Josephus, I personally don't have an issue with probate, as long as it is reasonable, as I think taxes should be many but at a lower rate, rather than a few high ones.

That said, I think that everyone except a spouse should pay probate and that includes legacies left to the churches, which are now free of probate.

Yabby,
The legacy left to a Church is to a Charity and not to the administration of member. The charity is run by a Board of directors; responsible to the Government. The Charity comes under laws governing Charities, and Churches are not exclusive in running Charities.

Your pursuant of getting tax from Church Charities will affect all Charities not just Church run. The attitude reeks more of antagonism to Churches rather than to honest gaining taxes from Charities. Some Charities have highly qualified staff who receive taxable payment for services others run on volunteers. You would not be happy for Charities run by volunteers, because no one pays tax. You see its not about getting tax from registered Charities; it is antagonism toward Churches.

Josephus, I have always maintained that running a church is an extremely good business. I can sell people their tickets to heaven and never have to actually deliver. Any other business doing the same, would be nailed by the ACCC.

How much of the money donated to churches is actually used for charity work and how much is siphoned off, for the benefit of church leaders and is salted away in the Vatican Bank and other banks, sadly we will never know. IMHO those figures should all be published and churches made publicly accountable.

Josephus, would you agree that money raised in a church, which is then used to purchase real estate, that is then used to generate income, is in fact a business, and should be taxed like any other business.

Now if you don't agree, then what is your justification for churches to increase their wealth and real estate holdings under a tax free environment.

As I have said many times, what happens in the church should stay in the church. And expansion of the church and improvements on the church grounds to me is fine, but the purchase of additional land/buildings is stepping outside of their tax free umbrella in my view, especially when that asset, be it a hall, school of holiday camp, all of which charge a commercial fee, is a business, not a charity.

I say this because one, they are competing for that asset on the open market, with tax free dollars, and two, they are generating a tax free income from that asset, meaning for evey $100,000 in profits generated, they have an additional $30,000 that a normal tax paying entity would have. Furthermore, as many of their staff are actually volunteers, they gain an additional advantage because a commercial business is not allowed to engage the services of a volunteer on a regular basis.

For all accounts they are a business in my view and their incomes and tax liabilities should be treated as such.

rehctub,
What are you talking about no Church charges fees or provides an invoice to its members. What business are Church Members conducting in Their services? Give examples! Money given in offerings rarely meet the expenses of running the Church; average offerings is about $5 per head. From that all house expenses are paid and the minister receives his stipend. Sometimes fees are charged for parties, weddings, and funerals to persons using the building facilities to cover running cost and insurance.

Give examples of all this business money being exchanged among members that could be taxable.

Josephus, you are now trying to divert the thread, so answer the question if you would please.

As for your comment on a church barely meeting costs, where then does the money come from to secure real estate holdings?

Requirement one is security. Requirement two is the ability to service the debt.

Now if the assets are purchased 'debt free' then they must be done so with donations, and donations, especially larger ones, are tax deductible are they not.