This is a matter of Taiwanese law, but common sense and general principles regarding freedom of religion and belief dictate that religious and spiritual philosophies should not be taxed.
Massimo Introvigne*
*Conclusion of the session “Religion in Taiwan after the 2024 Elections: Social and Tax Issues” at the European Academy of Religion 2024 Conference, Palermo, Italy, May 20, 2024.
The session heard opinions that the money that Taiji students give to their master in “red envelopes” is not a gift that comes from a misunderstanding of the master-disciple relationship and the way martial arts teachings are transmitted, but rather tuition fees for a (non-existent) preparatory school. This is another catastrophe and an example of the abuse of taxation that can lead to the decline of a once-thriving society, something that sages since Ibn Khaldun have warned about. And hopes were expressed that the new president who takes office today after the 2024 elections may finally resolve this case.
But of course there is one question that should be briefly discussed in the conclusion: tuition fees at a prep school are taxable, whereas gifts from a disciple to a master in a religious institution are not taxable. The question is, why?
The answer is very simple: under Taiwanese law and custom, gifts by students to their Qigong, martial arts, or training masters are not taxed, nor are many other similar organizations, and they should not be taxed in the Tai Chi School either.
When it comes to Taiwanese law, this is certainly true, say Taiwanese scholars.
But while this is true, the Taijimen incident remains unsolved — and there are many other unsolved cases around the world where taxes are used as a means to discriminate against religious and spiritual minorities — showing that persuading the courts is not enough: there is also the court of public opinion.
We are in Italy. From the 19th centuryNumber In the 21st century, one of the most common subjects of satirical cartoons, with precedents going back to the Middle Ages, is the fat Catholic priest who gets rich off donations from poor and naive parishioners and eats a lot. This remains a topic of anti-Catholic and anti-religion debate today, which is why Pope Francis often adopts a style of poverty in dress and behavior that some find unpalatable or even excessive. We regularly hear criticism and even lawsuits challenging the principle that religion should be tax-exempt, by people who argue that spiritual organizations are no better than many other tax-paying institutions and have in fact been plagued by multiple scandals.
This argument is not unique to Italy: it was the subject of one of the most famous US Supreme Court decisions, Waltz v. New York City Tax Commission, handed down in 1970. Frederick Waltz, who owned property in Staten Island, New York, argued that having to pay taxes on his property while religious organizations did not pay taxes violated the First Amendment, which protects church and state.
The “Waltz” decision was important because it did not stop at the obvious fact that the framers of the American Constitution were inspired by a “benevolent neutrality” towards religion that was distinct from French-style “secularism.” They overturned Waltz’s argument and stated that in fact exempting religion from taxation was necessary to protect the separation of church and state. The decision concluded that “the exemption for religious organizations only minimizes and distances the separation of church and state, a much lesser involvement than would result from taxation of churches…The exemption limited the separation of church and state and enhanced the desirable separation, and therefore minimizes and distances the separation of church and state more than taxation would.”
If states can tax religious or spiritual organizations, they have the power to control those organizations by regulating taxes. As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in 1819 in McCulloch v. Maryland, “the power to tax entails the power to destroy.” American legal scholar Ken Jacobsen has discussed the impact of this principle on the Taijimen incident. Thus, religious freedom requires that religions be exempt from taxes, and tax exemptions do not negate the principle of separation, but rather preserve it.
This is the main argument, but not the only argument, for exempting donations to religious and spiritual organizations and property purchased with donations from taxation. Economists who have studied religion and spirituality have concluded that they save governments significant amounts of money. Many governments have charitable organizations that provide services to the needy, including disaster relief, at their own expense or the expense of their parishioners. The state could (presumably) provide the same services, but at taxpayer money.
Economists claim that many religious and spiritual groups improve the mental and physical health of their followers, prevent alcoholism and drug addiction, and generally teach healthy lifestyles. If this is true, spiritually motivated groups could help governments save millions of dollars in health care costs. Some religious groups also organize cultural events and performances at their own expense or that of their followers, which enhance the prestige of their countries and governments at home and abroad.
This is definitely true of Tai Chi and Taiwan. Tai Chi students hear countless testimonials from Dizzy who claim to have gained crucial health benefits from practicing Qigong at the Academy. The Dizzys bring amazing cultural performances all over the world to ensure Taiwan’s international image is promoted. They are volunteers and travel all at their own expense.
Of course, there is a wealth of literature on this subject, and the debate can continue. I believe I have provided the first element of answering the question of why both religions and spiritual communities like Taiji Temple should be exempt from tax. This is a matter of Taiwanese law, but it is also a matter of freedom of religion or belief and common sense. We should not shy away from defending the right of religions and spiritual paths not to be taxed.
