Posted on 03/30/2002 11:13:32 AM PST by kritikos
Edited on 04/12/2004 5:34:02 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON -- With a California court seemingly poised to strike down a longtime housing tax break for ministers, Rep. Jim Ramstad, R-Minn., is preparing legislation to clarify the provision and "prevent America's clergy from facing a devastating tax increase."
In a case that could have financial repercussions for every church, synagogue and mosque in the nation, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco announced earlier this month that it is reviewing the constitutionality of the so-called "parsonage" tax exemption.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
"If ... Rev. Warren is not entitled to any tax deduction at all, because such a deduction would violate the First Amendment (separation of church and state),"
The First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
If the tax deduction violates the First Amendment "establishment" clause, then any tax at all on a religion is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment "free exercise thereof" clause.
I say bring it on. Then the churches would not be so "scared" of losing their tax deductions (prohibiting the free exercise thereof) if the pastor's of those churches lace their sermons with political speech, such as whom and who their congregation should vote for.
It has nothing to do with the Freedom of Religion. It is just a way for preachers to hide some of their income, at the expense of honest hard-working taxpayers.
The problem is not that someone gets a break...the problem is that politicians are so tax hungry.
I suppose if one subscribed to the marxian view that all labor and all property is the property of the state one would see it that way. The rest of us believe not being taxed on something is not a "tax shelter" and one does not have to show a "valid purpose" in order not to be taxed on something.
I suppose Rick Warren should live in a one room shack while the majority of his congregants live in homes that average well over $300,000.
Or is it that you just wish everyone better off than you to be poor?
Actually Warren lives not off his salary (which essentially only covers the cost of his mortgage and upkeep of his home) but rather lives off the income of his book sales--which is taxed to the fullest extent ot the law.
Not logical? Suppose no one paid taxes but you. Would
supporting a trillion dollar budget be beyond you current
income? Wake up.
No, you wake up. Where is it written in stone that taxes have to be so high?
Like I said, the problem is not the exemption...the problem is tax-hungry politicians. (And perhaps the pork-loving people who elect them.)
A couple things jump out at me.
The IRS did not object to his exemption, but only the amount of the exemption. Without knowing his church salary, we don't know anymore about their reasoning, except that their deduction exceeded fair market rental value.
In a state like CA, a $360,000 home might not be such a big deal. Was it worth $360,000 when he bought it? yes. What is its value today? Has he added improvements to the home to bring its value up? In a small town in Nebraska, $360,000 would be a mansion. In parts of CA, it might be a modest ranch style home.
Like many ministers of large congregations, this minister has outside income that is fully taxed. I understand that Bishop T. D. Jakes draws no salary from The Potters House church, but rather earns a good living from his writings.
No matter your opinion on religion, there is no doubt that our freedoms are being eroded by gov't in all its forms.
No, what you said was this:
How are you paying more taxes because someone else gets a break?
This is not logical.
Just as shoplifters drive up the cost of items for
nonthieves, people with tax exemptions mean
the taxes of others go up. That is logic.
You see, the church can own the parsonage and thus provide the minister a place to live at no cost to the minister. However, the church then has to buy the parsonage, pay the maintenance, purchase insurance, etc. All of these expenses would be non-taxable by the IRS. So what is the big deal when the minister buys his own place and then gets a tax deduction for doing so. The big advantage to the minister is that his house is hopefully appreciating along with the others, and when he/she retires they will have a place to live. If you always live in a "company house" so to speak, you never acquire a place of your own. Then to, the minister gets to acquire a house that meets his/her needs instead of living in a parsonage that may or may not be suitable.
The appeal by the IRS before the 9th Circuit precipitated the current article. The question brought up by the 9th Circuit Court on March 5th is: Is this deduction even constitutional?
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.