Congress is authority-exempt from making laws that can apply taxes to them in the first place.
It's not like we tax everyone, then exempt religious organizations; the "everyone" that is able to be taxed does not include establishments of religion in the first place, thanks to the wording of 1A.
As I understand it, religious organizations have tax exempt status as non-profits under laws which also include educational and scientific institutions.
And, ironically, the reason religious organizations are included at all is the belief that taxing them would provide a means by which governments could interfere with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
> (3) [...] religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals [...]
Exemptions for religious organizations are typically just part of a larger framework of exemptions for a wide variety of non-profit, civic activities: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501
> Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals
Religious organizations are exempt from tax, but so are PETA and the ACLU. Against that background, efforts to strip tax exemptions from churches are a deliberate attack on religious organizations as compared to other civic organizations.
It's unconstitutional, right there in first nine words of 1A, even before the free speech part.
It's not that churches are excluded from taxation, it is that they are excluded from all effects of lawmaking because of religion. The laws made can only apply to non-church entities.
You can apply building and safety and occupancy codes to the structure, you can apply income tax to the attendees, et c, but it says right on the tin: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
Why does it matter here if the tax-exempt organization is religious or not? Pretty much every tax-exempt organization is going to have an agenda---if it didn't, it probably wouldn't exist. Why are religion-based agendas less tolerable here?
Since taxes are not just for raising funds, but also for coercing/ encouraging certain behaviors, or even as penalties for not participating in certain behavior, then any tax on religious organizations is arguably the state imposing it's say on how the organization should/must operate.
This is problematic on its own, but becomes worse if the tax laws don't result in equal treatment. For instance, a rule that exempted collections on Sunday from taxes, but not any other day results in favoring some religions, even if the rule is applied equally to all.
And the extreme case is that the government could just tax all religious orgs out of business, leaving us with religious freedom, but not any churches to join.
Better to just get rid of the tax exempt status for religious organizations altogether. They can operate like any other non-profit and be subject to that set of rules, or they can be a regular corporation and be subject to a different set of rules. The religious exemption is a big regulatory gap that doesn't need to exist.
For better or worse, the tax system is here for everyone. Why should religions be the only institutions immune to it? Everything you said happens in America, just change religion for nationality (sanctions) or race. I don't see why religion should be different. Moreover, religions persecution also happens in the USA, but by other means. Catholics have been persecuted in the past, the same happened against jews during a period, and more recently to islam. The idea of tax exemption only happens to benefit the well entrenched religions: evangelical churches, mormonism in Utah, the Catholic church. It also helps up and coming scams such as scientologists, who take advantage of the provisions of the law.
The state's role in determining whether a religious organization qualifies for tax-exempt status is not to evaluate the content or validity of the organization's religious beliefs or practices. The state's role is to ensure that the organization meets certain objective criteria for tax-exempt status, a necessary function.
> You can apply building and safety and occupancy codes to the structure, you can apply income tax to the attendees, et c, but it says right on the tin: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
According to this interpretation, church taxes (like the ones still present in some European countries) are unlawful, as is denying churches ability to gather their own donations. But churches still should pay same taxes that apply to other NGOs.
That is incorrect. The IRS uses a set of tests to determine tax exempt status of a religious organization and none of them involve being on a pre-approved list or indicate what the nature of the religious beliefs must be. Organizations that meet the test requirements are automatically exempt and don't need to file anything at all[0].
Your post seems to be misleading. Both rulings focus on selling goods to non-members, which seems rightfully taxable.
This discussion is about taxing churches/religious organizations in general on all revenue/income (ie. tithe, donations, membership fees, etc). That would very likely be unconstitutional, as that would limit the organization's ability to assemble and practice religion.
Congress is authority-exempt from making laws that can apply taxes to them in the first place.
It's not like we tax everyone, then exempt religious organizations; the "everyone" that is able to be taxed does not include establishments of religion in the first place, thanks to the wording of 1A.
reply