Does Ending Tax Exemptions Means Ending Churches?

There are two types of Churches:
Churches = people of the congregation
churches = the building

Ending tax exemptions may bring an end to churches but it will never bring an end to Churches.

It's not just about Churches but all religious institutions, to include universities and hospitals. There are certainly organizations out there that abuse the tax exempt status for profit but for the most part being tax exempt lowers operating costs for these organizations, allowing money that would otherwise have to be paid in taxes to be used to further their mission.

The writer argues that charity from these organizations would decrease by an unknown margin but that it could be made up for by the additional monies the government would receive. The problem with that is it is based on the assumption that the organization would still be able to operate and pay these taxes and that the government would use the additional money to subsidized what charity (soup kitchens, food banks, etc.) was lost.

I also have to question what the impact is in changing the non-profit/charitable status to that of a "for profit" business when it comes to protecting religious freedom under the various federal and state laws. The precedence has been set by the cases in several states that "for profit" businesses cannot decline to provide their services for events that go against their religious beliefs. So if an evangelical Church holds weddings they would not be able to deny a same sex couple from getting married there, or a Catholic University/Bible College not recognizing a same sex marriage for cohabitation housing.

In the end taking away the tax exempt status may cause the Church building to close its doors but the body will still find a way to gather and worship, it is those in need in the local communities whom these organizations support and provide comfort that will suffer the most.

As an Associate Pastor of a small church, I am all for ending tax exemption for Churches as a whole. Allow their charitable arms to be tax exempt. IE. the church itself should be taxed, but any transfers it makes from it's O&M budget to it's charity arm which would be tax exempt in it's own right (say a soup kitchen) would be a tax deductible donation for the church.

Here is why I don't think a church should be tax exempt. The IRS gets to determine what is and isn't a church. They even have a document that helps define it (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopica94.pdf). You will often hear about the "14-Points" the IRS uses.

1. Distinct legal existence
2. Recognized creed and form of worship
3. Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
4. Formal code of doctrine and discipline
5. Distinct religious history
6. Membership not associated with any other church or denomination
7. Organization of ordained ministers
8. Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of studies
9. Literature of its own
10. Established places of worship
11. Regular congregations
12. Regular religious services
13. Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young
14. Schools for preparation of its ministers

A Church doesn't have to have all, but the IRS ultimately determines if a church qualifies. That said, churches are automatically exempt (http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Churches,-Integrated-Auxiliaries,-and-Conventions-or-Associations-of-Churches) and don't have to apply for 501c3, but the IRS can come back and retroactively say a church isn't church enough to be tax exempt. I think a reasonable person can clearly see this is a true violation of the establishment clause and the only way to NOT violate the establishment clause is to not grant exemption to church, but only to the actual charitable functions themselves.

/rant

Interesting article but the author has a problem with his selective fire toggle. NFPs who are not churches would probably be the largest ally to the churches as there is a big constitutional wedge. Churches in general wouldn't be treated equally, hence a problem. Some churches are so heavy into political activism, that encourages government intervention for all churches. Scientology got a pass because the Feds decided not to take a ride on the slippery slope. So it's a mixed bag. If you don't line something, you want the government to do something about it.

The other thing is the term "Profit". So what becomes the new definition of profit? What's "income". The liberal/socialist side would want to push "value added". My value is different from yours. Bottom line, a bunch of meandering whining that doesn't contribute to anything.

BTW unions are typically NFPs as well as a 527 PACs. Good luck with that too. Now a discussion on tightening up what things a NFP can involve themselves in would be OK by me. How about no political endorsements, campainging, lobbying, etc. by any NFP? Careful because there are negatives with going that way too. You thought tinkering with Social Security was the third rail? Killing the 527 tax exemption would be nuclear.

I don't see it as a way to shut them down, though I get it. If a lot of them can't afford the property taxes they would have to forfeit the property like everyone else. I think some how the state should get it's "tithe" from religious organizations somehow. In the immortal words of George Carlin, "If they want to have their say, let them pay the admissions fee like everybody else."

That's what this court is trying do, they give you a choice, Marry them or loose you 501c3 or pay fine or go to jail or prison, Sounds to me like another step to dictatorship. If the president to be dosen't stop this crap we will be taken over so be on the look out what we fought for is going down in a hand basket. I sure hat to see this happen. But it is here on us. Believe it or not.

SGT (Join to see), You might already know that there are several people on RP that would like to see the church weakened and eventually crumble.

Funny how they always attack Christians but never any other religion, some of which have far more radical views.

It is my firm belief that marriage is a religious practice and custom. The government should not have involved itself in a religious practice if it intends to keep a seperation between church and state. The license of a marriage is something our country did to try to control a custom thousands of years old. Tax breaks and inheritance laws should be made on some other basis than if you have completed a religious ritual or not. By the way I am a pastor and I don't want anyone to tell me how to worship. That is why I served

Churches will always come back....and the congregation will follow.