Temple Land Tax?

[ERayR]

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.       

 

Yes

 

yes

 

perhaps

[Tacenda]

Yes

 

yes

 

perhaps

Dire was a strong word, but maybe not with so many struggling in today's economy.  I guess the church does need investments or companies to build capital.  I remember paying a significant amount each year for buildings, so yeah, it would be tough. 

[ERayR]

Dire was a strong word, but maybe not with so many struggling in today's economy.  I guess the church does need investments or companies to build capital.  I remember paying a significant amount each year for buildings, so yeah, it would be tough. 

 

I am on a fixed income and do not know how I could possibly pay a budget assesment like we used to do.

[foster]

I am on a fixed income and do not know how I could possibly pay a budget assesment like we used to do.

 

For posterity sake, would you willing to explain what a "budget assessment" was? And how it was handled?

[thesometimesaint]

Each family was asked to donate money for the continuing operations of their Ward and Stake buildings.

[USU78]

Each family was asked to donate money for the continuing operations of their Ward and Stake buildings.

 

And there were assessments for the construction of ward, stake and temple buildings.

 

This in addition to the tithing, fast offering, and missionary donations that people made.

 

Huge sacrifices made through very tough times while the Church clawed itself out of the crippling debt imposed by the feds, mobs, and some very bad luck.  And it was during my lifetime that the debt was finally retired.

 

Smartalecks who whine about the Church's present financial condition always forget this present "embarrassment of riches" was won through extreme privation and long labor, and could disappear in an instant if not managed with care.

[thesometimesaint]

And there were assessments for the construction of ward, stake and temple buildings.

 

This in addition to the tithing, fast offering, and missionary donations that people made.

 

Huge sacrifices made through very tough times while the Church clawed itself out of the crippling debt imposed by the feds, mobs, and some very bad luck.  And it was during my lifetime that the debt was finally retired.

 

Smartalecks who whine about the Church's present financial condition always forget this present "embarrassment of riches" was won through extreme privation and long labor, and could disappear in an instant if not managed with care.

 

True.

 

True.

 

Some was self imposed in that it was hard to determine what was Chuch property and what belonged to JS and BY. It took a long time to sort it all out. The Great Depression also struck the Church very hard.

 

True.

[ERayR]

For posterity sake, would you willing to explain what a "budget assessment" was? And how it was handled?

 

The Bishopric would set the annual operating budget for the ward and then asses each family a share.  Usually thowe who could and would were given higher assessments.  For a lot of families(maybe even most) it was a sacrifice to pay tithes, fast offerings and budget.

Edited September 6, 2013 by ERayR

[ERayR]

And there were assessments for the construction of ward, stake and temple buildings.

 

This in addition to the tithing, fast offering, and missionary donations that people made.

 

Huge sacrifices made through very tough times while the Church clawed itself out of the crippling debt imposed by the feds, mobs, and some very bad luck.  And it was during my lifetime that the debt was finally retired.

 

Smartalecks who whine about the Church's present financial condition always forget this present "embarrassment of riches" was won through extreme privation and long labor, and could disappear in an instant if not managed with care.

 

Very true, very true.

[ERayR]

And then there was the welfare farms where one donated considerable time raising and harvesting crops for the welfare system.  I have some fond (and some not so fond) memories of baling hay, hoeing beans, picking potatoes, picking green beans, and picking berries on various and sundry welfare farms.

Edited September 6, 2013 by ERayR

[Sleeper Cell]

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?

 

If we are still discussing whether or no the government has the constitutional right to tax churches, the case you cited doesn’t say what you seem to think it does (at least according to the article you linked).

 

Although the court allowed the IRS to revoke the church’s “IRS tax exemption status” as a penalty for wrongdoing, it still did not allow the IRS to tax the church. The court ruled that the church:

 

 

 

does not have to pay taxes on donations given to the church despite the fact that its tax-exempt status had been previously revoked.

 

 

 

In other words, a church’s exemption from paying taxes apparently has nothing to do with whether or not the IRS grants it “tax exempt status.” Whether or not donations to a church are tax deductible, is another matter. It appears that what the church lost when the IRS revoked its tax exempt status was the ability of its donors to deduct their donations to the church on their own individual income tax. returns.

 

Nobody argues that individuals have a constitutional right to deduct charitable donations from their income taxes. The standard deduction effectively prevents most people from doing that anyway (they would have to pay higher taxes if they itemized).The proposed flat tax would eliminate all charitable deductions, including those made to churches.

 

BTW, the church was doing a lot more than merely “preaching Biblical principles and their relation to political candidates.” Four days before the 1992 presidential election, It took out full page anti-Clinton ads in various newspapers. Even worse, these ads solicited political donations from the general public and told potential donors that these donations would be tax deductible. The court ruled that this was not “religious speech,“ but “campaign speech.” Worst of all, it appears that these political donations were being laundered through the church in order to give the donors a tax deduction they would not have received, had they donated the money directly to a political organization. Under the circumstances, revoking the ability of this church to tell potential donors that ”they can write it off on their income tax” seems to be an appropriate penalty.

 

The court did give the church a way it could support or oppose political candidates in the future, and still regain (and retain) its tax exempt status. The court ruled that a church could form a PAC to enable its members and others to support and oppose candidates based on the church’s religious views. But it had to be a separate organization, it could not receive church funds, and. of course, the donors to this PAC would not receive a tax break.

[Bikeemikey]

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

No it would suggest that when you engage in aggressive political discourse you are no longer a church.

[Bikeemikey]

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?

This is silly...

That tax exempt status for a religion can be guaranteed does not prohibit their being a definition and criteria that one must meet in order to be considered religious.

It is silly to suggest that the only requirement for such tax exemption is to simply say, I am a church.

[Bikeemikey]

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.

We already fund raise from the members - it's called tithing.

Are you thinking there would need to be a change because the current collection could not cover present operations as well as potential new tax payments? Or are you concerned that local wards and stakes would be more concerned with how "their" money was spent if the church was taxed?

Growing up in new zealand the maximum tax advantage from paying any amount of tithing was $333. The loss of that for tithe paying members would likely not be impactful.

[foster]

This is silly... That tax exempt status for a religion can be guaranteed does not prohibit their being a definition and criteria that one must meet in order to be considered religious. It is silly to suggest that the only requirement for such tax exemption is to simply say, I am a church.

 

Bikemikey, I was not the one who suggested that a religion is no longer a religion for engaging in politics; sleepcell's post did not make sense.  Additionally, the Pastor of the Church of which the tax status was revoked was the one who claimed religious oppression and suggested that he was teaching Biblical principles in the offending ads.

[foster]

.

 

Although the court allowed the IRS to revoke the church’s “IRS tax exemption status” as a penalty for wrongdoing, it still did not allow the IRS to tax the church. The court ruled that the church:

 

does not have to pay taxes on donations given to the church despite the fact that its tax-exempt status had been previously revoked.

 

 

In other words, a church’s exemption from paying taxes apparently has nothing to do with whether or not the IRS grants it “tax exempt status.” Whether or not donations to a church are tax deductible, is another matter. It appears that what the church lost when the IRS revoked its tax exempt status was the ability of its donors to deduct their donations to the church on their own individual income tax. returns.

 

Nobody argues that individuals have a constitutional right to deduct charitable donations from their income taxes. The standard deduction effectively prevents most people from doing that anyway (they would have to pay higher taxes if they itemized).The proposed flat tax would eliminate all charitable deductions, including those made to churches.

 

 

 

 

It looks like you quoted the wnd article rather than the Court opinion.  Here is the Courts Opinion. 

As the Court stated

 

"Nor does the revocation necessarily make the Church liable for the payment of taxes. As the IRS explicitly represented in its brief and reiterated at oral argument, the revocation of the exemption does not convert bona fide donations into income taxable to the Church. See 26 U.S.C. § 102 ("Gross income does not include the value of property acquired by gift. . . .").

 

Your assessment is somewhat correct and very wrong. The Church lost its tax exempt status, which means it would have to pay taxes and means that donors could not treat donations as tax exempt. Exemption from paying federal taxes, has everything to do with the status given to that organization by the IRS; except when a Court of last resort provides otherwise, or a decision is not appealed.

 

A blanket exemption solely for Churches would violate the Constitutions Establishment clause;  Texas Monthly, INC. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989)

 

 

 

 

 

[Bikeemikey]

Bikemikey, I was not the one who suggested that a religion is no longer a religion for engaging in politics; sleepcell's post did not make sense. Additionally, the Pastor of the Church of which the tax status was revoked was the one who claimed religious oppression and suggested that he was teaching Biblical principles in the offending ads.

A religion is no longer a religion if they become aggressively involved political discourse.

Their pastor can claim what he wants. Political tax exempt status is different to religious exempt status.

[ERayR]

A religion is no longer a religion if they become aggressively involved political discourse. Their pastor can claim what he wants. Political tax exempt status is different to religious exempt status.

 

I take it you do not consider Samuel or Jeremiah to be religious leaders.  You have also seemed to close the door on God's political warnings.  

 

Your statement is utter foolishness.  Religions and religious people have the same rights to input into the government that governs them as those who are not religious.  A voice in government is not restricted to the non-religious. 

[thesometimesaint]

We already fund raise from the members - it's called tithing. Are you thinking there would need to be a change because the current collection could not cover present operations as well as potential new tax payments? Or are you concerned that local wards and stakes would be more concerned with how "their" money was spent if the church was taxed? Growing up in new zealand the maximum tax advantage from paying any amount of tithing was $333. The loss of that for tithe paying members would likely not be impactful.

 

For a church to then turn over tithing monies to a partisan politics would be against US laws. US law and history mediates against churches being subject to taxes. Our experiences with Church/State issues says that such leads to more problems than it solves. In the US most people simply take the standard deduction rate which more than covers the taxes that would occur otherwise. I itemize because it works better for me and my family.

[thesometimesaint]

I take it you do not consider Samuel or Jeremiah to be religious leaders.  You have also seemed to close the door on God's political warnings.  

 

Your statement is utter foolishness.  Religions and religious people have the same rights to input into the government that governs them as those who are not religious.  A voice in government is not restricted to the non-religious. 

 

They certainly weren't religious leaders in the US. God can warn whomever he wants. What the US can't do is use God to promote its laws.

 

Yes they have the same rights not to force, through goverment, the worship of, or obedience to, any God.

[ERayR]

They certainly weren't religious leaders in the US. God can warn whomever he wants. What the US can't do is use God to promote its laws.

 

Yes they have the same rights not to force, through goverment, the worship of, or obedience to, any God.

 

Let me get this clear.  I as a practicing member of the COJCOLDS am free to advocate for any laws I want as long as i ignore my moral values derived from my religious affiliation. 

[thesometimesaint]

As a citizen of the US you are free to advocate for, or against any law, or proposed law, that you want. As a member of the Church you are subject ot the rules of the Church. The Church can't use your property without your consent.

[ERayR]

As a citizen of the US you are free to advocate for, or against any law, or proposed law, that you want. As a member of the Church you are subject ot the rules of the Church. The Church can't use your property without your consent.

 

No you are wrong.  As a member of a church I am free to advocate for, or against any law, or proposed law, that you want.  Only as an official representative of a church are my actions restricted.  Don't feel bad many make that mistake.  As a member of a church I am free to combine with like minded people(of whatever religious persuasion) in political action to further our value system and advocate for it in the market place of ideas.

[Bikeemikey]

Let me get this clear. I as a practicing member of the COJCOLDS am free to advocate for any laws I want as long as i ignore my moral values derived from my religious affiliation.

I'm not sure if you are intentionally being obtuse?

You are obviously allowed to have your political opinions and positions informed by your religious convictions. That has never even been a element of this conversation.

What you can not do is use the fiscal capacity of a religious entity (which is enhanced by the absence of tax burden) for a purpose that goes beyond the scope of a religious ministry.

That does not mean religions or religious leaders can not engage in political discourse. It simply means they can not take money and use it for political messaging.

Could our church encourage all members to vote a certain way from the pulpit (which they currently do not)? Sure. It would not be a problem.

Could our church take money collected from tithes and take out ads on tv promoting a specific political message? No they can not.

It is really simple and there is no constraint of either political expression or religious freedom.

[Bikeemikey]

I take it you do not consider Samuel or Jeremiah to be religious leaders. You have also seemed to close the door on God's political warnings.

Your statement is utter foolishness. Religions and religious people have the same rights to input into the government that governs them as those who are not religious. A voice in government is not restricted to the non-religious.

We do not presently live in a theocratic state, nor are we part of an Old Testament monarchy. My comments had no bearing on history, only on the present.

I have not made any comments about restricting the political rights of religious people. I have also never suggested that political voice is restricted to non-religious.