Breaking: Federal District Court Declares A Religious Income Tax Exemption Unconstitutional

[StarrGazerr]

19. Correct

You're right. I was thinking in terms of the property taxes on the property, which are always the responsibility of whoever is the owner of the property. In this case they're talking about a different tax. The specific statute that was involved in this case says:

26 USC § 107 - Rental value of parsonages
In the case of a minister of the gospel, gross income does not include—
(1) the rental value of a home furnished to him as part of his compensation; or
(2) the rental allowance paid to him as part of his compensation, to the extent used by him to rent or provide a home and to the extent such allowance does not exceed the fair rental value of the home, including furnishings and appurtenances such as a garage, plus the cost of utilities.

In most cases not involving religious figures, if your boss provides you with "free" housing, you're supposed to include the reasonable value of the rent you're not paying in your gross income. Under this statute that general rule doesn't apply to ministers. While I agree that could place a financial burden on the minister, it nonetheless seems (to me at least) that if you're a minister and get rent free housing and I'm an advertising executive and get rent free housing, the tax implications for each of us ought to be the same. The fact that you get a financial advantage because of your affiliation with a church still seems, to me, to be a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

It's unfortunate if this places a financial burden on ministers, but that's how I read the Constitution as requiring. Maybe churches should simply pay their ministers a higher wage to compensate for the tax burden?