We we will not be impaling Christians at this time.
Posted on 08/01/2015 7:36:59 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service vowed in a Senate hearing this week that the federal agency will not strip Christian colleges and universities of their tax-exempt statuses should those institutions refuse to update school policies to be more accommodating toward gay marriages.
Following the Supreme Court decision in June that nationally legalized same-sex marriages, fears have dramatically risen that Christian colleges and institutions could be stripped of their tax-exempt statuses if they don't compromise their biblical beliefs on the subject of same-sex marriage.
But IRS Commissioner, John Koskinen, told Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, in a Judiciary Oversight Subcommittee hearing on Wednesday that he will commit to making sure that the IRS does not punish religious schools for not adopting policies to accommodate gay marriage — such as allowing married same-sex couples to live in married student housing — as long as he is in charge of the IRS.
"I can make that commitment," Koskinen assured.
However, Koskinen did leave the door wide open for tax-exempt statuses to be a problem for Christian schools in the future.
Lee, who introduced legislation in the Senate last month that would prevent the federal government from imposing consequences on individuals or organizations that uphold religious beliefs on marriage, asked Koskinen if Christian colleges losing their tax-exempt status could be an issue as the nation moves forward with the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision.
Lee explained that Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said that it "is certainly going to be an issue," when asked by Justice Samuel Alito during the Supreme Court oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges in May. Lee asked if Koskinen shares that view and if that is going to be a real concern.
"The [subcommittee] chairman, [Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas,] last week, asked the same question in a letter asking for our response and we responded to the chairman and we have responded publicly that at this time, we see no basis for changing our examination criteria as a result of this Supreme Court case," Koskinen said.
Lee was not satisfied with Koskinen's answer and further asked: "When you say 'at this time,' is that meant to qualify or restrict your answer or are you saying there is no basis upon which you could revisit tax-exempt status."
"At this time there is no basis for us to revisit tax-exempt status on that that grounds. We will continue, obviously, to ensure that those who enjoy tax-exempt status are still doing the work they said they were going to do," Koskinen further explained. "But that exam and those reviews will continue as they always have."
time,' is that meant to qualify or restrict your answer or are you saying there is no basis upon which you could revisit tax-exempt status."
"At this time there is no basis for us to revisit tax-exempt status on that that grounds. We will continue, obviously, to ensure that those who enjoy tax-exempt status are still doing the work they said they were going to do," Koskinen further explained. "But that exam and those reviews will continue as they always have."
Lee then asked who would make such changes to public policy if they were to be made. Koskinen responded saying those decisions would either be made through the legislature or through court decisions.
"So to the extent that Solicitor General Verrilli was suggesting otherwise when he said 'that is certainly going to be an issue,' he was mistaken?" Lee asked.
"Would you disagree with that characterization?"
Koskinen said he would "not necessarily" disagree with Verrilli's statement.
"Not necessarily, but he was not saying that it would be an issue with the IRS. I think what he was trying to say was that over time and other areas over time, public policy decisions have been made by courts and legislatures that ultimately then did influence tax-exempt status," Koskinen contended. "The Bob Jones case is one of those. But that was not a case of policy made by the IRS, that was a case over 15 or 20 years of decisions made by courts and legislatures."
Lee said that the court decisions in the Bob Jones case were based off of actions taken by the IRS.
"A regulation put out by the IRS before that case was based on decisions made by Congress and the courts and everyone was given plenty of notice of what the IRS interpretation was," Koskinen argued. "There is no basis for us to issue such regulation at this time."
Lee still disagreed saying that the Bob Jones decision was ultimately not a decision made by Congress or courts, but a decision made by the IRS. But Koskinen replied by saying that the IRS's action in the Bob Jones case was based on the fact that courts and states passed various anti-discrimination laws.
"All we do is follow whatever the public policy is that is set by other organizations," Koskinen argued. "At this point other actions would have to take place before the IRS can consider issuing a regulation, which would give people notices to what we think the public policy was and then cases and exams would be conducted under that."
"Down the road, if the IRS ever moves in that direction because of public policy changes, it would first issue a draft regulation for public comment so the public would have plenty of notice and plenty of opportunity for comment and that's not going to happen in the next two-and-a-half years," Koskinen continued.
After the Hearing, Lee told reporters that despite Koskinen's answers, Americans should be skeptical considering that the agency has previously been used to target Christian and conservative groups..
"While I greatly appreciate Commissioner Koskinen's word that he will not target religious institutions for their religious beliefs, it worries me and it should worry every American that the IRS does not absolutely disavow the power to target religious institutions based on their religious beliefs, even if the current IRS commissioner has committed not to use that power for the time being," Lee asserted.
There are no “good people” at the IRS.
NONE!
“at this time” is over. so they are back at it.
John Koskinen: the guy flat out creeps me out.
We we will not be impaling Christians at this time.
It means awaiting specific orders before proceeding.
Soon.
NOT THEIR JOB. They a tax collection agency, not law makers. Idiots.
Our grandparents would already be shooting.
“At this time” is Obama-Speak for as soon as possible.
Just like “I am opposed to gay marriage” and the Affordability Act will save everyone $2,500.
Guaranteed at some point in the somewhat near future, the government will not only go after Christian entities tax status, but they will FORCE them to accept, teach, and support sodomite marriages.
We are going to find out who the faithful Christians are!
The constitution is currently not being followed. Therefore we don’t have a constitution.
Our federal government is a creation of the states. When this creation gets out of control, then the states have the right to abolish it or change it.
Besides the three branches of federal government that we are aware of, there exists a fourth branch which most people forget, it is the states. And actually, as mentioned above, this fourth branch has more power and authority than any of othe other three combined.
It is time for the fourth branch to assume it’s proper authority, and alter or abolish the other three.
Koskinen is a snake and a very smart one at that.....when he was being interviewed by the committee, he was almost like the devil himself in his clever answers - but then, so was Lerner.......
Don’t like calling people names, for that’s a liberal practice, but sometimes it’s just too true to avoid.......
Not sure why *state* laws would influence IRS actions in this way, but Koskinen seems to be implying that the IRS would only target religious institutions if Congress adds "sexual orientation" to anti-discrimination laws.
If there's one good thing that might have out of the anti-RFRA hysteria from the left, it's that no red state or Congress (as long as it's controlled by the GOP) is likely to add "sexual orientation" to anti-discrimination laws.
But I fear that courts will start interpreting current anti-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation, even though no mention of it is made in the written text of the law. Then it will be a green light for the IRS to strip the tax exempt status of any religious organization that dares to oppose homosexuality.
I was under the impression that the Constitution and democracy were supposed to protect the citizens from the whims of small men.
I should have enjoyed myself when I was younger and not spent so much time reading and studying - because apparently most of what I read was wrong, anyway.
I’d like to know why Koskinan isn’t in prison yet for violating the rights of Americans.
“You are a very, very bad man.” Apu
:-)
Looks like his lawyer told him to smile more. That was bad advice.
Only the beginning. They will criminalize Christianity while Republican leaders stand by and do nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.