Should Churches Remain Tax-Exempt?

[Frog]

Should Churches Remain Tax-Exempt?

Pros and Cons please!

[Frog]

The law against churches intervening in political campaigns was passed by the US Congress in 1954. Since then, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been successful in using the law to revoke the tax-exempt status of only one church: the Church at Pierce Creek in Binghamton, NY, which had placed an advertisement in USA Today and the Washington Times rebuking Bill Clinton four days before the 1992 presidential election.

[Firebringer]

Should Churches Remain Tax-Exempt?

Pros and Cons please!

Well you know at least the vast majority of churches shouldrefrain from political campaigning and should not be punished for the actions of the few that are political

[Firebringer]

The law against churches intervening in political campaigns was passed by the US Congress in 1954. Since then, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been successful in using the law to revoke the tax-exempt status of only one church: the Church at Pierce Creek in Binghamton, NY, which had placed an advertisement in USA Today and the Washington Times rebuking Bill Clinton four days before the 1992 presidential election.

Yeah thats interesting but when you think about it, Exempting churches from taxation costs the government billions of dollars in lost revenue, which it cannot afford, especially in tough economic times.

[DarknessB]

I mean, it's an interesting question with a lot of different policy implications. You could go either way honestly depending on whether you think churches serve an important social function or if you think they are more of a personal choice that shouldn't be subsidized.

[Frog]

The first recorded tax exemption for churches was during the Roman Empire, when Constantine, Emperor of Rome from 306-337, granted the Christian church a complete exemption from all forms of taxation following his supposed conversion to Christianity circa 312.

[DarknessB]

Yeah thats interesting but when you think about it, Exempting churches from taxation costs the government billions of dollars in lost revenue, which it cannot afford, especially in tough economic times.

There could be the issue of stifling peoples' religious beliefs though, which might encourage them to move their personal and business affairs overseas which could cost the U.S. money in the long-run.

[DarknessB]

The first recorded tax exemption for churches was during the Roman Empire, when Constantine, Emperor of Rome from 306-337, granted the Christian church a complete exemption from all forms of taxation following his supposed conversion to Christianity circa 312.

This makes sense in terms of the historical implications -- the idea that the Roman Empire had converted to Christianity, so the tax relief was almost a part of the state -- i.e. the idea that Christianity was integral in Roman Empire affairs from that point on.

[Frog]

If the "parsonage exemption" on religious ministers' housing costs were revoked, American clergy members would cumulatively lose an estimated $2.3 billion over five years.

[DarknessB]

Well you know at least the vast majority of churches shouldrefrain from political campaigning and should not be punished for the actions of the few that are political

Yeah... that's another question entirely. The idea that churches are exercising political beliefs is a decent argument in terms of why they shouldn't receive tax free treatment. One that has arguably not been examined close enough due to the government's fear of antagonizing religions.

[Frog]

In spring 2010, the state of Oklahoma awarded tax-exempt status to a Satanist group called The Church of the IV Majesties.

[Frog]

According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, US churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property. New York City alone loses $627 million in annual property tax revenue due to 9,500 churches being tax-exempt, according to a July 2011 analysis by New York's nonpartisan Independent Budget Office.

[DarknessB]

If the "parsonage exemption" on religious ministers' housing costs were revoked, American clergy members would cumulatively lose an estimated $2.3 billion over five years.

Well, there's a question of whether the wealthier parishioners would contribute more to the churches and other houses of worship to make up for that deficit though. My guess is yes ultimately.

[DarknessB]

According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, US churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property. New York City alone loses $627 million in annual property tax revenue due to 9,500 churches being tax-exempt, according to a July 2011 analysis by New York's nonpartisan Independent Budget Office.

Recall also that NYC went bankrupt in the 70s-80s so it's not as if NYC couldn't have used that money either frankly. It could be a decently interesting issue to pursue, especially as Americans become less religious over time.

[Helz]

In 1991, Scientology's ecclesiastical leader David Miscavige met with then-IRS Commissioner Fred T. Goldberg Jr. and offered to call off the group's lawsuits in exchange for regaining its tax-exempt status. The New York Times stated that in agreeing to Miscavige's proposal, Goldberg "created a special committee to negotiate a settlement with Scientology outside normal agency procedures" and that IRS "tax analysts were ordered to ignore the substantive issues in reviewing the decision," according to IRS files. [30] In order to receive the exemption, Scientology agreed to pay the IRS $12.5 million and "agreed to more Federal Government intrusion than perhaps any religious organization has ever allowed.

[DarknessB]

In spring 2010, the state of Oklahoma awarded tax-exempt status to a Satanist group called The Church of the IV Majesties.

That's the other issue too -- anyone can form their own religious group and petition for the same treatment that mainstream churches receive. It would be tough for the government to start drawing lines between mainstream and fringe faiths, right?

[DarknessB]

In 1991, Scientology's ecclesiastical leader David Miscavige met with then-IRS Commissioner Fred T. Goldberg Jr. and offered to call off the group's lawsuits in exchange for regaining its tax-exempt status. The New York Times stated that in agreeing to Miscavige's proposal, Goldberg "created a special committee to negotiate a settlement with Scientology outside normal agency procedures" and that IRS "tax analysts were ordered to ignore the substantive issues in reviewing the decision," according to IRS files. [30] In order to receive the exemption, Scientology agreed to pay the IRS $12.5 million and "agreed to more Federal Government intrusion than perhaps any religious organization has ever allowed." [54]

Exactly, there tends to be a bit of minefield when you start trying to line draw in terms of whether a religion should quality for tax exempt treatment.

[Helz]

Exactly, there tends to be a bit of minefield when you start trying to line draw in terms of whether a religion should quality for tax exempt treatment.

I agree

[Frog]

Exempting churches from taxation upholds the separation of church and state embodied by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other."

[Frog]

Exactly, there tends to be a bit of minefield when you start trying to line draw in terms of whether a religion should quality for tax exempt treatment.

I also agree.

[Brendan]

No