*** Admin note ***
The author of this post is not the user who normally goes by "Lot's Wife" in this forum.
To the poster: Please pick an original name and stick to it.
*********************************************************************************************


In the current wag-the-dog world we live in, “they” have a lot of
useful idiots running around demanding that churches be taxed.
Well, let me ask a question: what exactly is going to be taxed?

Churches don’t “make money.” Any legitimate nonprofit, which
includes churches, puts all its monies to work for the benefit of
whatever group they exist to support. Most churches are largely
strapped for cash (not flush with cash, like TSCC).

Legitimate nonprofits don’t finish the year with profits that are
then disbursed to shareholders. FOR profit entities do (ideally).
A FOR profit entity pays taxes on its profits, but legitimate
nonprofits do not, because they have no profits.

Additionally, legitimate nonprofits that run quid-pro-quo
for-profit operations, also pay taxes on those operations’
profits (if they are profitable). FOR profit entities are taxed on
their profits, which is their ncome. Legitimate nonprofits have no
income (including churches).

It simply makes no sense to tax churches, because they have no
income.

Btw, PEOPLE who work for nonprofits (including pastors) ARE
taxed on their personal income. There are certain tax laws that
benefit pastors. IMO they’re a little archaic, and born of
another era in which pastors typically were not wealthy people.
These laws could be revisited, IMO, but pastors are not
churches. Pastors ARE taxed on their income.

Why do I keep harping on “legitimate” nonprofits? Because as
we all know, TSCC is NOT a legitimate church. They SHOULD
be attacked based on the existing rules and laws which they
flout. The rules they flout include pastoral allowances that
might be legitimate if reasonable, but which are squeezed way
beyond realistic (IMO), and which they engage in conspiracy to
keep from becoming public (at least according to some of the
leaked LDS documents, etc).

For legitimate nonprofits, “the organization must not be
organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and
no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may
inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.”

In the large, the above is the principle that TSCC runs afoul of
(IMO). This is what upsets people, and rightly so. I don't even
know if TSCC is a 501(c)(3) corporation (churches do not have
to apply for such status in order to qualify as a non-profit), but the
principle is the same: the "church" should not exist for the
benefit of certain select people.

So, are you going to change the rules to tax donations at their
face value? The government will get a herculean fight against
that from all nonprofits. Are you going to tax only religious
donations ? You’ll get another herculean fight. These would be
taxes with no precedent, and would be “anti-church.” They
would never pass.

As long as TSCC can hide behind legitimate churches, and
pretend to be one, they’ll benefit from the rules that benefit
nonprofits. The perverse irony is that if you “attack” churches
in the large, then legitimate churches will end up indirectly
defending TSCC as they defend themselves.

The problem is not that churches need to be taxed.
The problem is that TSCC is NOT a church, and neither is it a
legitimate nonprofit.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2018 05:45PM by Concrete Zipper.

The church has two corporations.

We all know about the one headed by the profit.

But the second one headed by the presiding bishop holds all the taxable interests. Lots of very smart lawyers and business men make sure the two enities are properly maintained.

The rub lies in how the two enities interact. How the money goes back and forth and how tithing finds its way into the for profit companies.

I said this in another post, government is my church and they have one hell of a tithing enforcement division. Yea it rivaleth that of the Danites in terms of getting it done for the good of the institution.

SOME churches don't make money.
Lots do. And use it only to enrich the people running it.

I'm simply asking that churches be treated under the law like any other claimed non-profit organization: be required to file financial records, and be subject to loss of tax-exempt status if the majority of the money brought in isn't used for any charitable purpose.

That would likely put many of the "TV Preachers" out of business in a hurry. It wouldn't do anything to the operations of churches that do charitable work with the money they bring in.

Right now religions operate tax-free on an *assumption* of charitability. That assumption gets taken advantage of by some churches. That assumption is also NOT afforded to any other kind of non-profit organization. So let's stop giving religions special treatment. Let's treat everyone equally under the law (14th Amendment).

That’s mostly sensible talk that I agree with. Clamp down on those who break the rules.

Traditionaly, churches disclose their finances to the members, so they are held directly accountable to those who give. Legit churches still do.

Lot’s Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Traditionaly, churches disclose their finances to
> the members, so they are held directly accountable
> to those who give. Legit churches still do.

I'd venture that there are "legit churches" that *don't* disclose their finances to their members. They have no obligation to do so.

There are also churches that don't disclose their finances. To anyone. We all know one such church (LDS, Inc.). There are many more, especially in the US (since many other countries require churches to report their finances publicly). Mormons (and all other churches) have to, by law, publicly disclose their finances in Canada, England, and lots of other countries -- doing so doesn't appear to be burdensome to them in any way, and doesn't prevent the "free exercise" of their religion. I don't see how the same requirement in the US would put any undue burden on churches.

I never thought the income (donations) to churches should be taxed, but I'd have no problem with their property being taxed,
since that property generates expenses to the city/county: fire, police, utilities, roads, etc. It'd just be another cost of property ownership, like landscaping, building maintenance, etc.

Oh, and ministerial income tax is its own little bizarro world. Parsonage allowance, special Social Security rules - it made my head hurt and was not personally relevant, so I pretty much ignored the nuances.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2018 02:02PM by Brother Of Jerry.

The real fallacy is that churches are not businesses. If they show a loss, there's nothing to tax. But they have to open their books.

I’d be okay with taxing churches. I pay my offering to my local congregation. Every Sunday there is a financial report printed in the worship bulletin. I’ve served on church congregational councils where I helped craft budgets (including clergy pay) based on operating costs. Church members who donate would probably cover the addition tax costs.

However, in the US, there would be difficulty in trying to pass church taxation legislation from a First Amendment “Prohibition” violation to strong public backlash.

Given these, I think it’s fair and constitutional to pass legislation to require any organization requesting tax-free status to require an independent audit and public disclosure of their income/expenses if they want to preserve tax-free status.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2018 10:07PM by BYU Boner.

I think you miss the point that ANY business that does not actually generate a profit won't be taxed. So why should a church be treated any different from a business? If it is indeed true that the church had no income to tax, it wouldn't make any difference if the church was classified as a business or not.

Classify them as a business. Then let them deduct the cost of their church activities as a legitimate business expense. If there is nothing left over after that, there wouldn't be any taxes owed, and it would have the same result that the churches have now.

If the church will open their books, let it be as it is now. But if the church will NOT open their books, let it be classified as a business, but allow the cost of maintaining and supporting the church as legitimate business expenses.

I think either path chosen by a legitimate church will provide the same result, because they wouldn't have any profit anyway. It is the ones that are not legitimate that will scream and cry foul.

Whether they show a "profit" or not, the donations they get are tax-deductible by those who make them.
If that went away, donations to religions would almost certainly go down. And the ones that are doing good work would (and should) "cry foul."

We don't treat non-religious non-profits like businesses. We *do* require them to publicly disclose their finances, and their tax-exempt status is forfeited if they don't meet certain guidelines. I think religious should be subject to the exact same non-profit rules as any other non-profit -- instead of getting special treatment. Then the ones doing good, legitimate charity can still take contributions that give the contributors tax benefits.

Churches are entities that get certain gov't provided benefits, among them police & fire protection, the ability to enter & enforce agreements/contracts, etc.

Therefore, being essentially same as a natural person, they should pay their fair share of government.

I agree that churches and other religious organizations should be taxed as businesses. They rarely provide anything that actually helps people - on the contrary, they HARM a lot of people.

We homeowners have to pay EXTRA high taxes to make up for the taxes the churches don't pay. They get roads, sidewalks, water service, fire protection, police protection etc and they pay NOTHING to help defray those costs. They get all of that for free. They pay NOTHING toward the infrastructure, nor to cover ongoing costs.

Also, so many of the ministers are corrupt. They become ministers often because they're drawn to the POWER they'll have along with the COVER the job provides them for the lifestyle they want to live.

There are SOME truly altruistic preachers, but those seem to be few and far between.
Most of the ministers don't get caught, but last month the minister of the church around the corner from me finally did. He was a chaplain for the police and was given a police vehicle to use for FREE so he could go console officers. Well, he was using it to go carousing for Prostitutes during the day while his wife was at work. I know this minister because he's also an officer in our Neighborhood Association. Glad he finally got busted. Unfortunately, the religious officers of our association are still keeping him in his position when he should have been removed upon his arrest.

The church I attend is made up of home owners who pay plenty in taxes for city services. Without those same homeowners attending each week there is no church. It sits on 11 acres that is grasses over with soccer pitches and baseball diamond as well as picnic facilities that are in constant use by the general public who are invited to use it. It haS become sufficiently known as to be taken as a public park. Recently some one wrote to the local paper complaining that it was a shame those church people were taking over at times.

Am I going to have to be the one to tell lot's wife to register her username ?
Why is it always me ?

Dave,

I have now registered. What I regret most about that decision is that I no longer have any excuse for not editing my posts.

But if that is the price I must pay to avoid confusion with someone who doesn't know what "fallacy" means, I will bow my head and say "yes."

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will bow my head and say "yes."

Ah, if it’s not too much trouble, would you make a YouTube video and post it for me? :)

New Name Noah already did that!

In the US they should be charged property tax to pay for the roads, police, fire, etc, services that are received just like any homeowner/business owner.

I think the tax-free status was from treating them as a provider of services to the community, which is true for the most part, but when a church has a building that only full-tithe paying members can enter, I think that building should be taxed the same as the propery of a private club or hotel.