The U.S. Supreme Court has heard three controversial cases. The first concerns the Constitution’s prohibition against using public funds to establish religious schools. Despite this, the Catholic school “Ezido” was opened with public funding. The state Supreme Court had previously ruled against the school due to its public financing, but the school appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The second case - Mahmoud vs. Taylor - was filed by a group of parents from diverse religious backgrounds against the local school board. They sought to prevent their children from being exposed to LGBTQ+ topics without prior notice or an opt-out option, arguing that this violated their constitutional right to oversee their children’s religious education.
The court ruled against the parents, finding they had not sufficiently demonstrated that the policy burdened their religious freedom. The case has now been referred to the U.S. Supreme Court for a final ruling. The third case was concerning the tax exemption status of donations made to churches and other religious organizations under a dual-benefit system, which benefits both the recipient organization and the donor. Under this system, when an individual or company donates to an approved religious organization, the donor is allowed to deduct the value of the donation from their taxable income. For instance, if someone earns $100,000 and donates $20,000 to a church, they are only taxed on the remaining $80,000. This arrangement is rooted in long-established U.S. tax law, which exempts churches and religious organizations from income tax.
This section of the U.S. tax code also extends tax-exempt status to organizations that are established and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) prohibits churches from providing private benefits to those who run them, such as pastors or their family members. Employee salaries must also be reasonable and not excessive.
Also, U.S. law forbids churches from engaging in political campaigning or participating in elections. Despite these regulations, corruption among some church and charitable organization leaders in the U.S. is a known issue, with certain individuals living lavishly, more like royalty than servants of a cause. Recently, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that a charitable organization serving the poor and individuals with special needs, regardless of their religious affiliation, was primarily engaged in “secular charitable activity,” rather than religious work. As a result, it was deemed ineligible for tax-exempt status. This ruling has sparked significant controversy and remains unsettled at the national level.
In Kuwait, the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior has suspended all activities of charitable associations and foundations, especially those operating abroad, and prohibited them from receiving or disbursing any funds. This decision will remain in effect until a neutral committee, formed to review their status, completes its work and drafts a law to regulate their operations. The move comes in response to a rising number of reported abuses, the extent and severity of which have become a growing public concern.
It may be worth considering the imposition of a one-percent tax on the funds received by these associations, with the proceeds transferred to the Zakat House, provided that its management is kept free from the influence of any religious political parties. Notably, the Zakat House implements overseas projects, yet little is publicly known about the true nature or impact of these initiatives outside the Zakat House itself
By Ahmad alsarraf
email: [email protected]
