Bummer. Your $3.6 Million Jet May not Be Tax Exempt. Just ask Kenneth Copeland
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Mon, December 08, 2008
- Viewed 264
- (24) comments so far
The jet in question is a 1998 Cessna Bravo 550 that was given to the ministry last year.
The Cessna 550 has a maximum cruising speed of 400 mph and seats nine. Last year, the ministry said it owned five aircraft, including the Cessna 550 and a $17.5 million Citation X. At the time, it was selling a 1973 Cessna 421.
A hearing is supposed to be held on this issue today, but Kenneth was not expected to attend. Evidently, he’s a huge flight risk.
Todd
According to the Start Telegram, a Kenneth Copeland Ministry jet worth $3.6 million has been denied tax-exempt status, setting the stage for a battle that could require the minister to reveal his salary if he wants the jet to be tax-free. According to an official, the jet was denied tax exemption because the ministry failed to disclose salaries of directors as an application requires.
Compensation paid Copeland and other members of his family has been the source of a U.S. senator’s inquiry, but the televangelist has been unwilling to disclose the information publicly...
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Pat on Mon, December 08, 2008
“Evidently, he’s a huge flight risk.” LOL!
Todd Rhoades on Mon, December 08, 2008
Thanks, Pat, for catching my attempt at humor. http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif
Todd
bishopdave on Mon, December 08, 2008
I wonder what these guys would do if they were like some of us—our salary is printed on the monthly finance report, distributed to whoever, and they’re all free to discuss whether we’re worth it or not each Sunday afternoon.
Casey Sabella on Mon, December 08, 2008
I am no fan of Ken, but this does not bode well for anyone.
If the government uses an arbitrary standard of determining what is righteous or unrighteous, we will eventually see tax exemption denied to SUV’s.
There is nothing godly or ungodly about a private aircraft. Most evangelists who travel extensively need them and they are more cost effective than riding coach when multiple meetings and locations are required.
If our standard of judgment is jealously, how is God honored in that? I doubt Billy Graham rode coach, but no one ever criticized his mode of travel.
And no, I have not preached on Mark 11:22 in quite a while…
Peter Hamm on Mon, December 08, 2008
Casey, good point.
I hope the point is not the aircraft, but is rather that someone who works for a non-profit is not supposed to (by law, I believe) be compensated with an unusually lavish lifestyle. (I know, how do you measure that… but bear with me…)
I’m not jealous of Kenneth Copeland, btw. I think he might be envious of me if he knew how great my church is and how much I love working here… but that’s a topic for another day…
bishopdave on Mon, December 08, 2008
Casey,
this is not about godly or ungodly; it’s about if churches & ministries want to operate under the 501(c)3 non-profit status for all the tax benefits, there’s a lot of disclosure required.
lulu on Mon, December 08, 2008
i like mark 11:25-26 also, when you stand praying, judge, opps i mean forgive, ken is the servent of god,we’re not to judge him but to pray for him,
CS on Mon, December 08, 2008
Peter:
“I hope the point is not the aircraft, but is rather that someone who works for a non-profit is not supposed to (by law, I believe) be compensated with an unusually lavish lifestyle. (I know, how do you measure that… but bear with me…)”
I think the value was $250,000 or more, according to something I heard at Saddleback a few months ago, right? =)
lulu:
“ken is the servent of god,we’re not to judge him but to pray for him,”
We are called to pray for everyone. But, his teachings are often more heretical than they are Christian, where we are supposed to mark people and point them out, judging rightly.
—
CS
Casey Sabella on Mon, December 08, 2008
Thanks for the comments.
Are we certain there is violation here? I have not followed this closely since my subscription to TBN ran out (lol).
As Todd illuminates, the plane in question was donated. Does Ken get to ride it if he makes $100K? What about 99,999K?
I think what we are seeing is that the IRS will eventually decide what tax exempt ministries are allowed to compensate their ministers. Maybe that is a good thing….? Hmmmm.
What if Kenny boy (since we’re picking on him) has a stable of wealthy benefactors who just flat out give him planes, boats and automobiles? Then the IRS will need to measure ministers by their net worth. The plane in question will then disqualify him from tax exemption, no?
Like I said, not a fan of the health and wealth gospel (unless it is coming my way of course - kidding) I am just saying we need to be careful of who we criticize lest we find ourselves conquered by our own division at the hands of our own government.
Lynn on Mon, December 08, 2008
Five aircraft? Five?
Peter Hamm on Mon, December 08, 2008
Yes, the legal question is separate from the “religious” one. I don’t stand convinced that this individual is a minister of the Gospel, either, as I’m guessing CS feels. (I’m probably in complete agreement with you, CS, about Ken.)
Casey, your point is really good, though. It reminds me of when RW defended the housing allowance a few years ago. Does Warren need to be tax-exempt for that? Maybe not. But some of us who move from the private sector to the ministry and take a big pay cut to do it find ourselves kinda relying on that incentive so that we can serve the way we do.
Slippery slope.
lulu on Mon, December 08, 2008
cs, what is heretical about his teaching, i must have missed somthing, and people gave him the aircraft.
CS on Mon, December 08, 2008
Lulu:
Here’s the short list:
-His Word of Faith movement is unbiblical. The notion that you can create things and cause God to alter things all the time based on words cannot be found in proper biblical understanding.
-He believes that we are gods equal to the level of God. He has said, “You don’t have a god in you, you are one.” This is the same lie from the Garden of Eden.
-He has made failed prophecies, including saying that the President elected in 1996 would totally follow after God. And then Monica Lewinsky entered into the scene…
-And, he keeps binding Satan, but that old devil keeps getting loose. What’s up with that?
I think these are enough to mark him publicly and declare that he is a false teacher.
—
CS
Casey Sabella on Mon, December 08, 2008
Hmmmm.
CS, I’m just not there with regards to Ken. I am thinking that the Word of Faith movement is probably more properly tied to Ken Hagen with Copeland being a derivative. Most WOF guys are connected by history in one form or another to the latter rain movement of the 50’s, but I digress.
Much of what is taught by Copeland regarding use of words is quite biblical, but misapplied. “Death and life are in the power of the tongue…” is biblical. Teaching that specific scripture as an application to a recent personal tragedy might be inappropriate, but heretical? I suppose it is possible. Most WOF ministers are big on scripture, just not enough of them (lol).
The god thing…that is not what is actually taught. None of them believe we are actually gods, but they tend to overemphasize Jesus’ reply to the Pharisees in John 10:34. (They should probably leave that alone.)
Don’t know about the Clinton thing.
Binding satan. That, I am afraid is a Jesus thing. He certainly bound demons, but some of the little buggers continue to stir up trouble. Not sure that is a valid argument, but your assessment could indeed be correct. I am just not willing at this point to go there. However, I appreciate your passion to see that the Word of God is preached in sincerity and integrity which is suspect is your aim.
In any case, heretic or no, the IRS sees us as one church (ironic, isn’t it?) I am going to go ahead and pray for Ken anyway.
Peter Hamm on Mon, December 08, 2008
CS,
Much as I agree with your assessment, I don’t think this is the place for the theological discussion of these guys. Don’tcha think?
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >
Post a Comment