Tax exempt churches

[ProfHenryHiggins]

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

I've seen plenty of "for profit" churches. They are not an endangered species.
I've also seen many a tax exempt church violating the rules for that status, as well as many churches violating the laws of the very God they claim to worship.

[Number Six]

Many churches are richly deserving of government scrutiny, not that it is likely that the credibility of their 501(c)3 status is likely to be brought into question as in the case of the mega churches that Senator Grassley's group was examining. And it is pretty weird that paytriots are working so aggressively in the other direction of accountability of churches, which should (as well as other charities) have their entire budgets online for the public to examine, especially if they are recipients or large amounts of money from citizens. What are the paytriot churches afraid of and why would they want to be totally "free" of any government interaction? The government has already provided extremely liberal options for groups like the Amish and Mennonites that have conscientious objections to various things.

[The Observer]

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.

Were it that simple. The jizya was employed as not only a tax against infidels, but was seen by Muslims as establishing the vailidty of their religious and civil authority over those areas where they conquered. Thus, the jizya was employed as a tool to humiliate and to reduce the appearance of these conquered people to being servants of the Islamic government. Muslim authority viewed the jizya as a tool to encourage conversions, the goal being that it would be a temporary tax until these subjects converted to Islam. To that end, when conversions didn't happen fast enough, the jizya rate continued to increase in practice over the years; before it disappeared in the 1800's, non-Muslims were being taxed at twice the rate the Muslims were paying through other venues, in many areas where there were Islamic governments. This alone should show that the jizya was in essence a tribute, and not simply another form of equal taxation.

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

Yes, I am sure the citizens of Constantinople in 1453 were quite happy when Mehmed II of the Ottoman empire captured their city in 1453, killed their emperor, allowed the city be sacked for 3 days, with widespread slaughter and rape of the populace, and then allowing his troops to enslave another 30,000 - 50,000 people who were forcibly taken from their homes and dispersed across Asia Minor and the Balkans. At that point Mehmed II showed his tolerance and stopped the looting and pillaging, but of course then appropriated the largest Eastern Orthodox church and had it turned into a mosque.

[fortinbras]

The jizya is essentially a penalty for not being Muslim. There is a little ceremony where Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, etc. line up to pay this penalty, a ceremony in which their payment is accepted with a slap in the face. I am not clear on the amount of this tribute to their Muslim conquerors but apparently it is large enough that the Muslims don't want their dhimmis to convert to Islam because the loss of the jizya that can't be collected if they convert would have substantial political consequences.

Additionally, Muslim countries impose various other humiliations on their dhimmis, such as requiring them to wear certain distinctive clothes (which I suspect were regarded as clownish or otherwise undignified in the 7th century) and to dismount from their horse or camel when encountering a Muslim, etc. Also serious restrictions on their religious activities and houses of worship. And they are not supposed to complain to their co-religionists or anyone else outside the country. And very definitely they are not permitted to suggest any easing of the strictures - because these humiliations are prescribed directly from the Koran, so any suggestion of modification amounts to a blasphemous criticism of the Koran. etc.

[fortinbras]

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

Actually not a problem. Try the storefront churches operating in just about every slum and ghetto in America, and quite a few one-room churches in the rural South; most of them haven't bothered to petition the IRS for exemption - primarily because they are bringing in so little revenue that even non-exempt they won't have to pay taxes simply because their take is so negligible.

[LPC]

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

Actually not a problem. Try the storefront churches operating in just about every slum and ghetto in America, and quite a few one-room churches in the rural South; most of them haven't bothered to petition the IRS for exemption - primarily because they are bringing in so little revenue that even non-exempt they won't have to pay taxes simply because their take is so negligible.

You (and Patriotrantings) are missing the point.

As was pointed out very early in this thread, churches are not required to apply for exempt status. IRC Section 508, which denies section 501(c)(3) status to any organization that does not apply for and obtain a determination by the IRS that it is indeed a 501(c)(3) organization, specifically exempts churches.

So, if you are a religious organization that is described in section 501(c)(3), and you are a
"church," meaning (under established case law) that you have a congregation that meets regularly for religious worship, then you are tax exempt. Period. End of sentence.

Asking for an example of a church that is not tax exempt under 501(c)(3) is like asking for an example of a human being that is not a mammal. It's not possible as a matter of definitions.

Now, as I've said before, you can have something that calls itself a "church" that is not a "church" in the normal meaning of the word, but that's a different issue. Everything that is a "church" within the normal meaning of the word "church" should be exempt from tax under IRC section 501(c)(3) regardless of whether or not it has asked for or even wants that tax exempt status. It's tax exempt. Period.

[Paths of the Sea]

...you can have something that calls itself a "church"
that is not a "church" in the normal meaning of the
word, but that's a different issue.

As earlier noted, there are many examples of where that has been the issue to be decided; is it or is it not as alleged, a "church".

Kent Hovind presently comes to mind for he likes to claim he was operating his family business as a church and so should have been afforded various considerations.

Alas, when given the opportunity to test his "church" claims, Kent sat silent!

Kent and his people still try to exploit the claim for public relations purposes and fund-raising, but in the eyes of the law Kent chose to pass on the opportunity to test his "church" claim (i.e., I think he and I both know it would have failed).

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Burnaby49]

When disputing what is, and is not, a church let us not forget the new vibrant church founded here in Canada by Paraclete Belanger. The Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI for short) is just the church for the harried hard working individual who just doesn't have time for all overhead of liturgy, dogma, fundraising, church upkeep and congregations. All that it takes to join is to proclaim yourself a minister.

Obligations to the church? Just proclaiming a new-found belief in the supremacy of the King james bible. Benefits? A delusional doomed path to nulifying debts, evading taxes, and generally ignoring whatever laws are inconveniencing you.

Sadly, since one of the church's prime tenents is that adherents don't have to pay any taxes donations are not tax deductable. Kind of a wash in any case since there are no donations.

So, is it a church? Belanger and his fellow ministers proclaim it to be so, Belanger at great length. But devil's advocates, like me, say it is just a big scam to fleece the desperate, such as the Volks, who just seem to want their foreclosure stopped. Too deep for me.