Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act

Last updated

The Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act is legislation proposed in the United States Congress that would legalize a form of conscientious objection to military taxation.

Contents

Description

This act would establish a "peace tax fund" that parallels the general fund which the government draws upon to pay its expenses. But the peace tax fund, unlike the general fund, could only be used for non-military spending:

the term "military purpose" means any activity or program which any agency of the Government conducts, administers, or sponsors and which effects an augmentation of military forces or of defensive and offensive intelligence activities, or enhances the capability of any person or nation to wage war, including the appropriation of funds by the United States for 1) the Department of Defense; 2) the Central Intelligence Agency; 3) the National Security Council; 4) the Selective Service System; 5) activities of the Department of Energy that have a military purpose; 6) activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that have a military purpose; 7) foreign military aid; and 8) the training, supplying, or maintaining of military personnel, or the manufacture, construction, maintenance, or development of military weapons, installations, or strategies. [1]

The peace tax fund would be funded by the "income, gift, and estate taxes paid by or on behalf" of designated conscientious objectors:

the term "designated conscientious objector" means a taxpayer who is opposed to participation in war in any form based upon the taxpayer's deeply held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs or training (within the meaning of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 450 et seq.)), and who has certified these beliefs in writing to the Secretary of the Treasury in such form and manner as the Secretary provides. [1]

The relevant section of "50 U.S.C. App. 450 et seq." defined a designated conscientious objector as one:

...who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form. As used in this subsection, the term "religious training and belief" does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views, or a merely personal moral code [2]

However, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Seeger v. U.S. (1965) and Welsh v. U.S. (1970), ruled that sincere and deep objections to war did not have to come from formal religious training or even from a belief that the conscientious objector himself considers to be "religious" in order to meet this test. Seeger, for instance, said that he had a "belief in and devotion to goodness and virtue for their own sakes, and a religious faith in a purely ethical creed," and the Supreme Court said that this was sufficient. A non-religious conscientious objector can qualify, despite what the law says, as long as his

opposition to war stem[s] from the registrant's moral, ethical, or religious beliefs about what is right and wrong and that these beliefs [are] held with the strength of traditional religious convictions. [3]

Effect on government revenue and spending

The legislation itself notes that "The Joint Committee on Taxation has certified that a tax trust fund, providing for conscientious objector taxpayers to pay their full taxes for non-military purposes, would increase Federal revenues." [1] This presumably because some war tax resisters would return to paying taxes.

There would be some additional cost in implementing and accounting for such a distinct fund and in providing mechanisms for taxpayers to use it.

The act would not directly reduce either the amount of money the federal government spends on the military nor the percentage of the federal budget that goes to military spending. The National Priorities Project, using a similar definition of "military purpose" as is in this bill, estimates that "[m]ilitary spending consumes 26 cents out of every individual income tax dollar. It makes up about 20% of total federal spending and over half of the discretionary budget."[ citation needed ]

The bill would only directly affect the amount of military spending if the general fund were to become smaller than the amount to be spent on the military. If that were to happen, the government would either have to borrow money to make up the difference, illegally dip into the Peace Tax Fund, or reduce military spending.

How many people would have to become conscientious objectors to military taxation for this to happen? If, for simplicity's sake, we assume that likely conscientious objectors to military taxation currently pay on average about the same amount of taxes as everyone else, in order to make any reduction to the 26% of every tax dollar that is spent for military purposes, more than 74% of taxpayers would have to declare themselves conscientious objectors. If we factor in deficit spending and taxes that are not covered by the Act (such as the corporate income tax and excise taxes), that percentage rises to over 90%.

History

In the United States, legislation that would establish a "Peace Tax Fund" has been proposed in Congress since 1972. The United States House of Representatives held hearings on the proposal in 1992 and 1995. In the 117th Congress, the bill, H.R. 4529, was sponsored by Representative James P. McGovern and as of May 2023 had no cosponsors. [4]

Some taxpayers asserted that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which became law in 1993, should necessitate legalizing conscientious objection to military taxation. The Second Circuit Court and Third Circuit Court are the highest courts to hear this argument, and they disagreed. [5] The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear such a case in 2000.

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 "H.R. 2631 'Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act' (Introduced in House, 25 May 2005) 109th Congress, 1st Session". Archived from the original on 2016-07-03.
  2. ↑ "U.S. Code Title 50, Appendix Military Act, § 456. Deferments and exemptions from training and service". LII / Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on 2015-06-11.
  3. ↑ Welsh v. United States, 398U.S.333 (U.S. Supreme Court15 June 1970).
  4. ↑ "H.R.4529 - 117th Congress (2020-2021): Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act". 19 July 2021.
  5. ↑ Adams v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,170F.3d173(3rd Circuit1999)—cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1117 (2000)
    • Browne v. United States,176F.3d25(2nd Circuit1999)—cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1116 (2000)
    • see also Jenkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Docket No. 05-4756-ag (2007).

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conscientious objector</span> Person refusing military service on moral grounds

A conscientious objector is an "individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service" on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, or religion. The term has also been extended to objecting to working for the military–industrial complex due to a crisis of conscience. In some countries, conscientious objectors are assigned to an alternative civilian service as a substitute for conscription or military service.

Tax noncompliance is a range of activities that are unfavorable to a government's tax system. This may include tax avoidance, which is tax reduction by legal means, and tax evasion which is the criminal non-payment of tax liabilities. The use of the term "noncompliance" is used differently by different authors. Its most general use describes non-compliant behaviors with respect to different institutional rules resulting in what Edgar L. Feige calls unobserved economies. Non-compliance with fiscal rules of taxation gives rise to unreported income and a tax gap that Feige estimates to be in the neighborhood of $500 billion annually for the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jeremy Hinzman</span>

Jeremy Dean Hinzman is an Iraq War resister who was the first American deserter to seek refugee status in Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oath of Allegiance (United States)</span> Official oath of allegiance in the U.S

The Oath of Allegiance of the United States is the official oath of allegiance that must be taken and subscribed by every immigrant who wishes to become a United States citizen.

Katsuki James Otsuka was a Nisei Japanese American Quaker who was jailed as a conscientious objector during World War II, and later became a war tax resister.

The National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund (NCPTF) is a non-profit organization located in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1971 to address conscientious objection to military taxation.

Conscientious objection to military taxation (COMT) is a legal theory that attempts to extend into the realm of taxation the concessions to conscientious objectors that many governments allow in the case of conscription, thereby allowing conscientious objectors to insist that their tax payments not be spent for military purposes.

Dale Edwin Noyd was a decorated captain and fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force who gained worldwide attention when he became a conscientious objector to protest the Vietnam War.

Clay v. United States, 403 U.S. 698 (1971), was Muhammad Ali's appeal of his conviction in 1967 for refusing to report for induction into the United States military forces during the Vietnam War. His local draft board had rejected his application for conscientious objector classification. In a unanimous 8–0 ruling, the United States Supreme Court reversed the conviction that had been upheld by the Fifth Circuit.

Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 551 U.S. 587 (2007), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which ruled that taxpayers do not have the right to challenge the constitutionality of expenditures by the executive branch of the government. The issue was whether taxpayers have the right to challenge the existence of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The case centered on three Supreme Court precedents: Flast v. Cohen, Bowen v. Kendrick, and Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State.

Simmons v. United States, 348 U.S. 397 (1955), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Jehovah's Witness was denied fair hearing because of failure to supply him with materials in his record.

Tax protesters in the United States advance a number of constitutional arguments asserting that the imposition, assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates the United States Constitution. These kinds of arguments, though related to, are distinguished from statutory and administrative arguments, which presuppose the constitutionality of the income tax, as well as from general conspiracy arguments, which are based upon the proposition that the three branches of the federal government are involved together in a deliberate, on-going campaign of deception for the purpose of defrauding individuals or entities of their wealth or profits. Although constitutional challenges to U.S. tax laws are frequently directed towards the validity and effect of the Sixteenth Amendment, assertions that the income tax violates various other provisions of the Constitution have been made as well.

Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540 (1983), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld lobbying restrictions imposed on tax-exempt non-profit corporations.

In re Summers, 325 U.S. 561 (1945), is a 5-to-4 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the First and Fourteenth amendment freedoms of a conscientious objector were not infringed when a state bar association declined to admit him to the practice of law. The Illinois Constitution required citizens to serve in the state militia in time of war, and all lawyers admitted to the bar were required to uphold the state constitution. Petitioner Clyde Summers could not uphold that constitutional requirement due to his religious beliefs, and the Supreme Court upheld the denial of his license of practice.

Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971), is a decision from the Supreme Court of the United States, adding constraints on the terms of conscientious objection resulting from draftees in the Selective Service.

Conscience: Taxes for Peace Not War is an advocacy group based in the United Kingdom. Conscience's primary aim is to change British tax law to allow conscientious objectors to military taxation to redirect the military portion of their taxes to a fund designed for international peacebuilding, conflict management, conflict prevention and other non-violent interventions. Quakers, Mennonites, Baháʼís, Buddhists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and Haredim Jews all practice conscientious objection for reasons of faith. Many other individuals do so for reasons of conscience, some believing there is little moral difference between actually firing lethal weapons and paying someone else to do so. Conscience believes that to deny these individuals the right to redirect the military portion of their taxes is to deny them freedom of thought, conscience, and religion as enshrined in various national and international human rights laws.

Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires non-church employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Churches are already exempt under those regulations. On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals ruling in Zubik v. Burwell and the six cases it had consolidated under that title and returned them to their respective courts of appeals for reconsideration.

Conscientious objection in the United States is based on the Military Selective Service Act, which delegates its implementation to the Selective Service System. Conscientious objection is also recognized by the Department of Defense.

Tax resistance in the United States has been practiced at least since colonial times, and has played important parts in American history.

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving ongoing conflicts between the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) over the ACA's contraceptive mandate. The ACA exempts nonprofit religious organizations from complying with the mandate, to which for-profit religious organizations objected.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.