Churches are Tax Exempt as a Matter of Constitutional Right
The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971 that non-taxation of churches is undergirded by “more than 200 years of virtually universal practice imbedded in our colonial experience and continuing into the present.” Here is why: There is a distinction between constitutionally separate “sovereigns.” For one sovereign entity to tax another leaves the taxed one subservient to that authority. This is true both in the symbolic statement of paying the tax and in the practical effect of supporting the sovereign party. So, in our constitutional structure, states may not tax each other, and they may not tax property of the federal government. The District of Columbia does not tax the property owned by foreign governments, and New York does not tax the property owned by the United Nations.
So, too, churches in America are not subservient to the government. The First Amendment to the Constitution requires that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Constitution prevents the government from wielding its authority to control churches. Churches in this way differ from all other businesses and organizations. They are a unique institution whose existence is not derived from government authority, nor even from governmental acknowledgment. Churches preceded the birth of our nation and will remain long after its death. They transcend geographic and ethnic boundaries.
While the church is not subservient to the government, neither is the government subservient to the church. Although government can aid or support virtually all types of social or educational institutions which have a public purpose with the use of tax money, the Supreme Court stated in 1948 that “no tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions.” Thomas Jefferson coined the highly referenced “wall of separation” between church and state (but not in the Constitution, as many people assume). The separation he referred to must be bilateral and reciprocal. Whatever the degree of separation required by the Constitution, it is surely this: the government may not make the church subservient by taxing its existence.
In Walz v. Tax Commission, the Supreme Court noted that the church’s “uninterrupted freedom from taxation” has “operated affirmatively to help guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief.” The much misunderstood “separation between church and state” is in truth designed to restrict the sovereignty of each over the other. That is, it is designed to achieve a position for each that is neither master nor servant of the other. Exemption from income taxation is essential for respect of the church as a separate sovereign entity. Otherwise the government has the power to encumber and even terminate churches if such taxes are not punctually paid or cannot be so paid in full. Indeed, as the high court noted many years ago, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”
The fact that the Constitution mandates a tax exemption for churches is one of the best reasons why churches are not taxed.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I doubt if the "founding fathers" visualized the massive ownership of property by church entities during the early stages of organization. The catholic church is the largest single private property owner in the U.S, the Mormon church is in a distant second place. Then you toss in all of the independents!!!! Religion is all about money, it is an industry like all others, and should be taxed accordingly. Politically explosive? You bet! Necessary? Of course it is, if we ever want equality. The churches should pay their fair share if they want to do business in this country.
You don't seem to doubt that the founding fathers "visualized" behemoth federal and state governments that tax everything we do and for those governments to tax us to support things they were against.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
Where in the Constitution does it say that churches are tax exempt? Churches were not made tax exempt until the IRS was established in 1894 and they were made tax exempt with laws that under certain circumstances they should and would lose their tax exempt status. The religious right are either lying or they just choose to ignore facts for their own benefit.
Can anyone of you give me a federal bill or federal law number where any person in any United State is suppose to pay income taxes . The only people that are under the tax law is Puerto Rico.
Now prove me wrong .
Many churches engage in commercial activities (real estate, stock and other business investment for example). I believe that such income should be taxed just as anyone's is.
Within the framework of the church itself and the "business" of the church, no.
So churches accept handouts from the goverment, and still claim that "churches in America are not subservient to the government ". Hilarious.
It doesn't matter if a church gets 501(c)(3), it doesn't matter if you think that Churches benefit society (lots of businesses benefit society), it doesn't matter if you think it is a separation of church and state argument. Religious organizations in America are generally businesses. Therefore, as an attorney, I think they should have a qualifying test to decide if the "elements" of that made up law merit the organization be deemed a business or a beneficial 501(c)(3). Here are the criteria I propose - please add your comments to the criteria as I welcome your ideas:
1. If your religious group (RG) sells books at a profit - business.
2. If your RG sells movies, music, self-help tapes - business
3. If your RG leaders use 501(c)(3) as a way to net out as not profitable, but are paying themselves millions - business.
4. If your RG builds political coalitions to lobby and influence politics and spend millions of dollars under the rouse of tithes - business.
5. If your RG attempts to influence education like removing facts like evolution from the school curriculum and interfere with church and state separation - business.
6. If your RG removes children from schools only to home school or make private schools to brainwash your children into religious nonsense - business.
BUT...
1. If your RG builds a useful 501(c)(3) that has religious elements but provides a useful service that the state cannot pay for such as the Salvation Army, or Red Cross - non-profit.
2. If your RG does not seek to force its beliefs on the constituents that are benefited from their care but are doing so for the purpose only of doing good - non-profit.
It does not matter who the group is or where their motives originate. What is important is the purpose of the group. If the group benefits the state by performing a majority of services that taxpayers benefit from by not spending on welfare, social security , homelessness, drugs, alcoholism, etc and is not seeking to evangelize or convert or subjugate, then the benefit is there. If it is what we are seeing with mega churches, focus on the family, political machines, then it is a business and should be taxed, or in my opinion, done with like in France. BANNED for simply adding to the stupidity of our country.
Where, exactly, does the Constitution state that churches are tax exempt? A: Nowhere. Your interpretation is sorely lacking in any factual basis; it's merely a twisting of words to prop up your claim. The separation of church and state (which you deny exists) is more straightforward and clear than this spurious church tax exemption.
Society does not have to " tax churches" to limit the abuse of civil discourse with tax-free funds.
This, in its essence, is not a discussion about taxing churches, which, as this writer so eruditely explained, is not going to happen. The real discussion here is whether or not there can be legitimate limitations on the use of tax-free monies, by religious institutions. I believe that reasonable limits can be imposed; in fact, I believe that such limits are implicit in the constitutional protection of religion . As our constitution protects religion from politics , it also, on balance, protects politics from religion. The concerted attempt to impose religious ideology upon a pluralistic society , with the leverage of tax-free money , insults our open society. Churches are not given public funds to run coercive political campaigns, as was, for example, the case in California with Prop. 8. Tax free funds used outside of the religious and charitable functions of these institutions merit public scrutiny. These obvious abuses of legitimate tax-free status are finally getting a critical examination. Public scrutiny of the abuse of tax-free funds, by religious institutions, is long overdue and deserves to be welcomed by everyone who believes the field of civil discourse should not be unfairly leveraged at the public's expense.
A strikingly lucid account for allowing churches to be tax exempt. Still, out of principle I have to say the church is nothing more than a normal business or a resident so they need to be taxed. Times have changed. If I bought a property and preached the flying spaghetti monster accepted donations in support of him could my property be tax exempt?
ikenovak wrote: " If I bought a property and preached the flying spaghetti monster accepted donations in support of him could my property be tax exempt?"
The simple answer is: YES. Government has no right to judge the validity of any religion whether it is faith in "the flying spaghetti monster" or committed belief that every word of a book that claims all of known existence to be less than 10,000 years old, that a flat earth is the center of the universe, and that every creature that ever existed fit on a small boat, is the "literal, absolute, only truth and God's word." Those tenets of faith are, in my view, equally absurd. What sustains people spiritually does not have to make sense to a rational mind. As I wrote many years ago: "All conceptions of the inconceivable are equal." That is precisely why religion must be free from government intrusion. It is also why civil society must be free from the domination of the essential irrationality that is religion. Our government can not judge the spiritual value of any religion; that does not mean we can not put reasonable limitations on the use of tax-free money .
Churches are not sovereign states, or nations, or districts. They indirectly charge fees for services that create incomes without taxation. Churches use or benefit from the same federal infrastructures, programs and services paid by other corporations and citizens that pay taxes .
"So, too, churches in America are not subservient to the government."
Sir, with all due respect, they sure the heck are! All churches should obey the law of the land. The opposite is at best lawlessness and at worst theocracy.
If the church doesn't answer to the government, to whom does it answer? God? Gee! That's a great answer, seeing as how the church tells us what their god wants! So the church oversees itself, which as we know, hasn't worked out so well in the past.
Of course churches, its citizens, and most importantly its leaders are subject to the laws of the government. Nobody is above the law. How dare you even suggest this isn't so?
In the New American Standard Bible Jesus Christ says in Matthew 23:10 "Do not be called leader; for One is your leader, that is, Christ.
I obey the Law of my Father which is given to me by His son Jesus Christ.
The law of man requires you to follow the LIES of the president when he said that Iraq had a bunch of 'weapons of destruction' after paying the pentagon trillions of dollars of thier research and said thier was not ANY WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTION. Then Bush sent Scott Ritter and Bill Richardson over there and they agreed with the pentagon but the bald faced liar sent his men that take oaths over to kill them based on a LIE.
He bald faced lied again and said 'MISSION ACCOMPLISHED'. Do you belong to the GOV or GOD?
In order to get his and his daddy's pocket full, he decided to make the OPEC mad and run up the price of gas to over $4.00 a gallon and give Cheney's friends the way to get rich also so he can rebuild the buildings that Bush's soldiers blow up.
He could have put a trillion dollars into feeding the poor and suffering children but he decided to kill an additional 250,000 that don't agree with him instead of forgiving them.
He gave the rich, billions of dollars to take bonuses for destroying the economy . Now the new LIAR is giving your money to them also.
Now prove me wrong .
Have you actually read the Constitution? The Federalist Papers? If so, you would know that religious institutions, of all demoninations, not just Christian ones, as the term "churches" implies, are indeed exempt from the law. Granted, the citizens of the United States who make up the religious institution are not, which is why they can't do things like human sacrifice. They do pay taxes. The church itself, however, is exempt. We're not talking about personal income taxes of members here, we're talking about business and property taxes of the actual church.
Churches as institutions, as well as the people who comprise them, are NOT exempt from the law . Where did you get that absurd idea? There is no Constitutional basis for any church /institution to be exempt from the laws governing our society . If there were, we'd have to live in fear of a new Inquisition by the extreme religious fringe elements of our society.
Religious institutions are indeed subject to the law, and the Constitution does not say they are not. The government may grant exemptions to specific laws to religious organizations if those laws impinge too much on the exercise of that religion. A religious organization must show it is indeed a valid religion, the law interferes with relisious practice and the practice will cause no undue harm. For example, Societe de Vegetal recently won a Supreme Court decision allowing its members to ingest the Schedule I drug DMT in religious practice.
Look around - the Methodist Church on the corner must indeed comply with zoning regulations and not dump its sewage in the gutter, and the Catholic Parish down the street must run an honest bingo game.
Jesus Christ NEVER said anything good about CRAFTED TEMPLES nor did He ever tell anyone to build a CRAFTED TEMPLE.In Acts 7:47-48 & 17:24 God tells them that He does not live in CRAFTED TEMPLES but they use a tactic out of context and teach their people to lie and say God is in thier heart. God is not where the throne of Satan is according to Revelation 2:12-13.
A CRAFTED TEMPLE is not a ' church ' but the liars that meet in them, teach thier congregation that they are a 'church' like they do by teaching thier children another lie that Jesus was born on December 25th and Santa (unscrambled spells Satan) Clause can fly and teach them how to spend money on toys that last less than a week while suffering and starving children die because the children are never taught true compassion.
Prove to me that Jesus is wrong when He said to feed the hungry and clothe the naked in Matthew chapter 25 and NEVER, NEVER told anyone to put thier money into ROBBERS DENS which are ALL CRAFTED TEMPLES in any verse of the Holy Bible.
"Separation of Church and State" is an issue raised in The Federalist Papers. Obviously, while the phrase is not in the Constitution, it is relevant. Contrary to what is often spewed from the mouths of the ignorant, that does not mean that all religious symbols must be censored from public land, rather, it means that religious organizations cannot have power over the government. Likewise, the government cannot exercise overt power over the organization. That's what that means. In the case of zoning issues, the individuals responsible would be the ones held liable for building something that is not to code. You cannot, however, sue the entire Methodist Church. The Parish running a clean bingo game is once again a matter of individuals. It would be the Parish office/priest who would be running the bingo game, and it would be they who are liable. Try suing the Catholic Church as a legal entity, and see what happens. Taxing religious organizations would be trying to tax the whole Catholic Church, instead of the individuals who make it up.
As an entity of a church . A church, just like all businesses, groups, organizations, and governments is made up of the individuals involved. You can't sure the Catholic Church because it doesn't exist. So just as the individuals have to follow the rules, that IS the church following the rules. The individuals can't break the law but how would the church entity break the law? It can't make decisions and actions.
You can sue businesses if they are incorporated. That allows the business to be treated like a legal entity (which can hold property and be sued). Other organizations operate under similar rules... so it would depend on how the church was set up.
Should we start treating churches like corporations, like giant legal entities?