Temple Land Tax?

[foster]

The US Constitution didn't exist at the time. Their debate was about the use of a tax once more to be placed upon a certain religious opinion. The US Constitution follows in the debate about the role of government in religion. The US Constitution specifically prohibits it.

Where does the US Constitution specifically prohibit taxing of religious institutions or land owned by religion or a religion itself. It might be your opinion.

If tax exempt status for churches is guaranteed, why are churches investigated for activities which could result in a revocation of tax exempt status.

[thesometimesaint]

First amendment; First sentence.

 

There are no absolute rights to do whatever you like. The tax status of churches is seldom challenged, and even then it is only when they cross the line into partisan political issues. There is a big difference between telling citizens to participate in the political process where such is allowed, and using the pulpit to dictate whom to vote for. I appreciate the former and resent the latter, even if I agree with them on whom I'm voting for.

 

Moreover how is such a tax to be administered? Should we tax some speech, and not others. We have a lay ministry, as such no one gets paid for preaching. Our church buildings generate no income. So you can't tax non existent income. We already pay taxes on income generated on other Church property. No one yet has come up with a fair and equitable method for valuing and then taxing building used for religious teaching.

[foster]

First amendment; First sentence.

 

There are no absolute rights to do whatever you like. The tax status of churches is seldom challenged, and even then it is only when they cross the line into partisan political issues. There is a big difference between telling citizens to participate in the political process where such is allowed, and using the pulpit to dictate whom to vote for. I appreciate the former and resent the latter, even if I agree with them on whom I'm voting for.

 

Moreover how is such a tax to be administered? Should we tax some speech, and not others. We have a lay ministry, as such no one gets paid for preaching. Our church buildings generate no income. So you can't tax non existent income. We already pay taxes on income generated on other Church property. No one yet has come up with a fair and equitable method for valuing and then taxing building used for religious teaching.

 

 For petes sake, you have not shown ONE shred of definitive proof that the Constitution guarantees tax exempt status for churches.  At best you have shown nice hypothesis, but you have failed to show the fact of what you claim. 

 

Again, if tax exempt status for Churches is guaranteed, why does the IRS investigate Churches for tax exempt violations where in the potential outcome is the Church's loss its tax exempt status?

[thesometimesaint]

Asked and answered.

 

Ps; I've shown the preceedence for it, the framers discussion of it, the clear constitution prohabition, and finally the inadvisabilitytrying to impose such a tax today.

Edited September 3, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[foster]

Asked and answered.

 

Ps; I've shown the preceedence for it, the framers discussion of it, the clear constitution prohabition, and finally the inadvisabilitytrying to impose such a tax today.

 

SWEET PETE!!! FINALLY.

 

You have shown arguments against taxing Churches - which is not proof tax exempt status of Churches guaranteed; you have shown issues that would arise from taxing Churches -  which is not proof tax exempt status of Churches guaranteed.

 

You did not show, taxing of Church is prohibited.

Edited September 3, 2013 by foster

[foster]

For all those interested the following is the title to a article on wnd.com. A Federal Court upheld the revoking of tax exempt status of a Church.

 

Church loses tax-exempt status

[thesometimesaint]

If you must refer to the World Nut Daily you'll never want for moonsshine.

 

Churches were already prohibited for using their tax exempt status to engage in partisan politics.

https://www.au.org/resources/publications/religion-partisan-politics-and-tax-exemption

[foster]

If you must refer to the World Nut Daily you'll never want for moonsshine.

 

Churches were already prohibited for using their tax exempt status to engage in partisan politics.

https://www.au.org/resources/publications/religion-partisan-politics-and-tax-exemption

 

and what is the "penalty" so to speak, for a Church which violates the prohibition against engaging in prohibited political activities?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

and what is the "penalty" so to speak, for a Church which violates the prohibition against engaging in prohibited political activities?

Depends on who is in office and who heads the DOJ. It also depends on the party affilition of the church. IE, conservative, liberal, environmental....

Edited September 3, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[USU78]

and what is the "penalty" so to speak, for a Church which violates the prohibition against engaging in prohibited political activities?

 

Depends upon whose ox said church gores.

[Mark Beesley]

SWEET PETE!!! FINALLY.

 

You have shown arguments against taxing Churches - which is not proof tax exempt status of Churches guaranteed; you have shown issues that would arise from taxing Churches -  which is not proof tax exempt status of Churches guaranteed.

 

You did not show, taxing of Church is prohibited.

The text of the Constitution does not expressly prohibit lots of things.  But over the course of history, cases arise which raise constitutional questions, and the Supreme Court finds that the Constitution does, indeed, prohibit certain acts even if they are not expressly enumerated in the text.  The fact the the text of the Constitution does not expressly prohibit the taxation of churches does not necessarily mean that such taxation is constitutionally permissibile.  Everything offered to you in this thread shows an historical preference for finding that the Constitutional question of whether the state has the right to tax churches would be answered in favor of no taxation.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Mark Beesley

[USU78]

The text of the Constitution does not expressly prohibit lots of things.  But over the course of history, cases arise which raise constitutional questions, and the Supreme Court finds that the Constitution does, indeed, prohibit certain acts even if they are not expressly enumerated in the text.  The fact the the text of the Constitution does not expressly prohibit the taxation of churches does not necessarily mean that such taxation is constitutionally permissibile.  Everything offered to you in this thread shows an historical preference for finding that the Constitutional question of whether the state has the right to tax churches would be answered in favor of no taxation.

 

A good case can be made for an implicit prohibition in the Ist Amendment based solely upon the history of confiscations and unconstitutional taxes imposed by Norman-English potentates going back even earlier than Henry V.  The Georges follow quite clearly in that tradition, as seen through the lens of the disenfranchised American-English colonial experience.

[Robert F. Smith]

Technically true, but the writers of the US Constitution were deeply aware of their English traditions, and history.

Correct, and the high court can (and does) take into account legislative intent -- as exhibited in Constitutional Convention debates and  minutes, as well as the Federalist Papers.

[Robert F. Smith]

 For petes sake, you have not shown ONE shred of definitive proof that the Constitution guarantees tax exempt status for churches.  At best you have shown nice hypothesis, but you have failed to show the fact of what you claim. 

 

Again, if tax exempt status for Churches is guaranteed, why does the IRS investigate Churches for tax exempt violations where in the potential outcome is the Church's loss its tax exempt status?

Because no rights are absolute (as was already pointed out to you), and a religion which engages in certain types of political activities can leave the status of a religion behind, thus incurring the wrath of the IRS, and this has happened on several occasions.  What usually happens is that the religion succumbs to govt pressure.

[thesometimesaint]

and what is the "penalty" so to speak, for a Church which violates the prohibition against engaging in prohibited political activities?

They can loose their tax exempt status.

[foster]

They can loose their tax exempt status.

Which would tend to suggest tax exempt status for a Church is not guaranteed, right?

[thesometimesaint]

Which would tend to suggest tax exempt status for a Church is not guaranteed, right?

 

There are no absolute rights under our Constitution. They are all circumscribed by/in law. History and law have shown the impracticality and inadvisability of instituting a tax on churches in a multi-religious society such as ours. IMNTBHO; It is better to exempt them from taxes while prohibiting partisan politics than to subject them to taxes while allowing for partisan politiics.

[Sleeper Cell]

Where does the US Constitution specifically prohibit taxing of religious institutions or land owned by religion or a religion itself. It might be your opinion.

 

 

 

Right next to the part where it specifically prohibits "separate but equal" racial segregation in public schools.

 

The constitution specifically prohibits the government from making any law that favors some religious institutions over others (establishment of religion) or prohibits the free exercise of religion.

 

IIRC, the reason “separate but equal” was ruled unconstitutional was because in practice it had not been equal and the court saw that, as a practical matter, it could not be modified so that it would prevent racial inequality.

 

You assert that churches may be taxed because the constitution does not specifically prohibit churches from being taxed. How can this be done without violating the establishment or the free exercise clauses of the first amendment?

Edited September 4, 2013 by Sleeper Cell

[foster]

You assert that churches may be taxed because the constitution does not specifically prohibit churches from being taxed. How can this be done without violating the establishment or the free exercise clauses of the first amendment?

 

A Federal Court upheld the revoking of tax exempt status of a Church.

 

Church loses tax-exempt status

[thesometimesaint]

A Federal Court upheld the revoking of tax exempt status of a Church.

 

Church loses tax-exempt status

 

The courts have that right as established in our Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause

[Sleeper Cell]

A Federal Court upheld the revoking of tax exempt status of a Church.

 

 

Because the Court ruled that the church was not behaving like a church. It did not lose its tax exempt status for exercising its religion, but as a penalty for its non-religious behavior.

[foster]

Because the Court ruled that the church was not behaving like a church. It did not lose its tax exempt status for exercising its religion, but as a penalty for its non-religious behavior.

I am not sure of your point. This tax exemption and Churches started with whether or not Churches are guaranteed tax exempt status. That a Church can have its status revoked shows it is not a guarantee. If a religion is preaching "Biblical principles" and the relation of such to political candidates is that not exercising religion?

[Tacenda]

Could the church be taxed in the future, can it have a dire impact on members one day, will we be back to donating for buildings like we once did maybe 20-25 yrs. ago?  So many questions, that this thread has led me to.       

[thesometimesaint]

Could the church be taxed in the future, can it have a dire impact on members one day, will we be back to donating for buildings like we once did maybe 20-25 yrs. ago?  So many questions, that this thread has led me to.       

 

Of course it is possble. But I don't forsee it as likely. The laws governing churches are pretty specific, and so far seem to work well. Like a wise man once said. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

I don't see it as having a dire effect on the members. We'd probably just go back to fund raising from the members.

[foster]

Could the church be taxed in the future, can it have a dire impact on members one day, will we be back to donating for buildings like we once did maybe 20-25 yrs. ago?  So many questions, that this thread has led me to.

I would not worry about it.