Our units of currency are figments of the imagination, certificates of obligation (otherwise known as IOUs). Since the U.S.Treasury can issue these records of indebtedness in virtually infinite amounts, the object of artificial limits to their distribution is simply to exercise control where it is not warranted.
Moreoever, given that the Treasury is not limited in the amount of currency it distributes, the purpose behind calling some back as “revenue” is obviously designed to provide information about how, when and by whom the currency is being used AND to facilitate redistribution and circulation. (When the currency stagnates, it is like stagnant water, of no use to anyone.)
Currency is designed to be useful, a utility like weights and measures of distance. Thus, to artificially restrict its availability to anyone is contrary to Constitutional intent. On the other hand, exempting some users of currency from returning a portion to the Treasury for accounting purposes constitutes not just an un-Constitutional preference but defines currency as something it is not, an instrument of control.
How does a utility devolve into an instrument of control? Censorship of speech and the press, if it were not specifically prohibited, would provide a prime example. Thus, there is something deeply ironic about establishments arguing that exemption from taxation is evidence of their autonomy. In effect, they are arguing for a corporate preference and agreeing to all their individual members being coerced.