Are churches looking for a showdown with the IRS?

[Fern]

-snip-
There is not right to tax exemption. How are you not getting this?

Well, I disagree.

He's basically correct here:

Once again, where does the government have the ability to restrict either religion or political speech?
-snip-

(I'm not going to get into 'reasonable restrictions' although it is relevant in such a discussion.)

Those who wish to claim that there is not a right to tax exemption - don't we have a right to be exempt from poll taxes? Of course we do. That's because some rights in the Constitution cannot be abridged by taxation.

Try to tax somebody on their Free Speech.

Try to tax somebody on their religion.

It's not going to happen (unless the argument could be made it's necessary and reasonable. I don't see that happening.)

Fern

 

[xBiffx]

I think the problem becomes when political speech for churches is the only thing in question. Aren't there other tax exempt organization who regularly engage in political speech? Say, unions?

I think that's the issue and why the IRS has stayed away so far. It's not the limiting of speech and/or the taxation exemption that is the issue, its the non-uniform way those standards are applied here that is the issue.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, I disagree.

He's basically correct here:

(I'm not going to get into 'reasonable restrictions' although it is relevant in such a discussion.)

Uhmm, he's not even remotely correct. The 'reasonable restriction' doctrine is used constantly to regulate exactly those sorts of things.

You can't say "he's basically correct except for the explicit doctrine that makes him not correct".

Those who wish to claim that there is not a right to tax exemption - don't we have a right to be exempt from poll taxes? Of course we do. That's because some rights in the Constitution cannot be abridged by taxation.

The reason why we have a right to be exempt from poll taxes is because poll taxes are EXPLICITLY banned in the Constitution. (15th amendment) Before that amendment poll taxes were 100% constitutional.

Can you specify the reasoning that takes us from one to the other? Poll taxes were constitutional until explicitly banned. Taxes on speech and other rights are not explicitly banned. Considering it took a constitutional amendment to render poll taxes illegal, why would such a prohibition extend to other rights without such an amendment?

Not to mention the fact that this is not a tax on religion, this is a specific tax deduction that religious organizations can take advantage of. There is no right to special tax deductions.

Try to tax somebody on their Free Speech.

Try to tax somebody on their religion.

It's not going to happen (unless the argument could be made it's necessary and reasonable. I don't see that happening.)

Fern

Not only has the argument been made and won, it happens on a daily basis. We tax people all the time on their free speech (permits for demonstrations, etc).

 

[Fern]

I think the problem becomes when political speech for churches is the only thing in question. Aren't there other tax exempt organization who regularly engage in political speech? Say, unions?

I think that's the issue and why the IRS has stayed away so far. It's not the limiting of speech and/or the taxation exemption that is the issue, its the non-uniform way those standards are applied here that is the issue.

See the bolded portion.

Union dues are generally deductible by the union member paying them. However, the portion of union dues that is contributed to a campaign or PAC must be disclosed and it is not allowed to be deducted by the union member.

I.e., that part of the union dues is treated like any other political contribution: Is is exempt from tax for the recipient but is not deductible by the donor.

Fern

 

[HumblePie]

Well, I disagree.

He's basically correct here:



(I'm not going to get into 'reasonable restrictions' although it is relevant in such a discussion.)

Those who wish to claim that there is not a right to tax exemption - don't we have a right to be exempt from poll taxes? Of course we do. That's because some rights in the Constitution cannot be abridged by taxation.

Try to tax somebody on their Free Speech.

Try to tax somebody on their religion.

It's not going to happen (unless the argument could be made it's necessary and reasonable. I don't see that happening.)

Fern

The tax exemption is on the "earnings" or profit of the church, not the religion of the church. Many churchs do have a profit and make money. Many do not.

Still I think the requirement for not being able to endorse a political side to maintain tax exemption is pretty stupid overall with the exception that church money can't be used for political parties.

 

[Texashiker]

The reason why we have a right to be exempt from poll taxes is because poll taxes are EXPLICITLY banned in the Constitution. (15th amendment) Before that amendment poll taxes were 100% constitutional.

Can you specify the reasoning that takes us from one to the other? Poll taxes were constitutional until explicitly banned. Taxes on speech and other rights are not explicitly banned. Considering it took a constitutional amendment to render poll taxes illegal, why would such a prohibition extend to other rights without such an amendment?

The excising of rights can not be taxed, as it would be an undue burden.

Isn't that one of your points on voter id? That it creates an undue burden?

Isn't that one of your points on anti-abortion laws, that the laws create an undue burden?

Part of the Christian religion is to tithe 10% of your income to the church. By taxing that tithe, the government is taxing people for practicing their religion.

 

[thraashman]

There is USSC precedence finding that "the religion clauses of the First Amendment did not prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from revoking the tax exempt status of a religious university whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy". In other words this has already been settled by the Supreme Court and Texashiker is W-R-O-N-G.

 

[xBiffx]

There is USSC precedence finding that "the religion clauses of the First Amendment did not prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from revoking the tax exempt status of a religious university whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy". In other words this has already been settled by the Supreme Court and Texashiker is W-R-O-N-G.

Sure, but in practice this appears not to hold true. I think that's (and I'm guessing here for sure) the purpose of the thread. To see when/if the IRS enforces that or if this goes back to the SC for a more direct ruling.

 

[Texashiker]

In other words this has already been settled by the Supreme Court and Texashiker is W-R-O-N-G.

Discrimination is not a right. Example, bakers who refused to serve gay couples.

Political speech is a protected right. Example, see first amendment.

 

[fskimospy]

There is USSC precedence finding that "the religion clauses of the First Amendment did not prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from revoking the tax exempt status of a religious university whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy". In other words this has already been settled by the Supreme Court and Texashiker is W-R-O-N-G.

Now he will move to "SCOTUS said slavery was ok".

 

[xBiffx]

The tax exemption is on the "earnings" or profit of the church, not the religion of the church. Many churchs do have a profit and make money. Many do not.

Still I think the requirement for not being able to endorse a political side to maintain tax exemption is pretty stupid overall with the exception that church money can't be used for political parties.

Again, what about unions?

 

[Fern]

Uhmm, he's not even remotely correct. The 'reasonable restriction' doctrine is used constantly to regulate exactly those sorts of things.

You can't say "he's basically correct except for the explicit doctrine that makes him not correct".

Sure you can. He's substantially correct aside from some minor deviations.

If some one claimed that the apostrophe is used to show possession only a punctilious boob would argue he's wrong because we spell 'its' without an apostrophe. It's an exception to the rule. To state that there is no rule because there is an exception is to state that there are no rules.

The reason why we have a right to be exempt from poll taxes is because poll taxes are EXPLICITLY banned in the Constitution. (15th amendment) Before that amendment poll taxes were 100% constitutional.

It's not the 15th; it's the 24th amendment.

Can you specify the reasoning that takes us from one to the other? Poll taxes were constitutional until explicitly banned. Taxes on speech and other rights are not explicitly banned. Considering it took a constitutional amendment to render poll taxes illegal, why would such a prohibition extend to other rights without such an amendment?

See SCOTUS in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections:

The Court noted that “a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth.”

Not to mention the fact that this is not a tax on religion, this is a specific tax deduction that religious organizations can take advantage of. There is no right to special tax deductions.

If you're talking about the donations the church receives it's not a deduction; it's an exemption.

The deduction pertains to the donor and I have already said there is nothing that requires the donation be deductible.

Not only has the argument been made and won, it happens on a daily basis. We tax people all the time on their free speech (permits for demonstrations, etc).

The right to assemble, while constitutionally protected, can require police or security etc. This has been deemed reasonable etc. (It's less a tax and more a fee actually.)

Fern

 

[thraashman]

Now he will move to "SCOTUS said slavery was ok".

Ah but lets squash that argument ahead of time. The Constitution was amended to change that. There have been no amendments since 1983 what would alter the ruling against Bob Jones University.

 

[Fern]

There is USSC precedence finding that "the religion clauses of the First Amendment did not prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from revoking the tax exempt status of a religious university whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy". In other words this has already been settled by the Supreme Court and Texashiker is W-R-O-N-G.

You're making his argument.

The above is an exception. You don't need an exception unless there is a rule.

Fern

 

[Texashiker]

Ah but lets squash that argument ahead of time. The Constitution was amended to change that. There have been no amendments since 1983 what would alter the ruling against Bob Jones University.

Bob Jones was about discrimination. Last I heard discrimination was not a right.

Do you have anything relating to a protected right, such as political speech?

 

[fskimospy]

Sure you can. He's substantially correct aside from some minor deviations.

If some one claimed that the apostrophe is used to show possession only a punctilious boob would argue he's wrong because we spell 'its' without an apostrophe. It's an exception to the rule. To state that there is no rule because there is an exception is to state that there are no rules.

Of course by 'minor deviations' you mean 'the legal doctrine that is used to restrict those rights in hundreds or perhaps thousands of different ways'.

If you've found yourself in a place where you need to ignore hundreds or thousands of laws in order to have someone be correct, you should probably just stop trying to claim he's correct.

It's not the 15th; it's the 24th amendment.

See SCOTUS in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections:

You are correct! That doesn't really relate to the substance of that paragraph though.

If you're talking about the donations the church receives it's not a deduction; it's an exemption.

The deduction pertains to the donor and I have already said there is nothing that requires the donation be deductible.

The right to assemble, while constitutionally protected, can require police or security etc. This has been deemed reasonable etc. (It's less a tax and more a fee actually.)

Fern

This is true, yet any fee whatsoever to vote is considered unconstitutional while such fees are not considered unconstitutional when applied to speech and such. You've kind of inadvertently proved my point.

 

[Texashiker]

This is true, yet any fee whatsoever to vote is considered unconstitutional while such fees are not considered unconstitutional when applied to speech and such. You've kind of inadvertently proved my point.

Various lower courts have overturned laws because they create an "undue burden." This is something you have been rabid about.

The government can not place an undue burden on the exercising of rights.

Telling a preacher what he can and can not talk about, is not only an undue burden, it is a violation of basic civil rights.

 

[fskimospy]

You're making his argument.

The above is an exception. You don't need an exception unless there is a rule.

Fern

The rule is not 'you can't restrict the practice of religion'. The rule is 'in order to restrict the practice of religion you need a compelling reason'. There's no exception there, there's just the rule.

 

[Victorian Gray]

For the love of god, someone help TH find a gig doing tug jobs so he can feel the salty spray on his face and stop posting here.

You owe me a new monitor and keyboard dammit!

 

[Texashiker]

For the love of god, someone help TH find a gig doing tug jobs so he can feel the salty spray on his face and stop posting here.

I am supposed to call tomorrow about a job.

This is the same company I have been calling for a month. They tell me to call back every week.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Please explain why you are all for protecting vial acts, but when it comes to conservatives you change your tone.

Any other time you would have been all for protecting freedom of speech.

No voter id, no problem.

Preacher talking about politics, oh noooz.

Vial acts?

What have you been doing with these?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Common law rights, such as the right to no taxation without representation granted to us by the magna carta.

Church members and clergy are still allowed to vote, so the idea that this is "taxation without representation" is laughable, doubly so when you consider the religious leanings of the vast majority of elected officials. "Oh, such a shame, there's no one in government who can speak for the Christians..." To quote the late George Carlin, "What are you, fucking stupid?" If anyone should be exempted from taxes on the basis of "no representation," it's the atheists, seeing as how there are a grand total of zero atheists holding any elected office anywhere in the United States. You're cool with a tax exemption for atheism, right?

Churchs have always enjoyed a tax exempt status. The major religions predate the united states by a least a 1,000 years.

What right does the government have to tax and regulate something that existed before the government?

You mean like, say, humans? Humans existed before taxes ever came around; what right does the government have to tax us? "Well, that's sort of the point of taxes, they're a responsibility of all citizens to fund the government so it can do the work it needs to do in maintaining social order...." BULLSHIT! SOCIALISM! OPPRESSION! MAGNA CARTA! OTHER ANGRY WORDS REPRESENTING CONCEPTS I CLEARLY DON'T GRASP!

 

[BoomerD]

I contend that churches of all denominations should be declared to be "for profit" businesses and taxed at the same rate as all other businesses/corporations.

After all, if the US Government allows churches to have tax free income...of any kind, isn't that the same thing as supporting said church? (and crossing the line between church and state)
PLUS, taxpayers should lose the tax deduction for donating to churches, charities, etc...lest that also be determined to be governmental support of those entities as well...

Want to donate to your church or favorite charity? Feel free to do so...just don't expect to write that donation off of your taxable income.

 

[lopri]

I have to confess that it is the first time I have ever heard of this new right called "Right to tax exemption." Sounds quite self-contradictory because the word "exemption" strongly implies preexisting rights and/or duties. For example, you can be exempted from rights via voluntarily waivers, or you can be exempted from duties for agreed-upon exigencies. So this "Right to tax exemption" argument amounts to "I am entitled to something that I am not entitled to because I am exempted from what I am exempted from."

You are not exempted from "exemption" or exempted from "exemption from exemption." This is a sophistry. The reason you go to army is not because you are exempted from "exemption from serving your country." Likewise it is absurd to complain that your speech is limited when that limitation is a self-imposed one.

Now, one can make an argument as to whether the substance of that limitation is just, proper, or proportional. But that is a different argument than the strange wordplay that is completely formalistic and has absolutely no content.

 

[Texashiker]

Church members and clergy are still allowed to vote, so the idea that this is "taxation without representation" is laughable,

I never said that.

You are taking my words and twisting them.