Enough special treatment: Churches should pay taxes, too

In the United States, many have debated the issue of government social programs. Charitable organizations, we feel, ought to alleviate the plight of helping the underprivileged.

Yet there is a growing problem. Government programs like the recent Affordable Care Act insist that public assistance is in the hands of the government, not the church. 

While faith-based groups, like other benevolent groups, can have a very positive impact in their communities, the government should not grant them economic privileges over other non-faith-based groups. Since churches pay no taxes in this country, the question is: Should the government grant churches tax-exempt status at all? I would argue no. 

Last month, HBO aired its explosive documentary “Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief.” Among many allegations, the filmmakers argue that The Church of Scientology remains prevalent because of its tax-exempt status as a protected religion.

Strangely, the film notes, the Internal Revenue Service is the ultimate arbitrator of whether or not a group is considered religious. According to “Going Clear,” the IRS, while reviewing the church’s status in the early ’90s, was inundated with lawsuits from the church concerning their tax status. In exchange for dropping the suits, the IRS granted them protected status in 1993, according to The New York Times.

To be sure, once the government grants a church protected status, it is almost impossible for the IRS to revoke it. The IRS has only ever successfully revoked one church — the Church at Pierce Creek in Binghamton, N.Y., in 1995 — because it used church funds to denounce Bill Clinton in USA Today, according to ProCon.org.

Despite enjoying de facto exemption since the birth of the U.S., church exemption status has drawn constitutional debate. 

We can consider the government’s role in collecting taxes from religious organizations to either uphold or violate the Establishment Clause — a portion of the First Amendment. The clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The government grants secular charitable organizations tax-exempt status frequently. Surely churches should be no different.

Except they are. While the government requires secular nonprofits to file income taxes each year, the government does not require churches to do the same. This seems suspiciously like preferential treatment, which should never be the goal of public policy, especially at the federal level. 

The language of the exemption law creates a few stipulations. Under IRC section 501(c)(3), “no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual [shall be achieved].” 

Where exactly do we draw the line on personal gain? Without clear boundaries, the law is hard to enforce. 

For instance, “Going Clear” alleges that The Church of Scientology uses lavish trapping to keep its high-profile members, such as Tom Cruise and John Travolta, comfortable . However, fringe religions aren’t the only ones to profit from tax-free religion. Look at the million-dollar homes that some U.S. Catholic archbishops inhabit. It takes a cynical society to ignore when people give men of the cloth collection plate money they have sometimes used for personal gain.

While this certainly is not indicative of religious leaders at large, we must examine the clause requiring all churches to be apolitical — the one that got the Church at Pierce Creek in trouble. While Congress banned political endorsement as recently as 1954, it’s still happening. 

Besides the tangential nature of all politics to religion, there are many concrete examples. Let’s look to the Supreme Court for evidence. 

Its controversial 2014 “Hobby Lobby” ruling, wherein the retail arts and crafts company successfully sued the federal government over the controversial “birth control mandate,” may have opened the door for — as late-night talk show host John Oliver claims — “line-item veto over federal law.” 

Others have challenged the law more directly. 

Every year, the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative American Christian group, organizes an event called the “Pulpit Initiative.” The event works “to secure the free speech rights of pastors in the pulpit,” its website says, by calling for the repeal of the Johnson Amendment, which prevents political endorsement by churches.

I wouldn’t argue that churches don’t ever help the communities they’re in, because they clearly can. But there’s one argument against revoking the status that I can’t get around: Are churches a more expedient way to disburse charity? Would the collected taxes be spoiled on the bureaucratic nightmare that is the federal government?

These are certainly valid questions. But if we continue to expand government assistance programs, someone eventually needs to foot the bill.

Andrew Boschert writes about a variety of topics, including pop culture and college, for The Pitt News.

Write Andy Boschert at amb306@pitt.edu