U.S. District Court Judge Rules Religious Tax Exemption Unconstitutional

[rucky]

Today, U.S. District Court Judge Barbara B. Crabb ruled that the “Parish (Parsonage) Exemption” (26 U.S. C. § 107(2), passed in 1954) is unconstitutional according to the “Establishment Clause” of the Constitution. The Parish Exemption allows religious ministers to avoid paying taxes on houses given to them by the church, which cost the government about $2.3 billion from 2002 to 2007 alone. The number is likely much higher now.

Since 1954, members of the clergy have been allowed to exempt not only their church-bought homes, but have been permitted to exempt all costs related to the home (maintenance, improvements and upgrades) up to the fair market rental value of the home. If you’re thinking that particularly benefits guys like 1950s televangelist Rex Humbard, then you’re thinking in the right direction. Of course, the exemption wasn’t necessarily meant to give clergy an unconstitutional advantage. The crucial thing to remember about this bill is that it was passed in 1954, when McCarthy-era witch hunts meant that if you didn’t vote for a bill that combated “Godless communists,” then you were one yourself.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which brought the lawsuit along with co-presidents Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker are calling this decision a “major federal court victory.” The foundation’s lawyer, Richard R. Bolton, said:
”The Court’s decision does not evince hostility to religion — nor should it even seem controversial. The Court has simply recognized the reality that a tax free housing allowance available only to ministers is a significant benefit from the government unconstitutionally provided on the basis of religion.”
Judge Crabb wrote a very strongly worded, 43-page decision prefaced it by quoting the Supreme Court:
“Every tax exemption constitutes a subsidy.”

- See more at: http://aattp.org/u-s-district-court-judge-rules-religious-tax-exemption-unconstitutional/#sthash.xplpHx8r.dpuf

[Igel]

1. It's a tough case.

Used to be parish priests lived at the church and were on call. They also had very, very low wages and in order to help the non-profit in its mission the parish exemption reduced the cost of maintaining the priest. That lets more be spent on other activities.

Sort of like having employees pay for their health insurance pre-tax or even as part of their benefits package. More goes to the employee, less to the government. But that analogy only goes so far.


The church I worked for paid its ministers less than median. They were still able to maintain homes about on par with the congregation because of the parish exemption (even when the church off moved out of its rent-free location in the pastor's house). This is the norm. Most people who don't like churches try to redefine the norm in terms of a few pastors in charge of megachurches. That's nicely manipulative, but can't be judged "moral" in anything but narcissistic terms.

What's needed isn't ruling the provision unconstitutional but having limits on what's permissible.

That assumes we want a non-corporate civil society. A lot of people don't. They're content with population + just the non-profits they approve of + government, not population + hundreds of thousands of diverse, independent non-profit organizations + government. (As expected, different cultures, ideologies, and traditions yield different levels of civil society.)