Terminating pastors’ tax breaks
Most church-goers are likely unaware of the special provisions the Internal Revenue Service has for taxing earnings of clergy. Some are beginning to argue that it’s an antiquated statute passed when clergy made very little money. However, in many American churches being a pastor can be quite lucrative and it’s aided by very generous tax provisions.
Under current statutes, clergy can opt out of dumping money into the social security system. Good call! However, clergy can also apply their mortgage payment against their income. Here’s how the housing provision works according to the IRS:
A minister who is furnished a parsonage may exclude from income the fair rental value of the parsonage, including utilities. However, the amount excluded cannot be more than the reasonable pay for the minister’s services.
A minister who receives a housing allowance may exclude the allowance from gross income to the extent it is used to pay expenses in providing a home. Generally, those expenses include rent, mortgage interest, utilities, repairs, and other expenses directly relating to providing a home.
The minister’s employing organization must officially designate the allowance as a housing allowance before paying it to the minister.
The fair rental value of a parsonage or the housing allowance is excludable from income only for income tax purposes.
Let’s say I’m clergy in a local church (those poor people), and I’m paid $120,000 annual salary, with a housing allowance for my $200,000 home . Under the current system, the church gives me a “housing allowance” in the amount of my mortgage payment of $1,617 per month, embedded in my salary, so that my taxable income goes from $120,000 per year to $100,596.
Additionally, because the church is giving me a ”housing allowance” any expenses associated with maintenance of the home I may itemize and deduct. New windows, deduction. New kitchen, deduction. New furnace, deduction. Building an additional room, deduction. New lawnmower, deduction. Toilet paper, deduction. Dishwasher detergent, deduction. New plasma screen television, deduction? Again, reducing taxable income even more.
While most pastors make fairly modest incomes, others garner salaries ranging from $100,000 to $250,000 per year. I understand that our convoluted tax system is arbitrary, but is there a point at which a pastor decides to opt out of a system designed to aid lower income pastors?
I am by no means implying that it’s wrong (sinful) for the higher salaried pastors to participate in the system. But should there be a federal salary cap so that lower income pastors would be the primary beneficiaries of the provision as designed?
I actually don’t care how much a church pays a pastor. Most are underpaid anyway. However, the question is should high salaried pastors opt out of the system? Of course, I realize how silly opting out would be given the fact that there is no financial incentive to do so and there is nothing morally wrong with using a system designed for low income clergy.
Last fall Christianity Today conducted research about pastor salaries and discovered the following:
Presbyterian senior pastors earned the most in our survey-their average salary plus housing/parsonage was $78,000, while Baptist senior pastors earned next to last–$67,000. But virtually the opposite was true for youth pastors. Baptist youth pastors earned near the top–$44,000 in salary plus housing, while Presbyterian youth pastors earned near the bottom–$36,000. Why?
The answer comes from two factors: church income and denominational values.
Our research consistently shows that the biggest single factor in determining any pastor’s pay is the church’s income. And among churches with senior pastors, Presbyterian churches have the highest-reported church income, so some of that gets passed along to their senior pastors.
Given the growing strategy to undermine faith-based institutions through the tax code, perhaps this may be one area where the Church may continue to wean herself off of federal preferred treatment and the strings that come attached.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top22 Comments to “Terminating pastors’ tax breaks”
Anthony, your thoughts here are interesting, but I think your article leaves out two important details. First, you mention the pastor’s ability to opt-out of social security. I think a pastor may only do this if he has a religious conviction that prohibits him from receiving governmental help like SSI. Frankly, some pastors aren’t very honest when they opt-out – they suddenly find within themselves a deep conviction they never had before. Secondly, since you used real figures and examples, it’s probably worth noting that the housing deduction only applies to income taxes, not the 15.3% for SSI and Medicare. I believe pastors pay the 15.3% on all of their income, housing expenses included.
Report comment to moderator
Yep, pastors are considered self-employed by the IRS, which is far more nonsense than some of the loopholes posted above. TJ isn’t asking for a raise this year, but he’s asking for help in paying his SS taxes (which represent more than 75% of the taxes he pays).
We live in a manse, and I’m never sure the tax guy gets that part right…
Opting out is designed for folks like the Amish, and it means giving up SSI, benefits to the spouse, etc. Our denomination recommends against it. They also cut off health insurance at retirement, expecting Medicare to cover it
Report comment to moderator
Bradley,
It’s wrong for the government to tax the minister on his wages at all. We donate after-tax money to the church for a not-for-profit purpose; charity, education, and worship.
“Let’s say I’m clergy in a local church (those poor people)”
Many ministers aren’t paid well enough for all the work they do.
Regarding the Federal “Income” tax and wages, why shouldn’t individuals be able to exclude all their expenses from their wages? Corporations do. In order for me to maintain a productive life style, I need to eat. Why shouldn’t I be able to reduce my “net income” by my grocery bill? There’s a tremendous double standard on this meaning of “income” as stated in the constitution and interpreted by the tax courts.
Perhaps the Federal government should wean itself from excessive, unfair taxation.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
I did not opt out of Social Security obligations when I had the chance. I don’t regret that.
This would most hurt the ministers who serve smaller churches and are not paid so well. And that’s the vast majority of ministers.
Report comment to moderator
Joel
“This would most hurt the ministers who serve smaller churches and are not paid so well. And that’s the vast majority of ministers.”
This is true, – people who don’t understand or know better look at the ‘mega churches’ and decide that’s the norm, when in fact its very unusual for a pastor to make any great sum of money.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder what the average salaries would be if they threw out the mega churches as outliers? Also, does that “salary” include parsonage and manse benefits?
Report comment to moderator
I have an objection to paying Social Security–yes, I think it’s wrong. (Not paying it, but being forced to pay it.) It’s the majority of my taxes too, since I’m self-employed. I wish anybody could opt out, and I’d do it in a heartbeat! If I could also get back everything I’ve paid in, I could pay off my mortgage today, and start putting the amount of the mortgage and social security in the bank–savings would add up pretty fast that way! Instead, the merciful government is tying up my money with the promise of some money back when I retire (if I live that long and if the system is still solvent). It’s theft, pure and simple, and I wish we could all opt out!
Report comment to moderator
Bravo, Cheryl D!!
Report comment to moderator
We opted out of SS. Our consciencious objection was the continuing creep of gov’t into citizens’ lives, correlating (in our view) with the church ceding its responsibilities to a gov’t all too happy to encroach.
The gov’t hands out entitlements based on formulas rather than giving benevolence along with accountability, as churches are tasked to do.
Additionally, people are conditioned to turn to gov’t rather than turning to God when faced with a crisis.
For us, it wasn’t a tax issue as much as a secularization issue, and a concern that churches were marginalized and becoming lazy as a result.
Report comment to moderator
Wiglaf,
Your question is somewhat addressed above–housing is part of a pastor’s call/package, but it’s tax-exempt, whereas his salary is not. It’s more complicated than that, but that’s the short version!
Report comment to moderator
All those “pastors” profiled in the latest issue of WORLD– you know the ones who have their own jets–I’d love to see their 1040 forms.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron – What’s the difference between a manse & a parsonage? Or are they different words for the same thing?
Report comment to moderator
All the Amish opt out of the Social Security System. They take care of their own.
Report comment to moderator
I would like to point out a serious error in the original post. These statements are NOT true: “New lawnmower, deduction. Toilet paper, deduction. Dishwasher detergent, deduction.”
The only expenses that fall under the housing allowance exemption are those directly related to housing. So the new windows or additional room are and, though not mentioned, so are the related utilities of gas, electric, and water.
Also, just so you all don’t think this is a great big free-for-all, the Pastor (and any other called church worker, such as the Principal of our school) must declare the prior year what their allowance will be. It must be approved by the Church Council (or other ruling body) and included in the minutes of the meeting in which it is approved.
I can’t speak for other churches, but I suspect that most are like ours, where the salaries are set knowing full well that the called staff have this tax break. Our called teachers are woefully underpaid if you don’t consider the housing allowance exemption.
I think it would be reasonable to consider a Pastor the equivalent of the CEO of a small business. With that perspective, an annual salary of $78,000 or even $120,000 isn’t out of line at all.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron,
Victoria’s link actually answers my question.
Report comment to moderator
Karen O,
Yep, regional/denominational words all for the same thing–a house owned by the church for the pastor’s family to live in. “Pastorium” is one you don’t hear much anymore, even down south.
Report comment to moderator
Mommy,
I disagree with your last paragraph because that isn’t the way God represents the pastorate at all. Our shepherds should be paid well, well enough that their wives do not have to have paying jobs, but it shouldn’t be a job to make people rich. And in a community (or a church) where the average salary is $30,000 or $40,000, then $75,000 would be way out of line. I know someone who agreed to come to the church that was calling him only on the condition that they cut his proposed salary in half–he knew the previous pastor had hurt the church (in a different way, a bit of a scandal), and he wanted it known right up front that he would not be a burden to the church.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.
Point well taken.
Report comment to moderator
A pastor should not make the least or the most of those in his congregation. That said, our denomination has regional minimums for salaries to ensure pastors can subsist.
Report comment to moderator
Just want to point out that as a church is considering how much to pay a pastor, that it ought to be a per family income comparison as opposed to a per earner average. The pastor’s wife ought to have the option to stay home–it’s a terrible testimony for a church to pay so little that it forces the pastor’s wife to go get a paying job, or as in some cases I know of, that it forces the pastor’s family on welfare and medicaid.
The pastoring job is 24/7, and I know from experience that the pastor’s family spends a whole lot of time on church work as well. Burn-out rates are high, in part because instant access to the pastor is expected, and too often, the pastor has financial pressures along with the incredible job pressures (those having eternal consequences).
This isn’t a bitter rant–just a plea to truly honor pastors and take some measures to minister back to them as they pour themselves out for their flocks.
Report comment to moderator
While the mega churches may serve the big city there are a lot of people who need the Lord in the rest of the world as well. Right now health care cost alone are closing many small churches and schools. In the LC-MS I have been told that 80% of our congregations worship on average less than 100 people. Yet even in (what we call today) the small church it is hard to meet the spiritual needs of so many. Jesus did not talk about the shepherd of 10,000 sheep who dosen’t even notice when 15 fall off the cliff. I think the solution to Tony’s problem is to call the church back to responscible shepherding.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!