Are churches looking for a showdown with the IRS?

[Fern]

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)

But they are not "for profit" businesses.

They are substantially similar to HOA, which are tax exempt. Members (neighbors) get together and pool their money for things like sidewalks and community buildings to hold get-togethers for residents. There's no valid reason to charge income tax to HOA's on such things and there's no valid reason to tax churches either.

There's a ton of such non-business activity that shouldn't be hit with income tax. E.g., a booster club for the high school band. They'll raise money by selling products (e.g., candy, fruit), having car washes, whatever, to help pay for the band's trip to a band competition.

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.

Yes, this is a special benefit. E.g., dues/contributions by HOA members are not tax deductible.

Personally, I fell the benefit of encouraging donations to hospitals, universities, relief organizations, animal shelters, clinics etc far outweigh any problems with tax deductions to churches.

I suppose that churches could be specifically 'carved out' and removed from section 501(c)(3) (the deduction itself would have to be 'carved out' of section 170), but good luck with the politics of that. It might not kill your re-election prospects if you represent San Francisco, but pretty much every other Rep would get hammered.

Fern

 

[Fern]

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.

Never expected to say this at ATP&N, but you're over thinking it a bit, and in addition, we're dealing with terms specific to taxation.

Here's how tax law defines income: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/61

(Note the parenthetical "But not limited to")

Note that contributions to churches etc are not listed, but there's still the "but not limited to" part.

Here's the tax law on items specifically excluded form "gross income": http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-A/chapter-1/subchapter-B/part-III

Note contributions to churches etc are not listed.

Here's the tax law that says what organizations are exempt from income tax: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-A/chapter-1/subchapter-F

The point, which I admit perhaps not readily apparent to those who are not tax professionals or academics, is that the term "exempt" derives from statutory construction. I.e., it's just the way Congress, in their infinite wisdom, decided to construct/phrase tax law.

Contributions etc are not listed as "gross income" but Congress wanted to make it clear that tax law does not consider it so and what we have, including the nomenclature, is the result of their attempt to do so.

IMO, contributions do not need to be "exempted" from income because they were never included in the definition of income to begin with.

Fern

 

[BoomerD]

But they are not "for profit" businesses.

They are substantially similar to HOA, which are tax exempt. Members (neighbors) get together and pool their money for things like sidewalks and community buildings to hold get-togethers for residents. There's no valid reason to charge income tax to HOA's on such things and there's no valid reason to tax churches either.

There's a ton of such non-business activity that shouldn't be hit with income tax. E.g., a booster club for the high school band. They'll raise money by selling products (e.g., candy, fruit), having car washes, whatever, to help pay for the band's trip to a band competition.



Yes, this is a special benefit. E.g., dues/contributions by HOA members are not tax deductible.

Personally, I fell the benefit of encouraging donations to hospitals, universities, relief organizations, animal shelters, clinics etc far outweigh any problems with tax deductions to churches.

I suppose that churches could be specifically 'carved out' and removed from section 501(c)(3) (the deduction itself would have to be 'carved out' of section 170), but good luck with the politics of that. It might not kill your re-election prospects if you represent San Francisco, but pretty much every other Rep would get hammered.

Fern

While I'll agree that MOST churches aren't actually "for profit" in the true business sense, the vast sums of wealth that many accrue should put them into a separate category from the band uniform fund raiser, animal shelter, etc.

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/world/the-10-richest-religions-in-the-world/

There's way too much money in "God" for them to be truly "non-profit."

 

[fskimospy]

While I'll agree that MOST churches aren't actually "for profit" in the true business sense, the vast sums of wealth that many accrue should put them into a separate category from the band uniform fund raiser, animal shelter, etc.

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/world/the-10-richest-religions-in-the-world/

There's way too much money in "God" for them to be truly "non-profit."

For example, Trinity Church in Manhattan is one of the biggest landowners in NYC. They own more than $2 billion in property in NYC that is exempt from property taxes. They make tens of millions a year off this property.

Non-profit can describe a lot of very profitable enterprises though. It all depends on how the money is used.

 

[Zorkorist]

Not for profit is just another abstraction of the tax code.

Of course everything is for profit.

Just depends on the profit one is seeking.

-John

 

[Jhhnn]

I wonder if Christians are looking for a showdown with the irs?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/03/pastors-endorsing-candidates-in-defiance-irs-rules/



Why should a government agency have the ability to restrict our rights? The IRS rules flies in the face of our right to political speech.

I figure christian organizations are looking for a showdown with the IRS. Which would end up at the supreme court, with the supreme court ruling a government agency does not have the ability to restrict speech.

What a maroon. There are 300K congregations in the US, and the pastors of 1600 are on a mission from God to defy the separation of church & state. That's ~.5%, but TH thinks it's a movement, thanks to Faux News propagandizing. It's worse than making a mountain out of a molehill, because the molehill is a molehill wannabee.

 

[lopri]

@fern: OK, so you were talking about statutory entitlements in the context of tax law. Not unlike the the entitlements guaranteed (access to contraceptives) to the Hobby Lobby employees by a statute but stolen by the employers under the claim of their religious beliefs.

That still makes little sense. Considering how you were using the terms in your previous post. You cannot pivot around the different meanings of a word to suit your arguments.

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

Your analytical framework here is that there is a right to be exempt from poll tax thus there is a right to tax exemption. This was what I criticized. And I say with confidence there is no right to be exempt from poll tax - But there is right to vote.

 

[Texashiker]

What a maroon. There are 300K congregations in the US, and the pastors of 1600 are on a mission from God to defy the separation of church & state. That's ~.5%, but TH thinks it's a movement, thanks to Faux News propagandizing. It's worse than making a mountain out of a molehill, because the molehill is a molehill wannabee.

All it takes is one case before the supreme court.

@fern: OK, so you were talking about statutory entitlements in the context of tax law. Not unlike the the entitlements guaranteed (access to contraceptives) to the Hobby Lobby employees by a statute but stolen by the employers under the claim of their religious beliefs.

Taxation can not be used as a tool to restrict constitutionally protected rights.

The federal government decided preachers can not talk about politics. Which is a direct violation of the 1st amendment.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yep, only takes one case to re-enforce the separation of church and state when it comes to politics. I'm sure that many will not want to lose their tax-exempt status.

 

[Texashiker]

Yep, only takes one case to re-enforce the separation of church and state when it comes to politics.

You do realize "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the constitution, right?

I'm sure that many will not want to lose their tax-exempt status.

Taxation can not be used as a tool to suppress protected rights.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You do realize "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the constitution, right?

Taxation can not be used as a tool to suppress protected rights.

You do realize that being tax-exempt is not a right but a privilege and if you violate the terms of the tax-exempt status it can be revoked.

Have a nice Boudreaux's butt paste day.

 

[Texashiker]

if you violate the terms of the tax-exempt status it can be revoked.

I think that is what churches are looking to do. They are going to challenge the terms of the tax exempt status laws, sue the irs and take it all the way to the supreme court.

The supreme court will decide restrictions can not be placed on protected political speech. Congress over reached its power in passing a law saying not-for-profits can not get involved in politics.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I don't see the SCOTUS taking the case nor do I see any lower court agreeing with the churches when it comes to crossing the predetermined boundaries or overturning laws the congress has put in place concerning not-for-profits getting involved in politics.

Get your Boudreaux's butt paste ready, you will need it yet again.

 

[Ryland]

The federal government decided preachers can not talk about politics. Which is a direct violation of the 1st amendment.

The federal government decided that ANYBODY who claims tax free status cannot talk about politics. This is NOT an anti-religion conspiracy.

 

[Texashiker]

I don't see the SCOTUS taking the case nor do I see any lower court agreeing with the churches when it comes to crossing the predetermined boundaries or overturning laws the congress has put in place concerning not-for-profits getting involved in politics.

The laws passed by congress restrict political speech.

This is like saying someone who draws welfare can not vote. The liberal left would have a stroke in a law like that was even talked about.

The federal government decided that ANYBODY who claims tax free status cannot talk about politics. This is NOT an anti-religion conspiracy.

Congress overreached its power in restricting political speech.


What dont yall understand? The government can not restrict political speech. The aclu should have taken this up years ago.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The federal government decided that ANYBODY who claims tax free status cannot talk about politics. This is NOT an anti-religion conspiracy.

BINGO!!!!!

/thread

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The laws passed by congress restrict political speech.

This is like saying someone who draws welfare can not vote. The liberal left would have a stroke in a law like that was even talked about.

Here's comes the false equivalencies, yet again.

 

[Texashiker]

Here's comes the false equivalencies, yet again.

How do you figure welfare is a false equivalency?

Tax exemption is not a right.

Welfare is not a right.

So lets pass a law saying everyone who draws welfare can not vote. If you do vote you lose welfare.

Not going to happen because voting, just like political speech is a protected right.

 

[himkhan]

TexasChick thread: Check
Not one person agreeing with man wearing a skirt: Check
Obvious troll ignoring all posts that make sense: Check
Obvious troll creating false equivalencies as per troll schedule: Check
Will moderators ever ban this troll: Jury is out.

 

[Texashiker]

TexasChick thread: Check
Not one person agreeing with man wearing a skirt: Check
Obvious troll ignoring all posts that make sense: Check
Obvious troll creating false equivalencies as per troll schedule: Check
Will moderators ever ban this troll: Jury is out.

What is your problem?

Are you ok with the government restricting political speech?

Keep in mind when the law was passed, in the 1950s. An age when there was a communist hiding behind every bush.

We can not allow the government to place restrictions on political speech.

Nor can we allow the government to use taxation as a leverage tool to curtail protected rights.

 

[himkhan]

Yawn.... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Leaves YATCTT

 

[piasabird]

There is no law that specifically limits a church members free speech or political freedom rights. If you think this way you are a communist. This is why Kings only allowed one state religion. This Christian concept of all men being free and having the right of Moral Agency goes against the absolute right of the federal government to rule over people with an Iron Fist. Are you for slavery and servitude to an all powerful federal government? That describes communism fascism where the majority are ruled over by the few enlightened government officials.

 

[thraashman]

TexasChick thread: Check
Not one person agreeing with man wearing a skirt: Check
Obvious troll ignoring all posts that make sense: Check
Obvious troll creating false equivalencies as per troll schedule: Check
Will moderators ever ban this troll: Jury is out.

The urge to correct someone so unbelievably wrong is so intense. But we have to tell ourselves it's not worth arguing with crazy people. They don't exist enough in reality to have a chance at reaching them.

 

[xBiffx]

The federal government decided that ANYBODY who claims tax free status cannot talk about politics. This is NOT an anti-religion conspiracy.

Again, what about unions.....

 

[Texashiker]

The urge to correct someone so unbelievably wrong is so intense. But we have to tell ourselves it's not worth arguing with crazy people. They don't exist enough in reality to have a chance at reaching them.

And that ladies and gentlemen is how we lose our rights. People such as yourself justify the governments actions.

Until something affects them directly the general public usually does not care.

The truth is, posters in this thread are justifying restricting protected rights. Which is sad.

How can yall sit there and say "if you want to keep your not-for-profit designation, then you reframe from political speech." What the hell is wrong with yall? How can yall justify the government taking a protected right from a group of people?

The law is wrong and it must be changed.