register |  login
› LONGMONT
Loading Ad
Visit Other Hubs:
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Tower
RECENT STORIES

The Truths About Religious Use Tax Exemption
Contributed by: Stephanie Baum on 4/6/2008

I'm tired of hearing the Anti-LifeBridge folk spew half-truths and outright lies about tax exemption of religious use property. It seems as if the number one battle cry of those folks is "there is a very good chance that no property taxes would ever be paid" by LifeBridge/4C if (when) they develop their property. In fact, that quote was taken directly from the "What's In it for Longmont" website. And it's an outright lie. They also like to cry that "LifeBridge has not agreed to any assurances about their tax status" the problem is, it's not UP to LifeBridge to DETERMINE the tax-exempt status! How can they make assurances for something they have no control over? The Anti-Union group would like everyone to think that 4C gets to declare "all of these buildings will be tax-exempt" and that the state will just say, "OK, done deal. Have a nice day" - WRONG. There is a process for determining a property's exemption eligibility, and that eligibility is reviewed YEARLY - so if a particular property is used for something other than it's stated religious purpose for more than 208 hours in a single year, it will LOSE that tax-exempt status.

The Anti-LifeBridge Crusaders have repeatedly pointed to Title 39, Section 3 of the (Colorado) Division of Property Taxation Exemption Statutes that notes the judiciary makes the final decision as to whether a certain usage meets the Colorado constitution's definition of religious use, and more importantly they use 39-3-101 to drive things home - because it says, " Therefore, property used for such purposes shall be presumed to be owned and used solely and exclusively for strictly charitable purposes and not for private gain or corporate profit, and, consequently, property used for such purposes is entitled to be exempt from the levy and collection of property tax pursuant to the provisions of this part 1 and the Colorado constitution. This legislative finding, declaration, determination, and presumption shall not be questioned by the administrator and shall be entitled to great weight in any and every court."

Well, that right there says that anything that claims to be exempt won't be questioned, right? WRONG - this is merely saying that properties which are "owned and used solely and exclusively for religious purpose and not for private gain or corporate profit," whichare used for charitable purposes,are a benefit to the people of Colorado and lessons the burdens of government by providing services the government would otherwise have to provide, and THAT is what is not to be questioned - that charitable use of a property lessons the burden of government and therefore should be exempt from taxation.

The Anti-Unionites keep shouting about the tax exempt status of the "Sports Complex" and ask what portion of the facility will be taxable. Well, if it's used solely for faith-based sports leagues and as an opportunity for fellowship, then maybe none of it. Is that so wrong? The Longmont YMCA is almost 43,000 sqft and is valued well over $2.5 million. Yet, my guess is that they are totally tax exempt. Why? Because they are a faith-based facility that offers Christian fellowship through it's sports leagues, workout facilities and childcare. Why is it that the Union Sports Complex is being questioned about it's use ("will they hold church services on the basketball floor just so they can say it's being used for religious purposes?") but the YMCA is not? They are exactly the same thing, but one is owned by the YMCA and one would be owned by LifeBridge Chuch. Thereis no doubt that there ISvalue in offering faith-based sports facilities and when people use those facilities it takes AWAY the burden of providing those facilities from the government (ie, if Union builds it and it's used by Union members and/or members of the general population, then the need for recreational facilities in the city islessoned and the city doesn't need to spend tax revenue to build another rec center when the one we have reaches capacity). The YMCA is rightly a tax-exempt facility and so too should the Union Sports Complex.

Sadly, the Anti-Union faction has shouted the loudest and people have believed what they are preaching, which is far from the truth. It's time that our community gets the FACTS, not just what one side wants everyone to hear.

NOTE: I am not a LifeBridge Member, I have no stake in 4C or anything or anyone associated with 4C or LifeBridge Church. I'm just a taxpayer living in the City of Longmont.


SUBMIT COMMENT

Rate the above story



Current Rating
Based on 12 user ratings.

Talk Back : submit comments to the story

*Note: you need to log-in to add a comment or rating.

< BACK | NEXT >
Showing 1-10 of 16 comments
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 4/20/2008 @ 10:29:59 PM
Rated Story
It wasn't lost on me, no. I'm not against local governments giving tax breaks for this kind of thing. I just don't like the automatic status we grant churches.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Stephanie Baum
posted on 4/19/2008 @ 12:47:31 PM
Rated Story
Bing, did you COMPLETELY miss the entire reference as to WHY churches are tax-exempt? Because of offering services so government doesn't have to? Without the YMCA, the City would have had to built a rec center LONG before they did (and only had to several years ago because or city had grown enough to creaye demand beyond what the Memorial Building and YMCA could handle) - think of all the tax revenue the city has saved because of the Y providing the services it does, often for reduced or no fee to the citizens in our community who need help (and I'm talking childcare, Early Education, etc). If the Y didn't do it, the city would have to and THAT is why they are tax exempt.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 4/18/2008 @ 9:52:24 AM
Rated Story
And Richard, everything I read from you that regards any church seems to come to the conclusion that every community in the land must bend over backwards to give any church anything it wants, lands, exemptions from taxes and fees, or it's infringing on religious liberty. When churches spend more time making a profit than charitable acts they should lose all tax exempt status.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 4/18/2008 @ 9:41:10 AM
Rated Story
All of this tax emept confusion is indicative of what is wrong with tying a church to a corporation. The people of Longmont were right to stand up and say no to big business hiding under the guise of religious liberty. Churches should not be in business, should not be part corporation and frankly shouldn't even be tax exempt/ You want to call me anti-religious fine. But I do not want a hybrid of god and corporate entity building a compund where they may or may not honor others religious liberty while our tax dollars pay for their water, their fire, their emergency services. Stephanie asks if the sport based venue is tax exempt is that so wrong? YES! It's wrong, why do we offer churches tax exempt status? A deal brokered by LBJ to get churches out of politics, not as some consitutional guarantee. If churches want to act like businesses then they should have to be the same taxes we all do.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Richard Yale
posted on 4/11/2008 @ 9:56:50 AM
Rated Story
Mr. Wray prior to MONROE v. PAPE 365 U.S. 167 the statutory words "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory" contained in 42 U.S.C. 1983 did not include acts of local officials who could show no authority under state law, custom, or usage to do what he or she did or who even violated the state constitution and laws. Most civil liabilities that stemmed from the abuse of power or authority by civil local officials and police were considered outside the color of state law. This sense of disrespect for property owner’s rights and the sense of entitlement they cannot be sued under Section 1983, if what they do to prohibit property use arises of a "misuse of power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the Boulder Commissioners are clothed with the authority of state law" was rebuffed by Judge & the law. Dispute of the Church’s claim of discrimination is a necessary element to schedule the issue for trial.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Doug Wray
posted on 4/10/2008 @ 11:33:07 PM
(Not Rated)
http://tinyurl.com/43yfnz
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Richard Yale
posted on 4/10/2008 @ 3:10:15 PM
Rated Story
You miss the whole point; the judge dismissed against Boulder County's injunction to stop the Church lawsuit agains the County for discrimination! The case is going to trial and if BC loses it will be big time damaes agains the tax payers!
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Ralph Dosser
posted on 4/9/2008 @ 9:48:08 AM
Rated Story
"Judge Blackburn concluded Tuesday that the case presented too many factual disputes to be dismissed at this stage and scheduled it for trial in November." This is far from a victory for the church, but the bigger point is that it has no bearing whatsoever on the C4 Corporation's Union development.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Richard Yale
posted on 4/9/2008 @ 1:21:11 AM
Rated Story
This posting from New York times explains the loss of Liberty suit RMCC filed against Boulder County. http://denver.yourhub.com/Longmont/Stories/Community/Community-happenings/Story~403786.aspx The matters like who makes the final decision on tax exemption for example are subordinate to loss of liberty. In RMCC the court found a significiant number of disputes merited trial.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Richard Yale
posted on 4/9/2008 @ 12:07:44 AM
Rated Story
Mr. Dosser, the operative principle is below the surface like pealing an onion which is the legal training to know what to look for in the various laws that are applicable. None of these issues are totally black and white which is why when people grab one element, tax in this case, and hang on till they are carried out on their shield they miss the hidden points of law that turn a case for a judge. With the judge it is never emotional or moral, it’s the law. The governing law is all party are equal under the law and the government sits in the position of the judge (they are supposed too anyway) not on the side of one party against the other which is where this situation found itself. If the system does not deal fairly with the property owner in this the nexus is denial of equal treatment in land use or zoning process as I pointed out. Notice I didn’t include the school issue because like the tax those were not the issues that turn denial of equal protection decisions.
[Report as objectionable]
Showing 1-10 of 16 comments
< BACK | NEXT >
CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION

Stephanie Baum

Longmont , CO

Stephanie Baum has posted 15 stories and 83 comments since joining on 1/9/2008. Stephanie Baum 's average story rating is 2.45.
SAVE AND SHARE THIS STORY
STORY RSS FEEDS
WANT TO WRITE FOR YOURHUB.COM?
Want to see the stories you write and the photos you shoot featured in the YourHub.com Thursday print section available all over the Front Range and with home subscriptions of the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post? All you have to do is register, then post a story or column, start a blog or tell everyone what events are happening in town. We will print the best stories, columns, event listings, photos and blog entries in our print sections.

ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

Loading Ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

This YourHub.com community is produced by The Denver Newspaper Agency
Web Development and Channel Analytics provided by Indigio

terms of use //  privacy policy
the staff //  advertise //  help & faq
buy photos