What separation of church and state?

Just churches are exempt from property tax by federal law. Nothing to do with profit or non profit.

"For purposes of U.S. tax law, churches are considered to be public charities, also known as Section 501(c)(3) organizations. As such, they are generally exempt from federal, state, and local income and property taxes."

It would be unconstitutional for the law to exempt only churches--it would violate the establishment clause because it would have no secular purpose.
 
"For purposes of U.S. tax law, churches are considered to be public charities, also known as Section 501(c)(3) organizations. As such, they are generally exempt from federal, state, and local income and property taxes."

It would be unconstitutional for the law to exempt only churches--it would violate the establishment clause because it would have no secular purpose.

No, there is an actual federal statute making it illegal to tax churches. Nothing to do with non-profit status.
 
No, there is an actual federal statute making it illegal to tax churches. Nothing to do with non-profit status.

Is it prior to 1989?

"In Texas Monthly Inc. v. Bullock (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court applied the Lemon test to consider the constitutionality of a Texas statute that granted a tax exemption specifically to religious periodicals. Unlike the property tax exemption at issue in Walz, which extended benefits to a broad class of nonreligious entities in addition to religious groups, the statute in Texas Monthly was narrowly drafted to benefit religious organizations alone. In a 6-3 plurality decision, the Court held that the Texas statute failed the Lemon test in that it


  • (1) lacked a secular objective,
  • (2) appeared to be an endorsement of religion,
  • (3) seemed, on its face, to produce excessive state entanglement.
 
Is it prior to 1989?

"In Texas Monthly Inc. v. Bullock (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court applied the Lemon test to consider the constitutionality of a Texas statute that granted a tax exemption specifically to religious periodicals. Unlike the property tax exemption at issue in Walz, which extended benefits to a broad class of nonreligious entities in addition to religious groups, the statute in Texas Monthly was narrowly drafted to benefit religious organizations alone. In a 6-3 plurality decision, the Court held that the Texas statute failed the Lemon test in that it


  • (1) lacked a secular objective,
  • (2) appeared to be an endorsement of religion,
  • (3) seemed, on its face, to produce excessive state entanglement.


19th Century, I believe
 
And Trumpet rushes in to prove my point Nordberg.....and offer you a reach around.

You had no point, Childish insults are not debate points. You never add a thing to a discussion. It is beyond your abilities. Just drive by insults.
 
No court has refuted the federal law specifically preventing churches from paying property tax.

Churches don't have to pay (property) taxes, but the law today cannot exempt churches alone. They are part of a broad category of 503(c)(3) organizations in the IRS code which includes charitable organizations.
 
Years ago I read that there was a deal that churches would not be taxed if they honored the separation of church and state and did not go political. They broke that deal long ago. They should be taxed. Church businesses that compete with other companies get the tax break too.
 
Years ago I read that there was a deal that churches would not be taxed if they honored the separation of church and state and did not go political. They broke that deal long ago. They should be taxed. Church businesses that compete with other companies get the tax break too.

I believe it goes back to 1913. Churches cannot be assessed property tax.
 
The church did not advocate voting for anybody. Harris was exercising her free speech.

But, my point is that this law is not enforced. I did not see a post from the IRS

CNN reports that Vice President Kamala Harris will be featured in a partisan Democrat campaign video distributed to churches just before an important election. The message, which is against IRS regulations, urges black voters go to the polls and cast their ballots for her preferred candidate, Democrat Terry McAuliffe.

IRS rules in place since 1954 make partisan political campaign activity by churches illegal. Critics and government watchdog groups are asking how is it permissible for churches to broadcast campaign videos endorsing a specific candidate and encouraging people to go vote for that candidate.

CNN reports of the video, which is an attempt to sway this particular election, that: “More than 300 Black churches across Virginia will hear from Vice President Kamala Harris between Sunday and election day in a video message that will air during morning services as part of an outreach effort aimed to boost McAuliffe.”

Harris speaks of her own childhood church experiences in the video, saying that her time in church “taught her it was a ‘sacred responsibility to ‘life up the voices of our community.'” And those voices, according to Harris, should vote for her preferred candidate, McAuliffe.

“I believe that my friend Terry McAuliffe is the leader Virginia needs at this moment,” Harris says in the video, according to CNN.

They note that she then pumps McAuliffe’s “long track record of getting things done for the people of Virginia.”

Then she tells them when to go vote, right after church. CNN notes that the “McAuliffe campaign has embraced ‘Souls to the Polls,’ block-party style events featuring top campaign surrogates after church near polling locations, to drive voter turnout.”

Harris is directly campaigning from the altars of more than 300 churches in Virginia, combining her authority as Vice President with the authority of the church itself to encourage voters to comply with her choice for their vote.

The IRS created a “ban on political campaign activity by charities and churches” in 1954, via an amendment proposed by Sen. Lyndon Johnson. That law prohibited not-for-profit groups, including charities and churches that fall under that tax designation, “from engaging in any political campaign activity.”

The definition of a tax-exempt entity under the IRS code 501(c)(3) states that it is one “which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”

Over the years, Congress has taken a closer look at this prohibition from time to time, and has in fact strengthened it.
 
Back
Top