The purpose of granting tax deductions for charitable organizations is to give an incentive to support charitable causes. But how does spouting mumbo jumbo over dead people provide a benefit for the citizens of the United States exactly?

The Church shouldn't get any exemptions for their temples and the patrons/workers shouldn't be able to deduct their expenses and mileage for doing "volunteer work" for dead people. I think it flies in the face of what Congress intended when establishing a deduction and should be repealed.

It hardly flies in the face of what Congress intended. Religions are, by definition, charities. It does not matter if the work is to feed the poor or spread the faith.

It may well fly in the face of what YOU want it to, but to claim it goes against what Congress wanted is just declaring your opinion to be fact.

Congress has been very specific in carving out deductions and exemptions for religions. That clearly was Congresses intent, and courts at every level have found as much.

For your argument for repeal of such benefits, you have a point, but likely will not be successful in pursuing it.

Ok, how is this? I'm of the *opinion* that if we asked the citizens of this country if they feel like putting dead people under various oaths and proxy baptizing them is a good charitable use of their money they would say no.

I doubt anyone outside of the mormon world thinks the definition of "spreading the faith" as you say, should be stretched all the way to "converting dead people".

apologies for posting the below where it is. It was suppose to go here.

wrong place too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2014 06:21PM by onendagus.

You have received an opinion that values the insights of accountants and lawyers, many value the wisdom from such professionals. These are people that are in many ways serving The Masters that run the show.

Your point though is highly valid, it is absurd to value the drone behavior of Mormon temple work. Americans should not be required by lawyers and accountants to subsidize the cult value process of Mormonism.

Those were meant as examples of something that clearly is charitable (feeding poor) to something that is less (spreading faith). It was not meant to be an inclusive list.

Almost any activity of a church will be covered under exemptions and deductions as Congress intended. Temple work would be practicing the faith. It is equally beneficial to society at large as gathering on a selected holy day of each week to sing, lecture and pray.

You are correct, I think, in your statement that most people would find many religious activities to not be charitable work, but you either have to remove all or none. I do not think many people are going to be comfortable with some government worker deciding which religious practices deserve tax breaks and which do not.

Then you are to the point of overturning all religious exemptions. I don't have a particular problem with that, but I do recognize that in today's political climate that is a non-starter.

I saw a number, and it has been a few years, that more than 90 percent of members of Congress listed a church membership in their official biographies.

I just finished reading publication 1828 tax guide for churches and religious organizations. You are right, they have a LOT of latitude. The IRS doesn't even have any authority to investigate a church unless a "high level treasury department official" believes there is cause and initiates it.

About the only thing I could see that the LDS church does which is contrary to the code is attempt to influence legislation. Even that has some allowances.

If anyone knows of specific examples of excess lobbying, they can file form 13909 Tax Exempt Organization Complaint Form.

Thank you for researching the facts on the issue.

I would have no problem with the elimination of all exemptions and allowances for churches. But it has to be all or none. Selective exemptions to encourage some churches (and other houses of worship) and discourage others blatantly violates church-state separation.

Churches attempting to influence legislation/elections is a gray area. People usually get upset about those which attempt to influence legislation in the opposite direction of how they want things to be.

Again, you have to allow churches to express all points of view within the political forum, or allow churches to express none.

For example, on this board, you see many people express anger that the LDS Church was influential on Prop 8. Yet that anger vanishes when speaking about other churches (much smaller, to be sure) took a more favorable position on that legislation.

Either both sets of churches were out of line, or neither was.

I should be able to deduct the cover charge at the club since I worship a DJ.

Have the club file for religious organization tax status and you could do just that.

There are some major double standards here.

I doubt the government wants people to be vegetarians, but that's the desired outcome of PETA, which takes tax-deductible donations identical to the LDS church.

Or, if you prefer eating meat, you can donate to the NRA's 501c3, which will teach you the finer arts of gun handling.

Or, if global warming's your thing, you can donate to Greenpeace. Which spends more than half of its budget on fundraising, including thousand-dollar-a-plate fine dining the average citizen could never hope to attend.

To the poster upthread who thinks it matters what the majority thinks, it doesn't. The wide latitude granted to churches also extends tax-deductible contribution status to the likes of PETA, Greenpeace, the NRA, the local humane society, organizations like postmormon.org, and so on. Going after churches is misguided, as plenty of other organizations waste tax-deductible dollars with equal aplomb.

That may be so Alpiner, but it doesn't mean people can't speak out about what they think is fair regarding any and all charitable orgs

I'm guessing Canada has stricter rules than the US on tax exemptions for churches, and Europe may have even stricter ones. Is this so?

I can't speak to Canada or the EU as I've never made charitable contributions there.

My point isn't that reform isn't needed. It's that the LDS church isn't unique in wasting tax-deductible money. If you want to make a meaningful change, you have to be willing to go after broader targets, including other churches and, more critically, non-profits whose goals may align with yours.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that no contribution of any kind-- whether it be to a political, NGO, church, environmental group, or other organization -- should be tax deductible.

Still, it would be fascinating to see what would happen to tithing if it was no longer deductible.

I think a more possible place to start is property taxes, they support police/fire/schools.

At the very least, any organization that is tax deductible or non taxable should be forced to open their financial books for public scrutiny.

Lest the very appearance of evil.

Us tax payers are subsidizing these wealthy corporations masquerading as religious organizations.

I would be happy to let them close the books and give up the tax benefits per law.

It is my personal policy not to donate to any group that does not make its finances public. But I don't claim those donations on my taxes. Ever