6 ms·

I think we really should be looking at the tax-exempt status of religious organizations have that subsidiaries that are doing their taxes and setting up shell c

by willk 4y ago

I think we really should be looking at the tax-exempt status of religious organizations have that subsidiaries that are doing their taxes and setting up shell companies to hide where money is coming/going.

sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago
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.
- Natsu 4y ago
  That exists so that the government can't just decide to tax one religion out of existence while favoring others.
  - unsupp0rted 4y ago
    I can think of other ways to keep the government from taking sides in religions
  - usrusr 4y ago
    As if governments were in the habit of arbitrarily handing out large scale tax exemptions. That idea might have been well-intended, but it's really a solution in search of a problem. And how would a religion be "taxed out of existence" anyways? Or the religion the belief or is the religion the org?
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    Seems preemptive. There is already freedom of religion. If one is singled out and taxed unfairly then they can sue (and probably win).
  - xboxnolifes 4y ago
    Sounds like the opposite. To qualify for religious tax exemption you need to actually prove to be, and practice as, a "real" religion. If there is no tax exception, it's more fair.
  - axlee 4y ago
    That makes no sense. The government already decides what is and what is not a religion for tax purposes.
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  exactly
- sieabahlpark 4y ago
  [dead]
- brink 4y ago
  I'm a religious type and I agree; making churches tax-exempt corrupts the church.
  - InCityDreams 4y ago
    Maybe you have faith and they're well, just religious.....
- sclarisse 4y ago
  1. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and, 2. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If you want to amend the Constitution that’s another matter.
  - drsnow 4y ago
    It is neither respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof, to require that they pay taxes to support the society which allows them, as of now absurdly for free, to function and exist in the very first place.
  - tedajax 4y ago
    That seems like an extremely daft interpretation of what taxation is.
    - sclarisse 4y ago
      Tell that to Chief Justice John Marshall (McCulloch v Maryland, 1819.)
- skissane 4y ago
  The details vary from country to country, of course, but some of the tax exemptions which religious groups get are actually just standard exemptions available to all non-profits, or all charities. English law has long defined "advancing religion" as a "charitable purpose". The Charitable Uses Act of 1601 (aka the Statute of Elizabeth) included "the repair of... churches" as a charitable purpose, and later case law took inspiration from that clause to view "advancing religion" more broadly as a charitable purpose. All common law legal systems have inherited this, although the extent to which they still focus on it varies (the concept still exists in US law too, but my personal impression is the US legal system nowadays pays less attention to it than the legal systems of the Commonwealth.) When people advocate ending religious tax-exemptions, do they mean to end tax-exemptions specific to religious groups – but not available to charities in general, or non-profits in general? Or do they also mean to deny religious groups their status as charities? Or even their status as non-profits?
  - bbatha 4y ago
    > 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. Its pretty clear that OP just wants them to register as 501c3's or similar not force them to pay taxes in general
    - skissane 4y ago
      If OP just wants religions “to register as 501c3’s”, then I believe they already have almost what they want. From what I understand, the principal tax exemption available to religious groups under US federal income tax law is 501(c)(3) It is true that religious groups get their 501(c)(3) status automatically without having to apply for it to the IRS - but changing that rule wouldn’t lead to them paying any more tax, since if they do apply the IRS almost always just grants it anyway.
      - bbatha 4y ago
        They are automatically treated like 501(c)(3)s however the application and annual filing process is waived ie your average 501(c)(3) has the IRS in its books a lot more actively than the average church. Its pretty plain that many churches are not playing by the rules even if most are. Why should they be special? https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-integrated-auxiliaries-and-conventions-or-associations-of-churches https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-integrate...
jjtheblunt 4y ago
Simpler : if churches get tax-exempt status, then they are bound to the state in receiving that status, and violate separation of church and state? I haven't been able to find where tax exempt status for churches is established, and I've looked, but not my area of expertise at all. What if the goverment were to just stop giving churches tax exempt status? (edit: clearer)
- sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago
  This seems to be a reasonable overview of the history, though I haven't done much vetting of it: https://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/history-of-churches-and-taxes/ https://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/history-of-churches-and-...
- crisdux 4y ago
  The separation of church and state is not about preventing any kind of relationship between religious institutions and the government. Rather, it is about ensuring that the government does not establish an official state religion, and that it remains neutral towards different religious beliefs and practices.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    I mean, you could just set up equal taxation rather than no taxation at all.
  - jjtheblunt 4y ago
    If you decree your belief system is "God is DNA", can you set up a corp with different tax status to further investigate, buy property, and so on? I
    - crisdux 4y ago
      You sure can if you follow the IRS's strict rules and requirements for granting tax-exempt status to religious organizations. I suspect you would have difficulty in demonstrating that the organization has a legitimate religious purpose and is organized and operated exclusively for that purpose. Creating a fake religion is likely to be viewed as fraud and could result in legal consequences.
lvl102 4y ago
I would go one step further and say that donations to religious organizations should not be tax deductible. They are not charities in 99% of the cases.
- boeingUH60 4y ago
  (Not an American)...I don't see any need for donations (religious or non-religious) being tax-deductible. In my country, it's very simple: here's your income and here's your tax rate (no deductions). What you do with the rest is up to you.
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    Many countries find it useful to encourage some behaviors and discourage others by means of tax policy. Not just the US, although the US seems to do it quite a bit. So we have, or have had, tax policies in the US that encourage home ownership, marriage, donations to charity, long-term investment, purchasing electric vehicles or electrifying your house, and more. The results of each of these is mixed, and sometimes contentious, but they're all there because congress decided at one point or another that a thing was worth encouraging or discouraging.
  - xyzelement 4y ago
    (an American) - our tax code encourages behavior society deems virtuous. We "want" people to give money to homeless shelters, outreach programs, overseas disaster relief, etc - so we "push" then to do that by making it relatively less expensive. I can easily argue that citizenry being directly involved in directing their funds to causes that matter is more democratic than the government doing that on their behalf.
- ESTheComposer 4y ago
  Citation for that 99% figure? If it's anecdotal then I will give you my anecdote as a non Christian that I see 99% of churches doing charitable works.
  - GlenTheMachine 4y ago
no-dr-onboard 4y ago
The shell company scenario certainly is bad, although it's not inherently limited to religious orgs. We see this a lot with the broad definition used for 501c3's. The dog I just picked up from the breeder has her business as a 501c3 because they occasionally contract with a veterans org to supply service dogs. 75%+ of her dogs don't fit that criteria and are just pets. Another thing to note is that religious orgs, by-in-large, run off donations through tithes and offerings. I know we're all thinking of the O'Steens, TD Jakes and the other charlatans on TBN. The types that charter private planes, and have subsidiaries. Truthfully, they're really the minority when we consider that they fall under the same umbrella as the countless sub-100 person congregations like 1st Baptist on MLK Jr Blvd in lower San Fransisco or Iglesia de Christo on San Mateo Blvd in Albuquerque.
mikeyouse 4y ago
Do you want to hear something really fucked up? The extensive protections we've granted to churches is now being abused by dark-money groups and lobbying firms so they no longer have to file 990s or disclose donors. The Family Research Counsel (partially famous for supporting the death penalty for homosexual activity in Uganda) is now a registered Church - and their lobbyist leader, David Perkins is the head of this supposed religion according to what they filed with the IRS: https://www.propublica.org/article/family-research-council-irs-church-status https://www.propublica.org/article/family-research-council-i... If you're asking how they do political activities when that's still (on paper) illegal for churches -- they have a separate organization with the same employees, board, leadership, and address called FRC Action that handles their political activity with "different" dollars.

by willk 4y ago

sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago

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.

Natsu 4y ago
That exists so that the government can't just decide to tax one religion out of existence while favoring others.
- unsupp0rted 4y ago
  I can think of other ways to keep the government from taking sides in religions
- usrusr 4y ago
  As if governments were in the habit of arbitrarily handing out large scale tax exemptions. That idea might have been well-intended, but it's really a solution in search of a problem. And how would a religion be "taxed out of existence" anyways? Or the religion the belief or is the religion the org?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Seems preemptive. There is already freedom of religion. If one is singled out and taxed unfairly then they can sue (and probably win).
- xboxnolifes 4y ago
  Sounds like the opposite. To qualify for religious tax exemption you need to actually prove to be, and practice as, a "real" religion. If there is no tax exception, it's more fair.
- axlee 4y ago
  That makes no sense. The government already decides what is and what is not a religion for tax purposes.
jjtheblunt 4y ago
exactly
sieabahlpark 4y ago
[dead]
brink 4y ago
I'm a religious type and I agree; making churches tax-exempt corrupts the church.
- InCityDreams 4y ago
  Maybe you have faith and they're well, just religious.....
sclarisse 4y ago
1. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and, 2. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If you want to amend the Constitution that’s another matter.
- drsnow 4y ago
  It is neither respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof, to require that they pay taxes to support the society which allows them, as of now absurdly for free, to function and exist in the very first place.
- tedajax 4y ago
  That seems like an extremely daft interpretation of what taxation is.
  - sclarisse 4y ago
    Tell that to Chief Justice John Marshall (McCulloch v Maryland, 1819.)
skissane 4y ago
The details vary from country to country, of course, but some of the tax exemptions which religious groups get are actually just standard exemptions available to all non-profits, or all charities. English law has long defined "advancing religion" as a "charitable purpose". The Charitable Uses Act of 1601 (aka the Statute of Elizabeth) included "the repair of... churches" as a charitable purpose, and later case law took inspiration from that clause to view "advancing religion" more broadly as a charitable purpose. All common law legal systems have inherited this, although the extent to which they still focus on it varies (the concept still exists in US law too, but my personal impression is the US legal system nowadays pays less attention to it than the legal systems of the Commonwealth.) When people advocate ending religious tax-exemptions, do they mean to end tax-exemptions specific to religious groups – but not available to charities in general, or non-profits in general? Or do they also mean to deny religious groups their status as charities? Or even their status as non-profits?
- bbatha 4y ago
  > 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. Its pretty clear that OP just wants them to register as 501c3's or similar not force them to pay taxes in general
  - skissane 4y ago
    If OP just wants religions “to register as 501c3’s”, then I believe they already have almost what they want. From what I understand, the principal tax exemption available to religious groups under US federal income tax law is 501(c)(3) It is true that religious groups get their 501(c)(3) status automatically without having to apply for it to the IRS - but changing that rule wouldn’t lead to them paying any more tax, since if they do apply the IRS almost always just grants it anyway.
    - bbatha 4y ago
      They are automatically treated like 501(c)(3)s however the application and annual filing process is waived ie your average 501(c)(3) has the IRS in its books a lot more actively than the average church. Its pretty plain that many churches are not playing by the rules even if most are. Why should they be special? https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-integrated-auxiliaries-and-conventions-or-associations-of-churches https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-integrate...

jjtheblunt 4y ago

Simpler : if churches get tax-exempt status, then they are bound to the state in receiving that status, and violate separation of church and state? I haven't been able to find where tax exempt status for churches is established, and I've looked, but not my area of expertise at all. What if the goverment were to just stop giving churches tax exempt status? (edit: clearer)

sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago
This seems to be a reasonable overview of the history, though I haven't done much vetting of it: https://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/history-of-churches-and-taxes/ https://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/history-of-churches-and-...
crisdux 4y ago
The separation of church and state is not about preventing any kind of relationship between religious institutions and the government. Rather, it is about ensuring that the government does not establish an official state religion, and that it remains neutral towards different religious beliefs and practices.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  I mean, you could just set up equal taxation rather than no taxation at all.
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  If you decree your belief system is "God is DNA", can you set up a corp with different tax status to further investigate, buy property, and so on? I
  - crisdux 4y ago
    You sure can if you follow the IRS's strict rules and requirements for granting tax-exempt status to religious organizations. I suspect you would have difficulty in demonstrating that the organization has a legitimate religious purpose and is organized and operated exclusively for that purpose. Creating a fake religion is likely to be viewed as fraud and could result in legal consequences.

lvl102 4y ago

I would go one step further and say that donations to religious organizations should not be tax deductible. They are not charities in 99% of the cases.

boeingUH60 4y ago
(Not an American)...I don't see any need for donations (religious or non-religious) being tax-deductible. In my country, it's very simple: here's your income and here's your tax rate (no deductions). What you do with the rest is up to you.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  Many countries find it useful to encourage some behaviors and discourage others by means of tax policy. Not just the US, although the US seems to do it quite a bit. So we have, or have had, tax policies in the US that encourage home ownership, marriage, donations to charity, long-term investment, purchasing electric vehicles or electrifying your house, and more. The results of each of these is mixed, and sometimes contentious, but they're all there because congress decided at one point or another that a thing was worth encouraging or discouraging.
- xyzelement 4y ago
  (an American) - our tax code encourages behavior society deems virtuous. We "want" people to give money to homeless shelters, outreach programs, overseas disaster relief, etc - so we "push" then to do that by making it relatively less expensive. I can easily argue that citizenry being directly involved in directing their funds to causes that matter is more democratic than the government doing that on their behalf.
ESTheComposer 4y ago
Citation for that 99% figure? If it's anecdotal then I will give you my anecdote as a non Christian that I see 99% of churches doing charitable works.
- GlenTheMachine 4y ago

no-dr-onboard 4y ago

The shell company scenario certainly is bad, although it's not inherently limited to religious orgs. We see this a lot with the broad definition used for 501c3's. The dog I just picked up from the breeder has her business as a 501c3 because they occasionally contract with a veterans org to supply service dogs. 75%+ of her dogs don't fit that criteria and are just pets. Another thing to note is that religious orgs, by-in-large, run off donations through tithes and offerings. I know we're all thinking of the O'Steens, TD Jakes and the other charlatans on TBN. The types that charter private planes, and have subsidiaries. Truthfully, they're really the minority when we consider that they fall under the same umbrella as the countless sub-100 person congregations like 1st Baptist on MLK Jr Blvd in lower San Fransisco or Iglesia de Christo on San Mateo Blvd in Albuquerque.

mikeyouse 4y ago

Do you want to hear something really fucked up? The extensive protections we've granted to churches is now being abused by dark-money groups and lobbying firms so they no longer have to file 990s or disclose donors. The Family Research Counsel (partially famous for supporting the death penalty for homosexual activity in Uganda) is now a registered Church - and their lobbyist leader, David Perkins is the head of this supposed religion according to what they filed with the IRS: https://www.propublica.org/article/family-research-council-irs-church-status https://www.propublica.org/article/family-research-council-i... If you're asking how they do political activities when that's still (on paper) illegal for churches -- they have a separate organization with the same employees, board, leadership, and address called FRC Action that handles their political activity with "different" dollars.