Huckabee (R): time for churches to give up tax-exempt status

[dblack]

Huckabee needs to get with the program. Churches shouldn't need to apply for tax exempt status since Congress is forbiden by law to pass laws concerning Church so it's illegal to tax them to begin with.

Taxing everyone the same is not passing a law 'regarding the establishment of religion'.

So ----- let's end "non-profit" status?? Dot Com says his looking for "fairness"... Is that your primary quest now. Did you suddenly lose your Libertarian will to live?

Don't make me come over there and slap you into saneness.....

Absolutely end non-profit status. I don't know what Dot Com is looking for, but taxation should not be used as a tool to control people or institutions. Government shouldn't be in the business of granting favors or punishing anyone via the tax code.

 

[Dot Com]

this is what I don't want. I'd sue them so fast it make their head's spin

Church Voter Guides - Atheists Should Monitor Church Voter Guides

Origins of Church Voter Guides

The original and most most notorious voters guides were first created by the Christian Coalition in 1990 and given out to conservative churches around America over the course of several years. In the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections, for example, they distributed over 40 million guides in conservative churches.

 

[flacaltenn]

Taxing everyone the same is not passing a law 'regarding the establishment of religion'.

So ----- let's end "non-profit" status?? Dot Com says his looking for "fairness"... Is that your primary quest now. Did you suddenly lose your Libertarian will to live?

Don't make me come over there and slap you into saneness.....

Absolutely end non-profit status. I don't know what Dot Com is looking for, but taxation should not be used as a tool to control people or institutions. Government shouldn't be in the business of granting favors or punishing anyone via the tax code.

So let's see.. Your motive there is to make PRIVATE charity and civic organizations LESS competitive against government services?? When the demand comes and all this fairness has hobbled the Libertarian solution to supporting the needy --- the only heroes will be in Washington counting the loot.. Consequences of your actions dear bud....

If that feeling is anywhere CLOSE to what we stand for --- we need a meeting of the platform committee.

 

[dblack]

So ----- let's end "non-profit" status?? Dot Com says his looking for "fairness"... Is that your primary quest now. Did you suddenly lose your Libertarian will to live?

Don't make me come over there and slap you into saneness.....

Absolutely end non-profit status. I don't know what Dot Com is looking for, but taxation should not be used as a tool to control people or institutions. Government shouldn't be in the business of granting favors or punishing anyone via the tax code.

So let's see.. Your motive there is to make PRIVATE charity and civic organizations LESS competitive against government services?? When the demand comes and all this fairness has hobbled the Libertarian solution to supporting the needy --- the only heroes will be in Washington counting the loot.. Consequences of your actions dear bud....

If that feeling is anywhere CLOSE to what we stand for --- we need a meeting of the platform committee.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. I'm simply saying the taxation power shouldn't be used as a political tool to grant favor, or exact punishment, on any person, class or institution. I'd like to see the practice of exemptions and discriminatory taxation ended, across the board.

 

[flacaltenn]

Absolutely end non-profit status. I don't know what Dot Com is looking for, but taxation should not be used as a tool to control people or institutions. Government shouldn't be in the business of granting favors or punishing anyone via the tax code.

So let's see.. Your motive there is to make PRIVATE charity and civic organizations LESS competitive against government services?? When the demand comes and all this fairness has hobbled the Libertarian solution to supporting the needy --- the only heroes will be in Washington counting the loot.. Consequences of your actions dear bud....

If that feeling is anywhere CLOSE to what we stand for --- we need a meeting of the platform committee.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. I'm simply saying the taxation power shouldn't be used as a political tool to grant favor, or exact punishment, on any person, class or institution. I'd like to see the practice of exemptions and discriminatory taxation ended, across the board.

Thought I was being PERFECTLY clear.. You want Salvation Army to pay 20% of feeding and outreach program to the govt.. The end result of which would be to hobble their efficiency and efficacy by 20% so that the Fed Govt would be able to compete with all the good being done by these non-profits better. Part of the charade here is that most citizens believe the Government is the saviour of first resort. You policy of taking food and support from the needy given by PRIVATE CITIZENS ---- just makes the competing Federal programs look 20% more attractive..

Good Work.. THAT'LL win converts to smaller government.. Kill the free market private option for charity and social work...

 

[BreezeWood]

oldfart: I am aware of no provision of the Constitution that would make taxation of churches unconstitutional.

Avatar: What the heck does the Tea party have to do with anything?

but it is ok for them to withhold funding for secular agendas such as Planed Parenthood ...

 

[dblack]

So let's see.. Your motive there is to make PRIVATE charity and civic organizations LESS competitive against government services?? When the demand comes and all this fairness has hobbled the Libertarian solution to supporting the needy --- the only heroes will be in Washington counting the loot.. Consequences of your actions dear bud....

If that feeling is anywhere CLOSE to what we stand for --- we need a meeting of the platform committee.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. I'm simply saying the taxation power shouldn't be used as a political tool to grant favor, or exact punishment, on any person, class or institution. I'd like to see the practice of exemptions and discriminatory taxation ended, across the board.

Thought I was being PERFECTLY clear.. You want Salvation Army to pay 20% of feeding and outreach program to the govt.. The end result of which would be to hobble their efficiency and efficacy by 20% so that the Fed Govt would be able to compete with all the good being done by these non-profits better. Part of the charade here is that most citizens believe the Government is the saviour of first resort. You policy of taking food and support from the needy given by PRIVATE CITIZENS ---- just makes the competing Federal programs look 20% more attractive..

Good Work.. THAT'LL win converts to smaller government.. Kill the free market private option for charity and social work...

I don't want government using the taxation power to promote religion, or charity, or marriage, or home ownership, or insurance, or 'green ' energy, or any of the other countless ways the state manipulates us through the tax code. Given that kind of power they can and will use it to intimidate and browbeat groups they don't like - just as they've done with the Tea Party and politically oriented church groups. Huckabee is right on this one.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. I'm simply saying the taxation power shouldn't be used as a political tool to grant favor, or exact punishment, on any person, class or institution. I'd like to see the practice of exemptions and discriminatory taxation ended, across the board.

Thought I was being PERFECTLY clear.. You want Salvation Army to pay 20% of feeding and outreach program to the govt.. The end result of which would be to hobble their efficiency and efficacy by 20% so that the Fed Govt would be able to compete with all the good being done by these non-profits better. Part of the charade here is that most citizens believe the Government is the saviour of first resort. You policy of taking food and support from the needy given by PRIVATE CITIZENS ---- just makes the competing Federal programs look 20% more attractive..

Good Work.. THAT'LL win converts to smaller government.. Kill the free market private option for charity and social work...

I don't want government using the taxation power to promote religion, or charity, or marriage, or home ownership, or insurance, or 'green ' energy, or any of the other countless ways the state manipulates us through the tax code. Given that kind of power they can and will use it to intimidate and browbeat groups they don't like - just as they've done with the Tea Party and politically oriented church groups. Huckabee is right on this one.

He could be.. But for different motives and outcomes that you are cheering on...

If we cant START relieving the tax burden by keeping the Fed paws off the turkey in soup kitchen --- I don't think you're really committed to private solutions, the market or charity outside of the govt... Not very Libertarian to be espousing taxing non-profits....

 

[Agent.Tom]

What a coincidence. Just last night I had the same exact thought occur to me. I agree with Huck. As it stands, religious leaders (not just the Christian ones) are not legally allowed to demonstrate why whatever politician is less qualified to lead the country. And from strictly a religious standpoint, I think it is of critical importance that folks know exactly where the politicians stand regarding their religious cause. I don't see anything wrong (other than the tax-exempt status) with a church leader advising the congregation that so-and-so supports "X" which is completely against their religious beliefs. The way it's set up now, the entire congregation has to depend on our media to inform them on whether or not a politician is going to help or hinder their cause. I think the Church is much better off paying taxes on their "earnings" and being unchained and completely free to keep their congregations informed.

I don't see why anyone here should have a problem with this. Most of the posts seem to suggest that this would not help the "right" anyway, and meanwhile a whole bunch of money gets funneled into our beloved government's coffers. Win-win, right?

 

[PratchettFan]

Huckabee needs to get with the program. Churches shouldn't need to apply for tax exempt status since Congress is forbiden by law to pass laws concerning Church so it's illegal to tax them to begin with.

Fighting the government intrusion in that, is the first step to getting the Black Robe Regiment back again.

It is obviously not illegal to tax churches. It may be your opinion that the government should not, but the law (which determines what is or is not illegal) is pretty clear on this.

What is the "Black Robe Regiment"?

"Congress shall make no law". A tax is a law.

The Black Robe Regiment were the preachers prior and during the revolution who taught the people to live their faith and love liberty. Without them, there would have been no revolution.

That was just a part of the sentence. The full sentence is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Nowhere in there does it say anything about taxation. For example, I can publish a book which criticizes the government and I am protected by the first amendment. But that does not mean I can't be taxed on the proceeds.

Thanks for the information on the Black Robe Regiment.

 

[PratchettFan]

Huckabee needs to get with the program. Churches shouldn't need to apply for tax exempt status since Congress is forbiden by law to pass laws concerning Church so it's illegal to tax them to begin with.

Actually, churches don't apply for exempt status. Unlike any other type of 501 organization, a church which meets the definition of a church in the IRC is automatically considered a 501(c)(3) organization which is exempt from taxation as an entity (except for any "unrelated business income" and to which qualifying contributions are deductible by donors. In addition, there clergy are allowed to opt out of the Social Security system and the church may exclude itself from paying Social Security taxes on non-clergy church employees (who are then considered self-employed). Finally, members of a few religious groups are also exempted from Social Security taxes. The only required paperwork is that individuals claiming to opt-out of Social Security under the two provisions must file an election with the IRS.

It is indeed "illegal" to tax churches in the sense that by statute the are automatically considered tax exempt organizations. I would be interested in the reasons you seem not aware of this fact.

Also, it cannot be illegal for Congress to pass a law. That's what Congress and only Congress can do. I am aware of no provision of the Constitution that would make taxation of churches unconstitutional.

I will bow to your knowledge on the automatic status of a church. However, being automatically considered a 501 (c) does not exempt the organizations from the requirements of being a 501 (c). So while I will accept your statement they need not apply for that status, that does not mean they can't lose that status.

That being said, I find it interesting that this does not seem to happen - despite the alleged war on religion.

 

[dblack]

It is obviously not illegal to tax churches. It may be your opinion that the government should not, but the law (which determines what is or is not illegal) is pretty clear on this.

What is the "Black Robe Regiment"?

"Congress shall make no law". A tax is a law.

The Black Robe Regiment were the preachers prior and during the revolution who taught the people to live their faith and love liberty. Without them, there would have been no revolution.

That was just a part of the sentence. The full sentence is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Nowhere in there does it say anything about taxation. For example, I can publish a book which criticizes the government and I am protected by the first amendment. But that does not mean I can't be taxed on the proceeds.

Thanks for the information on the Black Robe Regiment.

The Establishment Clause has been abused almost as badly as the Commerce or General Welfare clauses. It's patently ridiculous to assume it means churches don't have to follow the same laws as everyone else.

 

[editec]

Huckabee (R): time for churches to give up tax-exempt status

If that happens there's going to be a FIRESALE on church properties.

The real estate taxes are going to force a whole lot of congregations to find smaller digs.

And I aslso suspect that Church donations will drop considerably, too.

Now I realize that millions of people will contribute to the churches, anyway, but the big money donations going to churches will I suspect dry up somewhat IF the donors cannot take a tax break.

 

[dblack]

Huckabee (R): time for churches to give up tax-exempt status

If that happens there's going to be a FIRESALE on church properties.

The real estate taxes are going to force a whole lot of congregations to find smaller digs.

And I aslso suspect that Church donations will drop considerably, too.

Now I realize that millions of people will contribute to the churches, anyway, but the big money donations going to churches will I suspect dry up somewhat IF the donors cannot take a tax break.

Hmm... so, people will only be donating to churches because they believe in what they're doing, rather than for the tax break? Oh... the humanity...

 

[oldfart]

It is indeed "illegal" to tax churches in the sense that by statute the are automatically considered tax exempt organizations. I would be interested in the reasons you seem not aware of this fact.

Also, it cannot be illegal for Congress to pass a law. That's what Congress and only Congress can do. I am aware of no provision of the Constitution that would make taxation of churches unconstitutional.

I was kinda following you until the big problem in that last paragraph..

"Also, it cannot be illegal for Congress to pass a law."

What part of "Congress shall make NO LAW ...... " or ".... All other rights are reserved to the States and People respectively"

didn't you understand???

It's PATENTLY OBVIOUS that there are an INFINITE number of laws that Congress can't write. You've just been listening to Hillary and Barack a little too long.. Neither of them seem concerned about the specific language in the Constitution...

A law that violates the Constitution is not illegal, it is unconstitutional. If you get down from your high horse, you would recognize that I was chiding you for confusing the two concepts, not defending anything. Would you like to take another try at the "illegal laws" concept?

 

[oldfart]

Huckabee needs to get with the program. Churches shouldn't need to apply for tax exempt status since Congress is forbiden by law to pass laws concerning Church so it's illegal to tax them to begin with.

Actually, churches don't apply for exempt status. Unlike any other type of 501 organization, a church which meets the definition of a church in the IRC is automatically considered a 501(c)(3) organization which is exempt from taxation as an entity (except for any "unrelated business income" and to which qualifying contributions are deductible by donors. In addition, there clergy are allowed to opt out of the Social Security system and the church may exclude itself from paying Social Security taxes on non-clergy church employees (who are then considered self-employed). Finally, members of a few religious groups are also exempted from Social Security taxes. The only required paperwork is that individuals claiming to opt-out of Social Security under the two provisions must file an election with the IRS.

It is indeed "illegal" to tax churches in the sense that by statute the are automatically considered tax exempt organizations. I would be interested in the reasons you seem not aware of this fact.

Also, it cannot be illegal for Congress to pass a law. That's what Congress and only Congress can do. I am aware of no provision of the Constitution that would make taxation of churches unconstitutional.

The First amendment.

I would be interested in any court case that dealt with taxation of churches being prohibited by the First Amendment. Do you have one, or is the post a expression of your opinion?

 

[oldfart]

I will bow to your knowledge on the automatic status of a church. However, being automatically considered a 501 (c) does not exempt the organizations from the requirements of being a 501 (c). So while I will accept your statement they need not apply for that status, that does not mean they can't lose that status.

That being said, I find it interesting that this does not seem to happen - despite the alleged war on religion.

Thanks; I have made a living for 34 years representing taxpayers, including a few dozen 501(c)(3)'s and at least one 501 (c)(4) that got one of the first letters in 2009.

There is a strict procedure in the Internal Revenue Manual for auditing or examining a church regarding its activities and tax exempt status, requiring Asst Commissioner approval before initiating any inquiry. The determination of the status of a church is a matter of the facts and circumstances. I've had four or five cases where a client was asked to provide information relevant to such a determination.

In brief, an entity is considered a church only if it has the badges or earmarks of a church. These include association with other religious entities such as theological seminaries, a statement of religious principles, standards for who can perform sacerdotal functions, a definition of membership, and so forth. The IRS can only request information on the existence of these badges, not as to the content of them. It's a fine line. The intent is to weed out obvious "churches" that are simply tax avoidance schemes masquerading as a church.

 

[PratchettFan]

I will bow to your knowledge on the automatic status of a church. However, being automatically considered a 501 (c) does not exempt the organizations from the requirements of being a 501 (c). So while I will accept your statement they need not apply for that status, that does not mean they can't lose that status.

That being said, I find it interesting that this does not seem to happen - despite the alleged war on religion.

Thanks; I have made a living for 34 years representing taxpayers, including a few dozen 501(c)(3)'s and at least one 501 (c)(4) that got one of the first letters in 2009.

There is a strict procedure in the Internal Revenue Manual for auditing or examining a church regarding its activities and tax exempt status, requiring Asst Commissioner approval before initiating any inquiry. The determination of the status of a church is a matter of the facts and circumstances. I've had four or five cases where a client was asked to provide information relevant to such a determination.

In brief, an entity is considered a church only if it has the badges or earmarks of a church. These include association with other religious entities such as theological seminaries, a statement of religious principles, standards for who can perform sacerdotal functions, a definition of membership, and so forth. The IRS can only request information on the existence of these badges, not as to the content of them. It's a fine line. The intent is to weed out obvious "churches" that are simply tax avoidance schemes masquerading as a church.

I do appreciate having someone who knows what they are talking about.

I get that the IRS can't question the status of the church, given those parameters. However, my question revolves around the restrictions applied by 501 (c). As I understand it, in order to maintain tax exempt status the organization cannot engage in outright political endorsement. They can put forth a particular message, but they can't say "vote for candidate A". Is that correct?

 

[editec]

It would NOT just be the FEDERAL government that would be picking the bones of dying churches via taxation.

Consider that LOCAL GOVERNMENTS would begin TAXING the real estate that churches own.

Stroll around your own towns, and check out how much real estate (often prime real estate) would suddenly become taxed.

Most churches in the USA would NOT be able to pay even the local real estate taxes, let alone income taxes on the donations they take in.

The RELIGION INDUSTRY in the USA would be forever changed if churches lost tax exemption.

 

[rdean]

Don't you get it? If churches were taxed, they could be free to hate anyone. The only reason the Mormons allowed blacks into their church was because they could have lost their tax exempt status. Remember, blacks have the "Mark of Cain".