Kuwait and charity taxes in US
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
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab Times
10 hours ago
- Arab Times
Unmasking injustice: Why publishing arrest photos undermines the Kuwaiti Constitution
In any system governed by law, the dignity of the individual is not a privilege, it is a right. In Kuwait, this right is enshrined in our Constitution, codified in our laws, and rooted in the ethical values of our society. And yet, a troubling practice persists: the premature publication of arrest photos by official authorities. This practice, often presented as routine or procedural, in fact poses a direct threat to constitutional rights, legal due process, and the very philosophy of justice. The Constitutional Breach Article 34 of the Kuwaiti Constitution states unequivocally: 'An accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a legal trial with full guarantees for self-defense.' This is not an aspirational phrase. It is binding law. When the image of a suspect is publicly circulated before trial before any judicial determination of guilt, it imposes a penalty without process. It transforms suspicion into stigma, investigation into indictment, and a photograph into a public verdict. In effect, the State itself bypasses the judiciary and pronounces guilt in the court of public opinion. The Legal Foundation: Silence Is Not Secrecy. It Is Safeguard Kuwaiti criminal procedure law is explicit: investigations are confidential by default. This is not to protect the guilty, but to protect the process ensuring that no external influence, no social uproar, no premature exposure, interferes with the impartial assessment of evidence. One cannot disclose confidential information from ongoing investigations. It is the law's way of saying: truth must be uncovered in court, not unrolled in press conferences. When an image is released, what follows is not transparency it is trial by narrative, often framed by incomplete facts and assumptions. And once made public, it cannot be undone. A Deeper Question: Who Owns Our Faces? The image of a person is not just data, it is identity. To publish someone's photo while they are still legally innocent is to say: this person belongs to the State, not to themselves. Their story is hijacked. Their defense is drowned in headlines. This practice becomes especially troubling when applied to vulnerable individuals, those suffering from addiction, trauma, or mental illness. In such cases, exposure is not deterrence; it is dehumanization. It is to weaponize shame against the weakest. A Global Standard Kuwait Should Uphold Most advanced jurisdictions have moved away from the practice of publishing arrest images. In France, Germany, and several U.S. states, it is now either banned or severely limited precisely because it is recognized as extrajudicial punishment. Even Interpol, in its public notices, follows strict rules to limit identification. Why? Because premature exposure can endanger trials, violate rights, and inflict disproportionate harm. Kuwait, a nation governed by law and proud of its constitutional legacy, must not lag behind. We must lead with principle. Justice Without Dignity Is Not Justice The role of the State is not to satisfy public curiosity. Nor is it to punish through humiliation. It is to ensure that every person no matter how grave the accusation is treated with fairness, dignity, and restraint. Questions to think about: What If It Were You? What if you were falsely accused? What if your image was displayed, your name maligned, your silence mistaken for guilt? Would a later acquittal truly restore what had been stripped away? Publishing arrest photos before a verdict is not a form of public service. It is a form of institutional overreach. It violates the presumption of innocence, undermines the integrity of investigations, and inflicts disproportionate and enduring harm on individuals who may ultimately be found innocent. We do not need public spectacle. We need procedural integrity. We need a legal culture that understands that human dignity is not conditional on innocence, it is inherent. All state bodies must urgently revisit this practice not as a political concession, but as a legal necessity. Kuwait's commitment to justice is measured not by how loudly it condemns, but by how carefully it protects. Because in law, as in life, the true test of a society is not how it treats the guilty, but how it treats the presumed innocent.
Arab Times
2 days ago
- Arab Times
Hatred, disrespect rampant on media
KUWAIT CITY, June 19: President of the Women's Institute for Development and Peace Attorney Kawthar Al-Joaan said the social media channels are rife with bullying, violence and hurtful language. In a statement on the occasion of International Day for Countering Hate Speech, which falls on June 18 of each year Al-Joaan pointed out that verbal violence is spreading among students amidst the lack of media and cultural awareness. She called for a commitment to use technological channels and artificial intelligence as tools for spreading good, love and peace, not destruction, hatred and war. She disclosed that hate speech is more widespread today than ever before, considering the proliferation of social media networks and the use of artificial intelligence. 'Hatred and disrespect for others have spread as well. Disagreement has disappeared and been replaced by manifestations of fanaticism, tribalism and a decline in cultural standards,' she asserted. She explained that 'the human values brought by Islam urge us to love one another, so that we may live together in love and brotherhood; recognizing the importance of human values in uniting peoples and societies and respecting others while rejecting hatred, violence, killing and wars. Islam emphasizes the importance of respecting all aspects of humanity. Since its inception, it has carried the torch of goodness, love and peace; rejecting division and fanaticism, and encouraging people to live together in peace.' She added Article 36 of the Constitution stipulates that 'freedom of opinion is guaranteed, and every person has the right to express his opinion verbally, in writing or otherwise under the conditions and procedures stipulated by law. Let us all work together to maintain security, prosperity and peace for our society and all other human societies.'
Arab Times
3 days ago
- Arab Times
Trump's latest judicial pick someone that Biden almost nominated
WASHINGTON, June 19, (AP): US President Donald Trump said Wednesday he plans to tap Chad Meredith, a former state solicitor general in Kentucky, for a federal judgeship in the state - a move that could face objections from Sen. Rand Paul, who opposed the nomination three years ago. Meredith was the starring player in a bit of judicial nominations drama in the previous administration, when then-President Joe Biden had agreed to nominate Meredith, who was enthusiastically supported by Sen. Mitch McConnell, the former Senate majority leader. It was a curious move at the time, because Meredith had a track record of defending Kentucky's anti-abortion laws and the nomination would come in the immediate aftermath of the 2022 Supreme Court decision that eliminated a constitutional right to the procedure. But Paul indicated to the Biden White House at the time that he would block Meredith's confirmation proceedings from moving forward, so the former president never formally nominated him. Biden's decision to back off Meredith was also a relief to Democrats and abortion rights groups who had been enraged at the prospect of Biden tapping an anti-abortion lawyer for a lifetime judiciary seat. In a social media post announcing the nomination, Trump called Meredith "highly experienced and well qualified.' "Chad is a courageous Patriot who knows what is required to uphold the Rule of Law, and protect our Constitution,' Trump wrote on Truth Social Wednesday night. McConnell said in a statement Wednesday that Trump made an "outstanding choice' in choosing Meredith, who also served as chief deputy general counsel for former Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin. "His demonstrated devotion to the rule of law and the Constitution will serve the people of Kentucky well on the federal bench,' McConnell said. "I look forward to the Senate confirming his nomination.' Paul's office did not immediately return a request for comment Wednesday night on the nomination. Three years ago, Paul accused McConnell of cutting a "secret deal' with the White House as a reason why Meredith's nomination never moved forward under Biden. "Unfortunately, instead of communicating and lining up support for him, Senator McConnell chose to cut a secret deal with the White House that fell apart,' Paul said at the time.
