• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tax Exemption Abuse

calamity

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
If ever there was obvious abuse of the Tax Exempt status of a church, this would be it.



Makes you wonder why we don't just pull their charter.
 
calamity said:
If ever there was obvious abuse of the Tax Exempt status of a church, this would be it.



Makes you wonder why we don't just pull their charter.
Click to expand...


Because the United States government should not be providing state approval for religious institutions.
 
Felis Leo said:
Because the United States government should not be providing state approval for religious institutions.
Click to expand...
And what spiritual teachings are happening here? Imo, churches don't deserve their tax status any more than Jeff Bezos does.
 
mrjurrs said:
And what spiritual teachings are happening here? Imo, churches don't deserve their tax status any more than Jeff Bezos does.
Click to expand...
I can see offering them the standard exemptions offered to other charities, but not the blanket hands-off approach currently given to anyone declaring themselves a church.
 
mrjurrs said:
I agree, no church should receive federal or state benefits. Their benefit exists in the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...
mrjurrs said:
I agree, no church should receive federal or state benefits. Their benefit exists in the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

Then neither can any secular, non-profit organization “receive federal or state benefits.”
 
NotreDame said:
So what? Federal 501(c)3 tax exempt status doesn’t mandate every drip of every message be “spiritual teachings.”
Click to expand...
It doesn't. But it does say this...
"In order to maintain tax-exempt status, churches, like other 501(c)(3) charitable organizations, must forego certain activities. Specifically, 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from engaging in excessive political lobbying and any political campaigning."

Homepage - Freedom Forum

The Freedom Forum’s mission is to foster First Amendment freedoms for all.
www.freedomforuminstitute.org www.freedomforuminstitute.org
 
calamity said:
If ever there was obvious abuse of the Tax Exempt status of a church, this would be it.



Makes you wonder why we don't just pull their charter.
Click to expand...

First Amendment would be my first guess.
 
mrjurrs said:
It doesn't. But it does say this...
"In order to maintain tax-exempt status, churches, like other 501(c)(3) charitable organizations, must forego certain activities. Specifically, 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from engaging in excessive political lobbying and any political campaigning."

Homepage - Freedom Forum

The Freedom Forum’s mission is to foster First Amendment freedoms for all.
www.freedomforuminstitute.org www.freedomforuminstitute.org
Click to expand...

Yes but neither are applicable.

Biden isn’t a candidate presently and isn’t presently engaged in any campaign for office. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-p...ion-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations (organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.)

And this instance isn’t “political lobbying. “In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.
 
mrjurrs said:
Source?
Click to expand...

1st Amedment Establishment Clause and Free Exercise of Religion Clause, which forbids discrimination against religion and religious beliefs. So, a government tax exemption regime for nonprofits cannot exclude religious nonprofits while allowing secular nonprofits as that is discrimination against religious nonprofits. Conversely, the Establishment Clause forbids discrimination against the irreligious or secular, such that a nonprofit tax exemption regime cannot allow only religious nonprofits while excluded nonprofits that aren’t religious.

Are you requesting specific decisions?
 
NotreDame said:
Yes but neither are applicable.

Biden isn’t a candidate presently and isn’t presently engaged in any campaign for office. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-p...ion-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations (organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.)

And this instance isn’t “political lobbying. “In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.
Click to expand...
Maybe. It won't be up to us.
 
NotreDame said:
1st Amedment Establishment Clause and Free Exercise of Religion Clause, which forbids discrimination against religion and religious beliefs. So, a government tax exemption regime for nonprofits cannot exclude religious nonprofits while allowing secular nonprofits as that is discrimination against religious nonprofits. Conversely, the Establishment Clause forbids discrimination against the irreligious or secular, such that a nonprofit tax exemption regime cannot allow only religious nonprofits while excluded nonprofits that aren’t religious.

Are you requesting specific decisions?
Click to expand...
That's not what the 1st says about religion. How can you make that argument? Tax exemptions are a de facto violation of the establishment clause, providing cash rewards to religious institutions because they are religious institutions. A govt funds its priorities. Funding religion shouldn't be one of them imo.
 
mrjurrs said:
I agree, no church should receive federal or state benefits. Their benefit exists in the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...
As Chief Justice John Marshall said in 1819, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”

Keeping churches tax exempt removes the temptation from government to interfere with the free exercise of religion. In Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970), the Supreme Court held that property tax exemptions for churches were in keeping with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

1. The First Amendment tolerates neither governmentally established religion nor governmental interference with religion. Pp. 397 U. S. 667-672.
2. The legislative purpose of tax exemptions is not aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion, and New York's legislation simply spares the exercise of religion from the burden of property taxation levied on private profit institutions. Pp. 397 U. S. 672-674.
3. The tax exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, far less than taxation of churches would entail, and it restricts the fiscal relationship between them, thus tending to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other. Pp. 397 U. S. 674-676.
4. Freedom from taxation for two centuries has not led to an established church or religion, and, on the contrary, has helped to guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief. Pp. 397 U. S. 676-680.
Click to expand...
 
mrjurrs said:
Maybe. It won't be up to us.
Click to expand...

Maybe? The rules are there right in front of you. Those rules are not applicable to what is said and done in the video, which is to say the rules do not treat what is said and done in the video to be violative of 501(c)(3) qualifications regarding lobbying and political activity.
 
mrjurrs said:
How can you make that argument? Tax exemptions are a de facto violation of the establishment clause, providing cash rewards to religious institutions because they are religious institutions. A govt funds its priorities. Funding religion shouldn't be one of them imo.
Click to expand...

That's not what the 1st says about religion. How can you make that argument?
Click to expand...

Because of the cases decided by SCOTUS interpreting the religion clauses in such a manner and the history behind both religion clauses. That’s how.

You want actual cases? I have a 1st Amendment case law book from law school with an entire section devoted to cases by SCOTUS asserting the religion clauses say exactly what you baselessly assert they do not say. You want cases, chapter, pages, author (Eugene Volokh)? Hell, I can take pictures from the case book, highlighting and all, and post them for you.

Tax exemptions are a de facto violation of the establishment clause
Click to expand...

Nonsense and there’s not one, not one case by SCOTUS supporting your Alice in Wonderland view of the establishment clause above. Neither does the historical meaning of the establishment clause support your comment.

Tax exemptions are a de facto violation of the establishment clause, providing cash rewards to religious institutions because they are religious institutions. A govt funds its priorities. Funding religion shouldn't be one of them imo.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Tax exemptions do not “provide” any “cash rewards” to anyone. Tax exemptions permit the person or entity receiving the exemption to keep more of their own money through and by the exemption, by subtracting some amount from the figure they are to be taxed, with the result of more of their own money stays in their wallets as their taxable figure is reduced by exemptions. Exemptions aren’t sending any government funding money to the person or entity of the exemptions. Hell, if that’s how taxation and exemptions work then I’ve been screwed out of a lot of freaking money over the years. But the exemptions keep more of my own money in my wallet, and the government isn’t sending “providing” me with any “cash rewards” because I have an exemption that lets me keep more of my own money.
 
NotreDame said:
Maybe? The rules are there right in front of you. Those rules are not applicable to what is said and done in the video, which is to say the rules do not treat what is said and done in the video to be violative of 501(c)(3) qualifications regarding lobbying and political activity.
Click to expand...
The last time the rules changed for a 501(c)3 was in May of 2020.

What other US govt tax law provides financial benefit to an organization that has organizational pedophilia issues?
 
mrjurrs said:
Tax laws change.
Click to expand...
Churches that meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of exempt status from the IRS. So in this particular case government is treating them as if they were a non-profit organization. Which would make churches no different, for example, from the Red Cross who also is exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code.

So you could indeed tax churches by abolishing section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code. However, you would be also taxing the Red Cross and every other non-profit charitable organization in the US. If you were to only exclude religious structures from tax exemption, then you would also be violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

After Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), when the Supreme Court applied the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the States, they also included a prohibition on State taxation.

A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.

...

A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful.
Click to expand...
 
Glitch said:
Churches that meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of exempt status from the IRS. So in this particular case government is treating them as if they were a non-profit organization. Which would make churches no different, for example, from the Red Cross who also is exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code.

So you could indeed tax churches by abolishing section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code. However, you would be also taxing the Red Cross and every other non-profit charitable organization in the US. If you were to only exclude religious structures from tax exemption, then you would also be violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

After Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), when the Supreme Court applied the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the States, they also included a prohibition on State taxation.
Click to expand...
I'm not disputing that churches tax exemptions are legal, I'm arguing they shouldn't get them. Do you think Joel Osteen would live here if churches did not have this tax advantage? By the way, that's the second most important that should be asked. The first...How are the members of his congregation living? What's the saying? It's easier for a camel to get through a needles eye than a rich man to get into heaven?
 
mrjurrs said:
I'm not disputing that churches tax exemptions are legal, I'm arguing they shouldn't get them. Do you think Joel Osteen would live here if churches did not have this tax advantage? By the way, that's the second most important that should be asked. The first...How are the members of his congregation living? What's the saying? It's easier for a camel to get through a needles eye than a rich man to get into heaven?
Click to expand...
So you want to abolish all tax exemptions for non-profit charitable organizations? Or are you just discriminating against religious institutions in particular? Because the former can be done. It wouldn't be popular, but it would certainly not violate the US Constitution. The second one, however, would be a violation of the US Constitution and not permitted.

It seems rather extreme to me to abolish all tax exemptions for non-profit charitable organizations just because you want to tax churches. Although it would fit the irrational abject hatred the left repeatedly demonstrates toward religion in general, and Christianity in particular.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom