Temple Tax

[mercyngrace]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mormon-church-loses-english-temple-tax-fight-in-european-rights-ruling-9167688.html

 

This popped up on my FB newsfeed and I thought some might be interested. 

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mormon-church-loses-english-temple-tax-fight-in-european-rights-ruling-9167688.html

 

This popped up on my FB newsfeed and I thought some might be interested. 

 

Things that make me glad for the separation of Church and State in this country.

[Kenngo1969]

Sadly, that "Wall" no longer is impermeable.

 

P.S.:  And the thing is, access to Temples isn't "restricted" ... anyone willing to meet the requirements for entrance can get in.  (And by the logic the Court apparently uses, any organization with entrance requirements it deems "too strict" (my phrase) might be ensnared in whatever government mandate is at issue.

[Gray]

Sadly, that "Wall" no longer is impermeable.

 

P.S.:  And the thing is, access to Temples isn't "restricted" ... anyone willing to meet the requirements for entrance can get in.  (And by the logic the Court apparently uses, any organization with entrance requirements it deems "too strict" (my phrase) might be ensnared in whatever government mandate is at issue.

 

 

re·strict·ed

 adjective \ri-ˈstrik-təd\

: having a set limit

: having definite rules about what or who is allowed and not allowed

 

Temples are definitely not open to the public after they've been dedicated

[thesometimesaint]

 

re·strict·ed

 adjective \ri-ˈstrik-təd\

: having a set limit

: having definite rules about what or who is allowed and not allowed

 

Temples are definitely not open to the public after they've been dedicated

 

 

Not too sure that definition is really useful. Every religion I know of is open to visitors(or they die). But none I know of allows nonmembers to determine beliefs.

[Gray]

Not too sure that definition is really useful. Every religion I know of is open to visitors(or they die). But none I know of allows nonmembers to determine beliefs.

 

That's not really the issue. The issue is whether or not the building is open to the public. Their rules. Not saying I agree with their rules, but the ruling seems in keeping with their laws. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Sadly, that "Wall" no longer is impermeable.

 

P.S.:  And the thing is, access to Temples isn't "restricted" ... anyone willing to meet the requirements for entrance can get in.  (And by the logic the Court apparently uses, any organization with entrance requirements it deems "too strict" (my phrase) might be ensnared in whatever government mandate is at issue.

Maybe "if" that day ever comes, the it will be time for Christ to come again.

[cdowis]

I am curious what arguments the church lawyers used.  I remember that they were researching the Muslims and whether they had similar restrictions on their buildings, but getting the full tax break.

[rpn]

UK agreed that chapels and family history centers and the parking lots were all exempt.   The issue was solely the temple and the apartment building for temple workers and patrons next to it that were declared not exempt.  Those were deemed not open to the public (and therefore without public benefit).    It is the idea that faiths do not have public benefit if they restrict some buildings to members (and in this case some members) that is most chilling to religious expressions.   The LDS church was not the first faith to have buildings taxed, and there is another church that was denied the exemptions in the last week or two.   (This case was simply the appeal to the EU of the ruling that the decision did not implicate religious freedom, of the 2008 decision.)

[Kenngo1969]

 

re·strict·ed

 adjective \ri-ˈstrik-təd\

: having a set limit

: having definite rules about what or who is allowed and not allowed

 

Temples are definitely not open to the public after they've been dedicated

 

I don't recall saying that they were.  And - Gosh! - thanks, very much, for the vocabulary lesson.  You're really smart there, Gray!  Maybe one day, I'll be as smart as you!

[The Nehor]

I was on my mission there when that temple opened. Possibly the most beautiful temple grounds I have seen.

[rodheadlee]

Maybe "if" that day ever comes, the it will be time for Christ to come again.

I believe the temples will be closed for 3.5 years before Christ returns due to the Abomination of Desolation.

[Daniel2]

Does anyone know if private clubs that require adherence to certain standards to qualify for membership and building access must pay property taxes in Britain? Masons, The Odd Fellows, gender-specific clubs, etc?

[Kenngo1969]

Does anyone know if private clubs that require adherence to certain standards to qualify for membership and building access must pay property taxes in Britain? Masons, The Odd Fellows, gender-specific clubs, etc?

We have our disagreements, to be sure, but that is an excellent question.

[thesometimesaint]

That's not really the issue. The issue is whether or not the building is open to the public. Their rules. Not saying I agree with their rules, but the ruling seems in keeping with their laws. 

 

Really it is. It is the government telling a religion who it must allow in under threat on increased taxes. Sure its their rules. However as an American I view their rules as a fundamental abridgement of freedom of religion.

[thesometimesaint]

UK agreed that chapels and family history centers and the parking lots were all exempt.   The issue was solely the temple and the apartment building for temple workers and patrons next to it that were declared not exempt.  Those were deemed not open to the public (and therefore without public benefit).    It is the idea that faiths do not have public benefit if they restrict some buildings to members (and in this case some members) that is most chilling to religious expressions.   The LDS church was not the first faith to have buildings taxed, and there is another church that was denied the exemptions in the last week or two.   (This case was simply the appeal to the EU of the ruling that the decision did not implicate religious freedom, of the 2008 decision.)

 

Sophistry.

[Alan]

I don't see what all the fuss is about.

In this country all places of public worship have to be open to all of the public in order to be tax exempt. That's the law. The temple isn't so it isn't tax exempt.

I don't know why the church has taken this case to court as this has always been the case. The church has paid taxes on the London temple for years so the tax status of the Preston temple should be no surprise.

I wonder how much they spent taking the case to court, and then appealing to the European Court of Human Rights (which has nothing to do with the EU by the way). I'm no lawyer but even I could have told them they were wasting their money.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't see what all the fuss is about.

In this country all places of public worship have to be open to all of the public in order to be tax exempt. That's the law. The temple isn't so it isn't tax exempt.

I don't know why the church has taken this case to court as this has always been the case. The church has paid taxes on the London temple for years so the tax status of the Preston temple should be no surprise.

I wonder how much they spent taking the case to court, and then appealing to the European Court of Human Rights (which has nothing to do with the EU by the way). I'm no lawyer but even I could have told them they were wasting their money.

 

While we are more and more a world wide church. We are profoundly American in our outlook. For the ECHR to rule against the Church affronts our deep sense that precludes governments from dictating beliefs without an overriding secular motive. IE; Fire codes.

[Gray]

I don't recall saying that they were.  And - Gosh! - thanks, very much, for the vocabulary lesson.  You're really smart there, Gray!  Maybe one day, I'll be as smart as you!

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to be snarky or anything. I'm just saying, access is definitely restricted.

[Gray]

Really it is. It is the government telling a religion who it must allow in under threat on increased taxes. Sure its their rules. However as an American I view their rules as a fundamental abridgement of freedom of religion.

 

Well, I'm not sure taxation is really a freedom of religion issue, but they truly do have a different take on the issue of religion.  

[canard78]

Not too sure that definition is really useful. Every religion I know of is open to visitors(or they die). But none I know of allows nonmembers to determine beliefs.

Anglican Churches are often left open to the public in UK. Anyone can attend on any given day.

There is an entrance fee, expression of loyalty to an American leader and qualification requirement for entering the temple. It is by no means open to any member of the public on any given day.

The point of a place of public worship is that anyone can enter with no requirement or without prejudice.

If the 100% discount only applies to places of public worship I think it's a bit weasely of the church lawyers to try to get out of doing so. I wonder how much those lawyers and court fees all cost.

[canard78]

While we are more and more a world wide church. We are profoundly American in our outlook. For the ECHR to rule against the Church affronts our deep sense that precludes governments from dictating beliefs without an overriding secular motive. IE; Fire codes.

"We" being the American LDS I presume. That's no surprise given you're American!

The British saints are profoundly British in their outlook and willing to respect the laws of the UK. I agree with Alan, this is such a non-issue that you Americans should get over it.

Most Brits will have no issue with this ruling because, culturally, we completely understand the intent of "place of public worship" in the definition as it's part of our heritage.

The Temple clearly isn't a place of public worship by UK definition and the church shouldn't have wasted all those legal fees trying to argue it is.

[canard78]

Does anyone know if private clubs that require adherence to certain standards to qualify for membership and building access must pay property taxes in Britain? Masons, The Odd Fellows, gender-specific clubs, etc?

I doubt it, but if they do it will not being they are a place if public worship but because they qualify under a completely separate law.

If that's the case I would laugh out loud if the church tried to point out the similarities between the Temple and a Masonic hall to get an extra 20% tax deduction!

[canard78]

The church already gets a 20% boost from HMRC on the majority of tithing donations in UK. The church is very likely to be a net recipient, not a net donor of tax funds in UK.

[Daniel2]

While we are more and more a world wide church. We are profoundly American in our outlook. For the ECHR to rule against the Church affronts our deep sense that precludes governments from dictating beliefs without an overriding secular motive. IE; Fire codes.

If all other private organizations and houses of worship pay taxes on non-public buildings in Britain, it seems the rather non-American aspects of 10th Article of Faith may apply here...

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."