Posted on 09/15/2015 8:28:27 AM PDT by C19fan
WaPo writers know nothing about the tax code or anything else.
So you are suggesting no change? Or simply the elimination of all corporate taxes.
You have it just about right. Non exempt status for churches came into effect under Johnson. It also made the churches exempt from being political. By that I mean political discourse from the pulpit. Funny, our churches were strong and over flowing into the sixties, after that the slow decline. Hummmm. I do know non-profits cannot display political campaign signs on their property.
I’m suggesting, yes, the elimination of corporate taxes as part of the elimination of separate categories of organizations. Not only is that good for economic growth, but it takes away the distortion of “nonprofits” both being quite profitable for many of their leaders and competing unfairly with “for profit” efforts.
That pretty much puts churches on equal footing as well.
How about every church not claim tax exempt. Free the pulpit top speak freely on all matters. Any excess revenue generated goes to charity.
Then subdivide a portion of their property to a new non profit where members can give for charitable purposes
Interesting. Certainly the “Established” Anglican church in England has done less well than more independent and less-subsidized churches here.
May be in part the difference between the vitality of the private sector vs. the sclerosis of bureaucracies.
I agree with the elimination of corporate taxes.
I don’t understand the concept of a business competing with a church.
The Church does not have any profits to move to shareholders. The business will still be taxed on the profits, but at the owners level rather than the corporation.
What do you think happens with it now? Churches don't have shareholders that get the profits.
“Profits” in a sense can go to employees as salary income or owners as capital gains/dividends/etc. Or, they can remain as equity in the churches.
And certainly churches compete with the private sector. They’re usually vast social clubs with dinners and breakfasts, concerts, theatrical performances, an occasional craft or bakery sale, adult ed, and the like.
A business should not be taxed at all, since that creates double taxation for the owners, who also have to pay capital gains and other taxes.
My experience with churches has always been debt, not equity.
And certainly churches compete with the private sector. They’re usually vast social clubs with dinners and breakfasts, concerts, theatrical performances, an occasional craft or bakery sale, adult ed, and the like.
Since they don't generate a profit, how would that be any different than a business that doesn't generate a profit but simply spends what they make? Today they would be taxed the same.
Because for-profit businesses don’t and can’t do that in the long run. The only way they can is by the owner(s) taking the profit as salary.
And of course churches can have equity. They often own valuable real estate and other property, keep cash balances in the bank, may have investments, and may foster some sort of endowment. Depending on how they are organized, all of that can also be a tax-free bounty for the minister/owner. What’s more, churches can have a similar nonprofit/profit conflict that NGOs can have, where the “nonprofit” part of the business builds up the brand and marketing, and a separate “for profit” business sells books or seminars or whatever on all that built up name recognition.
No. Income and benefits to the individual are already taxed. The individual of the church is treated no differently tax-wise than the business employee.
Not really—that church property could function as a big tax-deferred bounty for the minister.
And with the Catholic Church advocating Socialism and bringing every single poor person into this country, why shouldn’t they pay their fair share to implement their policies?
Our pastor doesn’t own or have run of the church. I don’t understand this comment. How is it different than the Size of the CEO’s office?
As I said, it depends on how the church is structured.
My church is completely community-owned, for example, so there’d be no such possibility.
But some churches are so controlled by the minister that started them that they do have effective control over the eventual dissolution of all property.
If the CEO had a nice house (parsonage) on the large, beautiful property owned by the nonprofit that he founded and also managed off of that property, you’d have something similar.
That is a state issue. In Texas, that would mean they could not be property tax exempt.
The application to the Texas Religious Property Tax exception requires the discontinuance of the organization, the organization’s assets are to be transferred to the State of Texas, the United States or to an educational, religious, charitable or other similar organization.
http://www.comptroller.texas.gov/taxinfo/taxforms/50-117.pdf
That’s right—they don’t pay RE tax either!
I really don’t think the Constitution should be so interpreted, but I also don’t expect that interpretation to change...
Sure would rock the Amish world.
I don't see it as a Constitutional issue. Other charitable organizations are treated the same way, if the state decides to do so. As well as other groups/businesses.
http://www.comptroller.texas.gov/taxinfo/taxforms/50-115.pdf
http://www.comptroller.texas.gov/taxinfo/taxforms/50-119.pdf
http://www.comptroller.texas.gov/taxinfo/taxforms/50-118.pdf
http://www.comptroller.texas.gov/taxinfo/taxforms/02-form06.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.