Tax exempt churches

[JamesVincent]

You ever take the time to look for a non 501c3 church gathering? Hahahaha good luck.

You asked and were answered, anything else to say? And why in the world would I look for a non non-profit?

[Patriotdiscussions]

That whole seperation of church and state thing perhaps?

[LPC]

What I said was, why does a house of god have to ask permission from the state to exist?

Your question is no longer a legal question, because there have already been answers about what the law requires (and does not require), and all of the answers have confirmed that a church does not need to "ask permission from the state to exist."

So the question is now a psychological question, and it requires a psychological response. You should therefore seek psychological counseling, and I expect that a counselor will ask you questions like, why do you feel the need to believe something that is not true? And, when did these feelings first arise? Do they date from your childhood, or is it something more recent?

[fortinbras]

Most churches in the US would be untaxed even without the slightest nod to Section 501(c), simply because the vast majority of churches in the US are hardly scraping by - when the buttons and slugs are sifted out of the collection plates there's hardly enough money to keep the lights on, and the preacher has to have a weekday job to put food on his table. If there were a law that the churches should pay taxes, most could establish that their discretionary income was too small to be taxable.

The 501(c)(3) requirements are sought by more prosperous or ambitious churches. The requirements are relatively simple: the church must be a separate entity from its pastor or any of the congregants (i.e., the church is a corporation), and the church's facilities, including its money, are used entirely for churchly purposes and not someone's personal piggy bank.

This is distinct from the concept of separation of church and state, as articulated by both Jefferson and Madison, but you will notice that there is no preferential treatment of particular denominations (e.g., mosques can get tax exemption same as Episcopal cathedrals).

[Patriotdiscussions]

Correct if a church does not want tax exempt status, now find a church without tax exempt status.

[Pottapaug1938]

Correct if a church does not want tax exempt status, now find a church without tax exempt status.

Is your sole purpose, here, to waste our time with inane questions and challenges like this one? Why don't you try the Saving to Suitors or Lost Horizons forums -- you'll fit right in.

[LPC]

Correct if a church does not want tax exempt status, now find a church without tax exempt status.

Your question is nonsensical, because what is ordinarily understood to be a "church" is within the definition of section 501(c)(3).

I suppose that you could find something somewhere that calls itself a "church" but is not operated exclusively for religious purposes, or does not have congregants that meet regularly for worship, but calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

[AndyK]

There have been (and continue to be) many self-proclaimed churches which were established solely to evade income taxes.

Some of them declared themselves to be corporate soles, some were trusts, and some had other formulations. None of them -- zero, nada, zilch -- ever applied for 501 status.

Now why could that be? Possibly because the sovereign gurus who sold the 'church' organizers warned them to specifically NOT do so? The gurus knew that the churches were bogus tax evasion schemes and would collapse as soon as the IRS got word of them.

Let's look at another case -- the details of which I forget. But, it seems that a legitimate church with steeples and a congregation, and all the other accoutrements decided to rely on god and not the IRS. It didn't file for 501 or even register itself with the IRS.

But, it took in donations, compensated people for services to the church, ran a pay-to-attend church school, and conducted a few business activities unrelated to their religious activities.

What happened is that the church no longer exists. It was siezed and sold to make up for all the back taxes which it owed on salaries and incomes.

HOWEVER (and this is important) the donations to the church with respect to its basic religious activities were not considered in the calculation of tax liabiity. Why? Because, despite not filing for 501 status, the laws recognized its existence.

[Gregg]

Amish churches, in general, do not file for any tax exempt status, and many Mennonite and Brethren congregations might as well not do so, as most Anabaptists want as little to do with the government as possible.

There, I answered your rather obstinate question, now shut the hell up. As to your other question about why a church needs the permission of man to exist, it doesn't, it often seeks certain status from man so that some of its members can take a tax deduction....again, there's your answer, you're dismissed.

[fortinbras]

... the church no longer exists. It was seized and sold to make up for all the back taxes which it owed on salaries and incomes.

The people working for a church are not tax exempt. The church, as an institution, might be tax exempt but the people who earn money working for it still pay income taxes and the church as their employer is still supposed to pay their withholding and payroll deductions just like any other employer.

[JamesVincent]

There have been (and continue to be) many self-proclaimed churches which were established solely to evade income taxes.

Some of them declared themselves to be corporate soles, some were trusts, and some had other formulations. None of them -- zero, nada, zilch -- ever applied for 501 status.

Now why could that be? Possibly because the sovereign gurus who sold the 'church' organizers warned them to specifically NOT do so? The gurus knew that the churches were bogus tax evasion schemes and would collapse as soon as the IRS got word of them.

Let's look at another case -- the details of which I forget. But, it seems that a legitimate church with steeples and a congregation, and all the other accoutrements decided to rely on god and not the IRS. It didn't file for 501 or even register itself with the IRS.

But, it took in donations, compensated people for services to the church, ran a pay-to-attend church school, and conducted a few business activities unrelated to their religious activities.

What happened is that the church no longer exists. It was siezed and sold to make up for all the back taxes which it owed on salaries and incomes.

HOWEVER (and this is important) the donations to the church with respect to its basic religious activities were not considered in the calculation of tax liabiity. Why? Because, despite not filing for 501 status, the laws recognized its existence.

I ran into a similar situation a number of years ago. My ex and some of her family had started attending a "church" being held in a family member's horse barn, of all places. They attended services there for awhile and then the "church" started a school in the pastor's home. My ex decided to pull her oldest son out of school and send him to the church school. This lasted for a little while and, against my asking, she continued attending. Well, come to find out, the reason the pastor had left his previous church was not that he had any ideological differences, like he had said. The reason he had left was he was fired for selling the parsonage of the church. The new "church", operating out of the barn and the "school" operating out of his home? Neither one was legal. Her son missed a whole year of school, had gotten no credit for attending that school since it was an illegal school, and we were out several thousand dollars. Fortunately I had not let her give like she wanted or do some of the things she wanted or we would have been out a good deal more. We were able to write off what we had donated and had spent, as we had acted in good faith, but the wasted time was irreplaceable.

[LPC]

The people working for a church are not tax exempt. The church, as an institution, might be tax exempt but the people who earn money working for it still pay income taxes and the church as their employer is still supposed to pay their withholding and payroll deductions just like any other employer.

Nonprofits (including churches) are also subject to information reporting requirements, and so must file Forms 1099-MISC for compensation paid to non-employees. (I.e., the operation of a nonprofit is considered to be a "trade or business" for information reporting purposes.)

[grixit]

So what is a church? A group of people who meet regularly for religious services. Just sticking with Christianity, a neighborhood prayer group counts. No licensing, registration, or incorporation needed. From that standpoint there must be thousands of churches all over the country, not a 501(c)3 among them. You want something bigger? Now you have to consider the zoning laws. Can't keep parking that many cars on the block, squeezing out your neighbors. Not to mention it might be getting noisy. Ok, rent a storefront in a strip mall or business park. Still no 501s. You want to have a regular structure with officers (ie, pastors, deacons and bishops), and a finances beyond splitting the cost of coffee and take out? So do it. Oh, now you want that tax exemption? Better fill out the forms then. Just don't say your religious freedom is being regulated.

Personally, i'm against churches being tax exempt on two grounds:

1. it violates separation of church and state. religious organizations should not get privileges not available to other cultural groups. And, ironically, it makes the IRS an arbitrator of what's legitimate religion.

2. Any religious organization that cannot survive paying taxes isn't inspiring much faith in its members.

[The Observer]

1. it violates separation of church and state. religious organizations should not get privileges not available to other cultural groups. And, ironically, it makes the IRS an arbitrator of what's legitimate religion.

Except what has happened when historically chuurches were taxed, the perception became that the government was in the position to arbitrate what church doctrine and its political views should be. "Support the [king], [prime minister], [benevolent dictator], [junta] or any other form of government or prepare to be punitively punished" is a theme that has repeated itself throughout the ages. We are seeing that happening in the Mideast as Islamic radicalists are using sharia law to tax the followers of any religion that they don't approve of.

[Judge Roy Bean]

You ever take the time to look for a non 501c3 church gathering? Hahahaha good luck.

Why would an entity that depends on donations for its existence not want to provide their benefactors with a tax exemption for those donations?

[.]

I would tend to agree with Grixit that churches ought to be taxed, at least anywhere government interference is prohibited, but Observer has a good point.

I don't know what the tax status of churches is in Venezuela but apparently the Venezuelan Catholic church doesn't think too much of this new version of the Lord's prayer, and the government thinks the church is conducting an inquisition, which also vividly illustrates Observer's point about intimidation/compulsion, but a little closer to home:

“Our Chávez who art in heaven, the earth, the sea and in us delegates” (...)

“Lead us not into the temptation of capitalism, deliver us from the evil of the oligarchy, like the crime of contraband, because ours is the homeland, the peace and life – forever and ever. Amen.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/s ... -venezuela

[Gregg]

1. it violates separation of church and state. religious organizations should not get privileges not available to other cultural groups. And, ironically, it makes the IRS an arbitrator of what's legitimate religion.

Except what has happened when historically chuurches were taxed, the perception became that the government was in the position to arbitrate what church doctrine and its political views should be. "Support the [king], [prime minister], [benevolent dictator], [junta] or any other form of government or prepare to be punitively punished" is a theme that has repeated itself throughout the ages. We are seeing that happening in the Mideast as Islamic radicalists are using sharia law to tax the followers of any religion that they don't approve of.

Tax law...yeah that, and lining them up and shooting the men, selling the women as brides, teaching the kids their doctrine and grilling their pets.

And taxing them.....

[webhick]

Grilling as in BBQ or grilling as in advanced interrogation techniques?

I don't think waterboarding a poodle will accomplish anything.

[Famspear]

....I don't think waterboarding a poodle will accomplish anything.

Webhick, the depth and significance of your wisdom is truly unfathomable.

[Pottapaug1938]

Except what has happened when historically chuurches were taxed, the perception became that the government was in the position to arbitrate what church doctrine and its political views should be. "Support the [king], [prime minister], [benevolent dictator], [junta] or any other form of government or prepare to be punitively punished" is a theme that has repeated itself throughout the ages. We are seeing that happening in the Mideast as Islamic radicalists are using sharia law to tax the followers of any religion that they don't approve of.

If I recall correctly, the "jizya" was essentially a social welfare tax imposed so that non-Muslims could enjoy the same legal protections as Muslims who paid for the same social protections through their mosque. After the Crusades, I recall that quite a few Christians who were sick of their bloodthirsty co-religionists, preferred to pay the tax and live under Muslim rule. Of course, the Islamists of today are much less tolerant and much more oppressive than their Ottoman antecedents.