Remember when Reagan asked...

[Grace62]

Spock wrote:
[quote=Grace62]

The reason that churches aren't taxed is based on the constitutionally protected freedom of religion. The founders believed that churches could not survive if they were taxed, and the gov't intentionally causing them not to survive would in effect be depriving citizens of their freedom to practice religion.
I will state for a fact that my little church would not survive if we had to pay property taxes, which on our property would be around $25K a year. Our entire operating budget is only $80K/year. We are open to anyone and do a lot of good in our community. I think we deserve not to be taxed. Even if you think a particular church is not doing good, if they are practicing a constitutionally protected religion, they should be allowed to do so.
Pastors and other church staffers do pay tax on their incomes.
Churches are prohibited from using the church to do politics, and that's where some have run afoul of the IRS. (Interesting free speech argument you could have there, but there's a natural conflict between taxation of political activities and churches doing politics. Big, complicated subject. I could argue both sides.) Individuals who amass personal wealth from church donations should also be scrutinized very closely because they are clearly abusing the law.

I thought the church was its congregation not real estate. If you can't afford the building, sell it. It won't stop you practicing your religion.
We use our building to do a great deal of social work that benefits our community. The town could not purchase these services for the amount of taxes they would collect if a for-profit owned our property. I get that you might prefer that churches not exist, but our existence is in fact constitutionally protected.

[August West]

Grace62 wrote:
I get that you might prefer that churches not exist, but our existence is in fact constitutionally protected.

I thought the issue at hand was taxation?

[Spock]

Grace62 wrote:
I get that you might prefer that churches not exist, but our existence is in fact constitutionally protected.

Wrong. I have never denied any church the right to exist. I do want them to pay their taxes just like the rest of us.

[Grace62]

If a person states that their church cannot exist if taxed, and another says too bad, then I think I can reasonably assume that they'd just assume we not exist.
We use our building to shelter the homeless in the winter, and to feed people in need year round. Not to mention after school tutoring for kids who don't speak English, a basketball program for at risk youth, and on and on. If you think those services are not valuable enough to let us have a building, then head out to your town council meeting and try to get religious exemptions revoked.

[rjmacs]

Grace62 wrote:
The reason that churches aren't taxed is based on the constitutionally protected freedom of religion. The founders believed that churches could not survive if they were taxed, and the gov't intentionally causing them not to survive would in effect be depriving citizens of their freedom to practice religion.

I think it's important to note that legal tax exemptions for religious institutions came into existence in the U.S. in the last decade of the 19th century, quite a long while after the founders had left the scene. The SCotUS has also rejected, time and again, churches' claims that they have a constitutional right to tax exemption, which is why tax exempt status can be revoked fairly simply. The most common justification for tax exemption for religious organizations is the 'public benefit' rationale, which applies equally to churches and non-religious charities. Although pluralism is also used to defend tax exemption (i.e., it's better for the country to have more social and cultural organizations, including churches), this justification is also not restricted to religious groups.

Tax exemption for religious groups has broadly been ruled to be in accordance with the Constitution, but is absolutely not required by it.

[Grace62]

rj you are completely ignoring all that went on late 18th century? Many of the colonies (then later states) actually had "state religion" well into the 19th century, something they had inherited from England. So the church not only didn't pay tax, it actually received money from the state to operate, and in some places, like New Hampshire, only Protestants were allowed to serve in gov't. That went on until late in the 19th century. Things wound down to where we are today in very different ways across the states, but the consistent thread was the belief that churches should be allowed to exist free of intrusion from the state.

And, about the Supreme Court, here they are 200 years later...

Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 1970

"The Supreme Court stated that a tax exemption for churches "creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other." The Supreme Court also said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion." "

[Spock]

Grace62 wrote:
If a person states that their church cannot exist if taxed, and another says too bad, then I think I can reasonably assume that they'd just assume we not exist.

You haven't shown that paying taxes would force the church to close.

Grace62 wrote:
We use our building to shelter the homeless in the winter, and to feed people in need year round. Not to mention after school tutoring for kids who don't speak English, a basketball program for at risk youth, and on and on.

All laudable pursuits but none that constitute worship. Your church should pay its taxes and do good works with whatever it has left.

[rjmacs]

Grace62 wrote:
rj you are completely ignoring all that went on late 18th century? Many of the colonies (then later states) actually had "state religion" well into the 19th century, something they had inherited from England. So the church not only didn't pay tax, it actually received money from the state to operate, and in some places, like New Hampshire, only Protestants were allowed to serve in gov't. That went on until late in the 19th century. Things wound down to where we are today in very different ways across the states, but the consistent thread was the belief that churches should be allowed to exist free of intrusion from the state.

And, about the Supreme Court, here they are 200 years later...

Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 1970

"The Supreme Court stated that a tax exemption for churches "creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other." The Supreme Court also said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion." "

The quote "The power to tax involves the power to destroy" was coined in 1819 by Justice John Marshall, in a case having nothing to do with religious tax exemption. It was, rather, a case that established that states and localities cannot use taxation as a political weapon against the federal government. The last part of the quote about taxing churches breaking down separation of church and state does not come from the Walz decision, which was not about a constitutional right to tax exemption but about the constitutionality of the exemptions themselves. I'm not sure where that part of the quote comes from, but it's not from the SCotUS.

I didn't mean to ignore the 18th century, or the 19th. I was just trying to get at the specifics of tax exemption for religious organizations, and the legal justifications that support it. There is not a constitutional right to be exempt from taxation if you are a religious organization; it's a matter of statute, and the statutes didn't appear until 1896. And from then until now, the statutes have been inclusive of religious groups without being exclusive to them; these laws have always been about public benefit, not religious freedom.

[Grace62]

You're reminding me of that kitten trying to run up the slide.

"...which was not about a constitutional right to tax exemption but about the constitutionality of the exemptions themselves."

[rjmacs]

Grace62 wrote:
You're reminding me of that kitten trying to run up the slide.

"...which was not about a constitutional right to tax exemption but about the constitutionality of the exemptions themselves."

It seems i didn't make the distinction very clear. I apologize. Let me try again.

A constitutional right to tax exempt status would mean that levying a tax against a religious institution would be an infringement on that institution's Constitutional protections. While the government can so infringe (e.g., speech can legally be restricted in special circumstances), the standard for doing so is quite high. The state must show that is has a compelling interest (a high bar in the law) in order to infringe on rights. No right to exemption from taxation for religious groups has ever been established by the Supreme Court, through the First Amendment or otherwise. Period.

The constitutionality of a statute reflects whether or not a law is permitted under the Constitution. For example, a law that bans the burning of the flag violates First Amendment protections against infringing the right to free speech, and is unconstitutional. A law that provides tax funding specifically to churches for religious activities violates the First Amendment's separation of church and state, and is likewise unconstitutional. However, the SCotUS has determined that because tax exemption statutes do not target religious groups exclusively, and because they are intended to promote public goods, they do not violate the First Amendment even though it provides a form of government benefit to religious groups. The Walz case determined that such laws are allowed by the Constitution, not that they are required by the Constitution.

Just because a law passes constitutional muster doesn't mean that it confers constitutional rights. If religious organizations had a right to tax exemption, we would not need specific statutes to exempt them; it would be part of the case law and written into the regulations. I'm probably ill-equipped to make this any clearer than i have here. If i haven't done the job, i am genuinely sorry.