Atheists Lose One In Court

[Zam-Zam]

An earlier victory overturned:

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 2013 court decision that said clergy housing was unconstitutional. The tax break allows pastors to exclude the value of their rental home from their taxable income.



The Freedom from Religion Foundation challenged that tax law in 2013 in Wisconsin. The judge decided that the tax break did violate the First Amendment because it was “a benefit to religious persons and no one else, even though doing so is not necessary to alleviate a special burden on religious exercise.”



The housing allowance is "the most important tax benefit available to ministers," according to GuideStone Financial Resources.



This week, however, the court of appeals overturned that 2013 ruling, writing in an opinion that the FFRF should instead apply for those same church benefits on housing.



Earlier this year, a Kentucky court threw out a challenge to clergy tax benefits, saying that the atheists groups challenging the benefits should try to apply for those same benefits.



"At this point, the Atheists have no idea whether they could gain classification as a church or religious organization under I.R.C. 501(c)(3) because they have never sought such classification," he wrote, noting "the statutes and regulations pertaining to tax-exempt organizations do not expressly favor certain churches or certain religious organizations, nor do they expressly favor theist organizations over atheist or non-theist organizations."

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/court-overturns-atheist-victory-on-housing-allowance.html

 

[as seen on tv]

as a secular person, i don't have an issue with this decision

some non profits offer housing benefits to their employees, and those aren't always classified as income under the law.

 

[connieb]

as a secular person, i don't have an issue with this decision

some non profits offer housing benefits to their employees, and those aren't always classified as income under the law.

Our military service members also do not have to report as income housing allowances for purpose of claiming aid, etc. Furthermore, there is an issue with benefits from your employer. Basically, if your employer provides you something that is for your benefit, it is often not taxable. If he provides something to you for your benefit it is. In the case with Clergy, oftentimes the housing allowance is on a connected or very nearby property. The idea is that -essentially - as a minister you are always on duty, and need to always be available to your parishioners and having you right there at the house of worship is a convenience to that church who pays your salary.

connie

 

[Arkady]

An earlier victory overturned:

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 2013 court decision that said clergy housing was unconstitutional. The tax break allows pastors to exclude the value of their rental home from their taxable income.



The Freedom from Religion Foundation challenged that tax law in 2013 in Wisconsin. The judge decided that the tax break did violate the First Amendment because it was “a benefit to religious persons and no one else, even though doing so is not necessary to alleviate a special burden on religious exercise.”



The housing allowance is "the most important tax benefit available to ministers," according to GuideStone Financial Resources.



This week, however, the court of appeals overturned that 2013 ruling, writing in an opinion that the FFRF should instead apply for those same church benefits on housing.



Earlier this year, a Kentucky court threw out a challenge to clergy tax benefits, saying that the atheists groups challenging the benefits should try to apply for those same benefits.



"At this point, the Atheists have no idea whether they could gain classification as a church or religious organization under I.R.C. 501(c)(3) because they have never sought such classification," he wrote, noting "the statutes and regulations pertaining to tax-exempt organizations do not expressly favor certain churches or certain religious organizations, nor do they expressly favor theist organizations over atheist or non-theist organizations."

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/court-overturns-atheist-victory-on-housing-allowance.html

That's unfortunate. It doesn't make any sense to me that the government should be allowed to establish religion by way of special benefits that apply to religions and not to non-charitable organizations other than religions. If a pastor's housing is tax free, why not the housing for other non-charitable, non-profit organizations? 501(c)(3) has a pretty consistent theme, in terms of public-interest, but then throws in religion, which the government has no business classifying as being in the public interest.

I have no problem with religious-affiliated charities making use of 501(c)(3) for their charitable operations. If, for example, someone is the head of a Catholic charity, I'm fine with his housing being allowed tax-free, if the housing of a non-religious charity leader's housing would be. That's a religiously-neutral term. But I don't agree with the NON-CHARITABLE part of the church being treated as if it were a charity.

If you look at the terms of "exempt purposes" the religious purpose sticks out like a sore thumb: "The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency."

That whole list is "public interest" except "advancement of religion," which many in America believe is directly against the public interest, and which government should be staying out of. Just as religious people would rightly object to a rule that applied especially harsh terms to religions on the basis of a government belief that advancing religion was against the public interest, we should also object to a rule that applies especially favorable terms to religion on the basis of a government belief that advancing religion is in the public interest.

 

[Arkady]

Our military service members also do not have to report as income housing allowances for purpose of claiming aid, etc. Furthermore, there is an issue with benefits from your employer. Basically, if your employer provides you something that is for your benefit, it is often not taxable. If he provides something to you for your benefit it is. In the case with Clergy, oftentimes the housing allowance is on a connected or very nearby property. The idea is that -essentially - as a minister you are always on duty, and need to always be available to your parishioners and having you right there at the house of worship is a convenience to that church who pays your salary.

connie

I'd have no problem at all with clergy housing having the same rules as housing provided to businesses, for tax purposes. For example, if they're required to live on-site and to be always "on duty," then treat them the same as an apartment manager who gets a free apartment as part of his employment. I'm not sure exactly what the rules are there, in terms of whether there's imputed income or not, but the rules could be applied just as easily to clergy. It seems, though, that in this case the clergy want more lenient rules than that, by lumping them in with charitable workers.

 

[resident_evil]

I'd have no problem at all with clergy housing having the same rules as housing provided to businesses, for tax purposes. For example, if they're required to live on-site and to be always "on duty," then treat them the same as an apartment manager who gets a free apartment as part of his employment. I'm not sure exactly what the rules are there, in terms of whether there's imputed income or not, but the rules could be applied just as easily to clergy. It seems, though, that in this case the clergy want more lenient rules than that, by lumping them in with charitable workers.

This was an unequal protection case Arky.

Reminds me of my gripe with the progressive tax system being unequal protection.

A 15% flat tax for all entities seems about right now, is that what you are saying? lol.

 

[Arkady]

This was an unequal protection case Arky.

Reminds me of my gripe with the progressive tax system being unequal protection.

A 15% flat tax for all entities seems about right now, is that what you are saying? lol.

My objection to this rule is that it clearly implies that the government sees the promotion of religion as a proper goal for government.... just like all the other public-interest items in the 501(c)(3) list. But government shouldn't be promoting (or working again, religion). That's not some generalized idea that everything must be treated equally. It's a rather specific belief about what kinds of goals the government shouldn't be allowed to have (like establishing religion).