If that were to happen, the 2 billion kroner bounties they receive each year could be as much as 400 million kroner less.
In practice, however, taxation would hit the poorer non-Catholic churches, which are more dependent on state funding, harder.
Governments tend to tax reparations to churches,
and the government has been known to tax the Church\’s “reparations.
Of course, Prime Minister Babiš believes that the matter will probably be brought before the Constitutional Court.

The KSČM is eager to push through an amendment that envisages introducing a 19% withholding tax on annual monetary compensation to churches.
Constitutional scholars, however, point out that compensation for confiscated property is not taxable income; on the contrary, it is a remedy for it.
The Church itself defends itself with the same argument.
If the taxation of compensation were to take effect, they hope to appeal to the Constitutional Court through their senators and opposition party members.
Babiš, however, is not afraid. He hopes that the Social Democrats will be prepared to defend in court their criticism that the law is retroactive.
Jan Skopechek, vice president of the ODS Parliamentary Club, says it is illegal to intervene once a decision on church restitution has been made and a contract signed under which property restitution will begin.

On the other hand, Milan Felanek, a member of the ANO movement, says moderately in favor of taxing church restitution, saying that it is necessary to do so.
He notes that the amount of compensation was overestimated at the time the issue arose.
These are forests, farmland, and some buildings.
He does not like the fact that farmland was valued at SEK 440,000 per hectare, and anyone involved in agriculture can see that such prices are unrealistic even today.
He believes the compensation is too high.
This is especially evident, he says, when compared to restitution to individuals. Old wrongs cannot be replaced by new wrongs. And taxpayers are still taking it up.
Petr Jan Vinsch, Executive Director of the Ecumenical Council of Churches, sees the whole situation as a retroactive reduction of the agreed-upon amount. From his point of view, of course, this is unacceptable.
According to him, most of the agricultural and forest land was included in the restitution in kind. Therefore, the compensation amount was calculated in other areas.
He adds that the issue is not only the removal of property damage, but also reconciliation between the state and the church.
Attorney Jan Kysela is of the opinion that if the agreement was that some of the property would be physically returned and other property would be returned in money, it would be impossible to require an additional return of a portion of the money in the form of taxes.
Ales Gerloch, Dean of the Faculty of Constitutional Law at Charles University, believes that the state has a good chance of winning any court case.
According to the document, this procedure is possible under certain conditions. However, there is a question of retroactivity. According to both attorneys, it depends on which year the taxation applies.
In its proposal, the Communist Party states that future payments There would be no retroactive taxation of what has been paid.
Both experts, however, stated that they do not want to predict the outcome of the dispute because it is not yet clear what the final proposal will look like or what the parties\’ arguments will be.