Christmas gift suggestions:
To your enemy, forgiveness.
To an opponent, tolerance.
To a friend, your heart.
To a customer, service.
To all, charity.
To every child, a good example.
To yourself, respect.
-Oren Arnold
(from 'In God's Name' by David Yallop)
". . . Albino Luciani then gave an extraordinary demonstration of his own abhorrence of a wealthy, materialistic Church. He exhorted and authorised all of his parish priests and rectors of sanctuaries to sell their gold, necklaces, and precious objects. The proceeds were to go to the Don Orione centre for handicapped people. He advised his readers that he intended to sell the bejewelled (sic) cross and gold chain which had belonged to Pius XII and which Pope John had given to Luciani when he had made him a bishop.
'It is very little in terms of the money it will produce but it is perhaps something if it helps people to understand that the true treasures of the Church are, as St Lorenzo said, the poor, the weak who must be helped not with occasional charity but in such a way that they can be raised a little at a time to that standard of life and that level of culture to which they have a right. . .'"
(Source: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/17/opinion/colinvaux-irs-taxes/index.html)
Roger Colinvaux, associate professor of law at Catholic University of America and former counsel to the U.S. Joint Committee on Taxation
The noise about IRS 'targeting' procedures should not be misinterpreted. The real issue at hand is disclosure of donors, not tax-exempt status. Something tells me that liberal and conservative groups are equally suspect when it comes to revealing donors, but that's just ME.
The IRS is actually in the 'targeting' business. They are an enforcer and are supposed to go after scofflaws, cheaters and dodgers. The guilt lies in the searching of tax returns for names like "tea party", which is clearly a specific group. What they should have done was searched for all such groups as a class, irrespective of political affiliation.
Roger Colinaux writes, ". . . But the extra scrutiny here is less because of tax exemption and more because of other tax benefits that flow from tax-exempt status, such as the ability to receive tax-deductible contributions. Importantly, charitable organizations are not allowed to engage in any political activity, because Congress long ago decided that charity and politics are incompatible. . ."
It's campaign finance law and NOT tax law that dictates public disclosure of donors for political groups but not for social welfare organizations. Mr. Colinaux again, ". . . After the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, it became possible for a 501(c)(4) organization to engage in unlimited amounts of political spending. It thus also became possible for a political organization to use the tax law to hide the identity of donors. After Citizens United, the abuse the IRS is tasked with policing is whether an organization that claims to be a "social welfare" organization is in reality a political organization in disguise. . ."
So its yet another polarizing issue (guess there wouldn't be so much polarization if we weren't limited to only two poles.) and also again, an issue of many barking up the wrong tree.
