Answers in Genesis has been playing fast and loose with their taxation status: AiG itself is a religious non-profit, but they created a for-profit subsidiary to handle their theme park…and apparently, they shuffle tax-deductible donations to one to the other. The FFRF has lawyers who are trying to sic the IRS on them.
Nonprofits can run for-profit companies that are related to a charitable purpose, including a religious purpose. But, in order to obtain tax breaks, AiG has taken great pains to assure the state of Kentucky and other government entities that Ark Encounter will be operated as a private, for-profit business. The Ark Encounter website admits, “The for-profit LLC structure also allows the Ark Encounter to be eligible for various economic development incentives that would not have been available with a non-profit structure.”
“Answers in Genesis cannot have it both ways,” said FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Either the Ark Encounter is a religious enterprise and is eligible for tax-exempt donations, or AiG and Ark Encounter can be taken at their word that the park is purely a commercial enterprise.” In the latter case, then AiG is not “‘operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific’ or other exempt purposes,” as required for exempt status, and should lose its tax exemption, FFRF contends.
Going after the money? Now that’ll make Ken Ham squeal.
“Follow the money,” yes, always. But in AiG/AP’s case, you don’t really need to follow it. The connections to money have always seemed obvious. Just as obvious is that the “religious non-profit” aspect is the front for the scam.
“Now that’ll make Ken Ham squeal.”
Most appropriate pun of the decade.
Considering the IRS won’t go after chrurches when preachers campaign from the pulpit, it is hard to see AiG getting even cursory review.
Or, if they do, it will be as cause célèbre for the GOP next year to fight the war on Christians ™
Does not compute. To make sure they don’t pay taxes, it’s important that we know they are profiting from this?
I know, I know, I get it. You say the magic words “economic development incentives” and you are instantly transported to bizarro world, where we now live. So somehow it makes sense in the story. But please, nobody spoil the ending for me. I’m just so excited to see how it turns out.
I’ve been thinking for a while that Ken Ham had been taking tax advice from Kent Hovind. Even if that’s not entirely accurate, it sure seems plausible.
“Answers in Genesis cannot have it both ways,”
Sure they can. Just claim it’s a metaphor.
Wasn’t there information a while back that they basically poured money from the AiG nonprofit into Ark Encounter worthless bonds because no one was buying the things? That’s basically the same thing – AiG money (whether from donations or sales of materials) flowing directly into AE. I guess if they got away with that, putting a “tax deductable, for Ark Encounter” checkbox on the AiG donation page is not really any worse. I have this oh-so-unpleasant feeling that these kinds of things may be legal. I bet a lot of Churches in the US do this kind of thing.
@peterh #2
Substituting ham for pig? In other words “name that sounds like a piece of meat sliced from this animal” for “this animal”. Fitting. Punny. Not really “most appropriate of the decade”.
*”this animal and the sound it makes when frustrated, scared or in pain.”
Since a ham is the hind portion of a pig . . . . .
Gives new dimensions to the cliché “Blow it out your ass.”
But I didn’t, (for a while), and to help others, who might be struggling with this conundrum:
(Explicit) tax exemptions can only be given to corporations that are NOT religious, by 1st Amendment rules. And non-profits cannot be taxed in the first place (1st Amendment again), so how to exempt them from a tax they are not charged for at all; only those one taxes can be given a break from those taxes. So if Hammy wants the tax break he has to say his park is a profitable business, he can’t claim the profits from it are immune to taxation by 1st Amendment rules. And he can’t just say it is nontaxable non-profit while raking in huge profits. He is just gaming the systems to keep, for himself, all the dough that all the gullibles throw to him.
Re: peterh @ #9…
Considering the expression “in a pig’s eye” is the bowdlerized version of the original expression, your cliche is entirely appropriate.
Re: twas brillig @ #10…
Not for profit entities are not forbidden to make a profit. They’re forbidden distributing the profits to benefit individuals. AiG could make a ton of money…but Ham can’t just pay it to himself.
Sounds very much like what the mormon church does in relation to their many, many for-profit ventures. One has to wonder if they use some of the same accountants and lawyers.
Scam at all levels.