Taking Liberties: Taxing Church Attendance?

[Beau_Ouiville]

It’s in the constitution right next to the line about the right to an abortion.

So, you admit that its not there then. So why all the persiflage?

People need to be more candid.

 

[DawnInTexas]

I’ll ask the bishop of the state capital. He’s a lawyer.

I don’t know why anyone would go to a parish priest with a legal issue. That’s not their bailiwick.

Surely, you jest.

You act like the Priest needs you. Such foolishness!

God Bless you.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

 

[SamH]

So, you admit that its not there then. .

Where did I say that?

Did you read the cases? The Supreme Court says it’s there.

 

[SamH]

People need to be more candid.

Some people need to learn how to ask a question.

 

[SonCatcher]

Beau,

The First Amendment clauses on religion (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof) are accepted via tradition and Supreme Court precedent (SamH’s citations) to include prohibition on direct taxation of churches and religious activities.

Anything that is in an Amendment is in the Constitution.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

The First Amendment clauses on religion (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof) are accepted via tradition and Supreme Court precedent (SamH’s citations) to include prohibition on direct taxation of churches and religious activities.

Anything that is in an Amendment is in the Constitution.

I don’t think that the cases exactly say that. To my memory, they speak of unconstitutional meddling in the business of a church which may occur with government oversight. To my knowledge, nothing says that taxing churches is unconstitutional. Churches have an exemption through tradition and through tax law.

Check it:

US v. Christian Echoes:

Held: This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the direct appeal that the Government seeks to take under 28 U.S.C. 1252 from the District Court’s decision, which did not hold 501 (c) (3) unconstitutional as a whole or as applied, but was merely directed at the method and means by which the IRS enforced 501 (c) (3) in this case.

Murdock v. Pennsylvania:

We do not mean to say that religious groups and the press are free from all financial burdens of government. See Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 250, 56 S.Ct. 444, 449. We have here something quite different, for example, from a tax on the income of one who engages in religious activities or a tax on property used or employed in connection with those activities. **(Close, but this was a tax on religious observances.)
**
First Unitarian v. LA

Solely because they refused to subscribe oaths that they do not advocate the overthrow of the Federal Government by force, violence or other unlawful means, or advocate the support of a foreign government against the United States in the event of hostilities, petitioners were denied tax exemptions provided by the California Constitution for real property and building used solely and exclusively for religious worship.
Held: enforcement of the underlying prohibition through procedures which place the burdens of proof and persuasion on the taxpayer violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Speiser v. Randall, ante, p. 357 U. S. 513. Pp. 357 U. S. 546-547.

 

[mlund]

The 1st Amendment very clearly prohibits Congress from abridging the Free Exercise of religion - including congregating in worship. The 14th Amendment extends those prohibitions down to the State and Local governments. McCulloch v. Maryland 1819 introduced the understanding that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy” to our early jurisprudence. Laws that may impede the free exercise of religion face the strictest level of scrutiny under judicial review.

Direct taxation of a church, religion, or all religions is definitively Unconstitutional by the jurisprudence of the United States. Likewise excluding people or organizations from otherwise indiscriminate tax exemptions, credits, or deductions because of their religious affiliation is Unconstitutional. Incidental taxation is permitted so long as the taxing authority can meet a heavy burden of proof that the law is not directed against religion and does not impose a disproportionate or undue burden to those exercising their religious liberties.

Taxes and regulations that produce massive burdens or impediments to religions as “collateral damage” to their indiscriminate application to all citizens fall under the category of de facto violations of our liberties.

States and Municipalities take pains to exempt churches from property and other taxes not just to “cut them a break,” but to avoid running afoul of costly and protracted judicial review that could very well vacate their tax laws. If New York City passed a new property tax that didn’t exempt Churches they’d have a legal fight on their hands from the Archdiocese of New York and its Episcopalian counter-part due to the assessed values of St. Patrick’s cathedral, St. John’s and various other properties. It’s also a legal fight the City of New York would lose handily.

• Marty Lund

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Direct taxation of a church, religion, or all religions is definitively Unconstitutional by the jurisprudence of the United States.

Well, more exactly, the direct taxation of the *practice *of any religion would be unconstitutional.

 

[SonCatcher]

Murdock v. Pennsylvania:

We do not mean to say that religious groups and the press are free from all financial burdens of government. See Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 250, 56 S.Ct. 444, 449. We have here something quite different, for example, from a tax on the income of one who engages in religious activities or a tax on property used or employed in connection with those activities. (Close, but this was a tax on religious observances.)

That’s a semantic issue. I know lawyers love to argue semantics. However, it still stands as a powerful club any church can use in Federal Court. The only difference between a Church and the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the case is whether they are established in a fixed place or not.

First Unitarian v. LA

Solely because they refused to subscribe oaths that they do not advocate the overthrow of the Federal Government by force, violence or other unlawful means, or advocate the support of a foreign government against the United States in the event of hostilities, petitioners were denied tax exemptions provided by the California Constitution for real property and building used solely and exclusively for religious worship.
Held: enforcement of the underlying prohibition through procedures which place the burdens of proof and persuasion on the taxpayer violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Speiser v. Randall, ante, p. 357 U. S. 513. Pp. 357 U. S. 546-547.

The fact the Supreme Court decided the case on the Fourteenth Amendment does not mean the First Amendment argument did not carry weight.

 

[SonCatcher]

Well, more exactly, the direct taxation of the *practice *of any religion would be unconstitutional.

How about if the Mayor set up a toll booth at the parking lot entrance to collect 25c from each churchgoer who enters. There is no difference from the current situation. The parishioners’ giving is going directly to pay for their practice of religion.

 

[Dale_M]

I’m surprised that so many people don’t understand Beau Ouiville’s rather straightforward point. There is nothing explicit in the Kansas state constitution or in the US Constitution which forbids taxing churches. I’m not aware of any court rulings which support the claim that the religious bodies have a constitutional right to be tax-free. Certainly no one in this discussion has presented such a ruling.

Last year, the Kansas legislature nearly removed the sales tax exemption granted to churches. There was a huge controversy, as you might expect. However, the proposal has not gone away.
kansas.com/2010/09/17/1497612/tax-proposal-would-affect-nearly.html

 

[DawnInTexas]

I’m surprised that so many people don’t understand Beau Ouiville’s rather straightforward point. There is nothing explicit in the Kansas state constitution or in the US Constitution which forbids taxing churches. I’m not aware of any court rulings which support the claim that the religious bodies have a constitutional right to be tax-free. Certainly no one in this discussion has presented such a ruling.

Last year, the Kansas legislature nearly removed the sales tax exemption granted to churches. There was a huge controversy, as you might expect. However, the proposal has not gone away.
kansas.com/2010/09/17/1497612/tax-proposal-would-affect-nearly.html

I’m surprised when some cannot detect his tone-along with his (rebellious) words.

As a Catholic.

God Bless you.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

 

[Dale_M]

How about if the Mayor set up a toll booth at the parking lot entrance to collect 25c from each churchgoer who enters. There is no difference from the current situation. The parishioners’ giving is going directly to pay for their practice of religion.

I think this argument would have more weight if the parking lot at St. Pius X was used only for persons attending worship services. But it isn’t. A quick look at the church’s most recent parish bulletin shows that the lot is also used by persons attending parish dances, or persons interested in the water quality of the local river, or for the men’s club meetings.
seekandfind.com/bulletins/02/0816/20110213B.pdf

I don’t know whether the proposal to assess a fee based on the use of the parking lot entrance is a good idea or not. I think it comes down to what the community values. In the town I grew up, a recently created neighborhood was experiencing repeated problems with flooded streets and basements. The city decided it needed to take action, and to pay for the engineering and construction was levying a fee on all local owners based upon the area of paved surface on a property. Churches were originally included in the proposal and they greatly disliked the idea. Eventually, the churches prevailed and the cost was shifted on to everyone else.

I think it really comes down to what the community values.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

I’m surprised when some cannot detect his tone-along with his (rebellious) words.

As a Catholic.

I’m not rebellious at all.

Could we stay on topic?

 

[JimG]

OK, I got stuck on the part about Mission KS being a “small town just north of Kansas City.”

Mission KS is south of Kansas City KS, and west of Kansas City Mo. It is one of the ten or so municipalities collectively designated “Shawnee Mission.”

As for the tax itself, it apparently applies to everyone, including residents and Target stores, not just churches.

In a time of budget pinches, no doubt many municipalities will become more creative in finding new sources of income. If this works out for Mission, I anticipate eager expectation in the municipal offices of the surrounding cities of Shawnee, Fairway, Overland Park, Roeland Park, Mission Woods, Leawood and Lenexa. Watch the utility rates go up as well.

 

[sidbrown]

“The city of Mission is taxing churches,” he said. “And that’s clearly unconstitutional.”]

Is it written down somewhere in the Constitution that you cannot tax churches?
In any case, should churches have to pay for their water and electricity or should this come free, courtesy of the taxpayer, whether he belongs to that church or not? Also, what about the garbage collection? Should that be free to the church also? What constitutional clause distinguishes requiring payment for electricity, water, gas, and garbage collection from requiring payment for the road maintenance by the church property?

 

[1holycatholic]

Is it written down somewhere in the Constitution that you cannot tax churches?

Sure, in the first amendment. At least that’s how the SCOTUS has interpreted the first amendment.

The oppressive nature of taxes shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, the Boston Tea Party in 1773 didn’t happen because they weren’t getting the right type of tea.
“The power to tax is the power to destroy.”

• McCulloch v. Maryland
  That, in a nutshell, is why atheists want to tax religion.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Sure, in the first amendment. At least that’s how the SCOTUS has interpreted the first amendment.

That is not true at all.

 

[SamH]

I’m surprised that so many people don’t understand Beau Ouiville’s rather straightforward point. There is nothing explicit in the Kansas state constitution or in the US Constitution which forbids taxing churches. I’m not aware of any court rulings which support the claim that the religious bodies have a constitutional right to be tax-free. Certainly no one in this discussion has presented such a ruling.

Last year, the Kansas legislature nearly removed the sales tax exemption granted to churches. There was a huge controversy, as you might expect. However, the proposal has not gone away.
kansas.com/2010/09/17/1497612/tax-proposal-would-affect-nearly.html

That is why the cases were heard by the Supreme Court, lower courts were confused by it too. Legal minds with decades of education and experience have argued both sides but legal precedent through interpretation of the constitution has established today’s tax policy. Beau’s simplistic view would mean that first amendment does do not apply to radio, TV or the internet.

 

[SamH]

That is not true at all.

Source?