The IRS is killing babies to raise tax revenue!
Yes, I know, it is an insane and controversial statement. But in the absurd there is some truth. The IRS has been disallowing the deduction for donating buildings for firefighters to train in.
In the past, you could donate a building or home that was slated for destruction to the local fire department so they could use it for training exercises. The donation was deemed a tax deductible donation so you got the benefit and the firefighters were able to have some great training. So great that they may have saved a babies life or two because of it.
Now the IRS is saying that the donations are not deductible because the building was slated for destruction anyway. I say Balderdash! The old truck I just donated to the American Kidney Fund was slated for destruction in my mind, but the Kidney Fund found enough value in it to take it as a deduction. The homes have a huge value to the families who are saved by well trained firefighters.
Now, instead of going through the hassle of letting the fire department train in a home that was going to be destroyed, building owners are going to just bring in the low cost wrecking crews and a tremendous value will be lost.
All because the IRS wants to deny some deductions to keep revenues up. Is it all that absurd to say that the IRS is killing babies to raise revenue now? Not really…
The whole idea of a charitable deduction is that you give something to charity and you don’t get anything back, right?” said Paul Caron, a tax scholar at the University of Cincinnati. “When you give $100 to the Catholic Church, you don’t get anything for that $100.”
The IRS maintains in court papers in the Wisconsin case that the homeowners do not qualify for a deduction because they are donating only a “partial interest” in their home, rather than the entire property. The agency also says homeowners are letting firefighters only use the property, not donating it in full.
But a lot of work goes into preparing a house to be burned down, including a detailed inspection by environmental authorities, said Terry Grady, a lawyer representing Hendrix, who wants the IRS to refund him $100,590 in “erroneously collected” taxes. Hendrix built a new house on the property.
“They have to, in fact, pay their mortgage off. They have to make sure there’s no asbestos in the house,” Grady said. “And you know, conversely, the benefits to the fire department are just immense.” via Google
No related posts.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
It gets me so annoyed!
It is just the same here in the UK.
The role of government is to protect its citizens, not contribute to placing them in jeopardy. This IRS ruling hinders our firefighters from obtaining valuable training. Evidently the IRS has forgotten the heroic service of the firefighters and other first responders during 9/11 that saved countless lives.
There are numerous cities across America that have delapidated, city owned houses they would love to demolish and obtain an IRS deduction. By allowing the firefighers to burn the distressed houses, it would revitalize communities and provide firefighters valuable, real-life training.
The IRS is not doing a disservice to anyone. No one is holding these people back from donating a home to the fire department but themselves. So you don't get a tax deduction. Is the sole reason for donating a home to the fire department to get a tax deduction, or help train fire fighters to save lives? If the only reason people do "good things" is based on an underlying benefit to be had on their "bottom line", then it is time the American people rethink "why" they do what they do. The house does not belong to the IRS, it belongs to the people who ultimately make the choice in the matter whether to donate or not!
By the way, what sources are you citing? I didn't see any references…
yes its true it happens here in the uk
Take the other position, if the building weren't there, and the county had to build it to burn down, what would that building be worth. JN