« AnteriorContinuar »
i.c. "Why must RBCS file annual Form 990?" (Atch 7). He responded on 7 February 1979, that he could not find my 6 November 1978 letter (although he apparently had the Forms 990 under control), and that he was forwarding my request to the Jacksonville, Florida, office (Atch 8). To facilitate the Jacksonville office's work, I indorsed Mr. Samra's letter and forwarded a copy of my 6 November 1978 letter on 13 February 1979 (Atch 8).
27 February 1979 is an interesting day in this case. On that day, Maye Harper of the Atlanta IRS office wrote that she had iust received y 6 November 1978 letter to Mr. Samra. She explained how our forms may ave been lost, and advised that she sent the 6 November letter to Jacksonville for reply (Atch 9). (I was so pleased with the helpfulness
ponse that I wrote her a letter of thanks on 20 April to which she responded on 3 May. This correspondence is also at Atch 9.)
Also on 27 February. Ms. G. Farley (signed Withers) of the Jacksonville office sent a classic piece of bureaucratic garbage brushing off my question and giving us 60 days to file amendments to our charter since they had no record of them in their file (Atch 10). (Their own copy of our exemption letter, however, indicated that our file had been checked OK after our amendments had been received - see Atch 3.) I believe this is a case of harrassment.
To understand what follows, I must relate something I subsequently
ered: Jacksonville had two separate working files on RBCS with two !1.c case officers (Ms. Farley and Mrs. Dewey) who didn't know what other was doing.
1:19 April 1979, I responded to Ms. Farley's February 27 letter
il)asking her to give a serious answer to my question (she hadn't cien seen my 6 November letter), and providing additional copies of the amendments missing from her file.
On 25 April 1979 I received a phone call from Mrs. Dewey (see MFR at Atch 12), saying she just received my 6 November letter (probably the one sent by Maye Harper). After cordially discussing First Amendment issues, she said she would get with MS. Farley to give me an official response.
On 7 May, I received a very hostile call from Ms. Farley, who had received my 19 April letter but had neither spoken to Mrs. Dewey nor read the rationale in my 6 November letter (see MFR at Atch 13). Before hanging up on me, she said she would leave it to Mrs. Dewey to respond to my question.
On 8 June 1979, Mrs. Dewey provided the IRS response to my question (Atch 14). She quoted two lower court cases which I do not believe are relevant to my argument. At issue in her argument is the definition of a church. I prefer that of Scripture; IRS does not. Her bottom line is that since our exemption letter of 21 October 1974 indicates RBCS is a school, we must file the 990. I took no action to respond to this since I was too busy with other things.
The shocker came when I received from D. Warnick (Jacksonville) an unsigned determination letter modifying our original 21 October 1974 letter (Atch 15). My comparison indicates that the revision imposes on RBCS the unlawful and unconstitutional requirements to collect social security and federal unemployment compensation taxes. It reaffirmed our obligation to file the 990.
I do not consider the unsigned revision authoritative. consider it unlawful harrassment.
On 13 November 1979 I filed our FY 79 Form 990 covered by a letter reaffirming my conviction that IRS errsin asking us to file it (Atch 16). and responding to Dewey's 8 June 1979 answer to previous correspondence. Please see the letter for the exact language, but my bottom line is that IRS does not have constitutional authority to interfere with religious ministries either through tax laws or subversive definitions. I asked if it were the IRS position that Biblical definitions are to be rejected in favor of those of IRS's own making, and again appealed for a finding hat we are not liable to file the Form 990.
I have not yet received a direct response to my 13 November 1979 !!er, but did recieve an IRS form letter dated December 17, 1979,
knowledging receipt of my FY 79 Form 990, and instructing me to provide Guitional information (Atch 17). In my original return, I inadvertently
not check a Part V block indicating the Reason for Non-Private
!'our.dation Status, and also missed the requirement to fill out Part VI. SI.ce their request for additional information only requires a check in Part V. block 2, (they sent no form with Part VI) that is all that I
ending them at this time.
I hope to hear from you before I hear from IRS again. Request Vuo advise me :
1. What action should RBCS take in response to the revised
determination letter dated July 20, 1979?
Should I respond to any more requests for Form 990
3. Where should I go from here in the effort to get IRS to
recognize that they err in asking for the Form 990 from
I have received a copy of your proposed Revenue Procedure on Private Tax-Exempt Schools, announced in the Federal Register of 22 August 1978. I appreciate the opportunity to provide you my comments on a proposal which I firmly believe is unsound and unconstitutional. I respectfully request that you withdraw the proposal from consideration.
Let me first make clear tha: Rocky Bayou Christian School has a genuine nondiscriminatory policy. On both Biblical and Constitutional grounds, we declare that no student will be denied admission on the basis of race, color, or ethnic origin. My objections to your proposed procedures have nothing to do with the goal of facilitating equal opportunity in education. We fully support that goal. I find the proposal objectionable because it is destructive of that goal and the basic liberties guaranteed the American people by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
Birst. I notice that the IRS definition of a racially nondiscriminatory policy requires that the school not discriminate on the basis of race in the administration of its policies. Yet the five factors to be used to determine that a school is nondiscriminatory are blatantly discriminatory and racist. Schools are being asked to demonstrate their nondiscriminatory policies by discriminating on the basis of race. This is nonsense. 1984 is here! Not only is it nonsense, but also it is unconstitutional (if I understand the Bakke decision correctly).
Secondly, the proposal to avoid discrimination by discriminating burdens schools with the administrative cost of keeping records according to race, when we should consider race an irrelevant criterion. I do not count how many blue-eyed/brown-eyed/ green-eyed/icky-eyed students we have. This is irrelevant information. Why does IRS want me to keep records according to racist criteria? I want to see a student as Fred, Sally, or Brian, not as our Black, Chicano, or Asian. Your proposal is destructive of the goal to truly make race an irrelevant criterion. You are requiring decisions based upon racist criteria. You are forcing schools to bear costly, unnecessary administrative burdens to carry out racist actions in the name of nondiscrimination.
If the above the objections were my only objections, I doubt that I would take time out of my very busy schedule to comment on th would not bother RBCS anyway. No court has determined RBCS to be discriminatory; we were not formed about the time of public school desegregation in our community, and we have enough fine students from the ethnic minorities in our community to meet your quota standards. So why should I bother to write to you? The answer lies in the significance of my third objection.
Our constitution incorporates some rather precious liberties which include due process of law and religious freedom. The proposal violates the former because guilt is presumed and the accused is required to go to the expense and trouble of proving innocence. That is backwards. If a school discriminates on the basis of race, those wronged can provide the basis for a legitimate determination of guilt. This illegal procedure is the type of tool tyrannical government can use to intimidate according to whim. For example, as the performance of Christian school students increasingly embarrasses those responsible for the increasing failure of the statist schools to graduate students of academic competence, the already increasing efforts of same governmental officials to elininate the competition could reach a fever pitch. The NEA is already in a state of panic, and is collecting as many political debts as possible. The IRS has great potential in the hands of tyrants. We must be vigilant to insure that government agencies do not violate due process of law.
Similarly, we must insure that government does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendment protection of religious freedom. The power to tax is clearly the power to control and even kill. That is the whole basis of the concept of tax exemption. Thus, the Federal Government cannot tax the State of Florida and vice versa, and neither can tax the religious associations and functions of their citizens. RBCS was founded because of our religious conviction that we must raise our children in accordance with Biblical principles. The secular schools, based upon the religious principles of Secular Humanism, cannot help Christian parents raise up their children to love God with all heart, mind, soul, and strength. The religious presuppositions of Secular Humanism are antithetical to those of Biblical Christianity. One of the main reasons that many of our founding fathers fled Europe was the religious oppression due to the establishment of state religions by various governments. One of the main concerns of the drafters of our precious Constitution was the protection of religious freedom. Sinful man has a natural tendency to oppress others who think differently. It is possible that religious Secular Humanists may gain complete control of our governmental machinery and use it to destroy the ability of Theists to freely practice their religion. I fear we are heading in that direction. I do not know what faith you hold to, Mr. Kurtz, but, our Constitution was designed to protect your freedom to hold and practice that faith. Such freedom is rare on the face of the earth. Most people do not have this freedom; America is in danger of losing it. If the secular state is used to eliminate Christian education, the power to tax will undoubtedly be one of the weapons used. I pray that you do not want that to happen.
Usually, attempts to destroy freedom are disguised as noble attempts to protect it. The issue here is not freedom from arbitrary discrimination. The issue here is control over education, an inherently religious enterprise. I ask you to reverse the dangerous direction of current IRS policy by withdrawing the proposed procedures. you do that Mr. Kurtz? I await your reply with great expectations.
I have carefully reviewed the Revised procedure on Private Tax-teapt Schools published in the 13 Pebruary 1979 federal Register and partially corrected in the 26 February 1979 Federal Register. Although RBOS meets your ethnic minority quotas and therefore would fit the criteria for neither a "discriminatory" nor revievable school," I add ry voice to those of hundreds of thousands of Americans concerned about the extent to which big government has extended its social engineering into the family life of our citizens. Your revision of the Procedures failed to remove their repugnance to our Constitutional libertios.
The issue is not racial discrimination; RBCS finds racial discrimination contrary to Biblical principles. The issue is whether our freedom to raise and educate our children according to Biblical principles will be trampled upon by bureaucracies such as yours. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was designed to prevent government entanglement in religious affairs. Yet we find that government has violated the Amendment's Establishment clause by establishing in the government school system the religious presuppositions and practicing faith of Secular Humanism. The unconstitutional establishment of this anti-Christian faith and practice in the tax-financed government schools has driven many Christian parents to pay tuition, in addition to required school taxes, to enable their children to be educated in accordance with Biblical principles rather than those of Secular Humanism. To so educate our children is a God-given responsibility protected by the First Amendment's Free Exercise clause. Yet we see increasing governmental efforts to deny such liberty. John Dewey and his Humanistic followers have made it clear that they will not be satisfied until all
n education is monopolized by those seeking to establish a secular society on a planetary scale. Mr. Kurtz, your organization should not be used as an instrument to eliminate the most precious of our freedoms.
The First Amendment bars the Federal Government fron using the tax power or any other power to either establish a stato religion or prevent the free exercise of religion. Your proposal violates the Constitutional barrier.
t Federal aid. It is not a benefit to be denied to religious groups not conforming to the Humanistic faith. It is part of the mechanism necessary to guarantee that the tax power cannot be used to inhibit the free exercise of religious liberty.
Mr. Kurtz, I respectfully request that you withdraw the Proposed Procedures and heed the cry of American citizens --"leave our liberty alone!"