Federal bill would exempt pope from U.S. taxes, ‘safeguard’ his American citizenship

[Michie]

A new bill before Congress would “safeguard” the domestic citizenship of any American who is elected pope of the Catholic Church, including exempting him from paying taxes to the IRS.

Rep. Jeff Hurd, R-Colorado, proposed the bill, saying it “ensures that any American who answers the call to lead more than a billion Catholics worldwide can do so without risking his citizenship or facing unnecessary tax burdens.”

While the text of the bill is not yet available, Hurd said in a statement on his congressional website the bill is meant “to protect the citizenship of, and provide tax-exempt status to, any American elected as the supreme pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.”

“This legislation recognizes the extraordinary nature of the papacy — a role at the intersection of faith, leadership, and global responsibility,” the Colorado representative said.

Continued below.

Federal bill would exempt pope from U.S. taxes, ‘safeguard’ his citizenship

A new bill in Congress would “safeguard” the U.S. citizenship of any American elected as pope of the Catholic Church and exempt him from paying taxes.

www.catholicnewsagency.com

 

[Richard T]

A new bill before Congress would “safeguard” the domestic citizenship of any American who is elected pope of the Catholic Church, including exempting him from paying taxes to the IRS.

Rep. Jeff Hurd, R-Colorado, proposed the bill, saying it “ensures that any American who answers the call to lead more than a billion Catholics worldwide can do so without risking his citizenship or facing unnecessary tax burdens.”

While the text of the bill is not yet available, Hurd said in a statement on his congressional website the bill is meant “to protect the citizenship of, and provide tax-exempt status to, any American elected as the supreme pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.”

“This legislation recognizes the extraordinary nature of the papacy — a role at the intersection of faith, leadership, and global responsibility,” the Colorado representative said.

Continued below.

Federal bill would exempt pope from U.S. taxes, ‘safeguard’ his citizenship

A new bill in Congress would “safeguard” the U.S. citizenship of any American elected as pope of the Catholic Church and exempt him from paying taxes.

www.catholicnewsagency.com

It smacks of favoritism which would lead me to believe that former Supreme Court opinions such as the following would apply. "Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) introduced the "Lemon test" for evaluating Establishment Clause cases, requiring a secular purpose, neither advancing nor inhibiting religion, and avoiding excessive entanglement."

No taxes on any US citizen in pursuit of their specific religion should ever advance. In this case it would put the USA government in the corner of Catholicism, and violate clauses and reasoning like the Lemon test suggests. I suppose you could do no taxes for all worldwide located heads of any religion, but then you would have no taxes on all kinds of wacky religious folk. If the US government was more honest they would not tax any foreign income of US citizens. As it is they get the first 126k or so excluded if they are out of the USA for nearly all of the year. As no one has pushed back at the Pope's citizenship, I hope that is not an issue though there are some previous posts in CF about problems that could occur. Don't think too that some group like the ACLU will turn their back on this. I would imagine that there will be challenges in the court.
One way that would not be unconstitutional would be to give the Vatican, (which is a recognized nation) the foreign aid that it could use for security as it sees fit.

 

[JSRG]

It smacks of favoritism which would lead me to believe that former Supreme Court opinions such as the following would apply. "Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) introduced the "Lemon test" for evaluating Establishment Clause cases, requiring a secular purpose, neither advancing nor inhibiting religion, and avoiding excessive entanglement."

The "Lemon test" was abandoned by Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022). This was confirmed by Groff v. DeJoy (2023) which referred to Lemon v. Kurtzman as "now abrogated." Lemon had been increasingly abandoned even before those decisions, but they made its abandonment official. Kennedy v. Bremerton instead said that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by "reference to historical practices and understandings."

No taxes on any US citizen in pursuit of their specific religion should ever advance. In this case it would put the USA government in the corner of Catholicism, and violate clauses and reasoning like the Lemon test suggests. I suppose you could do no taxes for all worldwide located heads of any religion, but then you would have no taxes on all kinds of wacky religious folk. If the US government was more honest they would not tax any foreign income of US citizens. As it is they get the first 126k or so excluded if they are out of the USA for nearly all of the year. As no one has pushed back at the Pope's citizenship, I hope that is not an issue though there are some previous posts in CF about problems that could occur. Don't think too that some group like the ACLU will turn their back on this. I would imagine that there will be challenges in the court.
One way that would not be unconstitutional would be to give the Vatican, (which is a recognized nation) the foreign aid that it could use for security as it sees fit.

This is looking at it only from the religious angle. And the papacy is indeed a religious office. However, it is also a secular office in that it's leader of a country, Vatican City. No religion has diplomatic relations with the United States, but Vatican City--the country--does. Someone can gain citizenship in Vatican City, but no one gains citizenship in the actual denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention or the Greek Orthodox Church, nor do any countries to my knowledge have diplomatic relations with them, whereas a lot of countries, including the United States, have diplomatic relations with Vatican City.

And from the secular side--and again, the papacy is a secular office in addition to a religious one--there doesn't seem to be any constitutional objection. Whether one goes with the Lemon test or the historical practices and understanding test, it's hard to see how conferring tax exemption on a foreign leader somehow violates the Establishment Clause, even if that foreign leader is also head of a religion (there are a few of those). If an American were to become King of the United Kingdom--which is certainly possible if done by marriage--would it be a violation of the Establishment Clause to confer tax exemption or preservation of citizenship simply because they would also be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England as a result?

 

[Michie]

​

“The election of Pope Leo XIV marks a historic moment.”​

He’s a real American: Bill aims to protect pope’s US citizenship

“The election of Pope Leo XIV marks a historic moment.”

www.pillarcatholic.com

 

[Richard T]

The "Lemon test" was abandoned by Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022). This was confirmed by Groff v. DeJoy (2023) which referred to Lemon v. Kurtzman as "now abrogated." Lemon had been increasingly abandoned even before those decisions, but they made its abandonment official. Kennedy v. Bremerton instead said that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by "reference to historical practices and understandings."


This is looking at it only from the religious angle. And the papacy is indeed a religious office. However, it is also a secular office in that it's leader of a country, Vatican City. No religion has diplomatic relations with the United States, but Vatican City--the country--does. Someone can gain citizenship in Vatican City, but no one gains citizenship in the actual denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention or the Greek Orthodox Church, nor do any countries to my knowledge have diplomatic relations with them, whereas a lot of countries, including the United States, have diplomatic relations with Vatican City.

And from the secular side--and again, the papacy is a secular office in addition to a religious one--there doesn't seem to be any constitutional objection. Whether one goes with the Lemon test or the historical practices and understanding test, it's hard to see how conferring tax exemption on a foreign leader somehow violates the Establishment Clause, even if that foreign leader is also head of a religion (there are a few of those). If an American were to become King of the United Kingdom--which is certainly possible if done by marriage--would it be a violation of the Establishment Clause to confer tax exemption or preservation of citizenship simply because they would also be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England as a result?

Great points and thanks for the update on the establishment clause. I can see how giving heads of state tax exemptions would not interfere in religion. However, the Congressman quoted in the article says "ensures that any American who answers the call to lead more than a billion Catholics worldwide can do so without risking his citizenship or facing unnecessary tax burdens.”
So the motivation of this member of Congress is not to grant the head of state a tax exemption, but rather the leader of Catholics. My second question is why the Pope has an unnecessary tax burden but no one does? How is it even a burden when he makes according to some about 32 thousand a month? Pope Francis' net worth: Does the Vatican pay a salary to the pope? What are his assets? Could be he will be like Pope Francis and just donate his salary, but even here if it is coming across as income he would be subject to taxes. Assuming he paid into the Self Employment Contributions Act, he would owe taxes on that income as well minus the foriegn exclusion. High earnings as the Pope may have during his tenure too would seemingly reduce his retirement. I get it that the Pope or really any minister or foriegn head of state or both would like to be free from USA taxes. The distraction and having to file forms is quite a task.

 

[JSRG]

Great points and thanks for the update on the establishment clause. I can see how giving heads of state tax exemptions would not interfere in religion. However, the Congressman quoted in the article says "ensures that any American who answers the call to lead more than a billion Catholics worldwide can do so without risking his citizenship or facing unnecessary tax burdens.”
So the motivation of this member of Congress is not to grant the head of state a tax exemption, but rather the leader of Catholics.

I read that more as them speaking rhetorically than necessarily it being the specific reason.

My second question is why the Pope has an unnecessary tax burden but no one does? How is it even a burden when he makes according to some about 32 thousand a month? Pope Francis' net worth: Does the Vatican pay a salary to the pope? What are his assets? Could be he will be like Pope Francis and just donate his salary, but even here if it is coming across as income he would be subject to taxes. Assuming he paid into the Self Employment Contributions Act, he would owe taxes on that income as well minus the foriegn exclusion. High earnings as the Pope may have during his tenure too would seemingly reduce his retirement. I get it that the Pope or really any minister or foriegn head of state or both would like to be free from USA taxes. The distraction and having to file forms is quite a task.

The issue in terms of unnecessary tax burden is due to the pope being head of a foreign government. It feels very odd to expect taxes from someone who's leader of another country. How does one even try to enforce taxation when the person in question presumably has complete diplomatic immunity?

As for the reason why they would single out the pope for this, it's the first time to my knowledge someone became leader of another country while being an American citizen. So it makes sense to apply it specifically to the case where it's actually relevant.

But there is also the fact that Vatican City is a very different country from everything else in terms of how citizenship works. No one acquires their citizenship there at birth (I'm pretty sure every other country in the world grants citizenship at birth). Only one person--the pope--has permanent citizenship there. And due to the way papal elections work, people can be elected to it even if they haven't stepped in the country for years prior to their elections, which is implausible for essentially all other countries.

I was curious to see how this applied to previous popes. The fairly close relationship between Vatican City and Italy probably meant the Italian-born popes after the foundation of Vatican City didn't have to worry about these issues, but John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis were from Poland, Germany, and Argentina respectively.

According to this article:

Even as pope, Leo XIV might have to deal with U.S. tax returns

Pope Leo XIV, the newly elected pontiff, must answer to at least one more higher power: the IRS. The United States generally requires all citizens to file an annual tax return, even those who live out of the country. But assuming he doesn’t renounce his U.S. citizenship, Leo - born in the...

www.yahoo.com

Leo’s situation differs from that of other popes in recent memory, because many countries do not assess taxes on citizens living abroad. “Recent popes from Poland, Germany and Argentina were not taxed by their home countries,” said Jared Walczak, a vice president of the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, who called the first American pope’s accounting situation “uncharted.”

So it seems this wasn't an issue for them, because they just weren't being taxed due to being outside of their home country. The US, however, taxes citizens even when they're out of it, and it isn't just a matter of simple income that taxes apply to (the article goes on to give various other possible examples).

I doubt paying taxes would actually be an issue for him financially, but having a foreign head of state paying taxes to the US seems like it could cause potential complications that it might be prudent to avoid by exempting him (though alternatively, he could relinquish his citizenship). I wonder if there has been any attempt to do something about this in regards to Peru? He is a citizen of that also, and as the linked article notes, Peru "also taxes full-year residents on all of their worldwide income."

 

[Richard T]

I read that more as them speaking rhetorically than necessarily it being the specific reason.


The issue in terms of unnecessary tax burden is due to the pope being head of a foreign government. It feels very odd to expect taxes from someone who's leader of another country. How does one even try to enforce taxation when the person in question presumably has complete diplomatic immunity?

As for the reason why they would single out the pope for this, it's the first time to my knowledge someone became leader of another country while being an American citizen. So it makes sense to apply it specifically to the case where it's actually relevant.

But there is also the fact that Vatican City is a very different country from everything else in terms of how citizenship works. No one acquires their citizenship there at birth (I'm pretty sure every other country in the world grants citizenship at birth). Only one person--the pope--has permanent citizenship there. And due to the way papal elections work, people can be elected to it even if they haven't stepped in the country for years prior to their elections, which is implausible for essentially all other countries.

I was curious to see how this applied to previous popes. The fairly close relationship between Vatican City and Italy probably meant the Italian-born popes after the foundation of Vatican City didn't have to worry about these issues, but John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis were from Poland, Germany, and Argentina respectively.

According to this article:

Even as pope, Leo XIV might have to deal with U.S. tax returns

Pope Leo XIV, the newly elected pontiff, must answer to at least one more higher power: the IRS. The United States generally requires all citizens to file an annual tax return, even those who live out of the country. But assuming he doesn’t renounce his U.S. citizenship, Leo - born in the...

www.yahoo.com

Leo’s situation differs from that of other popes in recent memory, because many countries do not assess taxes on citizens living abroad. “Recent popes from Poland, Germany and Argentina were not taxed by their home countries,” said Jared Walczak, a vice president of the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, who called the first American pope’s accounting situation “uncharted.”

So it seems this wasn't an issue for them, because they just weren't being taxed due to being outside of their home country. The US, however, taxes citizens even when they're out of it, and it isn't just a matter of simple income that taxes apply to (the article goes on to give various other possible examples).

I doubt paying taxes would actually be an issue for him financially, but having a foreign head of state paying taxes to the US seems like it could cause potential complications that it might be prudent to avoid by exempting him (though alternatively, he could relinquish his citizenship). I wonder if there has been any attempt to do something about this in regards to Peru? He is a citizen of that also, and as the linked article notes, Peru "also taxes full-year residents on all of their worldwide income."

Thanks for all the diligent info on this unusual and interesting case.