IRS Commissioner Vows to Not Target Christian Colleges Opposed to Gay Marriage ... 'At This Time'

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.

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."

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.

"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.

“NOT THEIR JOB. They a tax collection agency, not law makers.”

Now its their job:

RUSH: Wait until you hear this next story. It is from Forbes. Here’s the headline: “Small Businesses Threatened with $36,500 IRS Fines For Helping Employees with Health Costs.” This was not and is not part of Obamacare. The IRS just created this, and that’s one of the problems with Obamacare. Obamacare is open ended. The secretary of Health and Human Services can invent regulations. The IRS can invent new tax rules and regulations, and they’ve just done it.

This provision was never voted on by anybody in Congress.

“Small businesses that reimburse employees for the cost of premiums for individual health insurance policies or pay their health costs directly will be fined up to $36,500 a year per employee under a new Internal Revenue Service regulation that [took] effect July 1, 2015. According to the notice, an employer arrangement that reimburses or pays for employee individual health premiums is considered to be a group health plan that is subject to the $100 per-employee per-day penalty.

“The penalty applies whether the reimbursement is considered a before-tax or after-tax contribution. ‘It’s the biggest penalty no one is talking about,’ said Kevin Kuhlman, policy director for the National Association of Independent Business. ‘The penalty for compensating employees for health care-related expenses is enough to destroy most small businesses.’ You can read more in this NFIB post, ‘No Kidding: This Week IRS starts Punishing Businesses for Helping Workers Buy Insurance.’

“The new IRS penalty is more than 18 times greater than the $2,000 employer-mandate penalty under Obamacare for not providing qualifying health insurance for employees. And employers with fewer than 50 workers are not exempt, as they are from the employer-mandate penalty.” The only businesses that are exempt are those three years in existence and younger. “The rule appears nowhere in the Affordable Care Act...” It appears nowhere in the statute. It appears nowhere in Obamacare.

It “was developed by the Obama administration’s regulation writers at the IRS. The rule punishes small businesses for providing the only health insurance support many can afford — a contribution to help employees pay premiums for their individual or family health insurance policies or to help finance direct payment for medical services. ‘Reimbursing employees for the cost of insurance or medical services is a way for small businesses to help their workers without the administrative headaches of setting up a costly group plan,’ Kuhlman said.

“’Most small employers don’t have [Human Resources] departments or benefits specialists, so this is a simpler, easier way to help their employees.’ No more, says the IRS. If you take the ‘simpler, easier’ route that you can afford, the IRS will slap you with $100-a-day, per-employee fines until you stop. Rep. Charles Boustany has introduced legislation in the House (HR 2911) and Sen. Charles Grassley, in the Senate (S.1697) to remedy the problem. ... ‘If there’s an opportunity for a bipartisan improvement toward affordable health care, this has to be it,’ said Kuhlman.

“’There’s no real justification for penalizing small businesses that do what the law’s strongest supporters claim to want, which is to help employees obtain coverage or pay medical bills.’ ... The rule covers employers with more than one employee participating in an employer health care/coverage payment arrangement. Employers can exclude workers who 1) have fewer than three years of service to the company; 2) are under age 25; and 3) are part-time or seasonal employees.”

Well, you know what this is going to do.

People are going to start getting fired after three years and converting to part-time workers to avoid yet another government penalty or fine imposed upon them by Obamacare. What’s this? Here you have Obama and the rest of the Democrat Party claiming that all they want is for people to get insured who don’t have insurance. They just want people to get covered and they want people to get treatment, and they don’t want it to cost an arm and a leg.

Well, a lot of small businesses can’t afford to do it, but they like their employees. They like having them. They’re not able to pay their employees enough where they can on their own go out and buy health insurance. So they try to help supplement the purchase of a plan, help out on the premium or help on the deductible. And if they do that — if a penny of assistance is offered an employee by a small business — that small business can be fined up to 36 grand, and in some cases that’s gonna be more than what they pay some part-timers.

And it’s not even part of Obamacare!

The IRS just wrote it!

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/07/07/obamacare_is_a_mean_law

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.