Churches as Landlords!

[Bubba]

How can a church own houses that they rent out and still not pay taxes on the rental properties. I can understand that a church owns a house for their preacher to live in and not pay taxes on it. But I would think that if they own houses that they rent out the rental property should not be exempt from paying taxes. The First Presbyterian Church owns at least one house that they rent out and I am pretty sure they own others as well.

If a church gets into the business of being a landlord, the rental properties should not be exempt from taxes. The church itself and the parsonage should be exempt, but the property that doesn't have anything to do with the church business of saving sinners should not have the same tax advantages.

Am I alone in my thinking about this or do some of you others see nothing wrong with the rental property being tax exempt.

[Made in the USA]

Sounds "fishy"? I think churches should be taxable like everyone else, anyway! Equal taxation for all!

[Bubba]

Especially when a church starts telling people how they should vote on issues like gambling or what candidate they should vote for. When that happens, they should lose their tax-exempt status because they are getting involved in politics. Everybody complains when governments get involved in religion (ten commandments in govt. buildings), it should be just as bad when religion gets involved in government. When churches get involved in telling people how to vote, they are not seperating church and state, thus they are putting their noses in government, and should lose the tax exemption.

[JayhawkMom]

I agree Bubba.......tax 'em just like everyone else.

[lurker]

Originally Posted by JayhawkMom

I agree Bubba.......tax 'em just like everyone else.

That's already being done... churches lost their blanket exemption several years ago and real property is being taxed if it isn't directly used for services. There might be an exception for housing....

[Detector]

Everybody complains when governments get involved in religion (ten commandments in govt. buildings), it should be just as bad when religion gets involved in government.

It is just as bad, and taken just as seriously. Absolutely nothing is done because most people believe its a good idea.

Not saying this is a good idea, but that turnabout is fair play?

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by Detector

It is just as bad, and taken just as seriously. Absolutely nothing is done because most people believe its a good idea.

Not saying this is a good idea, but that turnabout is fair play?

I've read and re-read your post and can't really figure out what you are trying to say. How about re-phrasing it to make your meaning a little clearer.

nothing done about what? people believe what is a good idea? not saying what is a good idea?

[Mike B.]

My opinion,

People, not religion, should get involved in politics. The people who choose to get involved have every right to let their religious convictions guide them in their decision making process on any given issue.

I believe religious org. do have a right to address an issue, without endosing any given candidate, and then encourage their people to vote according to their conscience.

I don't really know enough about taxing property owned by a church to make an educated statement. However, I do believe if the revenues are used in the church and not for lining a persons' pocket (which I'm sad to say, does happen in larger organizations that have little or no accountibility) i'd feel ok with it.

[Detector]

Hehe Sorry Bubba I was being strange.

[Made in the USA]

Originally Posted by lurker

That's already being done... churches lost their blanket exemption several years ago and real property is being taxed if it isn't directly used for services. There might be an exception for housing....

Are you sure, Lurker? They added tax back on, but took it off again a couple of years later. I know when we do work for churches, it is tax exempt again.