Posted on 04/17/2004 10:27:19 AM PDT by balrog666
Edited on 05/07/2004 6:09:57 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I'm sorry if you took that as an insult. It was not meant as such.
Because "looks like" <> "is"
So as long as we don't tax "the press" generally, it's okay to tax all the constituent entities individually? Well, okay - since nobody is talking about taxing "religion" generally, but rather about taxing the constituent entities thereof, it must also be okay to tax churches individually.
Only if they are a business.
Where does the Constitution say that?
In a penumbra of an emanation (c8
Common sense, as when entity B is not a church. After all, shooting someone is not freedom of speech and having sex openly in the park is not freedom of assembly.
The first amendment covers religion(among other things), not business.
False.
Microsoft is not organized under section 501(c)(3). You cannot change a for profit coroporation to a non-profit corporation. The corporate entity remains as it was since its inception. He'd have to start a new "church". And he'd have to use his own money. Not Microsoft's.
You'll have to come up with a better analogy. That one won't fly.
Also, please note that if you "sell" a product, even as a church, the proceeds from that "sale" are taxable as the property is being transferred from church hands to private hands. So any "profits" a church makes from the sale of merchandise is taxable. He'd have to give his software away and hope that people liked it enough to contribute to the cause. I don't think that is likely to happen.
It also covers the press. Apparently I'm supposed to believe that this coverage means one thing for "religion", and something entirely different for "the press", despite the distinct lack of textual support for that belief.
Government cannot use "common sense." It must have criteria spelled out in exacting detail. Standards that merely say "common sense" aren't standards at all, and open the law up to invalidation under the equal protection clause.
Entity A engages in commercial transactions for profit. So does Entity B. But one gets called a "church" in your ideology and the other does not.
What is the difference? How does one make a determination? BE SPECIFIC.
And the reason is...?
The fact remains that this is the current situation and it's basis is found in the constitution.
But you have to do it based on a very tortured parsing of the First Amendment.
Bottom line: if a church acts like a business, it gets to be taxed like one.
There is no such thing as a churchless Christianity. In Fact, Jesus founded it.
We're talking about organized bodies here. When you donate money you're donating it to something more concrete than the abstract notion of the Christian Church. In this case, the discussion is about giving money to tax-exempt groups as defined by the US Tax Code.
I'm sorry but I didn't read the article. I was called in here to discuss the constitutional issues regarding why a "church" should not be taxed. There are cases when a church should be taxed, and when a "church" is engaged in commerce or is selling property for more than it paid for it, then it is acting as a commercial enterprise and thus should not be exempt from taxation.
If someone is operating a "church" for the sole purpose of evading the payment of taxes then that "church" is not a "church." It is a tax dodge.
Well, dead horses being what they are, and businesses not being the press nor religion. I'll leave you to ponder why churches are not taxed. They are not.
U.S. Supreme CourtWALZ v. TAX COMMISSION OF CITY OF NEW YORK , 397 U.S. 664 (1970)397 U.S. 664 Frederick WALZ, Appellant, Argued Nov. 19, 1969. |
| ... All of the 50 States provide for tax exemption of places of worship, most of them doing so by constitutional guarantees. For so long as federal income taxes have had any potential impact on churches-over 75 years- religious organizations have been expressly exempt from the tax. 4 Such treatment is an 'aid' to churches no more and no less in principle than the real estate tax exemption granted by States. Few concepts are more deeply embedded in the fabric of our national life, beginning with pre- Revolutionary colonial times, than for the government to exercise at the very least this kind of benevolent neutrality toward churches and religious exer- [397 U.S. 664 , 677] cise generally so long as none was favored over others and none suffered interference. It is significant that Congress, from its earliest days, has viewed the Religion Clauses of the Constitution as authorizing statutory real estate tax exemption to religious bodies. In 1802 the 7th Congress enacted a taxing statute for the County of Alexandria, adopting the 1800 Virginia statutory pattern which provided tax exemptions for churches. 2 Stat. 194. 5 As early as 1813 the 12th Congress refunded import duties paid by religious societies on the importation of religious articles. 6 During this period the City Council of Washington, D.C., acting under congressional authority, Act of Incorporation, 7, 2 Stat. 197 (May 3, 1802), enacted a series of real and personal property assessments that uniformly exempted church property. 7 In 1870 the Congress specifically exempted all churches in the District of Colum- [397 U.S. 664 , 678] bia and appurtenant grounds and property 'from any and all taxes or assessments, national, municipal, or county.' Act of June 17, 1870, 16 Stat. 153.8 ... |
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.