Taking Liberties: Taxing Church Attendance?

[SamH]

That is not true at all.

Lead by example.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Source?

The Supreme Court has never passed on this issue. The statement about SCOTUS opinion is inaccurate.

Beau’s simplistic view would mean that first amendment does do not apply to radio, TV or the internet.

Nope. My view is not simplistic but legalistic and accurate.

 

[SamH]

The Supreme Court has never passed on this issue. The statement about SCOTUS opinion is inaccurate…

Source?

Nope. My view is not simplistic but legalistic and accurate.

Source?

 

[SamH]

Pardon me, but what makes taxing churches unconstitutional? We, as a practice, do not tax churches or non-profits but I can find no law which says we cannot.

the direct taxation of the *practice *of any religion would be unconstitutional.

Are two people sharing the member name Beau Ouiville?

 

[Dale_M]

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

You are saying that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment forbids taxation of churches. I’ll admit, I’m doubtful about that. Which ruling are you referring to?

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.

The tax system is certainly complicated, and court rulings have been an important part of them. However, are you are saying that the Supreme Court (or any federal court) has ruled that churches have a constitutional right to be tax-free? If so, could you please cite the case?

 

[SamH]

You are saying that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment forbids taxation of churches. I’ll admit, I’m doubtful about that. Which ruling are you referring to?

Beau disagrees with you.

Originally Posted by Beau Ouiville
the direct taxation of the practice of any religion would be unconstitutional.

 

[SamH]

The tax system is certainly complicated, and court rulings have been an important part of them. However, are you are saying that the Supreme Court (or any federal court) has ruled that churches have a constitutional right to be tax-free? If so, could you please cite the case?

Read the thread.

See post:

Today 4:54 am

If that’s to hard:

constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm

The tax imposed by the City of Jeannette is a flat license tax, the payment of which is a condition of the exercise of these constitutional privileges. The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment. Magnano Co. v. Hamilton, 292 U.S. 40, 44, 45 S., 54 S.Ct. 599, 601, and cases cited. Those who can tax the exercise of this religious practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its maintenance. Those who can tax the privilege of engaging in this form of missionary evangelism can close its doors to all those who do not have a full purse. Spreading religious beliefs in this ancient and honorable manner would thus be denied the needy. Those who can deprive religious groups of their colporteurs can take from them a part of the vital power of the press which has survived from the Reformation.

 

[kenofken]

There is no constitutional law whatsoever which suggests that churches have an absolute entitlement to tax-free status. There are cases about what constitutes a church for those purposes and various limitations and interpretations but none which state that churches cannot ever be taxed. There is a long legal and cultural tradition of not taxing them based on a couple of theories. One is the medievalist deference toward churches (originally THE Church). For most of its history, the Church was treated as something above the state in all matters and not subject to virtually any law of man. You couldn’t even prosecute a churchman for murder in a secular court unless the Church gave you leave to do so. Though the Church no longer has that sort of temporal power, these ancient privileges do not die easily. They are still enshrined in treaties called concordats with many nations. It should go without stating that this sort of mentality has no place in a modern constitutional republic.

That takes us to the second underpinning of tax-free status for churches: the assumption that they shouldn’t be taxed because they accrue no profit and do lots of good physical and spiritual work. That makes a certain amount of sense, but I think it is very often stretched to a breaking point of credibility. Whether they officially distribute profits or not, churches are big business in this country. They take in and invest and spend billions of dollars. They amass prime real estate, retain it for decades and often sell it at fantastic profits eventually. They maintain their leaders in standards of living ranging from decent to lavish. They do good for the communities, in most cases, no question about it. But they also do well for themselves and I very much doubt that most churches would want to see a true comparison of the fair market value of their local charity work versus the value of the tax exemptions they receive. Some might do outstanding in that regard, but many would not.

Perhaps any taxation should be based on that sort of comparison. If you can show that you provided $100,000 in cash or in-kind donations to the local community, that’s $100,000 the church wouldn’t pay taxes on. The portion of money used in-house to maintain the church and its programs and facilities for members really isn’t a public good. It’s a private one that accrues solely to the members of that church. And it’s not purely a spiritual good for its member either. The networking that goes on in churches often leads to future business opportunities etc. When I was a young guy just starting out in a quasi-Bible Belt Indiana town, I was told in no uncertain terms that I needed to join the “right” church if I wanted to advance myself in that region. I failed to do so on both counts.

That church also uses public services like any other entity - fire, police, roads, sewers, you name it. I don’t think its all that outrageous at all to ask that they pay something toward that.

I don’t propose that churches be saddled with the same sort of property or income taxes that a million dollar homeowner or Fortune 500 headquarters would pay, and they obviously shouldn’t be taxed on the money they put directly into feeding the poor etc. But they should contribute something, even a nominal amount. I don’t see why any organization which professes to care about humanity would be insulted by that notion or view it as some dastardly atheist conspiracy against them.

 

[Dale_M]

Read the thread.

See post:

Today 4:54 am

Sam, Murdock v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania declared unconstitutional the requirement that Jehovah’s Witnesses purchase a license before they could evangelize door to door. The amount of money being charged for such a license was high - roughly the equivalent of $90 per week in today’s inflation adjusted dollars. Because door-to-door evangelism is an important part of the Jehovah’s Witness faith, the license with its onerous fee was deemed an unconstitutional restriction of the ability of members to practice their religion.

What you quoted simply says it is possible that government can abuse its power to levy fees, and that the city Jeanette, PA crossed that line. The ruling does not say that churches have a constitutional protection from taxes. The church in Mission, KS will have a hard time showing that the driveway fee prevents members from practicing their faith.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Beau disagrees with you.

No, I don’t. The Supreme Court has never acted on the question of taxation of churches. It probably would be constitutional to tax church property, which generally is not done.

Taxing the practice of religion (which is what was involved in the Jehovah’s Witnesses case) would probably be held to be unconstitutional. The folks claimed that missionary activity was an integral part of their faith and thus could not be taxed by a state. The state was not trying to tax a church or church property but to tax proselytization. The Supreme Court ruled that the state could not impose a fee on religious folks who wanted to go door to door.

Look, this is not that difficult an issue. Tax on churches, church property or the like has never been held to be unconstitutional. Simple as that.

 

[kenofken]

Sam, Murdock v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania declared unconstitutional the requirement that Jehovah’s Witnesses purchase a license before they could evangelize door to door. The amount of money being charged for such a license was high - roughly the equivalent of $90 per week in today’s inflation adjusted dollars. Because door-to-door evangelism is an important part of the Jehovah’s Witness faith, the license with its onerous fee was deemed an unconstitutional restriction of the ability of members to practice their religion.

What you quoted simply says it is possible that government can abuse its power to levy fees, and that the city Jeanette, PA crossed that line. The ruling does not say that churches have a constitutional protection from taxes. The church in Mission, KS will have a hard time showing that the driveway fee prevents members from practicing their faith.

That’s the crucial distinction. That tax was an obvious attempt to impose excessive and arbitrary regulation, in fact a de facto ban on an activity that is otherwise constitutionally protected. In general, taxes and fees are supposed to have some rational relationship to the cost of administering a permit or as a revenue generator with some reasonable link to government services provided. It is fair game to make solicitors get a permit and making them follow basic rules on hour etc. They can also charge something for that permit based on the city clerk’s expense in processing it and maybe a bit extra. The court rightly found that you cannot use taxes and fees to hound an irritating, but legal free speech practice out of existence. That does not mean that religious groups are, as a matter of principle, granted perpetual immunity from taxation or government fees of any kind.

 

[SonCatcher]

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

As we understand the language today, that is so. However, the situation that caused the Framers of the Constitution to write the First Amendment was largely a money issue. Other countries had (even today still have) State (Established) Religions. The government used its funds to support the established religion. The First Amendment is there partly to ensure money did not move between the government and a religion on that basis. I do not know whether anyone had ever thought of taxing a religion before recent time but am certain their intent was completely bilateral separation of funds.

The Kansas Constitution is irrelevant as the Federal Constitution has primacy in all areas it explicitly takes a stand, including the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.

 

[SonCatcher]

The Supreme Court has never acted on the question of taxation of churches. It probably would be constitutional to tax church property, which generally is not done.

They probably never had to. Circuit and Appellate courts provide a steep path for any taxing authority that tries.

The cases in question tend to involve religious activity and not churches per se. The pertinent questions decided are whether the activities are religious enough to fall under First Amendment protections.

 

[SamH]

No, I don’t. The Supreme Court has never acted on the question of taxation of churches.

Yet you stated it was unconstitutional.

 

[SamH]

Sam, Murdock v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania declared unconstitutional the requirement that Jehovah’s Witnesses purchase a license before they could evangelize door to door. The amount of money being charged for such a license was high - roughly the equivalent of $90 per week in today’s inflation adjusted dollars. Because door-to-door evangelism is an important part of the Jehovah’s Witness faith, the license with its onerous fee was deemed an unconstitutional restriction of the ability of members to practice their religion…

Did you read the ruling? The Supreme Court states that taxing a religious activity is an infringement on religious activity thus violating the First Amendment. I know that it dealt with a specific activity but they issued a blanket statement. Much the same way the often quoted “Separation of Church and State” wasn’t a ruling but a comment within a ruling.

The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment. Magnano Co. v. Hamilton, 292 U.S. 40, 44, 45 S., 54 S.Ct. 599, 601, and cases cited. Those who can tax the exercise of this religious practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its maintenance. Those who can tax the privilege of engaging in this form of missionary evangelism can close its doors to all those who do not have a full purse.

 

[Dale_M]

Yet you stated it was unconstitutional.

Actually he didn’t say taxing churches is unconstitutional. What he said was:

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

Taxing the practice of religions, as in the Supreme Court case you mentioned, is unconstitutional. However, taxing churches, i.e. religious property or organizations, is not unconstitutional.

Did you read the ruling? The Supreme Court states that taxing a religious activity is an infringement on religious activity thus violating the First Amendment…

Yes, and I agree with you. However, religious practices are not the same thing as churches, which is to say religious property or organizations. Again, I think the church in Mission, KS will have a hard time proving that a fee assessed on its driveway is interfering with religious practice.

 

[mlund]

Yes, and I agree with you. However, religious practices are not the same thing as churches, which is to say religious property or organizations.

Not a chance. Taxing the property dedicated to the practice of a religion is clearly taxing the practice of religion. Furthermore it creates a disparate burden based on the method of religious practice. That’s blatantly unconstitutional.

Again, I think the church in Mission, KS will have a hard time proving that a fee assessed on its driveway is interfering with religious practice.

Actually, it’ll be very easy. All the church in Mission has to do is show their tax bill to the court. Then it is the government that has to knuckle up under the crushing weight of Constitutional jurisprudence. The reason for all those exemptions from Federal, State, and Local taxes isn’t generosity, but self-interest. The highest level of strict scrutiny is applied against the government when a claimant says they are interfering in free exercise. A usage fee or tax bill assessed against a Church is evidence enough to place the full burden onto the government. The city is literally taxing the use of the driveways and parking lots (on private church property) that provide access to a place of worship.

“We want more money to fund roads and schools and stuff,” will never meet the burden of necessity for public interest to survive a 1st/14th Amendment challenge. That’s why exemptions exist - because otherwise the ordinance in question is doomed to expire in expensive and spectacular fashion.

Since the Alliance Defense Fund is on the case Mission, KS will quietly settle the matter out of court by exempting religious property.

• Marty Lund

 

[SonCatcher]

Taxing the practice of religions, as in the Supreme Court case you mentioned, is unconstitutional. However, taxing churches, i.e. religious property or organizations, is not unconstitutional.

Again, the distinction is semantic. Until such time as it is argued in front of the Court, all this arguing is moot.

 

[SonCatcher]

Actually, it’ll be very easy. All the church in Mission has to do is show their tax bill to the court. Then it is the government that has to knuckle up under the crushing weight of Constitutional jurisprudence. The reason for all those exemptions from Federal, State, and Local taxes isn’t generosity, but self-interest. The highest level of strict scrutiny is applied against the government when a claimant says they are interfering in free exercise. A usage fee or tax bill assessed against a Church is evidence enough to place the full burden onto the government.

agreed. It should be considered guaranteed that any church would fight to the Supreme Court. How far will a municipality fight with the weight of precedent against them?

The exemptions, more likely than not, are to protect entire tax laws from being struck down.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Yet you stated it was unconstitutional.

Actually, I said taxation of the* practice* of religion is probably unconstitutional. Several times, as a fact.

Still, I don’t think the Supremes have ever stated anything on taxing churches and church property. Thus the statement in the OP that taxing churches is clearly unconstitutional is still wrong.