States move to revoke charities' tax exemptions

[Newsjock]

Source: Associated Press

Faced with steep declines in tax revenue, an increasing number of states and localities are considering eliminating various tax exemptions for nonprofit groups.

A bill before the Hawaii Legislature, for instance, would require charities to pay a 1 percent tax, and Kansas is considering making them subject to sales taxes.

Revoking the nonprofit organizations' exemptions from property taxes is also under scrutiny in several counties in Kansas, as well as in Pennsylvania.

And last fall, Minneapolis made charities subject to the fees it charges businesses and residents for streetlights in hope of gaining an additional $155,000, an exercise Jon Pratt, executive director of the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits, describes as "looking under the sofa cushions."

In most cases, churches would be exempt from the tax measures, but all other nonprofit groups, including private schools and colleges, would be affected.

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_14485734

[2Design]

1. tax the churches and church schools and all these other loop holes like C street n/t

[lazarus]

2. so what

possible rationalization can they come up with to continue to exempt churches/religious groups? I'm tired of my tax dollars subsidizing people's fantasy lives.

[gmoney]

3. So the Heart Association would be taxed, but not, say, Scientology?

makes perfect sense to me

[Skittles]

4. damn straight

worse, we get to subsidize their misogyny and homophobia :puke:

[harkadog]

5. First amendment will not allow taxation of churches.

[MadHound]

11. Sorry, but I believe that's wrong

Show me the case or precedent that rules that is the case.

Churches' tax exempt status comes from custom, deference to (mostly Christian) religion in this country. The First Amendment prevents the government from sponsoring or supporting a religious institution, but claiming separation of church and state means that churches don't have to pay taxes is just not so. If that were the case then government couldn't pass any law, zoning, tax, etc. that would effect the church.

[harkadog]

22. Courts have generally held the position that the power to tax

is the power to destroy. That is why, for example, the sale of newspapers in most areas are exempt from the sales tax. Freedom of the press is protected by the first amendment. There are certain freedoms which are specifically mentioned in the first amendment (religion, press, assembly) and so they receive special protections. A government could not, for example, impose a tax on your right to peaceably assemble. Other laws you mention such as zoning, courts have ruled churches have special protection there too. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/free_exercise/topic.aspx?topic=religious_buildings.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. 'Most areas'? Unless it's 'all areas', that destroys your 1st amendment justification

If some areas are charging a sales tax, then it can't be a constitutional reason for the others not doing so.

Your link doesn't seem to say that courts have ruled that churches have special protection in zoning due to the 1st amendment; it's that the Supreme Court have not yet declared a particular law that does give churches special protection as unconstitutional. In contrast, it also links to an article about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying that the RFRA, which was "to prevent the government from substantially burdening a person’s free-exercise rights unless the burden furthered a compelling government interest" was found unconstitutional; and also says that the court earlier "determined that neutral, generally applicable laws may be applied to religious practices even when not supported by a compelling government interest." http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=14383

So I can't see that the 1st amendment gives these 'special protections' you're claiming; precedent would seem to say the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

[harkadog]

27. Well if the SC disagrees with me I'm sure someone will post a

case with that information. I don't think there is any and I never heard of one in law school. I said "most areas" because there are tens of thousands of laws and regulations out there in thousands of communities and I never like to be absolutist about those things. Remember if your local 7-11 decided to charge you sales tax on your 50 cent paper who would challenge it even though it was not complying with the law? They would probably be doing it because it is too much trouble to separate non-tax sales from tax sales. The newspapers wouldn't challenge it because they would not know about it or probably care about it. Are you the consumer going to take a case to court because someone charged you one or two cents on your paper? Not likely.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. What about Employment Division v. Smith?

That was in the firstamendmentcenter.org link I gave. That was what "neutral, generally applicable laws may be applied to religious practices even when not supported by a compelling government interest" came from. Taxation is a neutral, generally applicable law (or would be, if religions didn't get special exemptions).

On edit: more from firstamendment.org:

The Walz Court determined that where religious organizations were not the only groups exempted from taxation — even non-religious organizations that pursued “charitable, benevolent, hospital, infirmary, educational, scientific, literary, library, patriotic, historical, or cemetery purposes” were also exempted — the mere fact that religious groups did benefit from such a scheme did not demonstrate any governmental preference for religion.

The Supreme Court has made clear that a tax exemption is neither prohibited nor required under the First Amendment’s free-exercise and establishment clauses. The Walz Court said that the long history of tax exemption for religious organizations in no way creates an entitlement to any such exemption. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if a legislature should decide to grant tax exemptions, the constitutionality of the system of exemptions at issue in Walz could not establish a presumption of constitutionality for any system that benefited religious organizations.

Indeed, when the Court was called upon in Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock (1989) to consider a statute granting a tax exemption specifically to religious periodicals, it determined (in a 6-3 plurality decision) that, although governments may grant exemptions to religious organizations as part of a broader classification (such as “nonprofit organizations”), groups could not be singled out for benefit solely because of their religious nature.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/establishment/topic.aspx?topic=tax_exemptions

So it sounds as if these new laws trying to make only religions tax exempt could themselves be unconstitutional.

[Confusious]

Says no such thing

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The non-taxation of churches is a "tradition" sort of thing.

One could even interpret the clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" as prohibiting the helping of churches in any way. Non-profit status is "establishment of religion."

Tax them.

[old mark]

21. Actually, it could be interpreted that exempting churches from taxation violates

the First Ammendment because the government is suporting them by doing so.

I'd love to see them taxed as any other business property.

mark

[DURHAM D]

6. I would be ok with exempting the "church" itself but

none of their holdings. Example: Duke University has a top notch hotel/restaurant and 18 hole golf course on the edge of campus. They also own several commercial outlets. None are on the property tax rolls because Duke is affiliated with the Methodist Church.

[BrklynLiberal]

7. I agree with the above posters: TAX THE CHURCHES!!!!!!!!

[anonymous171]

8. Tax the rich. Leave the churches alone.

[BrklynLiberal]

9. The two are not always mutually exclusive

[anonymous171]

10. You tax the rich you end up taxing the rich preachers

You tax the churches, you end up taxing the hole in the wall ethnic churches that can barely pay to keep their places of worship open.

[Confusious]

13. I say we go the individual route

The main church is tax free. The rest gets taxed. TV stations, parks, etc.


Am I not merciful?

[BrklynLiberal]

29. Right. Only property in which DIRECT church services are performed.

If it makes a profit..it shoud be taxed.

[Richard Steele]

14. Tax the RICH, and the assholes posing as "churches" will fall under the purview.

We need to stop letting millionaire TV celebrities
use the "religion" loophole to avoid paying taxes
on their highly profitable entertainment programs.

[movonne]

18. The Churches are the richest of them all.. the wealth of the catholic

church is astronomical...

[anonymous171]

20. The Catholic Church has nothing on Wall Street.

Also their assets are mostly in Italy, if I recall correctly.

[patrice]

12. not acceptable. tax the churches too.

[LiberalFighter]

15. If an organization owns land they should pay at a minimum user fees.

For fire/police/rescue services and water/sewer and road services.

If they don't own land and operate out of a residential home then they are covered under the home owner.

[movonne]

16. I believe churches should be first on the list..if they don't have to pay

why should the rest of these charities have to pay...

[DeSwiss]

17. K&R - TAX THE CHURCH! n/t

[Lorien]

19. So the only ones who SHOULD be taxed-=the churches-are the only ones exempt?

This had to come from Republicans.

[upi402]

23. Tax churches that advocate political candidates

We all know they do. They did a LOT for coke addict, AWOL Bush.

[cherokeeprogressive]

26. Tax every church that has a candidate of any stripe up to the pulpit to speak.

Any church, any party. If a candidate OR incumbent speaks at your pulpit, EVER, you (the church) lose tax exempt status.

[bobbolink]

25. GREAT! Then atheists will have to start providing care for people!

Oh.... churches would be exempt.

OK, then, atheists excused.

[BrklynLiberal]

30. Many already do..

Thee are many, many non-secular organizations that do good works.

[northofdenali]

31. I wish tax exemptions on churches or religious organizations

would be ended. For example, there is a LARGE (mega) church in Anchorage whose properties are exempt from tax - and that includes deacons/employees HOMES.

Ridiculous. Tax 'em.

[AngryAmish]

32. Northwestern Memorial Hospital

Huge teaching hospital in Chicago. Sits on a lot of really expensive real estate. Generates hundreds of millions of year. It is a "charity" but exists to enrich the doctors and administrators. Why not tax it?

And if you are Governor Blago - shake down it's children's hospital.