A man's home is his......church?

[fortinbras]

First of all, this is not an IRS case but a local property tax case.

That being said, the IRS would probably grant an exemption if the church would behave like a church. This would include being incorporated so it has a distinct legal persona, reaching out to a larger congregation than just this man's own family, and not using the premises as a racquet court when services are not being held. The local authorities have a reasonably good argument against him if this supposed church was built without zoning variances .... after all, a church is expected to attract heavy traffic. But just remodeling a part of the house for a family prayer room isn't enough for a tax break.

[grixit]

I say, eliminate religious exemptions entirely. Any religious organization that cannot survive paying the same as anybody else must have a puny god or uninspired members. Or both.

Actually i would go even further and

<Harvester> impassioned and irrefutable anti religious rant removed as too dangerous </Harvester>

[bmielke]

<Harvester> impassioned and irrefutable anti religious rant removed as too dangerous </Harvester>

Who the hell gave Harvester Moderator Status?

J/K

[Gregg]

I guess not many are shocked that I'm an atheist, but my argument against tax exemptions for churches is just one woed.

Scientology

[The Observer]

I say, eliminate religious exemptions entirely. Any religious organization that cannot survive paying the same as anybody else must have a puny god or uninspired members. Or both.

And how does the 1st Amendment fit into that proposal?

[Olsenfin]

I say, eliminate religious exemptions entirely. Any religious organization that cannot survive paying the same as anybody else must have a puny god or uninspired members. Or both.

And how does the 1st Amendment fit into that proposal?

How does a proposal that religious organizations be taxed as any other organizations implicate the 1st amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". To tax such an entity as any other, irrespective of its religious character, surely is not a law "respecting an establishment of religion"; rather, it ignores that element completely. Moreover, to tax a church does not prohibit the free exercise of its adherents' beliefs.

[fortinbras]

Apart from a tradition going back to medieval Europe, churches are tax exempt on the presumption that they are doing good for a segment of the public and are not competing with taxpaying businesses like pool halls and taverns and the money coming in does not enrich the people running the church. You may well think this is very naive.

Most churches in this country probably don't need to jump through the hoops to become tax exempt because they operate on a shoestring from collection baskets that could hardly buy shoestrings. But some well known outfits are raking the money in with both hands and they pay attention to the tax laws.

This particular chapel built on a tennis court probably would not meet the criteria for a church for a number of reasons including that it is simply a convenience for one family, serving like a single prayer room, but also because the local zoning board was never told that a church was being built so, as far as the local authorities know or care, there really is no church there.

[Unidyne]

In my research on the new country movement, I obtained copies of declassified correspondence from the "Ephemeral Nations File" of the State Department's Office of the Geographer.

One was a five page letter from a man explaining that since he was an ordained minister, he was therefore an ambassador of the Kingdom of God and was entitled to Diplomatic Immunity. The Geographer wrote back and stated, in a very matter-of-fact letter, that the USA did not have any diplomatic relations with a country called the "Kingdom of God" and could not grant his request.

[grixit]

And how does the 1st Amendment fit into that proposal?

Perfectly. By granting such exemptions, the IRS is favoring religion and thereby violating the separation of church and state. Worse, the IRS, a government agency, is actually passing judgement on what is and is not a proper religious organization.

[Gregg]

How about donations to a church being tax deductible to the donor, but the church still pays tax on the income? And I'm still holding out for a 500% excise on luxury jets and gold bathroom fixtures.
People like Joyce Meyers and Joel Olsteen (the list is MUCH longer) just make me sick, that's not a church, it's a media company.....

[wserra]

People like Joyce Meyers and Joel Olsteen (the list is MUCH longer) just make me sick, that's not a church, it's a media company.....

Me, too . . . except that I found Reverend Ike from here in NY consistently amusing. "The sound of change makes the minister NER-vous in the SER-vice." "You can't LOSE with the stuff I USE." I always got the impression that he was winking at the congregation, that it was all a big inside joke - except that, in his heyday (the 70s), he was raking it in too.

Oh, well, nobody's perfect.

[The Observer]

]Perfectly. By granting such exemptions, the IRS is favoring religion and thereby violating the separation of church and state. Worse, the IRS, a government agency, is actually passing judgement on what is and is not a proper religious organization.

And the power to tax is the power to destroy. What if a legitimate church cannot pay the tax? Seems to me that would be a situation where the government would still be passing judgement on whether a religion would be allowed to exist or function. If the government decides to not press collection, it has favored that church over others who did pay. And if it seizes the assets of the church, then it has essentially taken away the right of the church members/attendees to pursue their right to worship where and how they please.

[Nikki]

Then there was the church --

Decided it was above earthly matters such as registering with the IRS for an automatic (almost) exemption

Didn't bother withholding ANYTHING from its workers paychecks

Refused to cooperate with the IRS during an examination

Had assets siezed and sold

[Unidyne]

Then there was the church --

Decided it was above earthly matters such as registering with the IRS for an automatic (almost) exemption

Didn't bother withholding ANYTHING from its workers paychecks

Refused to cooperate with the IRS during an examination

Had assets siezed and sold

Wasn't Kent Hovind and his "Dinosaur Adventure Land" guilty of the the same thing, if not similar?

[silversopp]

What if a legitimate church cannot pay the tax? Seems to me that would be a situation where the government would still be passing judgement on whether a religion would be allowed to exist or function. If the government decides to not press collection, it has favored that church over others who did pay. And if it seizes the assets of the church, then it has essentially taken away the right of the church members/attendees to pursue their right to worship where and how they please.

Failure to pay your debts does not equate to taking away the rights of church members to worship. What happens to a church now that doesn't pay off their other debts? Do they invoke the 1st amendment and have all of their debts forgiven?

The 1st amendment doesn't guarantee you the right the worship in a physical building, with marble floors, a solid gold statue of your god, and a Mercedes for each member of the clergy. If you can't afford any of the above, your religion simply doesn't get those things. I dont see how adding taxes into the equation has anything to do with the 1st amendment. If the church collects $1000, it sets aside a portion of the money for taxes and then buys whatever it wants with what is left over.

Jesus wasn't part of the wealthy establishment, and yet he managed to establish a very successful religion (while paying taxes to Caesar).

[bmielke]

I dont see how adding taxes into the equation has anything to do with the 1st amendment. If the church collects $1000, it sets aside a portion of the money for taxes and then buys whatever it wants with what is left over.

I go to a small country church, it would not be income taxes that killed us, it would be income taxes, property taxes, and an accountant to figure out what we owed we bring in $250-$300. a week, after heating and cooling, the minister (that we share), and the dues we have to the conference (we are UMC) there isn't anything left. I don't know of any family that is currently in a position to increase their giving.

[LPC]

Gifts aren't included in gross income (see section 102), so most churches wouldn't pay any income tax even if they lost their tax-exempt status. It would only affect churches with a significant amount of investment income.

Whether donations to churches should be tax-deductible is arguable, because I'm not sure how much society benefits from the existence of churches.

And real property taxes are a different issue altogether, and I think that most churches would be hit hard if they had to pay ad valorem taxes on the value of their buildings and grounds.

[Judge Roy Bean]

How does a proposal that religious organizations be taxed as any other organizations implicate the 1st amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". To tax such an entity as any other, irrespective of its religious character, surely is not a law "respecting an establishment of religion"; rather, it ignores that element completely. Moreover, to tax a church does not prohibit the free exercise of its adherents' beliefs.

Wrong, lutefisk breath!

There isn't one living soul in Washington that I would trust to determine how a church should be taxed.

[Cpt Banjo]

Purely as a textual matter, if you're going to argue that taxing churches abridges the free exercise of religion, then taxing media conglomerates abridges the freedom of the press and taxing the income of a professional speaker abridges freedom of speech.

[silversopp]

There isn't one living soul in Washington that I would trust to determine how a church should be taxed.

Is there anyone in Congress you would trust to determine how to tax an individual or a business?