of the stock not reported itself. Not exactly a good strategy to hide ownership from the IRS in this case.
[+]
Quote: Judge orders Wal-Mart to let a New York church challenge gun sales
Proposal to force tighter oversight of its sale of high-capacity guns and other potentially offensive products.
A federal judge ordered Wal-Mart Stores Inc WMT to let shareholders vote on a proposal to force tighter oversight of its sale of high-capacity guns and other potentially offensive products.
U.S. District Judge Leonard Stark in Wilmington, Delaware on Wednesday said the world’s largest retailer wrongly excluded such a proposal from Trinity Church, a historic Wall Street church, from its June 6 annual meeting.
Stark also granted Trinity an injunction preventing Wal-Mart from excluding the proposal from proxy materials for its 2015 annual meeting, saying a vote would serve the public interest.
The proposal would require the governance committee of Wal-Mart’s board to more closely examine the sale of products that might endanger public safety, hurt Wal-Mart’s reputation, or offend “family and community values” integral to the Bentonville, Arkansas-based company’s brand.
Trinity said these products might include guns with clips holding more than 10 rounds, a type it said “enabled” mass killings in Newtown, Connecticut and Aurora, Colorado; or music that depicts sex or violence. It said Wal-Mart already limits sales of such music.
The April 1 lawsuit was filed two weeks after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued a “no action” letter signaling it would not punish Wal-Mart for excluding the proposal.
Stark said that while it was too late to do anything about the 2014 annual meeting, the SEC letter did not end the matter. He went on to reject Wal-Mart’s argument that Trinity’s proposal was too vague, potentially covering a broad swath of products.
“The proposal does not dictate any particular outcome or micro-manage Wal-Mart’s day-to-day business,” Stark wrote.
Wal-Mart spokesman Randy Hargrove said the retailer may appeal the decision.
“Trinity’s proposal would interfere with Walmart’s ordinary business operations by seeking to regulate Walmart’s daily decisions on the hundreds of thousands of products sold,” he said.
Hargrove added that in U.S. areas it sells firearms in the United States, Wal-Mart has “a long standing commitment to do so safely and responsibly,” under standards that “greatly exceed” what the law requires.
Trinity’s rector, the Rev. James Cooper, welcomed the decision.
“On critical issues such as the sale of products that may threaten the safety or well-being of communities, corporate boards must exercise their oversight role to assure balance among customer, shareholder, and societal interests,” he said.
The case is Trinity Wall Street v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, No. 14-00405.
Source
|
|
