Published by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. FFRF.org

Court panel rules against FFRF over housing allowance

Vol. 36 No. 03 April 2019
Don Addis cartoon                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

A three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago on March 15 ruled against the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s historic challenge of a housing allowance in the tax code that uniquely privileges clergy.

FFRF had won a favorable ruling by a federal judge in 2017, who found unconstitutional the provision in the tax code that allows “ministers of the gospel” to exclude from gross income any “housing allowance” paid by their church.

The 7th Circuit panel, in a decision written by Judge Michael B. Brennan, found that the plaintiffs and FFRF had proved their standing, and have properly alleged a “concrete, dollars-and-cents injury.” Nevertheless, it ruled 3-0 against FFRF on the merits. The other judges are William Bauer and Daniel Manion.

A billion-dollar tax benefit to “ministers of the gospel,” in the minds of these three judges, “has a secular legislative purpose, its principal effect is neither to endorse nor to inhibit religion, and it does not cause excessive government entanglement.”

FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor, one of the plaintiffs, responded: “The housing allowance is so clearly a handout to churches and clergy, and it so clearly shows preferential treatment and discrimination in favor of ministers.”

The provision also clearly discriminates against nontheistic leaders who are similarly situated to clergy, Gaylor added, especially since the sponsor of the 1954 law challenged by FFRF, Rep. Peter Mack, argued that ministers should be rewarded with a clergy allowance for “carrying on such a courageous fight against this [a godless and anti-religious world movement].”

The clergy allowance is not a tax deduction, but an exemption — allowing housing allowances paid as part of clergy salary to be subtracted from taxable income. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation has reported that the exemption amounts to $700 million a year in lost revenue.

The co-plaintiffs with Gaylor were FFRF Co-President Dan Barker and Ian Gaylor, representing the estate of President Emerita Anne Nicol Gaylor. FFRF had designated a housing allowance for the trio, and on that basis they sued the IRS. FFRF’s complaint alleged that the allowance “directly benefits ministers and churches, most significantly by lowering a minister’s tax burden, while discriminating against the individual plaintiffs, who as the leaders of a nonreligious organization opposed to governmental endorsements of religion are denied the same benefit.”

This is the second time FFRF had come before the 7th Circuit asking it to find the tax code provision unconstitutional. In 2013, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled in FFRF’s favor. Crabb’s finding sent “shockwaves through the religious community,” according to the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, which bitterly fought the ruling.

In November 2014, the 7th Circuit threw out FFRF’s first victory, saying the trio would need to prove their standing to sue by seeking and being denied a refund of their housing allowance. Accordingly, they sought the refunds and when denied, went back to court.

While Crabb ruled that “the plain language of the statute, its legislative history and its operation in practice all demonstrate a preference for ministers over secular employees,” the appeals court panel disagreed, applying what they called “the historic significance test.”

Wrote Brennan: “FFRF claims [this provision] renders unto God that which is Caesar’s. But this tax provision falls into the play between the joints of the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause: neither commanded by the former, nor proscribed by latter. We conclude [it] is constitutional. The judgment of the district court is reversed.”

The defendants were Steve Mnuchin, U.S. secretary of the treasury, and Charles Rettig, current IRS commissioner. The case also had religious intervenors as defendants. The case was filed on behalf of FFRF by litigator Richard L. Bolton. Tax law professor Adam Chodorow, who was counsel of record in a friend of the court brief on behalf of FFRF, joined Bolton in the oral arguments.