# Tax exempt status--is it a good or bad thing?



## JBaldwin (Mar 3, 2008)

For years, I have been pondering a comment made by a dear Christian friend of mine. I still have come to no solid conclusion as to whether I agree or disagree with the statement. Perhaps some of you could shed some light on it. 

My friend said, "The biggest mistake that the American [organized] church ever made was to accept tax exempt status from the federal government."

This comment was made in the context of a discussion we were having about the government regulations forbidding the backing of political candidates from the pulpit. As you may or may not know, in the early days of our country, politics and candidates were a commonly discussed from the pulpit. (I have in my personal library a 1,596 page book of political sermons from the founding era.) 

Also in the same context of my friend's comment was idea that reporting amounts given for tithes and offerings in order to get a tax break is in violation of the spirit in which we are to give, since Jesus said that when we give to the needy, our right hand is not to know what our left is doing. Getting the government involved in our giving is not in line with His teaching.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 3, 2008)

We need to make a distinction between tax-exempt and non-taxable. If one really believes in the separation of church and state (and most who say they do really don't), then the church shouuld be viewed as non-taxable, since it doesn't belong to Caesar.

And with the resurrection of Christ, and his exaltation to the right hand of the Father, all political institutions must be subservient to him.

However, tax-exempt often comes with strings attached.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 3, 2008)

Just a point of information: churches are tax exempt without asking for tax exempt status. They can ask for it, but it is not required.

From IRS Publication 1828:


> Recognition of Tax-Exempt Status
> 
> Automatic Exemption for Churches
> 
> ...



http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

If you don't request tax exempt status, you can still be tax exempt and contributors still can take deductions. But if your church decides to be political, the contributions no longer would be deductible.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Mar 3, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> We need to make a distinction between tax-exempt and non-taxable. If one really believes in the separation of church and state (and most who say they do really don't), then the church shouuld be viewed as non-taxable, since it doesn't belong to Caesar.
> 
> And with the resurrection of Christ, and his exaltation to the right hand of the Father, all political institutions must be subservient to him.
> 
> However, tax-exempt often comes with strings attached.



I like the term "tax-immune".


----------



## Thomas2007 (Mar 3, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> For years, I have been pondering a comment made by a dear Christian friend of mine. I still have come to no solid conclusion as to whether I agree or disagree with the statement. Perhaps some of you could shed some light on it.
> 
> My friend said, "The biggest mistake that the American [organized] church ever made was to accept tax exempt status from the federal government."



Hello,

I'm quite involved in this area so I'll try to be brief and basic.

First, however, we must understand some basic legal issues. In our country the State's are separate and equal and compacted together granting express powers to a very limited jurisdiction for the Federal government. 

The Federal Constitution grants no jurisdiction over religion (read that Christianity) to the Federal government, in addition the Bill of Rights was added as a negative prohibition against powers the Federal government never had. The First Amendment was added to primarily protect the Church in all of it's functions and duties, to be free from Federal regulation, engage in free exercise of religion pursuant to the Liberty of Conscience, be free to publish, meet and redress the government for grievances.

In 1949, however, the United States Supreme Court came down with their famous "separation of Church and State" case whereby the First Amendment was applied coercively against the State's through the 14th Amendment. So, "establishment clause" cases, as they are called, all read "The First Amendment by way of the 14th means this...", which is the opposite of what it means, and as you are fully aware they began hostilities to expressions of faith in public, whereby even prayers at a football game somehow become "the establishment of religion." The Bible and Prayer and other public expressions of faith have been attacked with tremendous hostility since that time.

During the passage of the 14th Amendment and subsequently to it's passages, over the course of about a decade, several members in Congress led by a Congressman Blaine attempted to get the Amendment to read whereby the First Amendment was incorporated within it against the States. This was brought up 22 times and 22 times the whole Congress said no - that is not what we want the 14th Amendment to do to the First Amendment.

After this in 1954, LB Johnson, while Senator and promoting his liberal ideas of the "Great Society" moved for passage of the law that is now codified at 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, the regulation and tax exemption of religious organizations. Under the law not every religion has the right to be non-taxable and Johnson hated the fact that Churches would oppose the liberal ideals of the Great Society and this law was passed off as a great benefit disguising its true intention of quelling Christian social influence and isolating it within the Church walls in the name of equality and tolerance to all non-Christian religions. In this Churches have an option, that is totally voluntary, to change their legal status from a Church to a "religious organization." Religious organizations are regulated and are prohibited from many activities including influencing elections and legislation. The Church of the Satan needs, and has, a tax exempt status to exist and this would prohibit the State's from passing laws against Satanism in the name of "equal rights," under the 14th Amendment in how it is now illegally construed.

But it is important to understand that the legal basis in which the Federal government gains jurisdiction over the Church, which it is prohibited from having, is through the "separation of Church and State" concept, whereby the Church via contract waives it's rights and converts rights protected at law to privileges.

Both Federal law and State law is heirarchal, so I'll give you an example from my State, Indiana, this is our heirarchy of law and yours will be very similar:

IC 1-1-2-1
Hierarchy of law
Sec. 1. The law governing this state is declared to be:
First. The Constitution of the United States and of this state.
Second. All statutes of the general assembly of the state in force, and not inconsistent with such constitutions.
Third. All statutes of the United States in force, and relating to subjects over which congress has power to legislate for the states, and not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States.
Fourth. The common law of England, and statutes of the British Parliament made in aid thereof prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First (except the second section of the sixth chapter of forty-third Elizabeth, the eighth chapter of thirteenth Elizabeth, and the ninth chapter of thirty-seventh Henry the Eighth,) and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, and not inconsistent with the first, second and third specifications of this section.


Religion (read that Christianity) is not regulated by either Federal or State Constitutions, it is expressly prohibited to do so. However, statutes exist where you can become regulated, if you so desire, because the Constitution protects your right to contract. In other words, freedom is a responsibility that flows from English Common Law whereby everyone, including the Church, has a beneficium under God which imposes duties and obligations, to both man and God, which they are required to perform. This is where the idea of rights come from. So, you have the freedom to waive your rights, this is why Miranda warnings say: "You have the right to remain silent, if you should give up this right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

To become licensed by the Federal government and seek its regulation, the Church is given the promise it will not attack it's economic dominions, provided it doesn't, in essence, fulfill the Great Commission and directly "teach the nations to obey whatsoever God commands" (Matthew 28:18). They can indirectly do so by teaching their members God's laws, but cannot directly do so by saying "Government, Thus Saith the Lord." You Church, this law says, need to limit Christ's dominion over the spiritual (which means non-material world), your soul - you can sing, pray and preach; and we the Civil Government will have dominion over the material world. In essence, it regulates a neo-platonic nature/grace dialetic unto the Church and is Erastianism with the Federal government as visible head of the Church. Very medieval.

This is what happens legally to a Church when they file the form to waive their right of being non-taxable, and provide detailed statements of faith and practice, to which the IRS examines to see if they conform to the law. In other words, you have to prove to the government that your religious beliefs won't lead or require you to not recognize the Federal government's sovereignty. This is signed under penalty of perjury and if accepted, it binds the Church under law and under the penalty of perjury to the federal regulation of the Church. This contract is open ended, the Federal government can amend it at any time, but the Church cannot.

In order for the Federal government to exercise jurisdiction over which it doesn't have and is expressly forbidden to have in the First Amendment the Church has to waive it's rights, then the Federal government has to extinguish the sovereignty of the State in which that organization exists. Legally this means that the First Amendment by way of the 14th is applied against the State on behalf of that Church and it becomes a Federalized organization. Legally, then, strike any mention of God in your State Constitution out as well as the preamble of the Treaty of Paris, and the public confession of faith of your State is now imputed unto the Church as an explicitly godless and humanistic institution.

In the above example of hierarchy of law, then, the Common Law through which the Church receives the Scriptures in it's civil dominions is extinguished (Item 4 above) and it becomes subject to the heirarchy of the Federal government instead of being independent from it. This means that your Presbyterian Church, so licensed, is legally Anglican and is a "State Church" just like the Church of England. This is because both the English common law and the separate and equal station of the State's is cut off and then the English common law inures in the Federal hierarchy over religion, which was prior cut off via the First Amendment.

It is not only unfortunate as your friend mentioned it is explicitly unBiblical and antiChristian. It is a very serious thing for a Church to pre-emptively take it's congregation before the Law in violation of 1 Corinthians 6 and adjudicate the legal rights of every member at law.

For example, as I mentioned the Federal government can amend this contract at any time, in the US Patriot Act every 501 C organization now exists under the potential threat of being declared a "terrorist organization." Of course, this is an extreme example, but the law exists so it is a potentiality. If that happens every member of that Church can be arrested and held without habeaus corpus, have all of their property confiscated (individuals as well) and held without bail indefinately - without due process, a trial or anything. You have no rights or due process, you've waived all of those things in the contract and your voluntary membership.

Depending upon how a particular Church is organized the sacraments themselves are under Jurisdiction of the Federal government as well. This is especially true in the PCA because it has one contract with the government that each member Church becomes a part of and the Church constitution is conformed to require that every baptized member "be a member of the corporation." You'll find then, that if you don't want to have your rights adjudicated away in order to enjoy the free exercise of your religion, that the PCA won't baptize you because Church membership and waiving your rights are tied together. While it is an indirect link, it very effectively places the sacraments under the civil magistrate.

So, that is it in a nutshell. For all of this you get to enjoy the privilege of tax exemption instead of the right of being non-taxable. And, any Free Church has the liberty to engage in political activity if it wishes without the Church or members becoming taxable. You'll find that the Federal government generally doesn't violate the rights of people, it gets you to waive them, and most people freely do.


----------



## JBaldwin (Mar 3, 2008)

wow, thomas, that was very helpful. I need some time to "chew" on this.


----------



## KMK (Mar 3, 2008)

What Thomas posted jibes with everything I've have learned on the downside of incorporation.

I think the immediate benefits are liability protection from frivolous law suits. In other words,, if someone slips at an 'incorporated' church, there are laws that protect the individual members of the church from liability. It is my understanding that this is not the case with 'free' churches. And the lawyers will target the biggest doners first. It might come down which is the lesser of the two evils.

I know that Rev Kennedy wished he had not incorporated.


----------



## 2 Tim 4:2 (Mar 3, 2008)

“No church has ever lost its tax exempt status.” Matthew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel. 

During this current election cycle it is important to consider what we can and cannot do with regards to preaching and teaching on political issues and how that may effect the churches tax exempt status. 

“Recognition of Tax-Exempt Status

Automatic Exemption for Churches

Churches that meet the requirements of IRC section
501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and
are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of
tax-exempt status from the IRS.
Although there is no requirement to do so, many
churches seek recognition of tax-exempt status from the
IRS because such recognition assures church leaders,
members, and contributors that the church is recognized
as exempt and qualifies for related tax benefits.
For example, contributors to a church that has been
recognized as tax exempt would know that their contributions
generally are tax-deductible.”

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

Most people assume that churches are required to apply for a non-profit 501 (c)3 tax exempt status. However, according to the tax code churches have a special status and do not need to apply for tax exempt status. For the purposes of tax exemption to do so is redundant and unnecessary. There are other benefits of being incorporated but tax exempt status is not one of them. 

I would encourage every church member and Pastor to get the publication created and distributed by Matthew Staver founder of Liberty Counsel that delivers a wealth of information that debunks some myths about what churches can and cannot do in dealing with political issues and candidates. Liberty Counsel

What you will discover is that a churches tax exempt status cannot be pulled from the church on a permanent basis. Since the exemption is automatic and does not rely on a letter of recognition from the IRS the automatic exemption applies to the church everyday. If the IRS attempts to pull the status from the church today, then tomorrow is a new day and the exemption begin a new. Not one church has ever lost its tax exempt status in the history of IRS oversight.

Many churches apply for tax exempt status because they feel it is required. There have been approximately 5 churches that the IRS has pulled this letter of recognition from. However, since the tax status is automatic and does not require this application or letter of recognition their tax exempt status remains in tact. 

In 1992 the church Pierce Creek in Binghamton NY did lose its letter after placing a full page add in USA Today and in the Washington Times. In this add expressly endorsed Bill Clinton for President of the United States. As a result of this the IRS approached the church in 2002 long after the election was over. The IRS wanted to know if this church would promise not to do this again. However the church wanted to poke its finger in the eye of the IRS and simply told them to go away and to leave us alone. The IRS then revoked the churches letter of tax exempt status. At this point the church filed suit, not to get back its tax exempt status (since a letter is not required for churches) but to retain its letter. This case ended up at the federal court of appeals. This court said that the IRS could take the letter from the church, but it could not take the tax exempt status. This federal court of appeals specifically said the church does not lose its tax exempt status even though it ran full page adds endorsing a political candidate in two national newspapers. The courts ruling was as follows: “Because of the churches unique tax exempt status the revocation of the letter is likely to be more symbolic than substantial.”

The federal government at the appellate court level recognizes that the churches tax exempt status is not to be lumped in with all other non-profit organizations. Its tax exempt status is outside of all others.


Barry Lynn with the organization Americans United For Separation of Church and State has sent out countless numbers of warning letters to churches threatening to turn you in for any perceived political activity by the church. And to date he has not been successful in getting one single church prosecuted. Not one. His organization has been and remains today a complete failure in their endeavors. So why would we listen to men and organizations like these who are acting erroneously and unsuccessfully? They are not to be listened to or feared. 

Preachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ should preach boldly the message of a holy and righteous God. This requires that we speak to issues that are brought up in the product of campaigns. We should preach against the murder of unborn children, God ordained marriage between one man and one woman, we should preach against support of unbiblical religious and political positions. Let’s continue to proclaim the gospel with boldness.



“It is a poor sermon that gives no offense; that neither makes the hearer displeased with himself nor with the preacher” ~George whitefield

“The only reason some of us are not exiled or thrown into prison is simply because we do not preach as fervently and as sternly as did Paul, John, Peter and others. This modern “santa claus” religion that is sweeping country today is not the religion Jesus taught and John practiced.” ~Oliver B. Greene


----------



## Thomas2007 (Mar 4, 2008)

Another excellent resource is Peter Kershaw's Hushmoney, his book in Caesar's Grip gives a wealth of information on the history of the Church and it's legal status in the United States and the change in that status today.

I'm not sure precisely how to intepret the language below as the IRS certainly has closed Chuches down, secured and sold off their properties, and bulldozed the buildings. And the language is a little misleading to me as there is a marked difference in not being taxable and tax exempt, the only way the IRS can exempt something from taxation is if it has jurisdiction to tax it. 

The "automatic exemption" is under 501 C 8 which recognizes the IRS doesn't have jurisdiction for Churches that don't file 501 C 3. This is a different section of the law for those Churches that don't change their legal status to a "religious organization," whereby they are in reality non-profit corporations "doing business as" a Church. However, that doesn't mean, that if a Church has granted jurisdiction and changed their legal status that in every situation they are then automatically exempt under 501 C 8. I suppose that is possible if an unincorporated Church filed for 501 C 3 and then had their letter pulled, but that would be very rare because almost universally Churches form corporations. And corporations are the creatures of their creator - the State.

The Indianapolis Baptist Temple case is an excellent example, although they attempted to dissolve their prior relationship under 501 C 3, some technical legal errors resulted instead of the US Marshals seizing their properties, bulldozing them down, and an office building sits their now.

If the matter is of conviction to you, get Kershaw's book In Caesar's Grip, then balance it with this other gentlemen, and make your own decisions, as lawyers have a long history of shutting up the Kingdom of Heaven against men and lading them with heavy burderns that are grievous to be borne, that they don't touch with one of their fingers. Woe unto you lawyers, for yours is the greater damnation, said our Lord, as they haven't changed their modus operandi.

The Apostles example is what we should follow, they had the option to take license of Caesar and exist in harmony as equals with all of the other religions of the day. We just don't find the example in the Scriptures, we don't find them building a Church under license from Caesar next to the Temple for Zeus or Diana, for example. They could have avoided all of the persecution. The problem is that people today don't think that what they are doing is in any way related to the compromise the Apostles would have had to make in burning incense to Caesar and the glory of Rome, when it is. It's just not as verbally explicit, but legally it means the same thing.

I think the language below is a better testimony to the total dominion the IRS is exercising, most people would shake in their boots thinking they would have to fight this beast, and it has a very powerful chilling effect across the whole spectrum of society whereby most are too afraid to even exercise the rights they do have, let alone fight against injustice once they've sullied them.





2 Tim 4:2 said:


> “No church has ever lost its tax exempt status.” Matthew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel.
> 
> During this current election cycle it is important to consider what we can and cannot do with regards to preaching and teaching on political issues and how that may effect the churches tax exempt status.
> 
> ...


----------



## JBaldwin (Mar 4, 2008)

> So, that is it in a nutshell. For all of this you get to enjoy the privilege of tax exemption instead of the right of being non-taxable. And, any Free Church has the liberty to engage in political activity if it wishes without the Church or members becoming taxable. You'll find that the Federal government generally doesn't violate the rights of people, it gets you to waive them, and most people freely do.



This, of course, brings me to the other point I mentioned. In light of all this (and I would also like a biblical answer, if possible), is it even right for us to take a tax deduction for our charitable gifts?


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 4, 2008)

Joy,

The problem we face translating then to now is not an easy one. "Rendering to Caesar" seems pretty staight forward until you start parsing tax codes. In an ideal world, I would rather have my tithes and offerings disconnected from issues of tax deductions. In my case, the tax deductability has NO impact on how much I give. However, if the government decides to offer me a deduction for "charitable contributions," I am happy to take it for my church giving as well as my support of colleges, medical research, and the like. Afterall, the money the government takes from me is seldom used in ways that I support anyway. Legally reducing the draw accomplishes a couple of purposes at the same time.

[BTW, I do itemize, so the deductions matter. In fact the IRS is auditing me now because, like so many people in ministry, they didn't believe that my income justifies my contributions.]

Does this entangle us and make us part of a corrupt system? The problem will probably disappear on its own soon. My guess is that church contributions will not be tax deductible in the future and that is fine with me. Our giving will be a little more "clean" and untangle us from this system. The same applies to churches being tax-exempt. However, until that day comes, expect me to keep itemizing.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 4, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> This, of course, brings me to the other point I mentioned. In light of all this (and I would also like a biblical answer, if possible), is it even right for us to take a tax deduction for our charitable gifts?



Why not? It is lawful and the contribution in and of itself does not entangle.

I'm not talking about a church seeking "tax exempt status", that has already been addressed twice--they are exempt as a matter of law.

If the Government were to disallow the deduction in the future, so be it. But we certainly have warrant to claim our statutory rights--just as Paul did when he appealed his case to Caesar.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Mar 4, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> > So, that is it in a nutshell. For all of this you get to enjoy the privilege of tax exemption instead of the right of being non-taxable. And, any Free Church has the liberty to engage in political activity if it wishes without the Church or members becoming taxable. You'll find that the Federal government generally doesn't violate the rights of people, it gets you to waive them, and most people freely do.
> 
> 
> 
> This, of course, brings me to the other point I mentioned. In light of all this (and I would also like a biblical answer, if possible), is it even right for us to take a tax deduction for our charitable gifts?



Yes, it is your right and duty under your beneficium. You have the responsibility to the "free exercise" of your religion, paying taxes on your tithes and offerings as a free citizen would violate your duties to the First Commandment.

Consider the Scripture that Dennis referenced:

"Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Matthew 22:21

And then Paul says, render to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due &c in Romans 13, I'll let you look that up because you are probably familiar with it.

Let's begin with the first one and dissect it within context with historical background so you understand what is going on.

Octavius is made High Priest in the Roman Cult of the "Vestral Virgins," then he inherits the throne from Julius's will upon his death and becomes Caesar or King. The Roman Senate declares that Julius is divine, Jupiter Julius, and then Octavius is declared to be Augustus because he is his adopted son - or an incarnation of god in the flesh. Quite literally in terms of the Roman cult - "the Son of God." The old republic of Rome is done away with and the Empire begins under this "divine" being Augustus in the combined offices of both King and High Priest. This had never happened before in Roman history, so this is interpreted as an earthly incarnation and manifestation of deity - or rather that man had ascended to deity and transcended death in and through Augustus.

In Greek thought all being was the same being and man was ascending on a chain of being. When Octavius became Augustus and the offices of King and High Priest were united Rome became the center of life and a political salvation was posited in terms of Rome. Being outside of Rome was the same as being damned and to reject it was a conscious rejection of salvation and beyond comprehension. In contrast, in biblical thought there is a divine being of God and a human and mortal being of man, the gulf between them is unbridgeable, except that God became incarnate in Christ as two natures, God of very God and man of very man, but one person.

The conflict at the incarnation of Jesus Christ is between Christ and Caesar, both making total claims over the earth, and both claiming to be incarnations of God (although Chris was never so explicit, he simply said the Scripture was fulfilled in him, and the Scripture is explicit). The differences though are marked, in Caesar man is synthesized with deity and every man has the potential to become divine following him. In Scripture Christ alone is deity manifested in the flesh and no one else will be, man becomes truly man in Christ, and there is no confusion, mixture, division or separation in Christ's incarnation.

Virgil in the Aenid publishes throughout the empire that the "turning point of the ages has come, salvation is in no other name save Augustus Caesar" and a twelve day Advent Celebration is held throughout the Roman Empire. 

When Augustus was about to die he appoint Tiberius as his adopted son and the two were co-rulers until August died. This is important because Tiberius takes the throne without interrugnum, meaning he inherits both offices of King and High Priest, otherwise if Augustus would have died first, he would just be King and the Vestral Virgins would have to elect a new High Priest.

The Herodians pose Christ a question, should we pay tribute to Caesar or not. Tribute is something that only conquered people pay, not citizens (see Matthew 17:25-26) For example, while Paul said pay tribute he never paid tribute, he was a Roman citizen and had no obligation to pay tribute. Christ asked to see the denarius, which was the tribute money - a special coinage with which tribute is paid. He asked whose inscription and image is this? They said, "Caesars" then he responded with the above.

The coin has Caesar's image on the obverse and Livia (his mother) image on the reverse, the coin says:

"Tiberius Caesar August Son of the August God" on the obverse and "King and High Priest" on the reverse.

Contrary to popular thought that this Scripture is a license to unlimited submission in civil taxation, it is rather an explicit denial of the State and it's rulers Divinity - with an admonition to obey whom ever is your Lord. If you belong to Satan then serve him, if you belong to God, then serve Him. After the Resurrection and Ascension this and other verses become the foundation of the concept of "independence of Church and State," as two separate ministries with two separate jurisdictions both under Christ the King and High Priest.

Paul's admonition to pay tribute is that God regenerates men in the station in life they are in, we are called to peace not revolution. So, if you are subject to tribute then pay it, but if you can become free, become free rather and use it to the glory of God. (1 Corinthians 7:20-22) We are to overcome evil with good and the preaching the Gospel will make manifest the Kingdom in our presence as we are progressively enabled by the Lord to live consistent with our estates in Christ.

We, as Americans, are born free citizens - but our civil government has been turned inside out like a dirty sock, and most people become servants to the civil government and live totally in terms of it. That tax jurisdiction of the federal government only extends to that which is internal to it, that is why we have an "*Internal* Revenue Service." You are not required to live like this, and the Church is not required to offer itself to the world and be swallowed whole.

If you can be made free, then do it and serve Christ; and if you cannot be made free, then serve Christ in that station - but the problem today is that everyone has universally become a slave and they expect and demand that everyone else follow them. Then they want to convert the Church to their legal status so they can have assurance that their tithes and offerings will be accepted as tax exempt.

The Church in our society is a free and independent jurisdiction and it should be a shining light on the hill to both saved and lost that Liberty and freedom from sin is in Christ alone. Unfortunately, though, the Scriptures are interpreted within a certain context today of unlimited submission to civil government and dialetical philosophy is held as normative. But this is not what the Scripture teaches, so we have much Reforming work to do - but most people resist it because they don't want the responsibility of freedom. Many prefer having the civil government as a master and they don't seem to have any problem in bringing Christ and His Church under those dominions either.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## 2 Tim 4:2 (Mar 4, 2008)

Thomas2007 said:


> Another excellent resource is Peter Kershaw's Hushmoney, his book in Caesar's Grip gives a wealth of information on the history of the Church and it's legal status in the United States and the change in that status today.
> 
> I'm not sure precisely how to intepret the language below as the IRS certainly has closed Chuches down, secured and sold off their properties, and bulldozed the buildings. And the language is a little misleading to me as there is a marked difference in not being taxable and tax exempt, the only way the IRS can exempt something from taxation is if it has jurisdiction to tax it.
> 
> ...



The church in Indiana refused to pay payroll taxes. That is an entirely different issue from being tax exempt. Patroll taxes are never exempt. Again no church has ever lost its tax exempt status.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Mar 4, 2008)

2 Tim 4:2 said:


> The church in Indiana refused to pay payroll taxes. That is an entirely different issue from being tax exempt. Patroll taxes are never exempt. Again no church has ever lost its tax exempt status.



That's not true Pastor, they paid all of their payroll taxes. They were never delinquent nor did they refuse to pay them, what they did was dissolve their corporation, and stopped being an employer. An employer is a federal tax status. The ministers were then independent contractors of the Church which paid their taxes on an individual level. Several years later the IRS comes back and says the Church owes them the employer portion of the payroll taxes all those years, which were paid by the individuals in their personal tax status. There was absolutely no discrepancy in the amount of tax the government was due. The legal dominions claimed by the State over the Church is where the argument is - not the taxes.

The Federal government refused to recognize the Church, once reorganized, as an independent jurisdiction and utilized the matter just to flex it's muscle and make an example out of Christians that asserted Christ alone was Lord of the Church. They obtained millions of dollars in property on tax penalties imposed upon taxes paid, just not in recognition of the State as sovereign over the Church.

A free Church has no EIN and is not an employer. There are thousands upon thousands of people in this country that change their tax status and no longer maintain the master/servant relationship with the Federal government and thereby no longer are liable for income taxes - and the IRS leaves them alone. It's the people that are liable that claim they are not that are "tax protestors" because they are legally taxpayers and owe tribute. But one is not required to maintain that status, one can legally become a non-taxpayer and not owe tribute. This isn't that hard to understand.


----------



## Grymir (Mar 4, 2008)

I've often said that if I built a church, I wouldn't go for the tax-exempt status, just so that I could freely preach on whatever topic I wanted to. Or talk about politician's and their views, or how a christian can't vote democratic because of the abortion issue alone.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Mar 4, 2008)

Hello Tim,

There is an excellent quote on Kershaw's website from Montesquie that really defines this issue well:

“A more certain way to attack religion is by favor, by the comforts of life, by the hope of wealth; not by what reminds one of it, but by what makes one forget it; not by what makes one indignant, but by what makes men lukewarm, when other passions act on our souls, and those which religion inspires are silent. In the matter of changing religion, State favors are stronger than penalties.”
The Spirit of the Laws, Baron de Montesquieu (1748)

This comes from his section in Spirit of the Laws on how to change the religion of a country and it is insightful because when you read it, you'll recognize immediately that it was fully implemented in the United States.

There is another issue, as well, most people today have an odd perspective of relationship between Church and State that is derived, or at least axiomatically informed, from the humanist presupposition our country has adopted. As such, it is very difficult for them to comprehend these issues, one can feel like you are doing something wrong because you don't have government approval. Or on the other hand, legitimacy is thought to exist with the stamp of government approval and without it one is illegitimate.

These are serious problems that we as Reformed Christians have a responsibility to begin addressing, because it skews the frame of reference in which the Scriptures are interpreted applying to the situation of Church - State relations.

As the sociological gap widens between Christian and non-Christian whereby the antithesis between election and reprobation becomes more solidified in terms of legal hostilities toward Christianity it is very important that Christians begin learning how to properly interpret these things. The Reformers works on these issues is a goldmine because they dealt with them and very effectively. We've got to start working on the fuzzy thinking and misunderstandings in our Churches where these issues aren't divisive but put into their proper context so that the will of God revealed in Scripture can become crystal clear unto all.


----------



## Grymir (Mar 4, 2008)

Amen to all that Thomas! Those are the things that I would love to (or even hear) thunder from the pulpits of America!! I've been studying how Germany silenced the church by requiring them to be silent on certain issues, and wonder if we are going in the same direction. That is why I wouldn't want tax-exempt status, I could preach on whatever I wanted to. When are they going to come after us like in Canada?


----------



## matt01 (Mar 4, 2008)

Thomas2007 said:


> There are thousands upon thousands of people in this country that change their tax status and no longer maintain the master/servant relationship with the Federal government and thereby no longer are liable for income taxes - and the IRS leaves them alone. It's the people that are liable that claim they are not that are "tax protestors" because they are legally taxpayers and owe tribute. But one is not required to maintain that status, one can legally become a non-taxpayer and not owe tribute. This isn't that hard to understand.



It is for me.


----------



## David_A_Reed (Mar 4, 2008)

While churches may be safe for a while, para-church ministries may be in greater danger of "regulation" by the government that grants tax-exempt status on a conditional basis. 

Take a look at Canada, to get an idea of where things may be heading later in this country. I just read a week or two ago about a counter-cult ministry that is being stripped of its tax-exempt status because its teachings that expose Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses are no longer deemed "charitable" by some government officials.


----------

