Makes sense to me, and should be done in the US as well. Providing a tax exemption is in a way the opposite of a separation of church and state. The state is giving them special treatment.
Do those people applauding this really want to applaud a policy that gives tax exemptions to specifically religious activities but denies them to activities that are less explicitly religious in character? It seems the opposite policy to what they actually want.
People doing charitable work probably shouldn't be paying taxes. People doing community work probably shouldn't be paying taxes. I'm even nervous about taxes on business since things like supermarkets are primarily involved with is getting food to people cheaply - discouraging that seems foolish. The basis of that taxation status shouldn't be linked to religious affiliation.
The main specific exemption I know of relates to fringe-benefits tax (FBT). Not all charities and non-profits get FBT exemptions or concessions, only some. Religious institutions fall into one of those categories that do get FBT relief, but so do other non-profits like hospitals, aged care facilities, health-related charities, charities targeting poverty/homelessness/etc. But a charity which promotes the advancement of arts and culture, for example, would not get any FBT relief, although it would be eligible for other tax exemptions due to charities and non-profits.
Also, there is at least one area in Australian tax law where religious groups are disadvantaged: deductible gift recipient (DGR) status. Donations to religious groups are not tax-deductible when used to fund their core religious functions, only when used to fund their programs to help the poor, etc. By contrast, there are various other categories of charities and non-profits for which all donations are deductible (e.g. Scouts; Girl Guides; public libraries, museums and art galleries; some environmental groups; etc).
While the treatment may still be preferential (it still has some unique tax exemptions), it at least sounds closer to fair. The specifics of the tax law of Montreal are probably unknown to most people here.
In the USA, tax deductions to churches is giving the same treatment as a charity.
Most jurisdictions which inherited English common law, have maintained the classification of "advancement of religion" as a charitable end. To give just one example, look at how the IRS defines "charity" in the US [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_trusts_in_English_l...
[2] https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-purpose...
For centuries, the King and Pope had intermittently fought over control of it (a situation not unique to England, but repeated across mediaeval Europe). Henry VIII did not see himself as carrying out a state takeover of the Church, but simply as settling that traditional conflict between Pope and King decisively in his own favour.
More importantly: these religious buildings still call the police when there is a break in and call the fire service when there is a fire. They expect all of the benefits from paying taxes without actually doing so.
The important distinction between non-profits and churches in the US is that churches do not have to demonstrate that they aren’t a just a profit generating company (see Scientology, many evangelical churches) - they don’t have to provide any documentation at all.
I’m fine with churches being untaxed non-profits, as long as they actually demonstrate that.
That isn't true. Non-profits are not taxed either.
No it's not. All non-profits are untaxed. If you are going to charge churches, then charge all non-profits.
Personally I think that's a bad policy.
https://www.thebalancesmb.com/are-there-advantages-to-being-...
"There are no direct legal benefits associated with being identified as an FBO."
I don't think religious institutions have to pay property taxes.
Ok, I looked it up: “states subsidize religions to the tune of about $26.2 billion per year by not requiring religious institutions to pay property taxes for property worth about $600 billion. This subsidy is of particular interest because property taxes pay for services such as firefighting and police, which religious institutions use the same as corporations and private citizens.”
No, non-profits do not have to pay property tax.
So by that measure states also subsidize non-profits. And your math does not take into account the amount of services religions provide residents.
If you went by the internet religions do nothing except take money, but if you visit the real world, religions are the backbone of social services in the US.
That really depends on the denomination.
Sure, there are pastors of evangelical megachurches flying around in private jets.
On the other hand, other religious groups often have quite poorly paid clergy. I remembering hearing about an Eastern Orthodox parish, where after paying for the building, utilities, etc, the parish didn't have any money left to pay the priest. So he is working a full-time secular job, his wife works part-time (as well as looking after the kids), and the priest does all his religious duties after work and on weekends. (The plan was to convert enough people to Eastern Orthodoxy that the parish could fund the priest's salary and he could quit his secular job; hasn't happened yet, who knows if it ever will.)
One of my former work colleagues was a Protestant minister. His church was too poor to pay him anything. He worked for Oracle during the week, and ran church services for free on the weekend.
A lot of religious denominations are struggling with ageing congregations and declining membership. Even if there is sometimes still a lot of money at headquarters, when you get to the periphery of shrinking local congregations things are often very frugal.