Recent helicopter photos of @ ArkEncounter spectacular facility--it's amazing to see what God has done through this major outreach
Kentucky officials strip Ken Ham's Ark Encounter exhibit of its $18 million tax rebate
Kentucky officials strip Ken Ham’s ‘Ark Encounter’ exhibit of its $18 million tax rebate
http://deadstate.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Screen-Shot-2017-07-21-at-3.29.11-PM-300x187.png 300w" alt="" width="500" height="414"> Ken Ham and his fellow young earth creationists behind Kentucky’s Ark Encounter exhibit are locked in a dispute with the county who they claimed would benefit from the attractioexhibit are locked in a dispute with the county who they claimed would benefit from the attraction.
Earlier this week, the Friendly Atheist ‘s Hermant Mehta reported that Williamsburg, Kentucky
officials decided to charge the Ark Encounter a $0.50 “safety fee” for each ticket sold, amounting to
$700,000 that the Ark Encounter would owe the city each year. But according to Ham and his
organization, they should be exempt from the tax since they are a non-profit ministry.
But as Mehta points out, the Ark Encounter “has legally been a for-profit business in order to receive a
number of tax incentives from the city and state. … It’s not a church; it’s a money-making tourist
attraction.”
Nevertheless, Ham and his cohorts came up with an interesting scheme to avoid the tax.
From the Lexington Herald Leader :
… Ark Encounter LLC sold its main parcel of land — the one with
the life-size Noah’s Ark — for $10 to their non-profit affiliate,
Crosswater Canyon. Although the property is worth $48 million
according to the Grant County Property Valuation Administrator,
the deed says its value is only $18.5 million.
That’s the latest salvo in an escalating argument between local
officials and Ark Encounter, but some are worried Ark Encounter’s
maneuver is a precursor to declaring itself exempt from all taxes,
including property taxes that help fund Grant County schools.
But the plan didn’t have its intended effect. On July 18, the Kentucky Tourism, Arts, and Heritage
Cabinet sent a letter to the Ark Encounter’s lawyers, informing them that as of July 10, they were
“in breach of its Tourism Development Agreement… with the Commonwealth.”
“On July 10, 2017, the Tourism, Arts, and Heritage Cabinet… became aware of a quit claim deed
transferring the Ark Project land, with all the privileges and appurtenances to the same, from Ark
Encounter, LLC, a for profit company, to Crosswater Canyon, Inc. a non-profit company,” the letter read.
“We believe that your client is aware that they may not be eligible for state tax incentives if the Ark
Project is owned by a non-profit legal entity,” the letter continued. The letter then quoted from the
Ark Encounter’s own website where it states the “for-profit LLC structure also allows the Ark Encounter
to be eligible for various economic development incentives that would not have been available with a
non-profit structure.”
In other words, now that Ham and his affiliates sold the Ark Encounter to a non-profit entity, they are
no longer eligible for the tax rebate deal.
“…please be advised that no further incentives may accrue from sales tax imposed on sales generated
by or arising at the tourism development project, as of the date of transfer of the property, June 28, 2017,”
the letter continued.
Mehta writes:
The Creationists running Ark Encounter just screwed themselves
out of $18 million over the next decade because they didn’t want to
pay a local safety fee worth about $700,000 a year.
We already knew Creationists were ignorant about science.
Tags
Who is online
95 visitors
Perhaps Ham can move the Ark to property owned by Hobby Lobby.
Ham and Green (Hobby Lobby) would make a great pair.
Advancing a religious ideology via a tax subsidy smacks of a violation of the First Amendment; further, for openers, state level is one thing … and …
The IRS is required to collect a non-refundable fee from any organization seeking a determination of tax-exempt status under IRC Section 501(c)(3). Although churches are not required by law to file an application for exemption, if they choose to do so voluntarily, they're required to pay the fee for determination.
Beyond this, a Creationist entity, whether it deems itself a "church" or not, exists for the purpose of advancing religious ideology via, in this case, a literal interpretation of liturgy … thus … by definition … namely …
" … a particular Christian organization, typically one with its own clergy, buildings, and distinctive doctrines …
For tax-exempt status purposes … it may, in fact, qualify as a church.
But, as a FOR-PROFIT entity … it becomes an oxymoron … how can a tax-exempt entity be actively and inherently involved in PROFITEERING WITHOUT ESCAPING THE ATTENDANT TAX LIABILTY.
What I am contending is that here we have, not surprisingly, A HYPOCRITICAL "RELIGIOUS ENTERPRISE" (a hypocrisy in-and-of-itself) that wants it both ways.
The reference to Hobby Lobby would constitute the mirror image … A BUSINESS THAT WANTS THE EXEMPTION BENEFITS OF A RELIGiOUS INSTITUTION.
My personal take … religion often fails literally to practice what it preaches!
''religion often fails literally to practice what it preaches!''
Without a doubt.
Somebody pinch me, quick! Our state officials have finally woken up to the fact that subsidizing one religion over another is illegal! Or any religion for that matter is illegal! FINALLY!
I wonder if they'll have to pay back taxes?
Halleluiah!
''I wonder if they'll have to pay back taxes?''
Lets hope so Dowser.
Me, too!!! They made a lot of promises, but all were unfulfilled.
Maybe there is a god?
Yay! I agree!
It's Karma, dear Hal!
Let's hope so Hal.
If people use the seed to make fun of creation and the ark and that's ok, then it's also ok 👌 to defend both here.
The problem is you don't defend it XX. You do copy and paste of articles telling us about gay, gay flags and everything the Ark Encounter is doing to fight that so called evil.
If your capable of actually putting together a defense, that borders on the sane, then go for it.
Once a snake-handler gets bit, he is likely to both find God …
… and put that find in perspective with the mundane.
Am I too obtuse here?
We still have a problem with snake handlers in the more isolated areas of the state... Sad situation, I think.
Not at all Mac.
XX, you've once again shown that you have no ability to post in your own words. It's become evident that you also have no idea, or chose not to recognize that Ken Ham is a flim flam man, the same ilk as Green from Hobby Lobby and doing his best to screw the good people of KY.
In both cases they were caught with their hands in the cookie jar. I'm hopeful that Ham will pay the price so to speak. The good Christians have spoken (the people of KY). You should try to number yourself among them.
To say that your off topic is an understatement, but not unusual.
XX, either stay on topic or all further comments of yours will be deleted.
The Ark and the creationist museum are both scams to fleece money from the more ignorant of the sheep. They are like carnival con people. They don't give a flying fuck what you do or do not believe or what anyone else believes. All they want is your money and that is all THEY believe in! Period. That's it. That is the only reason the Ark and the creationist museums exist. To take money from believers.
Barnum and Ham.
Ham did nothing wrong. Switching status from for profit to non profit is strictly a business decision. Sure the government can change how it responds to a non profit compared to a for profit in regard to the benefit it will now pay out. The government can't go back and undo whatever arrangements it made with the for profit company. It can cease the arrangement with the non profit successor company. The company made a business decision as to whether it would be better to operate as a non profit than for profit. Nothing nefarious or illegal about it. It is now subject to not receiving a prior benefit when it was for profit and free to be otherwise tax exempt as a non profit. Nothing to see here.
Of course he did...
Switching status from for profit to non profit is strictly a business decision.
Sure. Nothing suspicious about the timing of such a move either.
I have faith that God will eventually give the Ark the same treatment he gave to Touchdown Jesus in 2010.
One can only hope. And it deserves that same fate.
From what I read this morning-- in the newspaper in Louisville, local news, most of Kentuckians approve of them losing their tax rebates. Of course, this is the local news, not micro-small town news, KY.
The museum and park decided it made more economic sense to go non profit and forgo the credit in the future as now a not for profit than stay what they were and continue to collect the credit. Much ado about nothing. Just an excuse for our atheists to bash Christians again and wish the ark park, creation museum, and Bible museum simply didn't exist.
From what I hear most of the state wishes it didn't exist. At least not there. Try Disney World instead.
I just went through this article and removed ALL off topic comments. The topic is possible tax evasion. Please stick to that.
Tax evasion is an illegal act. Changing ones tax status legally by a variety of means including changing ones status legally from for profit to non profit to reduce ones tax liability is not. The whole premise that Ham and company are engaging in an illegal act is a lie.
Operating as a for profit company to qualify for tax breaks and then selling the property to an in house company for $10 when it's valued at $48 million to avoid a .50 ticket fee (and declare it a non profit) imposed by the county is a con job and he got caught at it, and hopefully will be paying a lot of back taxes in addition to losing his tax breaks.
Only con artists and flim flam men like Ham would try this.
He's the modern day Elmer Gantry and his blind followers think that this is the Christian way...Fools
Did I state that they broke any law. Please show me where I did XX....Quit inventing things.
If you want to defend a con man at the cost of the good people of KY go for it. It only shows your inability to understand what a true Christian is.
They didn't break any law. They changed their corporate status due to government tax action against them. The idea that Christians should just accept punitive taxes and any action taken in response is simply ludicrous. They did nothing wrong and we all know it. He defended the price he was charging customers so he wouldn't have to raise prices to cover the cost of the tax. When government excessively taxes business, business doesn't have to just bend over and take it.
XX, the truth is, if you're ignorant enough to pay $18.00 to visit this shithole, then you're not going to complain about paying $18.50. They are generating risk for the community - the least they could do is make the rubes who visit pay for maintaining it. Instead, these bozos went full greed and pulled a religion card.
Well, the Ark scammers could always hire someone to play Three Card Monte with them out front and they could win free tickets to get in......
DEFINITION of ' Tax Fraud ' Tax fraud occurs when an individual or business entity willfully and intentionally falsifies information on a tax return in order to limit the amount of tax liability. Tax fraud essentially entails cheating on a tax return in an attempt to avoid paying the entire tax obligation.
This is not likely a case of tax fraud, rather, requesting or claiming a status that is ineligible for exemption.
Either an entity is "religious" -- or it is not.
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization , i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations . Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.
The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests , a nd no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.
XX, I'm not saying this to be mean to you, ok? This is not intended as an insult.
A couple of years ago, you and I talked about the tax exempt status of this organization, and the taxes that they wouldn't have to pay, AND the "deal" cooked up by the KY government that essentially helped them build the ark without having to pay the taxes on it. Back then, you agreed that it was a bad thing to do. You agreed that the KY government had gone too far in offering tax exempt status to this private enterprise.
Now that the tax exempt status has been removed, why are you mad about it? The state of KY has spent millions in upgrading the basic infrastructure that supports the ark, and has had little return in economic development. What's up? Two years ago, you were horrified this was going on. Now, suddenly, fixing the situation has you up in arms. I'm confused.
No one here, especially me, is, in any way, denigrating the organization's principles or roots. As a taxpayer of the state, I'm glad they have fixed this. It offered a distinctly unfair advantage to the group, and it cost all of us a lot of money. Money we don't have to fritter away.
So, what's up?
I don't remember saying the government went too far but in any event I have no problem with the government revoking a tax credit to a company that no longer qualifies for it. I do have a problem if they try to claw back money from them when they were eligible for it. I don't blame the company one bit for changing its status in response to an added tax on their business. The idea of it being somehow unchristian to get the best tax treatment you can from government is purely ludicrous.
After looking at the pictures of the Ark I am afraid that I don't know where the dinosaurs fitted in it? And why did Noah bring Roaches and mosquitoes on board, because they could not have survived otherwise. If I visited this now no longer tax exempt(?) place, will they tell me? And when it was tax exempt would they have had the right to refuse to let me in and answer my questions if I told them I am an atheist? Do they have that right now?
Don't bother to ask any logical scientific questions, dear Randy. There are no answers there.
More than likely unwanted bugs 🐜 and 🐞 insects entered the ark via the hay, food scuffs, and other equipment stored on the ark before the flood and on the animals entering the ark.
And when it was tax exempt would they have had the right to refuse to let me in and answer my questions if I told them I am an atheist? Do they have that right now?
It has nothing to do with being tax exempt or not. A private business can allow or not allow anyone in, so long as it is not based on who they are. So as an atheist you could get in, but if you were being disruptive, they could kick you out.
Kind of like restaurants having dress codes and decorum rules.
Never mind, Perrie. Just never mind.
Just don't apply for a job there. They are quite good at discrimination.
The reason the originators of this park thought it would be a success is because they know televangelists can sell these same marks, er, I mean "visitors" "prayer cloths" for $100 a pop. When you are awash with potential suckers you never dream you could fail.
You mean like the 500 years of selling indulgences so people could buy forgiveness from men for sins even not yet committed?
They were as worthless of pricks as the televangelists and fundamentalist evangelists right wing Christians supporting most republican politicians of today ...so? And you can bet that those selling indulgences if they were around today, would be insecure enough to constantly vote up their own comments to make it look like someone agrees with them. Pathetic!