|
Gospel Assembly Church v.
Iowa Department of Revenue
 As you read the following overview, bear
in mind that Goodwin told the church, as well as everyone in the Gospel
Assembly fellowship, that GAC won this case. This clearly is an
outright lie, as you will see by reading the overview and reviewing the
documents below. (The documents below may take a few minutes to appear on
your screen, but they are worth the wait.)
Beginning in May 1979 and continuing
through August 1980, Gospel Assembly Church was in the process of
constructing a new church located at 7135 Meredith Drive in Des Moines, Iowa.
A large portion of the money raised for the construction came from members of
the church selling their homes and placing a large portion of the equity into
the "building fund." The church purchased all the material
necessary for the building from a variety of sources.
In early 1983, the Iowa Department of Revenue took steps to begin an audit of
the Church's records due to a question regarding whether or not Gospel
Assembly Church had been charged sales and use tax appropriately. The church
alleged, in a Petition at Law, filed in April 1983, that the Iowa Department
of Revenue was attempting to look at "all books and records of the
Church." The Church based this argument on a verbal remark allegedly
made by an agent of the Sales and Use Tax Division. This remark grew in a
battle of letters between the church's attorneys and the Department. The
church's attorneys kept sending letters inquiring as to whether "the
document categories in your February 1, 1983, letter essentially amount to
all books and records of the church as I recall Mr. Maynard Gaarder (sic)
stated in out (sic) January 18, 1983, meeting with him?"
The Department even provided a pamphlet explaining the tax (Excise Tax
Guidelines for Churches and Religious Organizations). The Church,
however, did not appreciate the help. In their August 1983 edition of The
Gospel of Peace Newsletter the Church complained that the Courts had
ruled that the books and records of the Communist Party could not be audited
and yet the Department was trying to audit the church's books. The article in
the newsletter is actually excerpts from Lloyd L. Goodwin's sermon on May 27,
1983. This would have been a message delivered during one of the annual
conventions held in Des Moines.
Goodwin stated, "[T]he Communist Party has more influence with the state
than the church." Goodwin, in an earlier passage, clearly indicates how
he feels about the government when he complains about the fact that social
services agencies can remove children from homes and, "[N]ow if a child
does not want to go to church, he just calls state and the state will take
him out of that home and put him in a home where he can play cards and gamble
and drink rum and ramble -- do whatever he wants to do." Obviously,
Goodwin couldn't even think straight. If the child is of the legal drinking
age, then why would he need to call the state so he doesn't have to go to
church?
Goodwin went on to state, "[T]his church, by the grace of God, is going
to bear the expenses of sending this sober, godly, established in the Word of
God, young man to college so we will have a godly lawyer in this local
assembly." Goodwin means his nephew, Glenn, who now
runs the church. Goodwin continued, "I am advocating that every assembly
in the body pick out your most sober, your strongest in the faith, and most
intelligent individual and let the local church bear the financial
responsibility of sending that individual to college and let them come out of
there a godly, Holy Ghost, First Amendment Constitutional lawyer that can
defend the church in the twentieth century against a hostile and an
antagonistic state. We are going to do that. Why should we pay thousands of
dollars to lawyers to defend us that are not of our faith? We need a man in
the courtroom that is a child of like precious faith, that when he stands
there, he is from his own heart defending his own church, as well as the rest
of the Body of Jesus Christ against the beast -- and the state is called a
beast in the Word of God."
Goodwin's nephew went on to represent members of the congregation in their
private lawsuits, divorces, and even his uncle in his case against the
Internal Revenue Service. To the best of our knowledge, Glenn Goodwin has
never had to represent the church in a court case.
Goodwin closed his "sermon" by stating, "[I] cannot bring this
message to a close wihout referring to the coming judgment of God upon the
state. The state in its greed and antagonism against God has violated the
Tenth Commandment, by coveting what belongs to God only! As Ahab the king
coveted the field on the godly Naboth, we now see the state coveting the
property of God -- the godly home with its children and the church of our
Lord Jesus Christ. If sin is the transgression of the law, and the wages of
sin is death, then the certain judgment of God will come upon the covetous
state, even as it came upon Ahab! The state, when it violates the higher law
of God, cannot escape the judgment of God that will fall upon it! That is why
Daniel pled with the king to turn the erring ship of state around, before the
judgment of God fell!"
Apparently Goodwin was not familiar with Jesus' statement, "Render unto
Caesar the things that are Caesar, and unto God the things that are
Gods." At the very least, Jesus would have went fishing to pay the sales
and use tax.
On January 23, 1984, Judge Srickler dismissed the church's petition. Judge
Strickler noted that, "[I]n this case, up to now, there is little
adverse effect on the party, the action is not concrete, or imminent,
particularly in the alleged area of 'additional records' whim seems to
disturb the plaintiff. No subpoenas have been issued as contemplated in
Section 422.70(1),(4), Iowa Code. There is disagreement about the scope of
the request. Also it is noted that it is stated even a date will be arranged
for the audit convenient for both parties." Judge Strickler is noting
that a subpoena was not issued, and no audit had ever taken place.
Judge Strickler went on to write, "[I]n summary, the Court concludes
that, contrary to the argument of plaintiff, a Section 1983 (42 U.S.C.)
action may not be brought in a state court of Iowa as a way of reviewing
state agency action without complying with requirements of the state review
procedure, as exhaustion of administrative remedies." Goodwin refused to
accept Judge Strickler's ruling and appealed the case to the Iowa Supreme
Court.
On May 22, 1985, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against the church's case.
Justice (now Chief Justice) McGiverin wrote the opinion in the case. The
Court noted that the February 1983 letter from the Department of Revenue had
concluded with the sentence, "'Additional records necessary will be
requested when needed.'" Justice McGiverin wrote, "[E]ven if taken
as true, plaintiff's allegations about what the Department intends to do at
some unspecified time cannot obscure the fact that as yet the Department has
taken no formalized, legally enforceable action (such as the issuance of a
subpoena duces tecum, Iowa Code section 422.70(1)(1985)) that would define
precisely the scope of its requests." The Court affirmed the decision of
the lower court and ruled against the church.
Below: Department of Revenue's letter requesting
records.
Below: Various pages from Department of Revenue's appellate brief.
Drawing from the Gospel of Peace Newsletter, August, 1983
Excerpt from a Lloyd Goodwin article in the Gospel of Peace Newsletter,
August, 1983
Go back to the
"legal" page
Go back to the
main page
|