[sjsdaiuasgdia]

Better to just get rid of the tax exempt status for religious organizations altogether. They can operate like any other non-profit and be subject to that set of rules, or they can be a regular corporation and be subject to a different set of rules. The religious exemption is a big regulatory gap that doesn't need to exist.

[skissane]

The details vary from country to country, of course, but some of the tax exemptions which religious groups get are actually just standard exemptions available to all non-profits, or all charities. English law has long defined "advancing religion" as a "charitable purpose". The Charitable Uses Act of 1601 (aka the Statute of Elizabeth) included "the repair of... churches" as a charitable purpose, and later case law took inspiration from that clause to view "advancing religion" more broadly as a charitable purpose. All common law legal systems have inherited this, although the extent to which they still focus on it varies (the concept still exists in US law too, but my personal impression is the US legal system nowadays pays less attention to it than the legal systems of the Commonwealth.)

When people advocate ending religious tax-exemptions, do they mean to end tax-exemptions specific to religious groups – but not available to charities in general, or non-profits in general? Or do they also mean to deny religious groups their status as charities? Or even their status as non-profits?

[loeg]

> The details vary from country to country, of course, but some of the tax exemptions which religious groups get are actually just standard exemptions available to all non-profits, or all charities.

Right. Religious groups in the US get tax exemptions that non-religious 501(c)(3)s don't get. Churches can exempt themselves from FICA taxes. Churches are not required to withhold income taxes on wages paid to ministers. Churches can provide a housing allowance as compensation to ministers which is exempt from taxation

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417

> When people advocate ending religious tax-exemptions, do they mean to end tax-exemptions specific to religious groups – but not available to charities in general, or non-profits in general? Or do they also mean to deny religious groups their status as charities? Or even their status as non-profits?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think churches should not get special treatment relative to other charitable organizations.

[skissane]

> Churches can exempt themselves from FICA taxes. Churches are not required to withhold income taxes on wages paid to ministers.

Churches don’t pay FICA on clergy, but the clergy are supposed to pay SECA instead. This is because the IRS doesn’t consider the church-clergy relationship to be an employer-employee. It is possible to be exempt from SECA too, but only if one asserts a religious objection to Social Security and Medicare - which I understand is rather rare. Furthermore it is only available to religious groups that existed in 1950, so if you start a new religion tomorrow you aren’t eligible, no matter how successful it might become.

[bbatha]

> They can operate like any other non-profit and be subject to that set of rules, or they can be a regular corporation and be subject to a different set of rules.

Its pretty clear that OP just wants them to register as 501c3's or similar not force them to pay taxes in general

[skissane]

If OP just wants religions “to register as 501c3’s”, then I believe they already have almost what they want. From what I understand, the principal tax exemption available to religious groups under US federal income tax law is 501(c)(3)

It is true that religious groups get their 501(c)(3) status automatically without having to apply for it to the IRS - but changing that rule wouldn’t lead to them paying any more tax, since if they do apply the IRS almost always just grants it anyway.

[bbatha]

They are automatically treated like 501(c)(3)s however the application and annual filing process is waived ie your average 501(c)(3) has the IRS in its books a lot more actively than the average church. Its pretty plain that many churches are not playing by the rules even if most are. Why should they be special?

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-integrate...

[brink]

I'm a religious type and I agree; making churches tax-exempt corrupts the church.

[InCityDreams]

Maybe you have faith and they're well, just religious.....

[Natsu]

That exists so that the government can't just decide to tax one religion out of existence while favoring others.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Seems preemptive. There is already freedom of religion. If one is singled out and taxed unfairly then they can sue (and probably win).

[axlee]

That makes no sense. The government already decides what is and what is not a religion for tax purposes.

[xboxnolifes]

Sounds like the opposite. To qualify for religious tax exemption you need to actually prove to be, and practice as, a "real" religion. If there is no tax exception, it's more fair.

[unsupp0rted]

I can think of other ways to keep the government from taking sides in religions

[usrusr]

As if governments were in the habit of arbitrarily handing out large scale tax exemptions. That idea might have been well-intended, but it's really a solution in search of a problem. And how would a religion be "taxed out of existence" anyways? Or the religion the belief or is the religion the org?

[jjtheblunt]

exactly

[sclarisse]

1. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and,

2. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

If you want to amend the Constitution that’s another matter.

[drsnow]

It is neither respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof, to require that they pay taxes to support the society which allows them, as of now absurdly for free, to function and exist in the very first place.

[tedajax]

That seems like an extremely daft interpretation of what taxation is.

[sclarisse]

Tell that to Chief Justice John Marshall (McCulloch v Maryland, 1819.)