Bishop: Go ahead, tax Church

[AuntieSocial]

Bishop: Go ahead, tax Church

Click here to read the article on the originating site

By Jose Aravilla
The Philippine Star
September 4, 2004

Archbishop of Manila Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales dared the government yesterday to tax the Catholic Church.

Speaking at the anniversary celebration of Metrobank in Makati City, Rosales said the Church is "not that greedy" to evade its obligations if indeed the government has something to tax.

"If there is anything taxable in the Church, then tax the Church," he said.

However, Rosales said if the Catholic Church were to be taxed, the government should tax all other religious groups, along with their schools and other properties.

Meanwhile, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez said yesterday activities and properties of religious groups not used for religious purposes should be taxed to help the government raise much-needed funds.

Some religious groups might have been set up for business purposes, he added.

Gonzalez said the government should look into the business of religious groups managing schools, and television and radio networks.

If the business of the religious group is not religion-related, it must be taxed, he added.

However, Gonzalez said the matter must be clarified by the Supreme Court because it would touch on the issue of separation of Church and State.

When a religious group questions the Bureau of Internal Revenue why it is being taxed, then the Supreme Court can step into the picture, he added.

On the other hand, Rosales said it would be absurd to tax religious ceremonies on baptism, marriage, and death.

"How would you tax baptism, marriage, final rites," he asked. "Sure, it has to be taxed if (for) business ventures."

Rosales said the government could use the European model of taxing the Church, and in doing so tax the public for practicing a religion.

Under that system, the government would pay the salary and other needs of religious institutions from money collected from the faithful, he added.

However, Rosales said the proposal would not prosper in the country.

"With the narrow-mindedness of some of our leaders, everytime they see Church, (they exclaim) separation of Church and State, ‘oh (the) Church a horrible thing, it is a monster,’" he said.

"Will that work in that kind of mentality?"

Meanwhile, a lawmaker belonging to El Shaddai, a Catholic charismatic movement, branded yesterday as "unconstitutional" a plan to tax churches and religious organizations.

Buhay party-list Rep. Rene Velarde said if the plan pushes through, it would violate the principle of separation of Church and State as enshrined in the Constitution.

"(Under Article VI, Section 28), charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents... in all lands, buildings and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious... purposes shall be exempt from taxation," he said.

However, Velarde, a son of El Shaddai spiritual leader Bro. Mike Velarde, said "members of the varied churches in the Philippines" must pay taxes — their obligations as citizens of the Philippines.

"The duty of tax paying as against tax evading should be dutifully performed by every citizen of our country in the same way as we expect our government to do its share in effective tax collection," he said.

On the other hand, another congressman, who is a Baptist pastor, asked the Catholic Church and other churches to declare income-generating ventures and pay the corresponding taxes for their schools, hospitals, and other businesses.

"Let the churches be the example of generosity," Manila Rep. Bienvenido Abante Jr. told reporters at the weekly Balitaan sa Hotel Rembrandt forum in Quezon City.

Pampanga Rep. Rey Aquino and former House minority leader Carlos Padilla, who were also at the forum, agreed with Abante that churches should pay taxes or shell out contributions to the fund-raising campaign of the national government.

Padilla urged the Bureau of Internal Revenue and local governments to make an inventory of religious business ventures and collect the necessary taxes.

He said the Constitution only exempts from taxation real properties and non-profit ventures being undertaken by religious groups and non-stock, non-profit organizations.

"What we need is a strong will from the national and local government to impose the law," he said.

Abante, leader of the 30,000-strong Alliance of Baptist Churches, said the Constitution exempts real properties and religious activities from taxes, not businesses and other income-generating ventures.

He said he would file a resolution in the House of Representatives calling for a full inventory of taxable properties of various religious groups, along with their income.

Church leaders must take the initiative in generating much needed revenue for the country, Abante added. — With reports from Cecille Suerte Felipe, Paolo Romero, Perseus Echeminada

[AuntieSocial]

The first thing that struck me with this article is the fact that those spear-heading the drive towards taxation is the leaders of the churches. That being said, I think the Philippines needs a greater reform than merely the enforcement of a taxation law. The law itself needs reform to include the taxation of real property (this can also be said about many other nations). The Catholic Church (in particular) is the largest owner of property in the world, all of it untaxed.

AuntieSocial said:

"If there is anything taxable in the Church, then tax the Church," he said.

There is plenty of taxable holdings in the Church. Unfortunately, not all of these holdings are currently taxable under the Philippine legislation.

However, Rosales said if the Catholic Church were to be taxed, the government should tax all other religious groups, along with their schools and other properties.

Absolutely! And why stop there? What greater act of charity can their be than to pay your fair share into the public funds of the nation in which you are operating (and collecting charitable donations). In a lot of places, those donations are wholly untaxed. The donor receives a (partial) rebate against their own income tax while the organization is not required to pay tax at all.

Some religious groups might have been set up for business purposes, he added.

Gonzalez said the government should look into the business of religious groups managing schools, and television and radio networks.

If the business of the religious group is not religion-related, it must be taxed, he added.

Under the current legislation of The Philipines, it most certainly should be taxed. Unfortunately, it would be easy for an organization to veil their business ventures in "religious purpose"

On the other hand, Rosales said it would be absurd to tax religious ceremonies on baptism, marriage, and death.

"How would you tax baptism, marriage, final rites," he asked. "Sure, it has to be taxed if (for) business ventures."

Why is it absurd? There is money changing hands ... there should be taxation on that revenue.

Rosales said the government could use the European model of taxing the Church, and in doing so tax the public for practicing a religion.

Under that system, the government would pay the salary and other needs of religious institutions from money collected from the faithful, he added.

What? The government paying the salaries of religious organizations?? How's that for an affront on the principle of separation?

No ... the Church should pay property and income/corporate taxes in the same manner as any other landowner/corporation (and they are a corporation, just as the snake oil vendors were big business. The Church is in the business of selling salvation and guilt).

Meanwhile, a lawmaker belonging to El Shaddai, a Catholic charismatic movement, branded yesterday as "unconstitutional" a plan to tax churches and religious organizations.

Buhay party-list Rep. Rene Velarde said if the plan pushes through, it would violate the principle of separation of Church and State as enshrined in the Constitution.

"(Under Article VI, Section 28), charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents... in all lands, buildings and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious... purposes shall be exempt from taxation," he said.

How could this possibly violate the principle of Church and State? The Church would be treated as any other business and the State would generate the tax revenue, just as it does with any other business. In reality, allowing the Church to remain untaxed (or undertaxed) is violating the principle.

However, Velarde, a son of El Shaddai spiritual leader Bro. Mike Velarde, said "members of the varied churches in the Philippines" must pay taxes — their obligations as citizens of the Philippines.

"The duty of tax paying as against tax evading should be dutifully performed by every citizen of our country in the same way as we expect our government to do its share in effective tax collection," he said.

This is like saying that apartment building owner need not pay tax because the residents in that building have paid their income tax. This notion is ridiculous! The Church is a business and land owner, just as the apartment building owner is. They should be subject to equal rules of taxation.

Padilla urged the Bureau of Internal Revenue and local governments to make an inventory of religious business ventures and collect the necessary taxes.

That's a good start. It will also give a picture of how much property is going untaxed and will hopefully lead to further legislative reforms.

He said the Constitution only exempts from taxation real properties and non-profit ventures being undertaken by religious groups and non-stock, non-profit organizations.

"What we need is a strong will from the national and local government to impose the law," he said.

The national and local governments should be taxing anything that is currently in their legal right.

Bottom line:
Churches are big business. They generate large amounts of revenue (under the disguise of charitable donations). This revenue should be taxed and used to the benefit of the nations that are allowing them to operate within their jurisdictions.

On another note; Churches receive civil benefits from those jurisdictions. My tax dollars go towards the fire and police protection of these organizations without the contributions of those same organizations. I'm not suggesting that our fire and police services not respond to incidences at churches (they should certainly be dispatched to ensure the surrounding buildings aren't affect ) However, if an organization receives any benefits from a jurisdiction, I feel they have an ethical obligation to pay their share into the system that provides them protection.