Opinion ID: 2210491
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Freedom from Excessive Governmental Entanglement.

Text: Hope also contends that application of the consumer use tax to its use of personal property violates the establishment clause of the United States and Iowa Constitutions because it fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 613, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d 745, 756 (1971). The district court found, as do we, that this contention was not raised or argued before the department's hearing officer. Since there is no establishment clause evidence in the record, this court will not consider those arguments now. Kartridg Pak Co. v. Department of Revenue, 362 N.W.2d 557, 561 (Iowa 1985). We note, however, that the California sales and use tax reviewed in Jimmy Swaggart Ministries involved no excessive entanglement between government and religion. The Court there said: The fact that appellant must bear the cost of collecting and remitting a generally applicable sales and use taxeven if the financial burden of such costs may vary from religion to religiondoes not enmesh government in religious affairs. Contrary to appellant's contentions, the statutory scheme requires neither the involvement of state employees in, nor on-site continuing inspection of, appellant's day-to-day operations. There is no official and continuing surveillance by government auditors. The sorts of government entanglement that we have found to violate the Establishment clause have been far more invasive than the level of contact created by the administration of neutral laws. Id., ___ U.S. at ___, 110 S.Ct. at 699, 107 L.Ed.2d at 813 (citations omitted).