I have very different question

Being tax exempt is essentially government (tax-payers) financing religion; these groups get the same quality of security and infrastructure as tax-payers. Sounds like support for religion to me.

What about the abandoned churches that the government cannot confiscate, because no tax is overdue, that turn into havens for drugs? Ironic, but not if you truly understand the bloodsucking nature of religion on society.

Super(duper)natural leaders should be a able contribute to the society they intend to control.

Actually we (the government) are getting stuck twice. Until we add a sales tax on people buying their particular brand of religion, I won't be happy.

I think the firm like this http://www.sheehan-law.com can solve this issue.Can you?

my tax plan is super simple:

do something for society and you get to be tax exempt

i'm talking about soup kitchens and homeless shelters and counseling services and so on

just that unique segment of your church gets to operate tax free - NOT because it's a church but because it's a legitimate non-profit

as for churches themselves... i see no reason why they should not be treated like the businesses they are

after all, there are a lot of very wealthy mega-church pastors running around - not to mention all of the tax-free wealth tied-up in rediculously gaudy and orate buildings...

It is time to reform the tax code on Church's

what they become..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ9oBCLwwL0

Like the man said " That is none of your busine$$"

not much difference that a multi billion dollar mall IMO.



Jesus didn't have a Real Estate arm in his church

The tax code won't tax certain kinds of organizations that are non-profit, such as charitable organizations and faith based organizations/churches. Doubtful that will change.

Generally, from what I have been told, if there is a for-profit part of a non-profit organization, they are taxed on that income according to the code.

we aren't talking about taxing the salvation army into oblivion

we're talking about tightening the definition of 'non-profit'

any 'church' that can afford to buy a $20,000,000 jet for their pastor could stand to pay their share...

i suggest you watch the youtube video mormonisn't linked to

but SQ: Who gets to decide what is 'for-profit' and what isn't?

(my) definition of 'For Profit':

capitol/funds/resources At Risk.

"profit" isn't an accounting term, it's an economic term. Accountants use 'Revenue in excess of expenses' (may have been changed). Cost of capitol (debt payments) are expenses, dividends aren't.

If there are revenue is greater than expenses, those amounts are either distributed to owners or appreciate the value of the enterprise.

bottom line, the difference between a For-Profit & a non-profit depends on what happens to the difference between expenses & revenue, which is Very Ambiguous these days.

(follow with accountant jokes)

What better reason to tax them?

Perhaps religions should have to run a charitable company or trust for only their charitable activities, and any other income should be taxed as a for-profit company.

In the case of the Morg, that would mean being taxed on 98% of it!

I feel that if an organization is to remain tax exempt it must do two things:

1) Give 50.1% or more of it's income to true charity or use that income to provide charity to individuals. Soup kitchens, clothing distribution, financial assistance, etc. Tuition assistance to BYU doesn't qualify. Nor does commercial construction on behalf of the organization. It has to be true charity.

2) Provide a detailed accounting of its donations to it's membership and donors. Like down to the penny.

Then, and only then, can it be considered tax exempt.

Can anybody answer, with evidence, whether they pay taxes on their non-religious investment income? Or whether the entire organisation is tax exempt?

When a citizen gets their car or home vandalized, they report it to the police and get nothing more than a shrug. But when a damn Mormon church gets vandalized, the police are all over it. Citizens pay taxes and the damn church pays nothing, but gets special treatment. THAT pisses me off.

I've had my car vandalized and the cops said there was nothing they could do about it. But when the church got vandalized there was a full scale investigation, all at tax payers expense.

Church property should be taxed to pay for the fire and police protection they currently get for free. And Mormon church property should also be taxed to help support education, since they're the ones encouraging and causing the high birth rate.

Did I say, damn church?

This is from an accountant/CPA

Nonprofits are taxed on activities which cannot be show as part of the mission of their organization. With the Mormon Church, Bonneville Communications is a for profit corporation owned by a nonprofit. It would be taxed. Production of garments, production of books and lesson manuals would be considered part of their core mission and would be tax exempt. Deseret Ranches of Florida, Deseret Cattle and Citrus, Taylor Creek Management, East Central Florida Services, Agreserves, and Farmland Reserve are probably all considered part of their tax exemption because of the Mormon Church welfare system. I do not know if this is a fact, but I do know the revenues from the ranches, farms and real estate is not public record.

One other thing to consider is that Bonneville Communications can donate excess profits to the Mormon Church as a nontaxable donation.

Tax churches just like you tax anyone else - give them deductions based on charitable services rendered. It still give them free reign to help people. TSCC would throw the biggest fit of anyone.

Churches should pay taxes...........let's get that national debt down. It's a start.