Televangelists extravagant "house exemption" subsidy unconstitutional - US District Court Judge

[LVZ]

http://aattp.org/u-s-district-court-judge-rules-religious-tax-exemption-unconstitutional/

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.

”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.”

“Every tax exemption constitutes a subsidy.”

“Some might view a rule against preferential treatment as exhibiting hostility toward religion, but equality should never be mistaken for hostility. It is important to remember that the establishment clause protects the religious and nonreligious alike.”

“I agree with plaintiffs that §107(2) does not have a secular purpose or effect,” and “a reasonable person would view it as an endorsement of religion…the exemption provides a benefit to religious persons and no one else, even though doing so is not necessary to alleviate a special burden on religious exercise.”

She further noted that all taxpayers are burdened by taxes, and that the “Defendants do not identify any reason why a requirement on ministers to pay taxes on a housing allowance is more burdensome for them than for the many millions of others who must pay taxes on income used for housing expenses.”

“A desire to assist disadvantaged churches and ministers is not a secular purpose and it does not produce a secular effect when similarly disadvantaged seculars organizations and employees are excluded from the benefit.

“If a statute imposed a tax solely against ministers (or granted an exemption to everyone except ministers) without a secular reason for doing so, that law would violate the Constitution, just as §107(2) does.”

“Under defendants’ view, there would be no limit to the amount of support the government could provide to religious groups over secular ones.”

“There is no evidence that the financial circumstances of ministers justify special tax treatment.”

[procon]

1. This is groundbreaking stuff

I hope this stands. Further, I'd like to see the same judgment expanded to include every other religious tax exemption as they also constitute an unfair subsidy and a government endorsement of religion.

[Politicub]

4. +1

And a watertight argument. A tax exemption is virtually a subsidy.

[maindawg]

2. shouldn't they be subjected to the same rules

as any other non-profit?

[Heather MC]

3. I wonder how this will effect Religions that make a lot of money but don't have a wealthy Pastor

Like Jehovah's Witnesses
I remember in the late 80's they made all their publications donations only so they didn't have to pay taxes on them. So they have been making money hand over fist through "donations" only

[demigoddess]

5. I say tax the churches, at least on their

land and property. We have so many churches in our small-land-area town that I cannot imagine all the money we are losing.

[libdem4life]

6. The times have changed. From today's standpoint...

by television...makes me ill.

Now minister's wives (or husbands) can earn livings, have a career and a lot of other factors that happened since that was law. Then it was appropriate.

Way back when ... I was raised in what they called Parsonages. They were at no cost. They were often coterminous to the little white, wood-sided building with the spire and the half-flight of stairs to the door. They didn't need much maintenance, utilities were likely miniscule.

The close proximity made it handy for the family to go back and forth during the week, as we did all of the cleaning and maintenance inside the church. My mother baked the Communion Bread...scored, with a little device, piecrust dough. (leftovers yummy with cinnamon sugar) and played the piano at every service.

My dad mowed the lawns. The Sunday "take" was very small. It was the post-war late 1940s-1950s. My dad got $200 a month salary for a family of 6. Sometimes the Board Members had to chip in for that. But we did eat well, because many were rural folk and a part of "tithing" to some, was a portion of their bounty. Fresh chicken/eggs, beef, and during deer season, venison and fruits and vegetables. People had us over a lot for a magnificent Sunday Dinner, too.

But my dad knew every family and their extensions, every person who was sick, injured or feeble. There was never a hospital stay for more than a couple of days that didn't receive a visit and a prayer and some tract for encouragement. They didn't have to come to his church or any church. He went "calling"...just saying "Howdy" to the backsliders, or new people. He spent his life in the community. That was his job.

Some ancient perspective, but that's how it was for most all ministers back in the day. Today, a lot we see is shameful. I'm sure my dad is rolling over in his grave...he'd have been 100 in 2011.

But there are still some ministerial situations that are not that far from where I came, and there should be some set of rules between shuttering small, rural churches because they can't pay a minister, and Jim and Tammy Bakker and the "megachurches" money laundering schemes.

Somewhere it is noted ... Jesus Wept.