[Your Nightmare]

But this conclusion directly contradicts the whitepaper from AFFT I quoted, and it contradicts the common understanding of everyone else I've talked with.

I doesn't necessarily contradict the white paper. It depends on the definition of "business purposes." The AFT is the master of lies by omission.

BTW, either they are wrong about this are they are wrong about their rate calculation.

[pigdog]

... or - more likely - you are wrong about your interpretation of either one or both.

From #631:

"If churches or not-for-profit organizations provide taxable services at no charge (running a soup kitchen for the poor, for example) these services are not subject to tax. "

and:

"Taxable property and services purchased by a qualified not-for-profit organization “for business purposes” are not taxable. So, in other words, purchases for business purposes are not taxable and sales to consumers are taxable. However, the organization must present its qualification certificate to the seller when making a purchase in order for the sale to be tax exempt. "

The enquoting of "for business purposes" means that the meaning is broadly intended as something more that just the literal words. And the "business" of a church for example has been pointed out to you previously as bringing people to God and offering care and sustenance.

[Kellis91789]

The end result of their rate calculation in that table was only 19.3% for the "inclusive with rebate".

That would indeed be wrong if there are $219B NFP expenditures incorrectly included. The actual revenue-nuetral rate would then be 19.7% instead of 19.3%

I'd rather find that this is the error, rather than the language of HR25 really means NFP expenditures are FairTaxable events.

This really needs to be clarified, and if necessary the language changed to exclude those expenditures. HR25 would never get off the ground if those expenditures are taxable. Contributors need to be assured their favorite charity will be able to make full use of their donations.

The language seems clear to me, but not to you, and none of us wants ambiguous language in a Bill. Changing the language now is easy, but realistically, we all know it would never come out of committee without language crystal clear to the NFP lobby.