>>>Why differentiate between natural and juristic persons ? Why should a juristic person NOT be allowed to operate at the exact norm the owners agree on or a single owner follows ?
>>
>>I assume by juristic person you mean a company as opposed to an individual.?
>
>In german law that is the basis to be able to haul a non-natural person before a court of law - company, society, sports club, religous group, church and so on. And with that comes the ability to tax or give tax free status. If not "juristic person" how is the legal construct in the states ?

Not sure what we call it - or if it is just one category - but I get the idea.

>>
>
>>Of course anything that involves public money, public subsidy of any kind - that's a different matter. it is the very reason I think all religious organizations should lose any tax exempt status unless they are willing to play by exactly the same rules as anything else in any way funded with public money.
>
>Full ACK on subsidized, but it is a bad sign that being tax exempt is equated to being funded with public money - in my book taxation should be the exception, but the world is moving in the other direction ;-) But I agreethat is the area where it gets difficult to decide what is the correct path...

I agree with you about taxes. But religious and "charitable" or "non-profit" organizations have some tax exemptions here - especially regarding property tax - that is quite often just a legal fiction.

In the case of property tax, since there is only a finite amount of land, if some group is exempted the shortfall is made up by higher taxes on everyone else, so if religions are paying no property tax I'm paying more.