I am no expert on this so I may have some of the arguments wrong; according to an article in the Harvard Political Review:
Mike Rinder lays out the case quite well here - he is an ex Scientologist of high stand and may have an axe to grind, but others lay out similar cases
the link to Rinder’s blog didnt work for some reason, try this:
Another point made is that the "fees’ charged for auditing, etc are not donations but indeed fees.
Yes, The IRS and the CoS did settle in a secret deal, where the CoS paid$12Mm to settle the issue- which wasnt all that much.
No one knows why the IRS settled. Tired of fighting? Worried they could lose a big court case? Blackmail type activities? 
I’d be willing to bet most people on the SDMB would be in favor of revoking tax exempt status for all religions.
I doubt that, my impression is that most folks here have no problem with religious organizations being tax exempt. As long as they are doing what is allowed for a tax exempt organization, why should we treat religions any different from other non-profits?
Here is an example of a thread with over three hundred posts, concerning a film the excoriates Gold Base and Scientology. It dropped out of sight about a year ago because there was just not much more to say on the topic.
Because they are not charities.
They may do charitable works. If so they can set up a 501(c)(3) like any other company that has a charitable arm. Separate the religion from the soup kitchen.
SFAIK, churches do have to organise themselves so as to bring themselves within the scope of s. 501(c)(3) in order to get the tax exemption. There is no separate section of the tax code exempting churches; there’s just s. 501(c)(3), which applies in uniform terms to religious and nonreligious non-profits alike.
Thank you for your time and effort to point out that out.
America values freedom, which people can’t enjoy in the absence of the rule of law. The way organizations like Scientology or FLDS thrive in the USA makes one wonder to what extent the freedom of the fox in the henhouse applies here as well.
While criticism of Christians is quite active on SDMB, I felt disappointed that the more serious cases of abuses within these (so-called) churches seemed to be ignored. I was wrong to think that, but the problem remains.
How is it that in a land that boasts its rule of law and people’s liberties, certain individuals can fall under the control of leaders that can be as arbitrary as India’s Sai Baba of Shirdi for instance?
There are plenty of interpretations of “charitable” that fully incorporate the concept of a fraternal neighborhood organization that offers a community a space to gather and share common ideals - the IRS shares that interpretation. As for your “any other company” comment, that’s simply not factual.
Yep, The IRS was willing to take on Al Capone but gave up in the face of scientologists. Think about that.
A lot of the fraternal and neighborhood organizations you are talking about are not 501(c)(3). Donations are not tax deductible in many cases.
Rumor has it that the scientologists harassed and threatened to harass IRS employees including the commissioner until they just threw in the towel. And yes there was some whiff of blackmail
I agree. This sounds like one of those off the cuff remarks that Trump gives all the time without any consideration to the political, practical, or constitutional implications of what he’s saying. Given that this idea didn’t even make it as far as Trump’s twitter feed, I bet he’s already forgotten about it.
Religion, the religious right and all forms of conservatism in general, have reached the end of their run. Trump was the inflection point. It’s only a question of time for how long it takes to flush this stupidity from out collective consciousness. It will be an ugly transition as long as there is money involved.
For Scientology, it was not so much the 501©(3) status they craved, they wanted to be designated by the IRS as a religion. Once they had that, they could wave their religion cert in front of the city in order to claim a property tax exemption. I believe most non-profits do not get that perk.
This is true. As an example, my kid is in a high school marching band. There is a 501(c)(3) set up to fund activities the kids participate in. Each kid is assessed dues to pay for his/her portion of the expenses. When I pay the expenses for my kid, that’s NOT a tax-deductible contribution. However, I or anyone else could contribute to the group’s general funds, to be used for ALL the kids, and that would be tax-deductible.
There were some people a couple of years ago who were working at concession stands at the large sports arenas, and the groups that ran the concession were themselves set up as non-profits. They would compensate the workers by sending money to the high school band club, and this money did not have IRS taxes taken out, but it was earmarked by the band club to take care of that person’s kid’s expenses. As you can guess, this is not accepted by the IRS, and being the wet blanket that I am, I put an end to the practice. It would have been fine for the concession job to contribute to the band club’s general funds with untaxed money, but the IRS comes down hard if you try to skirt tax laws by funding the expenses for your own kid.
So that’s the difference between strictly charitable organizations and fraternal or neighborhood groups that are tax-exempt. If the money is going to fund the group in general, you get to deduct it, but if it’s funding the group to support your family specifically, it’s not deductible.
Country clubs, for example, are not tax-deductible organizations. How is a church really different from a country club? That’s the problem that I have with churches’ tax-exempt status. The money contributed to a church mostly pays for your own use of their facilities. The amount that a church spends on charity is typically very small.
Scientology aside, it does seem odd to call my donations to the Quakers charitable, when they primarily cover operating expenses that benefit me.
That was *exactly *what I was thinking about.
Well, that depends on your definition of “charity”, obviously. At common law the “advancement of religion” is, and always has been, charitable.
The key difference between your country club and your church, though, is that your donation to the country club buys you access to the facilities and services of the country club, whereas your donation to the church funds facilities and services which are offered to all, whether or not they donate.