This is another one where you could go halfway and say, the parson is allowed up to X amount tax-free. The problem, of course, is the same size living area could cost radically different amounts in different areas. You could tie it to the median price of a rental of X size in your town.

I'm sure there are people who want poor churchmouse pastors to be able to house their families, and are cool with a small or medium house, but less cool with a mansion.

"The church is no poor mouse" - which church Amy? I don't think this decision is right, for two reasons. First, they usually have to live there, to be available to the members of the church. Second, they have to be available to their church members 24/7.

A lot of people live for free. Adult children living in their parents basement for example, and they don't have to claim the fair market value of that housing as income. The military is the same way. They get free housing that they don't pay taxes on either.

Why should ministers be treated any differently than these other free riders?

This decision doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Now, when the LDS church owns a soft drink company. That income should be taxed. Didn't used to be, but maybe that has changed.

Oh, and I will be in favor of treating the fair market value of housing as income when the IRS treats college presidents, and the US president, vice president, and staff the same way.

What do you think the fair market value of free quarters in the White House would be?

Now, when the LDS church owns a soft drink company. That income should be taxed. Didn't used to be, but maybe that has changed. -- Isab at November 30, 2013 6:26 AM

Claim: The Mormons own the Coca-Cola Company.

☒ True
✔ False

University presidents don't have to either pay income taxes on the imputed income value of their free live-in mansions or to pay property taxes on the properties...the reason is apparently that living there is a "job requirement." I've also heard it claimed that they wouldn't be able to raise funds effectively if they couldn't entertain in luxurious surroundings. (Yeah, right, I'm sure that most people are more inclined to make a substantial donation if they think part of it will be spent on subsidizing the president's lifestyle...not)

"Nonprofit" does not mean that the officials of the organization are not profiting on a personal level; it merely means that there are no stockholders with whom the loot must be shared.

Wow, the people at FFRF are bigger assholes then I am. The "plaintiffs" gain nothing besides fucking over some people they happen to disagree with. And as for the extra tax dollars going to the feds because of it, they will simply be wasted funding some pork project or go into the abyss of Obama Care. Nice job you fucking pricks at FFRF.

Why should any church related property or activity be tax exempt? You want the right to practice your religion that's fine. But then step up to the obligation to pay for it.

Now, when the LDS church owns a soft drink company. That income should be taxed. Didn't used to be, but maybe that has changed. -- Isab at November 30, 2013 6:26 AM
Claim: The Mormons own the Coca-Cola Company.

☒ True
✔ False

Posted by: Jim P. at November 30, 2013 7:12 AM

Correct, But incidental to my point. My point is religious tax exempt organizations have no business owning for profit enterprises such as the Beneficial Financial Corp, which IS owned by the LDS church.

Why should any church related property or activity be tax exempt? You want the right to practice your religion that's fine. But then step up to the obligation to pay for it.

Posted by: Jay at November 30, 2013 8:11 AM

Because churches operate a lot of charitable endeavors. They should not be singled out for taxation over and above any other non profit. Now if you want to tax all non profits and all government benefits, the same as a regular corporation, I am on board.

Just wait for the screaming to begin.

Rulings like this, make the legal profession, look more idiotic than they actually are, which takes some doing.

Many for profit companies and private individuals also do charitable works/contributions. The tax code shouldn't be applied based on whether or not you think an organization is doing some good things.

And yes, I do believe every person and /or organization ahould be treated equally under the tax laws.

"Many for profit companies and private individuals also do charitable works/contributions. The tax code shouldn't be applied based on whether or not you think an organization is doing some good things."

Yes, and they get to write these activities off against their taxable income, so no problem right?

Because I cannot meet the standard deduction, all my donations to charity are out of my after tax income. If you forced the charitable organizations to then pay tax on what they received, from people like me, much of their income would be taxed twice.

@Lisa
"I don't think this decision is right, for two reasons. First, they usually have to live there, to be available to the members of the church. Second, they have to be available to their church members 24/7. "

Wow. Job location and job hour requirements. No American should have to tolerate that for their chosen employment without a gigantic tax exemption.

Power to the (chosen) people! Stick it to the man! Er - the other man. Especially if he's an atheist.

Isab- Your comments exlemplify the problem. The tax code is several thousand pages of rules and exemptions from those rules. It has become a mismash of convuluted payoffs for specific individuals or groups. The answer is not more rules and exemptions.

The whole thing needs to be redone as a simple equal application. Maybe something like the "Fair Tax." Our political "leaders" would never go along with that as they then could no longer use the tax code to reward supporters or punish opposition.

By the way. In your first post you said you were "on board" with eliminating all tax exemptions. Now you seem to be arguing against that. Were you "for it before you were against it"?

Wow, some great points being made in the comments here. Nice to see so many people, including some whom I'd assume aren't big on religion in general, who still believe in fairness (within reason of course) to people that are religious.

IMHO many of these exemptions should be based on how much charitable work the church actually provides for its community. Amy does have a point that some megachurches are frankly practically indistinguishable from giant for-profit clubs or entertainment venues, and seem to exist only to propagate themselves. OTOH, there are actual churches out there that (a) aren't doing nearly as well as these megachurches and/or (b) are doing incredible, meaningful work that everyone, even Amy, I believe would value and respect.

So make the tax exemptions proportional to the good works in the community the churches provide, perhaps? The proportionality could also be applied toward the personal income taxes of paid church leaders as well.

By the way. In your first post you said you were "on board" with eliminating all tax exemptions. Now you seem to be arguing against that. Were you "for it before you were against it"?

Posted by: Jay at November 30, 2013 10:04 AM

I am not "for or against" anything, Being philosophically on board with a flat tax, is not the same thing as thinking it is feasible here and now.
The current code isnt going anywhere anytime soon, short a revolution, or complete financial collapse, in which case we have bigger things to worry about.

I agree that the current tax system is convoluted, but I am a realist, not a dreamer. There are too many people with a vested interest in the system as it stands, as there is an army of people who make their living off of the tax code being too complicated for the average payer to understand.

Although in most respects I am better off by far under the current tax code than I was during the 80's

My only points here are these: Taxing the value of a benefit like housing, and only targeting religious organizations is both convoluted and unfair. It is a can of worms, that would bring a whole new dimension of fraud, and abuse.

It is also another example of politicians and their bureaucratic lackeys profound hypocrisy.

And as someone who has worked extensively in the tax law field, I find this legal opinion both stupid and naive.
I see no legal basis for an appellate court to sustain it.

Without reading any of the comments, I find the language of this law perplexing. It plainly exempts a "minister of the gospel." I might be mistaken, but I believe that that would apply only to Christians, unless Wiccans, Muslims, Hindus, etc. all have "gospels" of their own.

Blatantly discriminatory.

Freedom from Religion Foundation. Yea, they clearly have no bias! ha!

Assholes, that's what they are. Since they, themselves, don't have religious beliefs they want to punish those who do. Assholes.

Oh, and I'll bet they they operate as a tax-exempt, not-for-profit, donations-tax-deductable organization.

Kettle calls the pot black assholes!

Sorry for coming in late, but I think we should never phrase it like "Tax policy ABC cost the government XYZ gazillion dollars."

The wealth never belongs to the government to begin with. The wealth never belongs to the government to begin with. The wealth never belongs to the government to begin with.

Government will sometimes take money from citizens responsibly...

But listen, there are lefties out there who think the *Reagan* tax cuts shouldn't have happened, and they're running their socialist spreadsheets as if they never did.

Let's be gentle to our own wallets, 'k?

Shall I start my own church and live for free?

Some people think atheism is a religion, so hey, why not?

The "parsonage exemption" is found in 26 U.S. Code § 107 and states that a "minister of the gospel" does not have to include in his gross income, either the rental value of a home furnished to him or the rental allowance paid to him.

So, when does the lawsuit begin about employer purchased healthcare in lieu of salary?

(Speaking as someone whose employer purchases health insurance on my behalf.)