The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[hope_for_things]

51 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's the point though.  Reasonable people disagree, so saying that it's a 'fact' isn't accurate.

But yes, of course the church will fight to keep it's benefits.  We all fight when there is a proposed change in the tax code that will hurt us financially.  That doesn't mean we are being subsidized by the government.

What all churches get via their tax exempt status is a significant benefit compared to other large institutions.  This significant benefit is collectively given by our society, and the costs of this benefit are spread across all tax paying entities.  I honestly don't care if you think this technically qualifies as a subsidy or not.  Please drop the term subsidy if thats a bugaboo for you.  Focus on the concept, that tax exempt status means significantly less revenue for the government from churches and this less revenue from churches is made up through higher taxes spread across other tax paying institutions and individuals.  

This means the government's preferential tax treatment of churches is something that all tax payers have a stake in.  BTW, I should point out that not all countries give tax exempt status to churches.  

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay, I'm willing to listen here.  How do you differentiate subsidies-for-non-profits-means-they-have-an-obligation-to-show-us-their-financials argument from any other situation where a person or group is subsidized by others because of their use of the tax code to reduce their tax obligations (such as the one you enjoy when by your itemizing tax deductions)?

Thanks,

-Smac

I hate to chime in because Analytics is making such a good case in his every contribution here, but I can't rep point him so I might as well comment at this point.  I think this is obvious.  Who gets donations?  Corporations that get donations from the crowd ought to be transparent, because they could be benefitting from us all whether we are donators or not.

[Marginal Gains]

Interestingly the Church holds stock in Kraft Heinz, purveyors of coffee. Shouldn’t that be against the investment rules for an institution that considers drinking coffee a sin?

https://www.scribd.com/document/380562519/2017-12-31-Thirteen-LLC-Investment-Summary

Edited May 31, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[smac97]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I hate to chime in because Analytics is making such a good case in his every contribution here, but I can't rep point him so I might as well comment at this point.  I think this is obvious.  Who gets donations? 

Non-profits.  But so what?  We as a society allow people to reduce their tax obligations in all sorts of ways and for all sorts of reasons.  Child tax credits.  Mortgage interest deductions.  Charitable contributions.  Business mileage deductions.  Student loan interest deductions.  Earned income tax credit.  Jury pay paid to an employer.

So the reason for the reduced tax obligation varies, but the reductions are all over the place.  These are all "subsidies" by the reckoning being presented here.  So why don't these subsidies also trigger an obligation for "transparency?"

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Corporations that get donations from the crowd ought to be transparent, because they could be benefitting from us all whether we are donators or not.

"Because they could be benefitting from us all."  I get that.

But the same could be said for each and every group and individual that uses lawful means to reduce their tax obligation.  We are all "benefitting" from each other when we are "subsidized" through advantageous use of the tax code, so we all "ought to be transparent."

Except that's not what is being asserted here.  Why is that?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Interestingly the Church holds stock in Kraft Heinz, purveyors of coffee. Shouldn’t that be against the investment rules for an institution that considers drinking coffee a sin?

https://www.scribd.com/document/380562519/2017-12-31-Thirteen-LLC-Investment-Summary

It's just about earning the best return for the Lord's money.  Heck, I think some in the church finance/investment arm are eyeing the marijuana industry and how to capitalize on it.

Great example of trolling.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What all churches get via their tax exempt status is a significant benefit compared to other large institutions.  This significant benefit is collectively given by our society, and the costs of this benefit are spread across all tax paying entities.  I honestly don't care if you think this technically qualifies as a subsidy or not.  Please drop the term subsidy if thats a bugaboo for you.  Focus on the concept, that tax exempt status means significantly less revenue for the government from churches and this less revenue from churches is made up through higher taxes spread across other tax paying institutions and individuals.  

This means the government's preferential tax treatment of churches is something that all tax payers have a stake in.  BTW, I should point out that not all countries give tax exempt status to churches.  

Churches are not the only organizations that are tax exempt in the U.S.  All charities are.  This is because the services that such groups provide citizens (and thus the country) provide a significant benefit to the country, so it makes sense that the government would provide benefits back to them as well. 

By not burdening churches and other charities with taxes, they are more able to provide services to the poor and needy, thus removing a burden that would otherwise be carried by the state.  Making churches exempt from paying taxes is also a way to keep the church and state separate (a large part of our constitution).  

And church's tax exempt status only applies to the donations they receive.  The church pays taxes on money they make in other ways.

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Interestingly the Church holds stock in Kraft Heinz, purveyors of coffee. Shouldn’t that be against the investment rules for an institution that considers drinking coffee a sin?

https://www.scribd.com/document/380562519/2017-12-31-Thirteen-LLC-Investment-Summary

The church doesn't believe that drinking coffee, tea, or alcohol is a sin unless a person has covenanted not to do so.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

What all churches get via their tax exempt status is a significant benefit compared to other large institutions.  This significant benefit is collectively given by our society, and the costs of this benefit are spread across all tax paying entities. 

The same can be said for you and your tax deductions, the costs for which are also "spread across all tax paying entities" (including, interestingly enough, the LDS Church's for-profit entities).  It's a matter of degree, that's all.

Quote

I honestly don't care if you think this technically qualifies as a subsidy or not.  Please drop the term subsidy if thats a bugaboo for you.  Focus on the concept, that tax exempt status means significantly less revenue for the government from churches and this less revenue from churches is made up through higher taxes spread across other tax paying institutions and individuals.

I'm asking you to do the same thing: "Focus on the concept, that tax deductions mean significantly less revenue for the government from you and this less revenue from you is made up through higher taxes spread across other tax paying institutions and individuals."

And yet nobody is suggesting that your tax deductions trigger an obligation for you to be "transparent" with your financials to any Tom, Richard or Harold.  Why is that?

Quote

This means the government's preferential tax treatment of churches is something that all tax payers have a stake in. 

"This means the governments preferential tax treatment of you and your tax deductions is something that all tax payers have a stake in."

Right?

Quote

BTW, I should point out that not all countries give tax exempt status to churches.  

Right.  Fortunately, the United States has its Constitution.  "Tax exempt status to churches" has its roots not in "preferential treatment," but in constitutional treatment.  Per the U.S. Supreme Court in 1970 (emphases added):

Quote

Determining that the legislative purpose of tax exemption is not aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion does not end the inquiry, however. We must also be sure that the end result-the effect-is not an excessive government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree. Either course, taxation of churches or exemption, occasions some degree of involvement with religion. Elimination of exemption would tend to expand the involvement of government by giving rise to tax valuation of church property, tax liens, tax foreclosures, and the direct confrontations and conflicts that follow in the train of those legal processes.

Granting tax exemptions to churches necessarily operates to afford an indirect economic benefit and also gives rise to some, but yet a lesser, involvement than taxing them. In analyzing either alternative the questions are whether the involvement is excessive, and whether it is a continuing one calling for official and continuing surveillance leading to an impermissible degree of entanglement. Obviously a direct money subsidy would be a relationship pregnant with involvement and, as with most governmental grant programs, could encompass sustained and detailed administrative relationships for enforcement of statutory or administrative standards, but that is not this case. The hazards of churches supporting government are hardly less in their potential than the hazards of government supporting churches; each relationship carries some involvement rather than the desired insulation and separation. We cannot ignore the instances in history when church support of government led to the kind of involvement we seek to avoid.

The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put employees 'on the public payroll.' There is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion. As Mr. Justice Holmes commented in a related context 'a page of history is worth of volume of logic.' New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 , 507 (1921). The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.

Separation in this context cannot mean absence of all contact; the complexities of modern life inevitably produce some contact and the fire and police protection received by houses of religious worship are no more than incidental benefits accorded all persons or institutions within a State's boundaries, along with many other exempt organizations. The appellant has not established even an arguable quantitative correlation between the payment of an ad valorem property tax and the receipt of these municipal benefits.

This seems to rather undercut the "subsidies" argument.  A lot.

More:

Quote

All of the 50 States provide for tax exemption of places of worship, most of them doing so by constitutional guarantees.

Indeed.  And yet you and yours want to essentially punish churches for their exercise of their constitutional rights (by imposing requirements on them arising solely from that exercise).

Quote

For so long as federal income taxes have had any potential impact on churches-over 75 years- religious organizations have been expressly exempt from the tax.  Such treatment is an 'aid' to churches no more and no less in principle than the real estate tax exemption granted by States.

The Supreme Court addressed, and rejected, your "the costs of this benefit are spread across all tax paying entities" argument nearly half a century ago.

Quote

Few concepts are more deeply embedded in the fabric of our national life, beginning with pre- Revolutionary colonial times, than for the government to exercise at the very least this kind of benevolent neutrality toward churches and religious exercise generally so long as none was favored over others and none suffered interference.

Huh.  So tax exemption is part of our Free Exercise rights.

Quote

It is significant that Congress, from its earliest days, has viewed the Religion Clauses of the Constitution as authorizing statutory real estate tax exemption to religious bodies. In 1802 the 7th Congress enacted a taxing statute for the County of Alexandria, adopting the 1800 Virginia statutory pattern which provided tax exemptions for churches. 2 Stat. 194.  As early as 1813 the 12th Congress refunded import duties paid by religious societies on the importation of religious articles.  During this period the City Council of Washington, D.C., acting under congressional authority, Act of Incorporation, 7, 2 Stat. 197 (May 3, 1802), enacted a series of real and personal property assessments that uniformly exempted church property.  In 1870 the Congress specifically exempted all churches in the District of Colum- [397 U.S. 664 , 678]   bia and appurtenant grounds and property 'from any and all taxes or assessments, national, municipal, or county.' Act of June 17, 1870, 16 Stat. 153.

...

It appears that at least up to 1885 this Court, reflecting more than a century of our history and uninterrupted practice, accepted without discussion the proposition that federal or state grants of tax exemption to churches were not a violation of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. As to the New York statute, we now confirm that view.

I am grateful for the Constitution and the protections it provides.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 31, 2018 by smac97

[ALarson]

12 hours ago, JulieM said:

Can someone explain why the church (corporation) can’t purchase this stock on their own?  Why do they need to own these 13 companies who in turn purchase the stock for the Church?

I admit I’m very inexperienced in this whole area so these are probably easily answered.  But I’m just wondering. 

I think those are interesting questions and wonder if this is standard procedure for other churches/religions who own stock.  Also, do these 13 companies do anything besides manage and purchase stock or investments for the church?  How many employees are being paid, etc.?  Just a few questions I have as well.

[Duncan]

9 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

As Bluebell pointed out earlier in the thread, we don’t (yet) have enough numbers.

We have:

$32 billion held in stocks

$40 million annual humanitarian expenditure (but this is cash+materials+plus volunteer time value)

£30-35 million in annual tithing receipts from the UK from circa 190,000 (c30,000 active) members. Extrapolating the UK rate of tithing income gives you a “guess” of total income receipts of £2.5 billion annually.

Then we have land values, commercial venture incomes, other invested funds.

And going back to Bluebells comment, we don’t yet know the costs. We have been told stipends aren’t a lot of money though, so what operational costs can there be that amount to $ billions?

Chapels cost $5 million, Temples might cost an average of $25 - 30 million. So not $billions there.

Where does it all go?

one chapel here just got new chairs!!!! I wish the sacrament trays would be next. I wonder if that 40 Million is these public donations, like "LDS Church donates 10 million to Alabama for new dental iniative" or something whereas they don't publish how much they spend on welfare services like a Bishop spending 300 clams on food for a family, that kind of stuff

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Churches are not the only organizations that are tax exempt in the U.S.  All charities are.  This is because the services that such groups provide citizens (and thus the country) provide a significant benefit to the country, so it makes sense that the government would provide benefits back to them as well. 

By not burdening churches and other charities with taxes, they are more able to provide services to the poor and needy, thus removing a burden that would otherwise be carried by the state.  Making churches exempt from paying taxes is also a way to keep the church and state separate (a large part of our constitution).  

And church's tax exempt status only applies to the donations they receive.  The church pays taxes on money they make in other ways.

I understand the argument for tax exempt status, and I haven't been arguing for changing that status at all.  Did you know that other non religiously affiliated charities are required to disclose more of their finances than churches are?  Churches receive a special status even in the world of tax exempt organizations.

I recommend checking out some of the links that Analytics has provided around this topic of transparency and the case for it in this thread, as well as the standards that Evangelical churches are holding themselves to when it comes to financial reporting.  

[Marginal Gains]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church doesn't believe that drinking coffee, tea, or alcohol is a sin unless a person has covenanted not to do so.

Why do investigators have to give them up before being allowed to be baptised?

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Quote

The church doesn't believe that drinking coffee, tea, or alcohol is a sin unless a person has covenanted not to do so.

Why do investigators have to give them up before being allowed to be baptised?

They are preparing to make covenants.  

-Smac

[JulieM]

34 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think those are interesting questions and wonder if this is standard procedure for other churches/religions who own stock.  Also, do these 13 companies do anything besides manage and purchase stock or investments for the church?  How many employees are being paid, etc.?  Just a few questions I have as well.

I’ve tried to search and read elsewhere for some answers to my questions.  Some even mention that it’s “money laundering” to do this, but that sounds pretty extreme (and I can’t believe that).

I just think if the church was not trying to hide anything and desiring to be open with members who contribute, there would simply be an investment arm of the church and they’d purchase stock or other investments in the name of the church. Why the need for so many other companies to do this that the church owns anyway?  How is that being transparent?

Edited May 31, 2018 by JulieM

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The same can be said for you and your tax deductions, the costs for which are also "spread across all tax paying entities" (including, interestingly enough, the LDS Church's for-profit entities).  It's a matter of degree, that's all.

Yes, and the matter of degree is significant and material.    I'm not aware of any people making this argument other than yourself on this thread.  

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet nobody is suggesting that your tax deductions trigger an obligation for you to be "transparent" with your financials to any Tom, Richard or Harold.  Why is that?

There is no precedent that I can think of to require individuals to follow the same rules as institutions with respect to financial reporting.  I'm not aware of any public policy makers at any level of government, local or national that are proposing that individuals should have their personal finances treated the same way as institutions.  The only comparison I can think of is that people running for the office of President have traditionally been asked by the public to release their tax statements, but as we saw with the election of Trump, this tradition can be flaunted by certain candidates.  

So your entire argument that if the public has an interest in knowing the financial details of large institutions, why shouldn't it also know the financial details of every citizen isn't even a serious argument that any policy makers around the country would even entertain in a policy discussion.  Its so absurd and yet you keep arguing for it.  

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Right.  Fortunately, the United States has its Constitution.  "Tax exempt status to churches" has its roots not in "preferential treatment," but in constitutional treatment.  Per the U.S. Supreme Court in 1970 (emphases added):

I'm not aware of anything in the U.S. constitution that would protect churches from having to disclose their finances.  Are you suggesting that this is a right protected in the constitution?   

Also, please don't conflate my argument for financial transparency with an argument for removing tax exempt status.  I'm not making that argument.  But even if I were, I doubt that the US constitution guarantees a right to churches to be tax exempt.  Are you suggesting that such a right exists?  

 

 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Non-profits.  But so what?  We as a society allow people to reduce their tax obligations in all sorts of ways and for all sorts of reasons.  Child tax credits.  Mortgage interest deductions.  Charitable contributions.  Business mileage deductions.  Student loan interest deductions.  Earned income tax credit.  Jury pay paid to an employer.

So the reason for the reduced tax obligation varies, but the reductions are all over the place.  These are all "subsidies" by the reckoning being presented here.  So why don't these subsidies also trigger an obligation for "transparency?"

I would suggest some do.  Charitable orgs should be obligated to transparency, but as I said, they should because they have a contributing base within the tax paying society.  As per the other reasons for tax credits?  I'm not decided on them all.  But again, subsidies given to individuals is one thing because it is one person, subsidies given to orgs that raise money through donations is quite another.  I feel there's more obligation for orgs to be transparent because they have a base of donors within the tax paying public.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"Because they could be benefitting from us all."  I get that.

But the same could be said for each and every group and individual that uses lawful means to reduce their tax obligation.  We are all "benefitting" from each other when we are "subsidized" through advantageous use of the tax code, so we all "ought to be transparent."

Except that's not what is being asserted here.  Why is that?

Thanks,

-Smac

AS I suggested the difference is that there are donors involved.  

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Why do investigators have to give them up before being allowed to be baptised?

Like Smac said, because they are preparing to make covenants and need to be able to show that they are capable of keeping them. This is especially essential with things that are addictive or used habitually, so that a person does not do harm to themselves spiritually by making covenants they are not prepared to keep  

 

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I understand the argument for tax exempt status, and I haven't been arguing for changing that status at all.  Did you know that other non religiously affiliated charities are required to disclose more of their finances than churches are?  Churches receive a special status even in the world of tax exempt organizations.

I recommend checking out some of the links that Analytics has provided around this topic of transparency and the case for it in this thread, as well as the standards that Evangelical churches are holding themselves to when it comes to financial reporting.  

Yes, I’m aware. Churches receive special status because of our constitutional belief in the separation of church and state, like I said previously. 

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I’m aware. Churches receive special status because of our constitutional belief in the separation of church and state, like I said previously. 

Are you suggesting that the constitutional concept of a separation of church and state is justification for not requiring greater financial transparency?  If so, can you please connect those dots for me.  Smac seemed to be making that same case, and I don't see at all how the two are connected.  

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you suggesting that the constitutional concept of a separation of church and state is justification for not requiring greater financial transparency?  If so, can you please connect those dots for me.  Smac seemed to be making that same case, and I don't see at all how the two are connected.  

I'm saying that the constitution concept of a separation of church and state is one of the reasons that churches were given tax exempt status in the first place.  Have you looked up the history on tax exemption for churches?

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm saying that the constitution concept of a separation of church and state is one of the reasons that churches were given tax exempt status in the first place.  Have you looked up the history on tax exemption for churches?

My argument is around financial transparency, not around tax exempt status.  However, I highly doubt that the US constitution protects tax exempt status as a right, and I haven't heard any thoughtful arguments that this is protected in the US constitution.  

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

My argument is around financial transparency, not around tax exempt status.  However, I highly doubt that the US constitution protects tax exempt status as a right, and I haven't heard any thoughtful arguments that this is protected in the US constitution.  

No one said it was a right.  Beyond that, you seem to be arguing that tax exempt status impacts whether or not an institution should have to be transparent.  Like Smac has argued, that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.  Whenever any of us take legal tax deductions someone else has to make up for it.  That doesn't mean though that when we legally offset our tax burden onto other citizens that we then owe the public financial transparency.

 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

The same can be said for you and your tax deductions, the costs for which are also "spread across all tax paying entities" (including, interestingly enough, the LDS Church's for-profit entities).  It's a matter of degree, that's all.

Yes, and the matter of degree is significant and material.   

Not really.  There are tens of millions of taxpayers who itemize their deductions.  Those deductions amount to savings - er, I mean "subsidies" - that are "significant and material."  How many hundreds of billions of dollars are not paid in taxes because if you and yours?  

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not aware of any people making this argument other than yourself on this thread.  

Yes, I am making this argument.  And you are not responding to it.

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

And yet nobody is suggesting that your tax deductions trigger an obligation for you to be "transparent" with your financials to any Tom, Richard or Harold.  Why is that?

There is no precedent that I can think of to require individuals to follow the same rules as institutions with respect to financial reporting. 

But we're not talking about "rules."  We're talking about policy.  The rules come later.

Your argument is policy-based, namely, that A) the LDS Church does not pay taxes on charitable contributions (thought it does pay taxes on its for-profit enterprises), B) other taxpayers therefore "subsidize" the LDS Church by paying increased taxes to offset the taxes not paid by the LDS Church, therefore C) the Church should have mandatory higher levels of "transparency" because taxpayers are subsidizing the LDS Church.

Putting aside the fact that this concept was addressed, and rejected, nearly half a century ago by the U.S. Supreme Court, I still don't see how it doesn't apply to you.  You are "subsidized" when you claim tax deductions, and yet there is not obligation for you to be "transparent" with your financials to anyone who wants to see them.  Why is that?

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not aware of any public policy makers at any level of government, local or national that are proposing that individuals should have their personal finances treated the same way as institutions. 

Okay, but so what?  That doesn't mean you can't address it.

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

So your entire argument that if the public has an interest in knowing the financial details of large institutions, why shouldn't it also know the financial details of every citizen isn't even a serious argument that any policy makers around the country would even entertain in a policy discussion.  Its so absurd and yet you keep arguing for it.  

I know it's absurd.  That's my point.  It's absurd for the same reasons as your theory is absurd.  

If using the tax code to reduce tax obligations means that private individuals or groups have to surrender their financials to the public sphere, then why not go all the way?  Everyone is getting "subsidized" through tax deductions, etc.  So if subsidization is the trigger for "transparency" requirements, why does it only apply to churches like the LDS Church?  Why not to you?

Huffing and puffing is not an answer.

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not aware of anything in the U.S. constitution that would protect churches from having to disclose their finances. 

I suspect there are some fairly serious constitutional constraints on such a thing.  Equal Protection comes to mind.  You and yours propose to single out and punish religious institutions like the LDS Church for legal behavior (using the tax code to reduce tax obligations), while exempting yourself from similar requirements.

If it's good for the goose (churches), why isn't it good for the gander (you)?

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you suggesting that this is a right protected in the constitution?   

Possibly.  I haven't really researched the matter that much.

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Also, please don't conflate my argument for financial transparency with an argument for removing tax exempt status.  I'm not making that argument. 

But many of the arguments are applicable.  People seek to injure churches by challenging their tax exempt status, and people seek to injure churches by circuitious regulations and government intrusion into religious matters presented in the name of "transparency."

Consider, for example, the case at hand.  There is no evidence that the LDS Church is mismanaging its funds.  To the contrary, all competent evidence rather strongly suggests that it's doing an excellent job at managing its finances.  And yet here have critics and opponents of the LDS Church calling on the government to, in essence, punish the LDS Church by imposing additional regulatory schemes under the pretext of "Hey, we subsidize you and yours, so shut up and show us your books."

The tactic changes (challenging tax exempt status, "transparency" regulations, etc.), but the objective - weaponizing governmental regulation to punish a religious minority - remains the same.

I'd like to be wrong about this, but I don't think I am.

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

But even if I were, I doubt that the US constitution guarantees a right to churches to be tax exempt.  Are you suggesting that such a right exists?  

No, but the Supreme Court has explained that exempting churches from taxes facilitates the separation of government from religion - something I thought we all like:

Quote

Determining that the legislative purpose of tax exemption is not aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion does not end the inquiry, however. We must also be sure that the end result-the effect-is not an excessive government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree. Either course, taxation of churches or exemption, occasions some degree of involvement with religion. Elimination of exemption would tend to expand the involvement of government by giving rise to tax valuation of church property, tax liens, tax foreclosures, and the direct confrontations and conflicts that follow in the train of those legal processes.

...

Obviously a direct money subsidy would be a relationship pregnant with involvement and, as with most governmental grant programs, could encompass sustained and detailed administrative relationships for enforcement of statutory or administrative standards, but that is not this case. The hazards of churches supporting government are hardly less in their potential than the hazards of government supporting churches; each relationship carries some involvement rather than the desired insulation and separation. We cannot ignore the instances in history when church support of government led to the kind of involvement we seek to avoid.

So perhaps we can say that tax exemptions are not a constitutional right, but nevertheless helps avoid "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

Fred Karger wants to weaponize the power of government to punish the LDS Church.  I suspect some (many?) of those calling/demanding "transparency" would likewise like to utilize the power of government for this purpose.

I think there are some who have a seemingly sincere and good faith basis for wanting more "transparency," but I don't think sincerity and good faith is enough (any more than if I sincerely and in good faith wanted you to be "transparent" with your financials).  The Church is doing an excellent job of managing its finances.  The Church has in place some pretty good safeguards against financial neglect or malfeasance.  So what is driving these sincere, good-faith types?  Idle curiosity?  That doesn't seem enough.

-Smac

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Non-profits.  But so what?  We as a society allow people to reduce their tax obligations in all sorts of ways and for all sorts of reasons.  Child tax credits.  Mortgage interest deductions.  Charitable contributions.  Business mileage deductions.  Student loan interest deductions.  Earned income tax credit.  Jury pay paid to an employer.

So the reason for the reduced tax obligation varies, but the reductions are all over the place.  These are all "subsidies" by the reckoning being presented here.  So why don't these subsidies also trigger an obligation for "transparency?"

I would suggest some do.  Charitable orgs should be obligated to transparency, but as I said, they should because they have a contributing base within the tax paying society. 

Again, this does not address my concern.  The I'm-a-taxpayer-therefore-I-am-"subsidizing"-a-charitable-organization-therefore-I-have-a-right-to-see-its-financials explanation doesn't work for me.  For instance, there is no limiting principle here.  I have said this again and again.  If the foregoing "subsidization" argument applies to charitable organizations, it also applies to any individual or group who uses the tax code to reduce their tax obligation.  That would be . . . pretty much every taxpayer ever.  And yet nobody is suggesting that I have a right to see your financials simply because I am, in some circuitous and abstract way, "subsidizing" you.

37 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

As per the other reasons for tax credits?  I'm not decided on them all.  But again, subsidies given to individuals is one thing because it is one person, subsidies given to orgs that raise money through donations is quite another. 

They are?  How so?  What's the difference?  Why does Subsidy X ("given to orgs that raise money through donations") trigger "transparency" obligations, but Subsidy Y ("given to individuals") does not?  What is the legal distinction here?  What is the equitable distinction here?

And where did this distinction come from?  Do you have any statute or administrative rule or court case to support it?  Did you just make it up?

37 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I feel there's more obligation for orgs to be transparent because they have a base of donors within the tax paying public.  

AS I suggested the difference is that there are donors involved.  

What is the limiting principle here?  What do you mean by "transparency?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay, I'm willing to listen here.  How do you differentiate subsidies-for-non-profits-means-they-have-an-obligation-to-show-us-their-financials argument from any other situation where a person or group is subsidized by others because of their use of the tax code to reduce their tax obligations (such as the one you enjoy when by your itemizing tax deductions)?

Thanks,

-Smac

For your consideration, here is a paper that was published in the Cardozo Law Review that gives some history about public disclosure laws, the motivations behind them, and why, according to the author, churches should be held to the same legal transparency standards as other non-profits.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/35-1/MONTAGUE.35.1.pdf

Your question about why I think tax-exempt (i.e. tax-subsidized) churches in general ought to be transparent while not insisting that you, personally, be transparent for the same reasons is interesting. Part of it is my own quirky belief that individuals have more intrinsic rights than corporations. I would add to that the assertion that by definition, when an organization asks to be treated as a 401(c)(3) tax-exempt entity, it is requesting special treatment. In contrast, when you deduct the interest on your mortgage, you are not requesting special treatment--rather, you are claiming a benefit that is given to everybody who behaves in the way the tax law deliberately encourages you to behave. Transparency facilitates a form of free-market oversight that can reasonably be expected of corporations who request special treatment.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Analytics