The interesting discussion generated by my brief post on Pulpit Freedom Sunday made me decide to look more deeply into the question, to see what the major issues are.
There are two related but distinct questions at play. One is the exemption of churches from property and other taxes due to historical practice and church-state separation according to the Establishment Clause. The other is the exemption from taxes of all groups that meet the IRS requirements of being a 501(3)(c) organization.
The exemption of churches from taxation has been the practice from even before American independence but as far as I know, the constitutionality of it was not really challenged until a case that the US Supreme Court decided in 1970 in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, where it upheld the practice of granting property tax exemptions to churches, stating that it did not violate the Establishment Clause.
The majority opinion (with a concurrence) argued that while the Establishment Clause would prohibit the active support of churches by government in the form of actually giving them taxpayer money, the passive form of a property tax exemption was allowable. The reasoning was two-fold: (1) that the state had an interest in promoting organizations that improved the general welfare and (2) that the Establishment Clause discouraged entangling religion with the state, and having the state tax churches would lead to more entanglement than exempting them from taxation. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote:
The legislative purpose of the property tax exemption is neither the advancement nor the inhibition of religion; it is neither sponsorship nor hostility. New York, in common with the other States, has determined that certain entities that exist in a harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its “moral or mental improvement,” should not be inhibited in their activities by property taxation or the hazard of loss of those properties for nonpayment of taxes. It has not singled out one particular church or religious group, or even churches as such; rather, it has granted exemption to all houses of religious worship within a broad class of property owned by nonprofit, quasi-public corporations which include hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, scientific, professional, historical, and patriotic groups.
…
Governments have not always been tolerant of religious activity, and hostility toward religion has taken many shapes and forms economic, political, and sometimes harshly oppressive. Grants of exemption historically reflect the concern of authors of constitutions and statutes as to the latent dangers inherent in the imposition of property taxes; exemption constitutes a reasonable and balanced attempt to guard against those dangers.
…
Determining that the legislative purpose of tax exemption is not aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion does not end the inquiry, however. We must also be sure that the end result — the effect — is not an excessive government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree. Either course, taxation of churches or exemption, occasions some degree of involvement with religion. Elimination of exemption would tend to expand the involvement of government by giving rise to tax valuation of church property, tax liens, tax foreclosures, and the direct confrontations and conflicts that follow in the train of those legal processes.
In his dissent, Justice William O. Douglas argued that he failed to see the distinction between a subsidy to religion in the form of a tax exemption and one in the form of a direct grant. He argued that allowing churches tax exemptions was the first step to government further supporting religion by more direct means, using as a metaphor the camel getting his nose under the tent. Burger countered that this practice of tax exemption had been going on for over two hundred years and showed no sign of leading to further encroachment, and if such signs manifested themselves, then they could be dealt with on a case-by-case by case basis.
We have seen in recent times some signs of encroachment with the government supporting faith-based initiatives and the school voucher program. The latter has not been a direct subsidy to parochial schools and so was allowed but such moves are coming closer to the line that Justice Douglas warned about, even if they have not obviously crossed it.
The Pew Forum of Religion & the Public Life has a good fact sheet on this question. It says that while churches have long had tax exempt status, in 1954 then Senator Lyndon Johnson, with no debate or testimony or hearings, introduced into law the requirement that all non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations had to meet the following criteria in order to qualify for and maintain their tax-exempt status:
- The organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific or other charitable purposes;
- Net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder;
- No substantial part of the organization’s activities may involve attempts to influence legislation;
- The organization may not intervene in political campaigns;
- The organization’s purposes or activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.
Churches do get one special benefit not accorded to other 501(c)(3) organizations, perhaps because of their historical tax exemptions. Churches that meet the above requirements do not have to actually apply for 501(c)(3) status but are granted it automatically, unlike other organizations. However, apart from that they are treated the same as “schools, hospitals, social services agencies, colleges and universities, scientific organizations, museums or other charitable organizations” and just like them they can lose their status if they violate those rules.
This is what Pulpit Freedom Sunday is all about. The churches argue that the IRS cannot apply these rules to them because the Establishment Clause protection from taxation (that the US Supreme Court has accepted as constitutional in the Walz case) trumps any IRS rules based on legislation. So even if churches are allowed to partake in political activity, it does not necessarily mean that other charitable non-profits can do so because they do not get Establishment Clause protection. Of course, they may try to get the same result under the Free Speech clause, but that seems unlikely to succeed since they are not forced to accept 501(c)(3) status. There are many organizations (like Public Citizen) that are willing to forego that privilege in order to openly lobby government on issues.
The Pulpit Freedom Sunday people do have a point that it is not clear that the 1954 Johnson Amendment that undergirds the IRS rules is constitutional and they have thrown down the gauntlet. It will be interesting to see if their challenge is taken up by the IRS and it goes to court and how the judges will rule. It is quite possible that they will rule that the Establishment Clause protections against excessive entanglement with the state by taxation prevent the government from imposing any conditions on churches. So interestingly, in this case it may turn out that the Establishment Clause is what actually allows churches to retain their tax-exempt status while engaging in partisan political activities, rather than prohibiting them.
Of course, I am not a lawyer of any stripe, let alone a constitutional one, so treat the above opinions with caution.
Interesting. Glad you took the time to read the decision and look into this more.
--
Either course, taxation of churches or exemption, occasions some degree of involvement with religion.
Which is pretty ridiculous logically. There is no involvement in religion; the organization fills out the proper forms, just like every other similar organization, and sends it in. To call this “involvement” is silly.
--
Elimination of exemption would tend to expand the involvement of government by giving rise to tax valuation of church property, tax liens, tax foreclosures, and the direct confrontations and conflicts that follow in the train of those legal processes.
Which is also silly. Every single organization has to follow these very procedures. It is silly to the point of incomprensibility to call this any kind of “entanglement.”
--
Grants of exemption historically reflect the concern of authors of constitutions and statutes as to the latent dangers inherent in the imposition of property taxes; exemption constitutes a reasonable and balanced attempt to guard against those dangers.
Dangers that are inconsequential when churches are treated like other civic and non-profit organizations. If churches were taxed more than similar organizations, then there would be point; but it is already established precedent that religious organizations cannot be treated any differently than secular organizations.
--
Now that the decision has been quoted, I simply cannot comprehend the reasoning behind this. It has all appearances of being read by someone who is so trapped in “this is the way it has always been done” that they can’t think how things might be different.
If it weren’t for the composition of the current court (“ceremonial deism” anyone?), I’d say that it was high time for another case to revisit this issue.
Also, since 2006 through an act of Congress, the IRS cannot start an investigation on a church unless:
See http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/26usc7611.pdf for more information.
So the churches participating in pulpit freedom Sunday are not really risking anything.
Oops. Second sentence in penultimate paragraph should have been
It has all appearances of being written by someone who is so trapped in “this is the way it has always been done” that they can’t think how things might be different.
For what its worth, a colleague of mine who used to be a dean of the law school seemed to feel that Walz was wrongly decided.
But why cannot they be investigated under (a) since the churches are sending the IRS tapes of their sermons?
They would, if a high-ranking IRS official receives a written statement of the facts and circumstances. A video or tape recording of a sermon does not meet the qualifications unless someone transcribes it, investigates the circumstances, and writes a report suggesting what action to take. (Generally the first action taken is to send the church a booklet telling them what their responsibilities as a 501(c)3 organization are.)
Further, my understanding is that no one in the IRS really knows what Congress feels would constitute a high-ranking official. Does mean it has to be someone in Washington? Or does a director of one of the regional offices quality?
I believe that a couple of investigations were started, but stopped when there was concern that the investigation wasn’t approved by a high enough official. As I understand it, the regional directors were looking for clarification from the top-level political appointees about how to interpret this legislation.
This was a couple of years ago when I dove deeply into the issue, so things may have changed by now.
>”The organization may not intervene in political campaigns”
These isn’t true either. Churches are nothing but PACs these days. What they technically can’t do is directly advocate for candidates, but they get involved in political causes all the damn time. And they can even say things like “Don’t vote for this guy” (the implication being vote for the other guy) without anyone doing anything.
Not sure how many links are allowed here, but:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/the-outrageous-subsidies-to-religion-in-america/#comment-255192
That link shows how much potential tax revenue is lost because churches don’t pay most of the taxes (there are some taxes, and some counties even charge property tax, but they are the exception to the rule). The lost revenue is in the billions.
Also, as you might imagine. PZ has addressed this issue:
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2012/06/21/the-church-business/
And here’s a list of other tax exemptions that religious organizations get to take that have no real secular equivalent:
http://clergytaxlaw.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/deducting-clergy-professional-expenses-on-your-tax-return/
Another reason to hate religion… The list is endless.
Other non profits, i.e. secular charities and organizations actually DO something in and for society (with no restrictions on gender, sexual preference, minority status, etc. Where some churces may do some kind of secularish outreach, there is no requirement for them to do anything outsied of their membership, and they get to choose who they can and won’t help. And I’m talking about churches and not necessarily the peripheral orgs they run, like hospitals and homeless shelters. Thos orgs ARE expected to meet a secular standard of non-discrimination.
that the state had an interest in promoting organizations that improved the general welfare
Pardon me, but someone’s presuppositionalism is showing…
Either course, taxation of churches or exemption, occasions some degree of involvement with religion.
This is true. Because it raises the question of determining what a religion is. As we’ve seen with $cientology, that’s a real problem!
By recognizing a not-quite-religion as a “tax exempt religion” the government is, in effect, establishing what is a real religion and what is not, in a sense that has a substantial tax impact. The only way to avoid the problem is to avoid it completely and just tax everyone equally.
Someone tell me what I’m missing:
(1) The Maine RCC donated thousands to stop gay marriage.
(2) Donations to the RCC are tax deductible.
(3) Donations to the political campaign are not.