Duncan Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Does the Church pay land or property taxes on land where there is a Temple?
Calm Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Depends on the country. My understanding is that in the uk because the public is not allowed, taxes are paid on temples but not churches which are open to the public.In the us that distinction hasn't been made yet. Wouldn't be surprised if it eventually went that way especially since there are no direct benefits of the temple for society save for correlation with stronger marriages, larger families and individuals who volunteer and donate more....but those activities are not done in the temple itself so those who think these individuals would act that way no matter what might see it more financially prudent to tax.
cdowis Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 (edited) The temple would fall under the same category as any building dedicated to church activities, such as a chapel. No requirement to prove that it "benefits society". But that could easily change. Take a look at what is proposed in California to change the tax exempt status of the BSA, and other groups. Anything and everything can change where the Constitution is hanging by a thread. Edited August 31, 2013 by cdowis 2
EllenMaksoud Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 The temple would fall under the same category as any building dedicated to church activities, such as a chapel. No requirement to prove that it "benefits society". But that could easily change. Take a look at what is proposed in California to change the tax exempt status of the BSA, and other groups. Anything and everything can change where the Constitution is hanging by a thread.Is this really a religous issue, or is it driven by california being broke?
Kenngo1969 Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 (edited) Is this really a religous issue, or is it driven by california being broke?Both, perhaps? Edited August 31, 2013 by Kenngo1969
thesometimesaint Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Both, perhaps? California isn't broke. We're actually running a surplus.http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23462243/california-state-budget-that-includes-rare-surplus-approved
EllenMaksoud Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 California isn't broke. We're actually running a surplus.http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23462243/california-state-budget-that-includes-rare-surplus-approvedSo, how is California doing with out Schwartznegger?
thesometimesaint Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 (edited) So, how is California doing with out Schwartznegger? We are a very big state with lots of problems. On balance Governor Schwatzegger governed more like a moderate. It was disappointing that his personal life was/is such a mess. Governor Brown while a Democrat is very fiscally conservative. Personally I wish he would be more like his dad "Pat" Brown. Only time will tell if it was for the better or worse. Edited August 31, 2013 by thesometimesaint
Garden Girl Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 California isn't broke. We're actually running a surplus.http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23462243/california-state-budget-that-includes-rare-surplus-approvedHello TSS...Generally Calif may be running a surplus, but some cities are in deep financial trouble... my home town of San Bernardino... my formerly beautiful hometown, has filed for bankruptcy... and parts of the city that were once lovely are quite run down. Then there is also Stockton, another city that filed bankruptcy a couple of years ago. Don't know how they came out of it, i.e., weaker or stronger.Now that I have no one really close left in So Cal, I haven't been there since I buried my husband in Riverside... of course that's where I'll end up, with him. In a way I wish he would have been buried up here... we have this beautiful little cemetery high on a hill overlooking the ocean. At least I could have visited his grave. Thankfully extended family in So Cal put flowers on special holidays, etc.My California is not the Calif of my youth... those days are gone... GG 2
Sleeper Cell Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Depends on the country. My understanding is that in the uk because the public is not allowed, taxes are paid on temples but not churches which are open to the public.In the us that distinction hasn't been made yet. Wouldn't be surprised if it eventually went that way especially since there are no direct benefits of the temple for society save for correlation with stronger marriages, larger families and individuals who volunteer and donate more....but those activities are not done in the temple itself so those who think these individuals would act that way no matter what might see it more financially prudent to tax. The temple would fall under the same category as any building dedicated to church activities, such as a chapel. No requirement to prove that it "benefits society". But that could easily change. Take a look at what is proposed in California to change the tax exempt status of the BSA, and other groups. Anything and everything can change where the Constitution is hanging by a thread. Although I wouldn’t necessarily support it, I could see an argument for “user fees” on temples based on the cost to provide government services directly to the property, itself. Examples would be would be fire protection, a portion of the cost to maintain the roads in front of the temple, etc. Such “fees” are not unusual in California. Unfortunately, property tax is spent mostly on things having little to do with the property. Such taxes on property devoted to religious use is essentially a tax on the “free exercise of religion.” The argument is even stronger for LDS temples, as they are devoted exclusively to religious rituals that the LDS church considers essential to salvation. and other blessings in the next life. A tax on temples would be essentially a tax on religious rituals. It would also discriminate against the LDS church with respect to those churches whose doctrines do not require that some of its rituals be performed in a building other than that which they use for its regular weekly worship. For that matter, it would discriminate against traditional churches in favor of televangelists and other religious ministries which generally do not physically meet with their congregants (at least not on a regular basis). 2
foster Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 The temple would fall under the same category as any building dedicated to church activities, such as a chapel. No requirement to prove that it "benefits society". But that could easily change. Take a look at what is proposed in California to change the tax exempt status of the BSA, and other groups. Anything and everything can change where the Constitution is hanging by a thread.Where in the Constitution are Religions exempt from paying taxes 1
foster Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Does the Church pay land or property taxes on land where there is a Temple?As stated already, depends on the Country, and in the United States it would on the Federal Government and separately the State or local government.
thesometimesaint Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Hello TSS...Generally Calif may be running a surplus, but some cities are in deep financial trouble... my home town of San Bernardino... my formerly beautiful hometown, has filed for bankruptcy... and parts of the city that were once lovely are quite run down. Then there is also Stockton, another city that filed bankruptcy a couple of years ago. Don't know how they came out of it, i.e., weaker or stronger.Now that I have no one really close left in So Cal, I haven't been there since I buried my husband in Riverside... of course that's where I'll end up, with him. In a way I wish he would have been buried up here... we have this beautiful little cemetery high on a hill overlooking the ocean. At least I could have visited his grave. Thankfully extended family in So Cal put flowers on special holidays, etc.My California is not the Calif of my youth... those days are gone... GG As I said we are a very big state with lots of problems. I live two cities over from San Bernardino. Once Norton AFB closed life in SB got progressively harder. In my city we're doing OK, but we're a small bedroom community with no manufacturing base to fall back on for employment. Both my parents are buried out in the National Cemetary in Riverside. My family all lives within 10 miles of me. We can't go home again, because our homes aren't the same as we remember. If they ever were.
thesometimesaint Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Where in the Constitution are Religions exempt from paying taxes Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of... .
foster Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of... .Nope, that is not the basis for tax exempt status. And history should teach us, that the 1st Amendment isn't regarded as a complete bar to Congress. 1
Duncan Posted August 31, 2013 Author Posted August 31, 2013 Although I wouldn’t necessarily support it, I could see an argument for “user fees” on temples based on the cost to provide government services directly to the property, itself. Examples would be would be fire protection, a portion of the cost to maintain the roads in front of the temple, etc. Such “fees” are not unusual in California. Unfortunately, property tax is spent mostly on things having little to do with the property. Such taxes on property devoted to religious use is essentially a tax on the “free exercise of religion.” The argument is even stronger for LDS temples, as they are devoted exclusively to religious rituals that the LDS church considers essential to salvation. and other blessings in the next life. A tax on temples would be essentially a tax on religious rituals. It would also discriminate against the LDS church with respect to those churches whose doctrines do not require that some of its rituals be performed in a building other than that which they use for its regular weekly worship. For that matter, it would discriminate against traditional churches in favor of televangelists and other religious ministries which generally do not physically meet with their congregants (at least not on a regular basis). this is brilliant!!!
ERayR Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 (edited) California isn't broke. We're actually running a surplus.http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23462243/california-state-budget-that-includes-rare-surplus-approved It isn't hard to project a surplus in the budget. What is hard is to project one using realistic revenue numbers. Edited August 31, 2013 by ERayR 2
foster Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 For the Americans here is a paper from the IRS A History Of The Tax-Exempt Sector
USU78 Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 this is brilliant!!! This is already happening in most places: the tax-exempt property still receives services (fire, police, sewer, water, curb and gutter, etc) and the tax exempt owner of the property already pays for services, mostly at a reasonably-worked-out rate. Trendylefties don't like this system, however. So as a punishment for not going along with their political agendas, they threaten to tax churches, arguing that they get stuff for nothing. In doing so, however, they either lie or are misinformed. Your mileage may vary. 4
Robert F. Smith Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Depends on the country. My understanding is that in the uk because the public is not allowed, taxes are paid on temples but not churches which are open to the public.In the us that distinction hasn't been made yet. Wouldn't be surprised if it eventually went that way especially since there are no direct benefits of the temple for society save for correlation with stronger marriages, larger families and individuals who volunteer and donate more....but those activities are not done in the temple itself so those who think these individuals would act that way no matter what might see it more financially prudent to tax.If so, then all monasteries (Catholic, Orthodox, Hindu, and Buddhist) would have to pay taxes also, since they frequently have closed access. This would apply also to educational institutions which restrict entry to those who are faithful and receive an endorsement from Bishop, Stake Pres (for LDS), or from ecclesiastical authorities running evangelical colleges, or Jewish yeshivas. The implications might be quite broad and make such a policy less viable.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Where in the Constitution are Religions exempt from paying taxesAccording to the U.S. Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819, the power to tax is the power to destroy, and the First Amendment therefore gives religion a special status.Read the decision at http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=21 .According to that same high court, in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 1970, the First Amendment establishment clause guaranteeing separation of church and state likewise justifies tax exempt status.See http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/ .
foster Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 (edited) According to the U.S. Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819, the power to tax is the power to destroy, and the First Amendment therefore gives religion a special status.Read the decision at http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=21 .According to that same high court, in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 1970, the First Amendment establishment clause guaranteeing separation of church and state likewise justifies tax exempt status.See http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/ .Can you show from either decision where tax exempt status is guaranteed? It is better to read a case yourself than rely on a biased incorrect interpretation of a case. Edited August 31, 2013 by foster
Robert F. Smith Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 (edited) Can you show from either decision where tax exempt status is guaranteed? It is better to read a case yourself than rely on a biased incorrect interpretation of a case.It has been 50 years since I read McCulloch v. Maryland for a legal brief I had to write, and I don't have a copy of the Supreme Court Reporter handy (even if I wanted to read it again). The legal philosophy enunciated by me above is one which is well-known, but is far from settled to everyone's satisfaction. Here is another summary of the issue which concludes with a view different from mine, but a good summary nonetheless: http://books.google.com/books?id=frt7RDOT1PUC&pg=PA432&lpg=PA432&dq=mcCulloch+v.+Maryland,+religious+exemption&source=bl&ots=7hAaWZDGfc&sig=SqtWcdQws1F9KaIWuPzPIK8RZ7U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MpsiUs6_OOru2wXdmoDYBg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=mcCulloch%20v.%20Maryland%2C%20religious%20exemption&f=false .It is from Paul A. Djupe and Laura R. Olson, Encyclopedia of American Religion and Politics (Checkmark, 2008), 432. Edited September 1, 2013 by Robert F. Smith
foster Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 (edited) Robert, the power to tax is the power to destroy, McCulloch v. Maryland was not about church and tax exemption. The was about Maryland imposing taxes on the Federal Government - religion is not mentioned in the case. Walz, on the other hand, was about whether the 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law" prohibited tax exemption for Churches, the Court ruled the 1st Amendment does not prohibit tax exemption for religious organizations. The Court did not rule that the 1st Amendment is a complete bar to taxing Churches. Edited September 1, 2013 by foster 1
Sleeper Cell Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 Robert, the power to tax is the power to destroy, McCulloch v. Maryland was not about church and tax exemption. The was about Maryland imposing taxes on the Federal Government - religion is not mentioned in the case. Walz, on the other hand, was about whether the 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law" prohibited tax exemption for Churches, the Court ruled the 1st Amendment does not prohibit tax exemption for religious organizations. The Court did not rule that the 1st Amendment is a complete bar to taxing Churches. So is your argument: 1. If a state has the power to tax the federal government, it has the power to destroy the federal government; but if the state has the power to tax churches, it doesn’t have the power to destroy churches? Or 2. It is unconstitutional for a state to have the power to destroy the federal government, but it is constitutional for a state to have the power to destroy churches?
Recommended Posts