Creepy televangelist Kenneth Copeland's opulence is finally getting some senate and media attention. Republican (!) Sen. Chuck Grassley asked several prominent televangelists for financial information. He specifically requested details about aircraft owned by Copeland’s Church. Copeland replied in the above fashion that this is between him and God alone (http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=1401).

Copeland's message is simple enough: If you donate money, seed, to him, you'll become rich too, because Jesus will reward you for your faith, as, according to Copeland, Bible believers receive the hundredfold return on their seed (if you stay poor, blame yourself for your lack of faith). In that respect, it isn't exactly good taste from him to preach that to the poorest of the poor in South America and Africa, but that might just be me. And it might just be me who suggests that him disappearing from the board of Oral Roberts University, that then vowed to have higher standards of financial accountability (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/29/primarysource/entry3767306.shtml), is more than a freak accident. No, obviously, it's the forces of Satan conspiring against him.

In any case, Copeland made news for letting his followers donate him a sexy new Cessna Citiation X (http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa070228_mo_churchjet.87be631.html), so far the fastest biz jet around, and worth some 17,5-or-so million dollars. Coupled with his general billionaire lifestyle it strongly suggests the question whether his tax exempt church truly deserves that privileged status.

To me the man is utterly revolting, and so I gleefully await his inevitable final encounter with the IRS. But then, he probably has some sly bookkeepers.

Revolting here, too. This whole preaching style (if you give, you will be financially rewarded, along with if you believe enough it will be give to you) is a disturbing trend that was very popular a few decades ago ('80s and early '90s), but is obviously still kicking around. Most, if not all, of the pastors preaching this are essentially con-men selling snake-oil. I wish he could be charged as a con-artist, but these guys generally don't promise any particular and measurable gain.

Well since its proven that the bible is completely made up-he is a con-artist, and should get spanked. But people are giving him money willingly, no? If people are stupid enough to do that, they don`t deserve any better. Kudos to him for making cash.

Well since its proven that the bible is completely made up...

Ok, I'm seriously hoping you're joking here, but I'm terribly afraid you're not. Please tell me you are.

Most everything in the bible is based on Egyptian religion and mythology. The bible was written by a greek king about 300 years after the events in the new testament. The name Jesus is also greek, mind you. Its just a book written to controll the masses.

God's work is not about temporal things like money, but rather about spiritual matters like love, forgiveness and repentance. Further, any money raised above and beyond what is needed to keep the ministry afloat (responsibly) is to further these ends, like helping the poor and needy, coming to the aid of people in disaster striken areas or what have you. I don't claim to know what Copeland claims the money is going to, but I bet that he is embezzling way too much of it. That would be where the criminal charges come in...

Rawgrim: We've gone down that route in other threads before. I have no desire to go through that again.

Its ok, Gnarf. NOG and I are having a productive discussion about it in PM. So there is no spite going around, nor any fear of it either.

This is pretty standard practice in most large congregations. Look at rev. wright, he of the loud voice, he sold a piece of land that he had purchased to his church for less than he paid for it & now they are building him a 10,000 sq. ft house with a $10 million dollar church account attached to it. Which, sense they are a tax-exempt entity, they never have to disclose what they spent the money on. Gotta love those church loop-holes.
Heck the baptist church up the road is just as bad, the head preacher has a house that the church pays for, 2 cars that are replaced every 3 years, $60K a year in salary & $10k a year into college funds for his kids. Heck the 2 part-time childrens preachers who work at the church 1 day a week make $25k a year each. Thats pretty good for (8x52=416) about 400 hrs work a year.
I think religion is a good thing for a lot of people but it seems to have become a business.

Oh well, as long as people are stupid enough to freely donate their money to him, he can keep it (why bring in the IRS anyway? They're gifts from one - stupid - person to another, why do you think that you deserve a slice?)
Frankly, I'd rather have greedy televangelists running around instead of greedy bureaucrats, I'm at least not forced to pay the televangelists, any donation they receive happens with mutual consent.

Martaug, that isn't standard of most churches I've seen or been in. Many of the ones, even fairly big ones, I've seen are struggling, with aging equipment, poor pay for everyone, and a house for the pastor that should have been torn down a decade ago. Mind you, it is standard practice for the church to provide a house for the pastor and his family.

As for Revs. Wright, Sharpton, and the like, they're just as bad as this guy.

EDIT: Just remembered the name of this kind of theology: Prosperity Theology. Basically it says one of two things: if you give money, money will be given to you in X amount more than you gave (total BS) and if you believe enough, whatever you want will be given (more total BS).

I've never been fond of televangelists -- their venality has been proved far too often IMHO. As a person of faith I believe that people should be allowed to do as they wish with their money in terms of their faith (I pay a tithing of 10% to my religion) but if it can be proved that a preacher is committing fraud the government should punish him (or her) severely.

In Copeland's case, he should be required to turn over his records to an investigating authority, just as I think all people should do if the evidence warrants a court order to do so.

@ NOG, notice that i said most LARGE congregations, this church is the largest one in town besides the catholic church & has a membership of around 2,000. I knew a lady that worked in the church doing their paperwork, she said it wasn't unusual for them to take in at least $50k every sunday in donations. They do a lot for the community but all of their preachers are well compensated. Like morgoth said people are doing it of their own free will so it doesn't matter what we think. This is also the church that all the community muckity-mucks go to, so they have a very well-to-do congregation.

I think the IRS is interested in Copeland's personal salary and how much he is personally syphoning off the donated sums, and whether or not he's paying enough taxes. The donations go to his ministry, not him. There is likely some embezzlement going on as well...

I'm currently in a church with a registered congregation of about 3,000, and Sunday attendance fluctuates from ~2,500 to 5,000 and what I described is the current case. Of course, some of that is due to poor financial planning in the past, but we've been struggling for some time.

Gnarf, the pastor's salary is also tax exempt. The question would come down to is he embezzling funds and do the church's activities warrant the tax-exempt status.

Gnarf, the pastor's salary is also tax exempt. The question would come down to is he embezzling funds and do the church's activities warrant the tax-exempt status.Are you sure? While certain fringe benefits like medical insurance premiums, group life insurance, cafeteria plans, or housing stipends paid for or provided by the church are deductable, a minister's salary is still subject to the income tax. Granted, ministers often don't pay taxes, but this is actually because their food, housing, medical, and life insurance are already provided for them by the church. With all of those fringe benefits, their actual salaries are often low enough that they needn't pay taxes on them*.

* In the catholic church, some order priests like the Friars of the Atonement take a vow of poverty and don't even receive a salary. Their food, clothing, housing and (if needed) car are all provided for by the church, in addition to a tiny monthly stipend. They don't pay taxes...but they're also poor.

He specifically requested details about aircraft owned by Copeland’s Church. Copeland replied in the above fashion that this is between him and God alone (http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=1401).

Right, and I'm sure the good pastor has a couple of lighting rods around his house ;) What a hypocrite.

Drew, my brother is seriously considering becoming a full time pastor, and that's one of the things he was suprised to find. The pastor's salary from the church is tax-exempt. Now, private speaking gigs, CD sales, etc. are all taxable income, but the salary for being a pastor is tax-exempt.

NOG, it likely depends on the method of pay. If the pay consists of a housing allowance, a clothing allowance, food allowance, a per diem, etc, it probably wouldn't be taxed, but the CPA I asked (I called a friend before posting because I didn't want to look like a dumbass) told me that yes, a minister's salary, if he has one, will still be taxed. Maybe Snook should weigh in with his professional opinion...

Right, and I'm sure the good pastor has a couple of lighting rods around his house ;) Reminds me of playing PnP, where we had a obstructive/destructive player, and at times he played along so moronic that our DM intervened: You hear roaring thunder, lightning is striking into the ground all around you. Care to make a saving throw? ...

In the "tax guide for churches & religious organizations" it says "unlike other exempt businesses or organizations, a church is not required to withhold income tax from the compensation that it pays to its duly ordained, commisioned or licensed ministers for performing services in exercise of the ministry"
It also says that " the compensation that a church pays to its ministers is not subject to FICA taxes"

Well, I don't know if the 'salary' being talked about was done through allowances or whether the CPA you talked to assumed a church would be the same as any other tax-exempt institution (which Martaug's post indicates it isn't), but I know the salary in discussion was tax exempt.

The difference as I understand it is that, while a church isn't required to withhold income tax or FICA from the compensation that it pays its ministers, the ministers themselves still have to pay taxes on their income. That said, it doesn't appear at all uncommon for churches to pay their ministers through a series of "allowances", so I don't doubt in the least what your brother is telling you about his compensation being tax-free.

NOG, it likely depends on the method of pay. If the pay consists of a housing allowance, a clothing allowance, food allowance, a per diem, etc, it probably wouldn't be taxed, but the CPA I asked (I called a friend before posting because I didn't want to look like a dumbass) told me that yes, a minister's salary, if he has one, will still be taxed. Maybe Snook should weigh in with his professional opinion...

Paging Snook, here I am.

1. Churches are strange entities in the US tax code. They are basically non-entities and do not have to file tax returns except for their unrelated business income. The majority of them have never filed a tax return and fly completly under the radar. To call them tax-exempt is almost incorrect as most tax-exempt entities are 501(c)(3) entities which are classified as "public charities". The IRS has a huge problem with all of this, but there isn't much they can do. In order to go after a church (or temple, mosque, etc.) they first have to prove that it really isn't a church. There are plenty of scammers who create phony churches and declare themselves the minister. This all brings us to point 2.

2. How are ministers (which includes rabbis, imans, preists, and anybody else who runs a group of worship) taxed. The salary paid to the minister is taxable. However, ministers also receive a "housing allowance". This housing allowance is treated as a "sole propertiership" on the ministers tax return. The amount they receive is the income. Now comes the great part. All of the ministers expenses to run their household are deductions against this income. This includes bascially everything in their life (mortgage payments, real estate taxes, food, supplies, repairs, clothing, and everything else that a claim can be made they need to do to run the household.

3. It doesn't take a genius to see, that most ministers get a very low salary, and as huge of a housing allowance as they can can squeeze out of their church. This is why this entire area is rife with fraud.

It doesn't take a genius to see, that most ministers get a very low salary, and as huge of a housing allowance as they can can squeeze out of their church. This is why this entire area is rife with fraud.

So at what point is it no longer Tax Evasion and straight up Fraud? It sounds as if Copeland is abusing his expense account, housing allowance and whatever else he milks his congregation for.

Makes me think that paid ministry is a bad Idea...

So at what point is it no longer Tax Evasion and straight up Fraud? It sounds as if Copeland is abusing his expense account, housing allowance and whatever else he milks his congregation for.

Makes me think that paid ministry is a bad Idea...

Exactly, and that is why the IRS always has fits as the religious organizations do not have to file returns and they have a very hard time proving anything. With a public charity the government has an interest in making sure that the donor's wishes are carried out. Since religous organizaitons are not public charities there really isn't anyone with the ability to look into it. Therefore if you lead your own church and convince enough people to give you enough money you can buy pretty much whatever you want tax free. There have been cases where people have bought islands and huge estates all for the express purpose of the minister's house and to run the operations.

I wonder how it is over here, I have actually no idea. Up until a decade or so ago the protestant church and the state were the same entity while there were still other churches. Now the old state church is officially separated and on it's own but it still own's like gazillions in land and property not to mention that you have actively leave it if you don't want to tithe them which means that they have the right to collect tithes as taxes and your default state is a paying member. You have to make a conscious decision to leave. It is completely screwed up.

Churches (religions) should just be viewed as profit seeking corporations and taxed and audited as such. Oh, if they were, wonder if they could be charged with fraud or at least misleading advertisement. ;)

The tax privilege also exists in Germany. We don't tax churches, but we set the bar of what's a church much higher than in the US. Consequently Germany treats non-churches like a profit seeking enterprises. That is probably Scientology's biggest problem with Germany. That German authorities also view them as an exploitative cult and a security risk probably comes second. But I digress.

I believe that the onus should be on the church involved to prove that it is a charitable institution and therefore should be tax free. Sounds like the Germans have it down pretty well.

joacqin, how difficult is it to opt out of membership in that former state church you mentioned? I agree that the default setting should be a non-member, with people who desire to have their income given to the church being the ones who need to fill out forms, rather than the other way around. A sacrifice that someone else makes with your money without your express consent isn't really a sacrifice in the Biblical sense!

It's not that hard at all to get out of the Swedish Church; just fill in some papers and you're done with it.

Yeah, it isn't hard but it is something you have to actively do. It took me eight years to get around to it, did it just this spring, and I think most of you know my views about religion.

I agree that the default setting should be a non-member

Unless the state church system is very different in Sweden (which I doubt since we got our system from them) I think the default setting is in fact non-member, however in practice all children are registered under the religion that their parents are registered in and because most if not all people have historically been member of the state church (or in our case churches since the Orthodox church also has a similar status) it is up to someone in the family to cut those ties. Neither of my parents are very religious but they are still members of the state church the same goes for me. I guess it's sort of a tradition to be a member even if you're not religious and it takes someone with sufficent conviction to break that tradition.