The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. U.S. Const. amend. I. Exemptions may be altered or repealed except those exempting real or personal property used exclusively for religious, educational or charitable purposes as defined by law and owned by any corporation or association organized exclusively for one or more of such purposes and not operating for profit. N.Y. Const. art. XVI. § I. In 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
…show more content…
Congress may at its discretion wholly exempt certain classes of property from taxation, or may tax them at a lower rate than other property. Walz v. Tax Com. of New York, 397 US 664 (1970). The Establishment Clause does not always bar a state from regulating conduct simply because it harmonizes with religious canons. Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). Government may not demonstrate a preference for one particular sect or creed. Allegheny Cnty. v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989). A court’s finding of improper purpose behind a statute is appropriately determined by the statute on its face, its legislative history, or interpretation by a responsible administrative agency. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987). Entanglement must be excessive before it runs afoul of the Establishment Clause. Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997). States and Federal government are prohibited from imposing a special occupation tax exclusively on those who devote their days to spreading religious messages. Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989). The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundermental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577
Congress may at its discretion wholly exempt certain classes of property from taxation, or may tax them at a lower rate than other property. Walz v. Tax Com. of New York, 397 US 664 (1970). The Establishment Clause does not always bar a state from regulating conduct simply because it harmonizes with religious canons. Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). Government may not demonstrate a preference for one particular sect or creed. Allegheny Cnty. v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989). A court’s finding of improper purpose behind a statute is appropriately determined by the statute on its face, its legislative history, or interpretation by a responsible administrative agency. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987). Entanglement must be excessive before it runs afoul of the Establishment Clause. Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997). States and Federal government are prohibited from imposing a special occupation tax exclusively on those who devote their days to spreading religious messages. Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989). The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundermental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577