Vatican told to pay taxes as Italy tackles budget crisis: A possible E600 million / yr tax bill

[pepipop]

independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vatican-told-to-pay-taxes-as-italy-tackles-budget-crisis-6988938.html

*“It’s now complete war inside the Vatican,” said Robert Mickens, The Tablet’s Rome correspondent, who has20 years’ experience of reporting on the Vatican. “Things are falling apart.”

The rancour has been blamed on manoeuvring surrounding the succession of Pope Benedict and the exceptional unpopularity of the current leadership.*

It gets worse… as to how much of this article true is another matter, and, if so, it may never come to pass.

 

[GWright]

This is a resumption of a taxation, not a wholly new one.

It relates to buildings, so I presume it is something akin to Council Tax in the UK. The types of buildings are schools, hospitals etc.

The Vatican says the bill will only be £100m - given they are the buildings owner, and previously paid the tax, I would say their estimate could be taken seriously.

Its a lot of money but not a big deal ultimately. The Independant is like the Guardian, a very left wing paper which hates the Chruch and constantly attacks it. They will be pitching this to their readers as some long overdue blow to the Church.

The Robert Mickens stuff is just nonsense, dont let it bother you. Mickens is a clown and a laughing stock amongst Catholic journalists. Famously, he burst into tears (of sadness) when Pope Benedict was elected, which tells you everything you need to know about him, in my opinion.

The Tablet - although professing to be a Catholic magazine - is actually very anti-Catholic in my opinion. They try to hide it under the guides of debate and freedom of enquiry etc, but in my view Catholics shouldnt attack or undermine their own Church. Criticise when they get it wrong yeh, but dont behave like secular lefty hacks.

Anyway, his article is just petty, sensationalist gossip, just the job for the kind of left-leaning, secular-minded, cafeteria-Catholic who reads the Tablet.

He claims the leadership is very unpopular - I say that successful visits to the UK, Germany, Spain and other places show that Benedict is popular.

 

[brotherknight]

I don’t know much about “The Independent” as a source of news, however, it reads awfully similar to “The Huffington Post” or other left leaning, anti-church periodicals over here in the US.
It is very evident that there is an outright war on the Catholic Church everywhere, but especially in the US right now. Get active and most of all pray.

 

[AF_Fugue]

The title of the article is very misleading. At first, I thought Italy was trying to make Vatican City itself pay taxes - isn’t it a sovereign state? At any rate, I discovered that they just want to charge taxes on Catholic property within Italy, not the Vatican itself. However, this line confused me:

“We think the Church should have to pay the arrears,” said Mr Staderini. “It should make the payment back to 2005. Given how much the Vatican stood to pay with arrears, I think they will not be that unhappy with the result.”

I’m American, not Italian, but isn’t that illegal? If the government has been recognizing properties as “exempt” at tax time, can it really say, “Well, we were misinterpreting our and the EU’s laws, so you actually owe taxes back to 2005?” Especially if those places have been filing the required documentation in good faith. That seems like a dangerous precedent.

Yes, it would suck if the Church had to start paying millions in property taxes in Italy (again, I assume only outside of the Vatican’s walls), but I guess Italy can charge taxes to whomever they want within their jurisdiction. I sure hope they don’t, though. The Church does so much good that the government could NEVER duplicate for the same $$. Too much beaurocracy.

 

[GEddie]

It’s a wee bit complicated AIU. There are places in and around Rome that are considered Vatican territory, even though not conterminous with the SCV. Still. I’d imagine that the SCV and the Italians both know what they are talking about.

Taking a hard line with the SCV is hardly going to fix their economy though.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GWright]

The title of the article is very misleading. At first, I thought Italy was trying to make Vatican City itself pay taxes - isn’t it a sovereign state? At any rate, I discovered that they just want to charge taxes on Catholic property within Italy, not the Vatican itself. However, this line confused me:

I’m American, not Italian, but isn’t that illegal?

You bet it would be illegal.

It just goes to show how bitter and unreasonable people can be towards the Church.

People campaigning to re-apply the tax would have said it was a point of principle - which is a reasonable stance. However, the fact that some go on to suggest forcing illegal arrears payments, shows that many church critics have no principles.

 

[pepipop]

It’s a wee bit complicated AIU. There are places in and around Rome that are considered Vatican territory, even though not conterminous with the SCV. Still. I’d imagine that the SCV and the Italians both know what they are talking about.

Taking a hard line with the SCV is hardly going to fix their economy though.

ICXC NIKA

Obviously, the whole world is in recession and all economies are in dire straights. However, as Italy has been under the governence of Silvio Berlusconi, their longest serving prime minister since WW11, 1994-2011, how could their economy be anything else. As a billionaire, alleged solicitor of minors, mafia member, etc… I wonder how much he actually cared about governing Italy as opposed to pandering to his own selfish pursuits.

EDIT:* Berlusconi’s conservative coalition has sided with the Italian Catholic church on issues including right-to-life and the protection of traditional family values.* I suppose there are always two sides to every story though.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi

*Many believed that the problems and doubts over Berlusconi’s leadership and his coalition were one of the factors that contributed to market anxieties over an imminent Italian financial disaster, which could have a potentially catastrophic effect on the 17-nation eurozone and the world economy.[18] *

 

[Ridgerunner]

As we know, Italy is hurting for money. Seems it wants the Vatican to pay real estate taxes on property not in Vatican City which the Church owns. The odd thing from an American’s standpoint, is that in most states (including mine) real estate owned by charitable or religious organizations is exempt from property taxation anyway.

But that’s here. And for now.

 

[atheistgirl]

I’ve read elsewhere that some of the properties owned by the Church includes shopping malls If that is true, why on earth should such property be exempt from taxation?

Sarah x

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I’ve read elsewhere that some of the properties owned by the Church includes shopping malls If that is true, why on earth should such property be exempt from taxation?

Sarah x

The Catholic Church isn’t just a religious institution in Italy; its a vast commercial enterprise holding approximately 110,000 rental properties, hotels, resorts, and shopping malls. In fact, 20-25% of all property in Italy is owned by the Vatican.

 

[The_Scott]

The Catholic Church isn’t just a religious institution in Italy; its a vast commercial enterprise holding approximately 110,000 rental properties, hotels, resorts, and shopping malls. In fact, 20-25% of all property in Italy is owned by the Vatican.

Do you have a source for that?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Do you have a source for that?

bbc.co.uk/news/business-17072211

smh.com.au/world/vatican-properties-to-be-taxed-20120218-1tfu7.html

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1552644/Vatican-evicts-tenants-to-make-hotels.html

 

[Dale_M]

I’ve read elsewhere that some of the properties owned by the Church includes shopping malls If that is true, why on earth should such property be exempt from taxation?

According to the news article cited in the first post, the Italian government will determine what percentage of any given property owned by the Catholic Church is devoted to religious use. The government would then exempt that percentage from the tax which would otherwise be levied. So churches will be tax exempt, but a hostel with a chapel will pay a partial tax.

According to a Businessweek article, existing Italian law already taxes non-religious property owned by the Catholic Church. If so, then I would think shopping malls are already covered. The change in the tax law seems to apply to properties in the gray zone between religious and non-religious.

Existing laws say that church-owned buildings used for “purely commercial” purposes are to be taxed. But many ventures, such as the Santuario della Verna guesthouse, remain exempt because they are attached to properties used for religious purposes. (Property within Vatican City, which is a sovereign state and therefore not subject to Italian laws, would not be affected by the government’s plan.)

businessweek.com/global/italy-aims-to-tax-catholic-church-property-02162012.html

 

[atheistgirl]

According to the news article cited

Thanks for the clarification Dale_M. Good that the commercial only properties are being properly taxed. I hope the rest goes through, ie, the commercial revenue generating operations attached to church properties be also proportionally correctly taxed.

I don’t begrudge a church building, and donations to said church building and strictly church activity, being tax exempt, but I certainly object to any commercial activity getting a free ride just because it is associated with some religious group.

Sarah x

 

[Dale_M]

The Italian newspaper Avvenire, which is owned by the Italian Catholic Bishops Conference, notes that the proposed changes would apply to the properties of all non-profit organizations, not just those owned by the Catholic Church

(note: English translation courtesy of GetReligion.org)

… it should be remembered for the umpteenth time, this category [tax exempt institutions] is not identical with the Catholic Church, it includes properties of faiths who have registered with the the state and extends to all non-profit entities. Without this necessary clarification (that often the media tends to “forget” as happened yesterday), they will want to read the full official statement …

avvenire.it/Economia/Pagine/monti-su-ici-e-chiesa.aspx

getreligion.org/2012/02/idealism-and-italian-taxes/

 

[Rocky24]

The Catholic Church isn’t just a religious institution in Italy; its a vast commercial enterprise holding approximately 110,000 rental properties, hotels, resorts, and shopping malls. In fact, 20-25% of all property in Italy is owned by the Vatican.

The Catholuc Church is also the largest charitable organization in the world.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The Catholuc Church is also the largest charitable organization in the world.

Irrelevant. Charity that is not provided by the government doesn’t count.

 

[ProVobis]

The Catholic Church isn’t just a religious institution in Italy; its a vast commercial enterprise holding approximately 110,000 rental properties, hotels, resorts, and shopping malls. In fact, 20-25% of all property in Italy is owned by the Vatican.

FWIW, this is about the same percentage of property the Church owned in England before Henry VIII confiscated it.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

The Catholuc Church is also the largest charitable organization in the world.

That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have to pay taxes on commercial and residential properties which have no primary religious or charitable function. It should also be noted that the Vatican holds $1.6 billion in stock (15% of the Italian stock exchange) and pays 0 in taxes on stock dividends. Try to look at this objectively. On one hand you have the Vatican which is, arguably, the largest property and stock owner in Italy and doesn’t pay any taxes. On the other hand you have Italy which foots the bill for the defense of Vatican City and is wallowing in financial ruin. I think the citizens of Italy are right in questioning the financial wisdom of allowing the Vatican’s commercial and investment pursuits to remain tax exempt.

 

[Franze]

I am not against but many free services like funerals of state and some charity actions wll have to be paid by the government.