Tax church property? Gay marriage court to decide.

[WolfGate]

Actually it can be argued that taxing churches is actually a truer form of separation of church and state then automatically making them tax exempt.

I can see that argument. However, when I look at the language of the first amendment, rather than the "separation of church and state" description that has become commonplace, I would disagree with the argument.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

When the law starts with the default that a church is tax exempt and the IRS has the burden of proof to revoke if a church has done contrary to the IRS definition, you are less likely to prohibit the free exercise of religion than if you start off placing on a church the burden of proof that it is bona fide.

 

[Armoured]

Every Christian should be aware that the same state high court that first imposed gay marriage a decade ago heard arguments yesterday on a case that could result in shutting down churches across Massachusetts, by taxing their land and buildings--a move that could be followed by other states, just as in the case of gay marriage:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/lo...igious_tax_exemptions_on_the_line_in_sjc_case

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...-before-sjc/8dHA6uQU5vLx6bQ9yJOqBM/story.html

Come, Lord Jesus!

More armchair persecution? The horror!

 

[Tiny Bible]

Actually it can be argued that taxing churches is actually a truer form of separation of church and state then automatically making them tax exempt.

Not really.
Churches aren't automatically tax exempt. They apply for a 501(c)3 exemption.
Taxing churches could never be considered a separation of church and state because the state is taxing the church.

 

[Arcangl86]

Not really.
Churches aren't automatically tax exempt. They apply for a 501(c)3 exemption.
Taxing churches could never be considered a separation of church and state because the state is taxing the church.

They are automatically tax exempt if they meet the criteria. And as for the second, it can be seen as the state taxing an entity just like any other, with one happening to be a church. IF churches are being treated different, that is de facto endorsement.

 

[WolfGate]

Not really.
Churches aren't automatically tax exempt. They apply for a 501(c)3 exemption.
Taxing churches could never be considered a separation of church and state because the state is taxing the church.

Partially blind post I take it? I posted the link earlier which corrects your first statement.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, even though property taxation would probably close at least some of the churches I formerly served. Selling out & having those buildings off of their backs might possibly be the best thing that ever happened to some congregations.

HOWEVER, American religious freedom is has historically been pretty awesomely expansive, and that has been one of our strengths as a nation. One of the ways in which we have maintained the expansiveness of our religious freedom has been the doctrine of avoiding "excessive entanglement" between government and religion. If the government can use the tax code to suppress religious expressions they don't like - well...I don't think that would be a very great idea either. It would definitely, at least during some administrations, be used as a weapon against new religious movements that weren't sufficiently WASPy.

This goes back to: “The power to tax is the power to destroy,” wrote John Marshall, for a unanimous Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland, 193 years ago.

 

[RDKirk]

They are automatically tax exempt if they meet the criteria. And as for the second, it can be seen as the state taxing an entity just like any other, with one happening to be a church. IF churches are being treated different, that is de facto endorsement.

Or, as was argued long, long ago, the taxation of churches operating as churches would be de facto abridgement by government of their ability to exist. A new court is going to have to find reason why previous court precedents do not apply.

 

[Arcangl86]

Or, as was argued long, long ago, the taxation of churches operating as churches would be de facto abridgement by government of their ability to exist. A new court is going to have to find reason why previous court precedents do not apply.

I'm not familiar with any cases that address this issue. Can you please provide an example? McCulloch is more about federalism and the limits of the necessary and proper clause.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm not familiar with any cases that address this issue. Can you please provide an example? McCulloch is more about federalism and the limits of the necessary and proper clause.

It's a recognition that taxation by its nature is regulation, every jurist and every legislature understands that. The earliest taxation laws in the US that might have been applicable to churches explicitly exempted them--so, no there, are no cases of a legislature passing a law that they figure out in discussion clearly isn't going to pass either public approval or judicial scrutiny.

 

[Arcangl86]

It's a recognition that taxation by its nature is regulation, every jurist and every legislature understands that. The earliest taxation laws in the US that might have been applicable to churches explicitly exempted them--so, no there, are no cases of a legislature passing a law that they figure out in discussion clearly isn't going to pass either public approval or judicial scrutiny.

Just because something would be unpopular doesn't mean it would be unconstitutional, and since there has not been any cases involving the taxation of churches, we do not know if it is Constitutional or not.

 

[Tiny Bible]

Partially blind post I take it? I posted the link earlier which corrects your first statement.

I read post #21. It lacks citation.

 

[WolfGate]

I read post #21. It lacks citation.

Read post #17. A direct link to the IRS publication is there.

 

[Tiny Bible]

Read post #17. A direct link to the IRS publication is there.

Yes, I saw that too. However, with regard to post #21, you're saying churches are tax exempt without 501(c)3?

ETA: Because that is not what the publication the IRS produces says.

 

[AFrazier]

Unless the church has a say in government, which it does not, it should not be taxed by the government. As long as there is the right to the free practice of religion, no church should have to marry gay couples.

But since the government is going to do what it wants to do, the only way to fight it is 1) band together in each state and vote out any politicians that votes in favor. 2) Civil disobedience.

Personally, if I were a pastor and a gay couple were trying to push me into marrying them under threats of discrimination, I would just ruin their "wedding" by giving them a Christian ceremony in every respect. I would require pre-marriage counseling, as many churches do, at which time I would inform them that they are abominations, and that they will not actually be married in the eyes of God and the church, and that they are sinning and in direct violation of God's commandments. Then at the ceremony I would be sure to ask appropriate questions during the vows. "Do you take this man, knowing that your actions condemn you both ..." etc.

I suspect that you wouldn't get too much gay business after that.

 

[Tiny Bible]

This may help the discussion. In essence what Mass. is trying to say is they're going to ignore the federal 1894 official tax exemption and proceed with a measure that would tax church property.
I wouldn't imagine they can do that and SCOTUS should certainly know this if it is true. Unless SCOTUS repeals the 1894 law that is.

Should Churches (Defined as Churches, Temples, Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?
US churches* received an official federal income tax exemption in 1894, and they have been unofficially tax-exempt since the country's founding. All 50 US states and the District of Columbia exempt churches from paying property tax..... *Continues at Pro/Con.org

 

[Tiny Bible]

No American church has to marry gay couples. They can't be forced under threat by gays either as the gay movement has pursued in that avenue against photographers, bed and breakfast owners, and bakers.

Further, as to the church not having a say in government, Pastor Robert Jeffress took on that challenge during the Prop8 campaign in California years ago.
This too is from the link posted to Pro/Con website.
"In Nov. 2008, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon church) was accused by protesters of violating its tax-exempt status by supporting the passage of California's Proposition 8, a ballot initiative outlawing civil marriages for same-sex couples. [55] [56] However, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) Executive Director Barry W. Lynn explained that the Mormons "almost certainly have not violated their tax exemption. While the tax code has a zero tolerance for endorsements of candidates, the tax code gives wide latitude for churches to engage in discussions of policy matters and moral questions, including when posed as initiatives." [55]

The campaign ban issue rose to prominence in the lead up to the 2012 US presidential election. On Oct. 12, 2011, AU wrote to the IRS to report Pastor Robert Jeffress, who had posted a video of himself endorsing Texas Gov. Rick Perry on the First Baptist Church of Dallas website. [57] No response from the IRS had been announced as of Nov. 11, 2011."

Unless the church has a say in government, which it does not, it should not be taxed by the government. As long as there is the right to the free practice of religion, no church should have to marry gay couples.

But since the government is going to do what it wants to do, the only way to fight it is 1) band together in each state and vote out any politicians that votes in favor. 2) Civil disobedience.

Personally, if I were a pastor and a gay couple were trying to push me into marrying them under threats of discrimination, I would just ruin their "wedding" by giving them a Christian ceremony in every respect. I would require pre-marriage counseling, as many churches do, at which time I would inform them that they are abominations, and that they will not actually be married in the eyes of God and the church, and that they are sinning and in direct violation of God's commandments. Then at the ceremony I would be sure to ask appropriate questions during the vows. "Do you take this man, knowing that your actions condemn you both ..." etc.

I suspect that you wouldn't get too much gay business after that.

 

[Tiny Bible]

RUTGERS JOURNAL OF LAW AND RELIGION
Volume 9.1 Spring 2008
A BRIGHT LINE POINTS TO
WARD LEGAL COMPROMISE:
IRS CONDONED LOBBYING ACTIVITIES FOR RELIGIOUS
ENTITIES AND NON-PROFITS

 

[WolfGate]

Yes, I saw that too. However, with regard to post #21, you're saying churches are tax exempt without 501(c)3?

ETA: Because that is not what the publication the IRS produces says.

Yes, churches are tax exempt without having to apply for 501(c)3 status. That is exactly what it says in the portion I quoted. Here it is again:

Recognition of Tax-Exempt Status
Automatic Exemption for Churches - Churches that meet the requirements of IRC Section 501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS.

Although there is no requirement to do so, many churches seek recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS because this recognition assures church leaders, members and contributors that the church is recognized as exempt and qualifies for related tax benefits.

It says they have to "meet the requirements" of 501(c)3 to be tax exempt but do not have to apply for 501(c)3 status. That is on page 2 of the document. Page 2 also lists the requirements of 501(c)3.

 

[WolfGate]

No American church has to marry gay couples. They can't be forced under threat by gays either as the gay movement has pursued in that avenue against photographers, bed and breakfast owners, and bakers.

Further, as to the church not having a say in government, Pastor Robert Jeffress took on that challenge during the Prop8 campaign in California years ago.
This too is from the link posted to Pro/Con website.
"In Nov. 2008, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon church) was accused by protesters of violating its tax-exempt status by supporting the passage of California's Proposition 8, a ballot initiative outlawing civil marriages for same-sex couples. [55] [56] However, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) Executive Director Barry W. Lynn explained that the Mormons "almost certainly have not violated their tax exemption. While the tax code has a zero tolerance for endorsements of candidates, the tax code gives wide latitude for churches to engage in discussions of policy matters and moral questions, including when posed as initiatives." [55]

The campaign ban issue rose to prominence in the lead up to the 2012 US presidential election. On Oct. 12, 2011, AU wrote to the IRS to report Pastor Robert Jeffress, who had posted a video of himself endorsing Texas Gov. Rick Perry on the First Baptist Church of Dallas website. [57] No response from the IRS had been announced as of Nov. 11, 2011."

Agreed - the IRS does give churches the right to be involved in issues of legislation under certain conditions. A church cannot expend a substantial part of its overall activities on lobbying efforts and it cannot use comments on public policy influence as a smokescreen to endorse a candidate but it certainly can be involved in educating and speaking out about issues that effect the church and its members as part of its religious mission.

A pastor can also endorse a candidate but has to be very careful there. They cannot make personal endorsements in official church publications or at official church functions. Their role can be identified (Pastor of church X) though it is wise for them to clearly state that they are speaking as individuals and not representing their church.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes, churches are tax exempt without having to apply for 501(c)3 status. That is exactly what it says in the portion I quoted. Here it is again:



It says they have to "meet the requirements" of 501(c)3 to be tax exempt but do not have to apply for 501(c)3 status. That is on page 2 of the document. Page 2 also lists the requirements of 501(c)3.

Many churches and "church-like" organizations apply for the exemption primarily to protect their contributors just in case their activities cause them to be ruled "non-church" at some point by the IRS. If the IRS should rule against them based on their non-church activities, the IRS could also charge taxes due on their contributors.