There are four issues here.
The taxing of the individuals in the congregation.
The taxes payable on a building.
The taxes payable by persons receiving remuneration from the congregation.
The 'enterprise' aspect.
In the UK there have been decisions made about these matters, one of which is a public matter and one of which I am personally aware of because of action taken by the Inland Revenue, privately.
Jesus was in a special position since he was, by birthright, the king of Israel and was not liable to pay tax to anybody. 'Then are the children free', Matthew 17:26, may be interpreted as meaning his heritage as a son of David exempted him (and his immediate 'court' of helper disciples) from liability of revenue.
But when that situation was queried, the Lord made provision for Peter and for himself through Peter's usual occupation - fishing - but in a providential manner, the provision of a coin in the mouth of a fish.
As to the congregation, they earn a living and pay taxes and there is little that can be argued against that. I don't know of any theological arguments against paying income tax, as such.
As to the building, in the UK there has been a case where congregations accepted a tax-free status on their building as a 'place of worship' but then, theologically, did not allow the public access. This was queried and so this particular group allow supervised, minimal access to individuals and, at the moment, are still permitted tax-free status on the building.
Some argue, theologically, that congregations give 'gifts' to ministers and so the ministers should not, they say, pay any tax on 'voluntary gifts'. I know that the Inland Revenue has disagreed with that idea in the UK and has (privately) made it very clear that it will be penalised.
The Inland Revenue, in the UK, regard ministering as an occupation and any remuneration from it is regarded, by the Revenue, as 'earned income' and is taxable.
As to the 'enterprise' aspect, congregations contribute corporate money and that money is expected to be for charitable benefit to others, either for spiritual needs or material needs.
If that enterprise is genuinely charitable then there is little argument that it is not taxable and, in the UK, the church would have charitable status and pay no tax.
But if it were discovered that any individual was benefiting from contributed money or contributed/invested money (other than for the alleviation of suffering or poverty) then that financial benefit would become taxable and I can think of no theological argument that would prevail against lawful taxation of that benefiting individual.
Judas, of course, had the bag and stole from the contributions which were intended for the provision of the disciples (who gave themselves to the work and earned no income) and for the alleviation of the poor.
Thus Judas was stealing not only from those who gave such money, he was stealing from those who should have benefited from those gifts and he was stealing from the authorities since he was forcibly taking a salary and paying no tax on it.
There is no theological argument could possibly condone such behaviour.