Political discussion here. Any reasonable opinion is welcome, but due to the sensitive nature of the topic area, please be nice and respectful to others. No flaming or trolling, please. And please keep political commentary out of the other board areas and confine it to this area. Thanks!
Our best window into the overall financial picture of American Catholicism comes from a 2012 investigation by the Economist, which offered a rough-and-ready estimate of $170 billion in annual spending, of which almost $150 billion is associated with church-affiliated hospitals and institutions of higher education. The operating budget for ordinary parishes, at around $11 billion a year, is a relatively small share, and Catholic Charities is a smaller share still.
“Another statement, made by a nationally syndicated Catholic priest, perhaps is even more telling. ‘The Catholic church,’ he said, ‘must be the biggest corporation in the United States. We have a branch office in every neighborhood. Our assets and real estate holdings must exceed those of Standard Oil, A.T.&T., and U.S. Steel combined. And our roster of dues-paying members must be second only to the tax rolls of the United States Government.’” (...)
“The Catholic church, once all her assets have been put together, is the most formidable stockbroker in the world. The Vatican, independently of each successive pope, has been increasingly orientated towards the U.S. The Wall Street Journal said that the Vatican’s financial deals in the U.S. alone were so big that very often it sold or bought gold in lots of a million or more dollars at one time.” (...)
“The Vatican’s treasure of solid gold has been estimated by the United Nations World Magazine to amount to several billion dollars. A large bulk of this is stored in gold ingots with the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, while banks in England and Switzerland hold the rest.
“But this is just a small portion of the wealth of the Vatican, which in the U.S. alone, is greater than that of the five wealthiest giant corporations of the country. When to that is added all the real estate, property, stocks and shares abroad, then the staggering accumulation of the wealth of the Catholic church becomes so formidable as to defy any rational assessment.” (...)
All churches should lose the tax exempt status anyway. There are few businesses bigger in the US than god.
They're tax exempt because they're qualified charities. If they fail to meet those legal obligations, then yeah, absolutely.
If you want to get rid of charitable deductions overall that's another conversation entirely that would go along with flattening the tax codes.
Not really. They only qualification they need is to show they are a church and they are not promoting illegal activity. They do not go through the same rigors as charities do.
All churches should lose the tax exempt status anyway. There are few businesses bigger in the US than god.
They're tax exempt because they're qualified charities. If they fail to meet those legal obligations, then yeah, absolutely.
If you want to get rid of charitable deductions overall that's another conversation entirely that would go along with flattening the tax codes.
Not really. They only qualification they need is to show they are a church and they are not promoting illegal activity. They do not go through the same rigors as charities do.
They file a shorter form but they are still auditable and can in fact loose exempt status depending on the outcome of the audit.
Cases have dealt with this issue. In Taylor v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the United States Tax Court agreed that, under section 508(c)(1) of the tax code churches do not have to apply for tax exempt status and are considered automatically exempt. But the court also stated, “Nothing in section 508(c)(1) relieves a church from having to meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3).” Basically what the Taylor court was saying is that churches are still subject to the restrictions in section 501(c)(3) of the tax code even if they never apply to the IRS for recognition of tax exempt status.
In a similar case called Universal Life Church v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Tax Court stated:
Section 508(c) exempts various organizations, including churches from the notification requirements of section 508(a). Thus while most organizations claiming tax exempt status under section 501(c)(3) must inform the Commissioner of their application for exempt status… churches need not make such a notification.
Despite this, the Tax Court went on to hold that this unique status does not prevent the Commissioner of the IRS from auditing a church.
The upshot of these cases is that even though churches are not required to apply for a tax exemption from the IRS, churches are still subject to the restrictions in section 501(c)(3) of the tax code. That means all churches are required to abide by 501(c)(3).
All churches should lose the tax exempt status anyway. There are few businesses bigger in the US than god.
They're tax exempt because they're qualified charities. If they fail to meet those legal obligations, then yeah, absolutely.
If you want to get rid of charitable deductions overall that's another conversation entirely that would go along with flattening the tax codes.
Not really. They only qualification they need is to show they are a church and they are not promoting illegal activity. They do not go through the same rigors as charities do.
They file a shorter form but they are still auditable and can in fact loose exempt status depending on the outcome of the audit.
From the link:
The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.
If you read that as written, you will see these are not "and" statements. You must meet one of those criteria. And one of them is "advancement of religion." That's kind of the definition of a church. So, by being a church, and not breaking other laws, you are tax exempt. You do not have to be helping the poor, advancing civilization, or evening saving a few pets.
So, to summarize, churches are subject to audit but are also not asked to play by anything close to the same rules that other tax-exempt institutions play by. Yeah, that's fair.
Ghost wrote:So, to summarize, churches are subject to audit but are also not asked to play by anything close to the same rules that other tax-exempt institutions play by. Yeah, that's fair.
Yes, how dare they run soup kitchens, food pantries, and charity hospitals. Stupid religious people.
Ghost wrote:So, to summarize, churches are subject to audit but are also not asked to play by anything close to the same rules that other tax-exempt institutions play by. Yeah, that's fair.
Yes, how dare they run soup kitchens, food pantries, and charity hospitals. Stupid religious people.
Some do. That is great. But that isn't the same thing as being a full-time charity. But they are all treated as if they were. It is a big hole in our tax code and is the exact opposite of separation of church and state by creating special, beneficial rules for churches vs. others.
Ghost wrote:So, to summarize, churches are subject to audit but are also not asked to play by anything close to the same rules that other tax-exempt institutions play by. Yeah, that's fair.
Yes, how dare they run soup kitchens, food pantries, and charity hospitals. Stupid religious people.
I don't mind the sarcasm, but I do mind the implication that I called religious people stupid. I did not. In fact, I didn't even comment on churches themselves, or even on religion, but on the tax system. I don't blame them for taking advantage of their loopholes.
And you are missing (or deliberately ignoring) the point. Your own link said that church-based charities are not subject to the same rules as other charities. So, which part of my post do you actually disagree with?
The fact that I actually said it? That's all I can come up with.
If I may interject ... the problem is not with church-based charities, the problem is with church-based non-profits that play on religious loyalties to wheedle donations from the masses to stockpile for political power or gain. Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition comes to mind. That's when the line of separation of church and state begins to blur.
Mori Chu wrote:Churches are not charities and should not be tax-exempt.
You might get an argument from Constitutional experts.
The First Amendment places the church outside the jurisdiction of the civil government: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Religion cannot be free if you have to pay the government, through taxation, to exercise it.
Mori Chu wrote:Churches are not charities and should not be tax-exempt.
You might get an argument from Constitutional experts.
The First Amendment places the church outside the jurisdiction of the civil government: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Religion cannot be free if you have to pay the government, through taxation, to exercise it.
While you are probably correct about the Constitutional experts, "free exercise" doesn't equal "free money." You can absolutely exercise your religion however and whenever you want (within reason, of course). That doesn't mean you are owed a building and tax free status.
Tax exempt status for churches means that the government IS establishing that religion, by forcing everyone, religious and not, to pay for that church.
OE32 wrote:What about the argument that Churches provide the vital public service of keeping their doors open to everyone, ears for every unheard voice?
That's hardly every church, but a church that also functions as a soup kitchen and shelter would most definitely qualify as a charity in my book.
"Tax-exempt status for churches means that the government IS establishing that religion, by forcing everyone, religious and not, to pay for that church."
How so? I must be missing something. How do I pay for a Methodist church on the other side of town, for example.
LazarusLong wrote:"Tax-exempt status for churches means that the government IS establishing that religion, by forcing everyone, religious and not, to pay for that church."
How so? I must be missing something. How do I pay for a Methodist church on the other side of town, for example.
Your tax dollars go to maintain the access to the church (roads, walk ways, etc.). Same as any business, except that the church doesn't have to pay any property tax like you and I do (and every business) to maintain that. Even if they are taking in more than most small businesses.
Mori Chu wrote:Churches are not charities and should not be tax-exempt.
You might get an argument from Constitutional experts.
Constitutional experts are divided on the issue, but I think the majority would say that the Constitution does not bar taxation (based on no empirical evidence whatsoever). Needless to say, the issue has never come before the Supreme Court.
