| Churches are not inherently charitable organizations. They expect the same government services as other establishments, and they should be taxed accordingly. |
| Senator James M. Inhofe, the Republican from Oklahoma who heads up the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, was looking out for the televangelist [Pat Robertson's] business interests. In August, Sen. Inhofe inserted $10.8 million into the $286 billion transportation bill; money that will directly enhance the Reverend's bottom line. The funds -- $5.8 million of which came through Sen. Inhofe's initiative -- was earmarked "to help build an interchange along Interstate 64 near the Christian Broadcasting Network [CBN]," the Virginian-Pilot reported in mid-September.
"Building the interchange would help a project planned by CBN to build homes, shops and commercial space on about 430 acres of undeveloped land in Chesapeake and Virginia Beach that the network owns adjacent to the interstate," the Virginian-Pilot reported. "Lowell W. Morse, president of Morse and Associates Inc., a firm hired by CBN to help develop the project, has said the investment could hit $300 million." In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided a list of charities to which Americans should donate, and listed Robertson's Operation Blessing second only to the American Red Cross. The designation "could be worth tens of millions of dollars" Richard Walden, president and founder of Operation USA, a non-governmental organization specializing in disaster relief, told ABC's Brian Ross. In addition, while the Rev. Robertson was an early critic of President Bush's faith-based initiative -- concerned that groups such as the Nation of Islam, the Church of Scientology, or Hare Krishnas would receive government support -- Operation Blessing has thus far received well over $1 million from Bush's faith-based initiative during the past few years. According to the organization's 2003 tax return, out of $192 million in total revenues, nearly $10 million came from the government . Source: "Rev. Pat Robertson: Dead end or no end in sight?" by Bill Berkowitz - WorkingForChange - 11.25.05 The primary legal reason for extending tax-exempt status to churches is that they perform the same function in society as do other non-profit tax-exempt institutions such as libraries, hospitals, etc. This position is codified in the Supreme Court decision of "Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970)" in the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Burger. (The other two arguments that he offered were that churches had always been tax-exempt, and that taxing churches would serve to further entangle church and state.) This premise was further defined in a subsequent Supreme Court ruling "Texas Monthly Inc. v. Bullock (1989)." This clarification, written by Justice Brennan, stipulates that it is charitable, non-profit activity that is tax-exempt, not religious activity. This distinction was again codified in a Supreme Court decision, Hernandez v. Commissioner Internal Revenue Service (1989). The distinction made is whether or not the payments made to a church constitute a "charitable contribution" or "gift," which is defined in case law as meaning "as a voluntary transfer of property by the owner to another without consideration therefore" rather than any payment of a fee in exchange for a service. Is this a distinction without a difference? Should churches be in the same category along with hospitals, secular charitable organizations such as United Way, etc. when there is no requirement or even expectation that they will devote their resources to charitable work? Who is to say what activities constitute charitable purposes as opposed to other activities that churches typically engage in? What yardstick is used to determine if a church is engaged in sufficient charitable activities? If the church is unique among these types of charitable non-profit organizations, doesn't it warrant it's own category and if it is in it's own category do we not have to reconsider the entire premise that churches should not be taxed? Churches expect all of the services (fire and police protection, streets, etc.) provided by government, just as other businesses do. People who choose not to avail themselves of the services of churches are in effect subsidizing church property through their own property taxes. Churches from time to time weigh into the political arena and endorse political positions or even specific candidates. While this sort of activity can result in the revocation of a churches tax-exempt status, the policy is rarely enforced. On Oct. 30, 1992, four days before the presidential election, the Church at Pierce Creek placed full-page ads that bore the headline "Christians Beware." The USA Today ad claimed that then-Gov. Bill Clinton supported abortion on demand, the homosexual lifestyle and giving condoms to teenagers in public schools. It charged that Clinton was "promoting policies that are in rebellion to God's Laws." It referred to biblical passages before asking, "How then can we vote for Bill Clinton?" The bottom of the ad said it was co-sponsored by The Church at Pierce Creek, its senior pastor Daniel J. Little and by churches and concerned Christians. It said tax-deductible donations for the ad were "gladly accepted." The advertisements came to the attention of the regional commissioner of the IRS. In 1993, the IRS informed the church that it was beginning a church tax examination. According to court documents, two unproductive meetings occurred between the parties. And, for the first time in history, the IRS revoked a church's tax-exempt status on Jan. 19, 1995. Source: Associated Baptist Press - "Revocation of church's tax status upheld by federal appeals court" By Kenny Byrd -- May 19, 2000 - Volume: 00-44 - |
|
Read what others have said about this statement here.
Use the section at the bottom of the screen to submit your own comment. | ||
| Comments | Contributor | Date Submitted |
| I say it's high time to tax all churches. If they get police protection, they should pay for it. If they expect to have a political opinion, they should pay taxes. Jesus Christ wasn't against paying taxes. Isn't he quoted as saying something like "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's. Render unto God that which is God." Ceasar, of course, being the government. | Linda Denton |
10/14/2004 |
Submit your comment below | ||