Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> wrote:
- quote -

You need a writer.

- quote -

My opinon too.

- quote -

Ah, that's the problem. Laws are written by lawyers who think
like you. Taxation is written by the 535 Congresscriters who
have a history that proves my point.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

rdadams[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:
- quote -

That's not unusual when I go on stage. Still, I keep trying.

- quote -

Because becoming a minister, priest or rabbi actually has some real
value over and above the religious indoctrination. My thought is
that it would be as if priests started charging for confessions. It
has no real value in the world, so my guess is that it might be
deductible.

- quote -

For some reason I have this need to find logic where it doesn't
exist. That's what the law is supposed to be about, after all.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <ecklein-1EA4FE.19420516122008[at]news.newsguy.com> ,
Ernie Klein <ecklein[at]pacbell.net> wrote:

- quote -

But not even remotely unheard of, especially if they perceive
Constitutional issues such as the above, lurking in the shadows. Still,
if I was a betting man, I would say the odds aren't all that great in
this case.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <gi98va$268$1[at]reader1.panix.com> ,
rdadams[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:

- quote -

It can only get to the Supremes if the loosing party (the Sklar's)
appeal. If they do, the only issue to be decided is the Sklar's
contention that they should enjoy the same deductions as members of the
Church of Scientology enjoy, not whether those deductions themselves are
even legal. The Sklar's didn't questions the legality of the
Scientology deductions, only that the Sklar's want it also. That would
be the only issue for the Supremes to decide. It would be highly
unusual for the Supremes to step outside of, and rule on an issue not in
the record presented to them.

--
-Ernie-

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> wrote:
- quote -

Nobody laughed.

- quote -

But if the cost of Scientology education is tax deductible,
why is not the cost of minister, priest, and rabbi education
also tax deductible?

Whenever taxation seems logical, it means Congress was asleep
at the switch.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

rdadams[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:
- quote -

The distinction seems to be that payment for services that are
completely religious in nature (whatever that may mean) would be
considered a contribution rather than payment for something of value.
Perhaps the IRS thinks that what someone gets for paying Scientology
has no value at all. Many might agree, but it's a pretty subjective
issue.

- quote -

Starkle, starkle, little twink,
I'm not as drunk as you might think.
I'm not under the alluance of incohol
Although some thinkle peep I am.
It's just that the drunker I stand
The longer I get.

- quote -

Taxes are logical. I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your
waitstaff.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Alan <sfcnm-mtm[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

IMRHO this case may make to Johnny and the Supremes.
Whether or not they hear, it is another issue. The
argument needs to be if Scientology relegious
education is tax deductible and other relegious
education is not, we have a tacitly State supported
Church. I do not know the history of this case well
enough to comment on whether or not that is the issue
being raised.

Whomever said taxes were fair was drunk at the time.
Whomever said taxes were logical was trying to get a laugh.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Kurt Ullman wrote:[snip]
- quote -


--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Dec 14, 3:59*pm, Han <nob...[at]nospam.not> wrote:
- quote -

Good question! I thought the IRS would file to seek to recover taxes
due. There must be something fishy with that secret agreement.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Kurt Ullman <kurtullman[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

The 9th Circuit has certainly had a higher proportion of decisions
overturned than any other circuit in recent years. However even at
that the overrule rate is extremely low.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article
<dd76a483-8928-4d9d-8891-6fd6b016e622[at]c36g2000prc.googlegroups.com> ,
honda.lioness[at]gmail.com wrote:

- quote -

And also remember that the 9th Circuit is the one that is most often
overturned when it hits the Supremes. I would little in the 9th Circuit
is done until the Supremes pass.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

honda.lion...[at]gmail.com wrote:
- quote -

gist

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

<honda.lioness[at]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dd76a483-8928-4d9d-8891-6fd6b016e622[at]c36g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
- quote -


In my opinion, Scientology is just another scam. However, people may
believe in what they want, regardless of how outlandish. Faith
requires no proof, and if they want to believe that the Human race was
in fact seeded by an extraterrestial (not "God"), that's their
problem.

Cases like the above make me feel that the exemption case regarding
"The Venusian Church" (circa 1976) should be overturned. At least
that case was able to be ruled a scam without having to attack the
actual belief system. However, with Scientology validated, "nothing"
is a scam anymore.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <Xns9B7459729AD3Bikkezelf[at]199.45.49.11> ,
Han <nobody[at]nospam.not> wrote:

- quote -

Don't know. Besides the Church of Scientology what other religion
"charges" it's members for religious instruction/training?

The court clearly said that school type education similar in nature and
cost to like education in other private schooling even when it is done
in a religious setting that the parents choose only because of the
religious nature of that setting and religious education is not
comparable to the Church of Scientology's auditing and training.

--
-Ernie-

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Dec 13, 2:49 pm, rdad...[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:
- quote -

Wow if it were true. The jist of this decision is that there is a
legal "closing agreement" between Scientology and the IRS. To date
this decision has not been available for public review. The IRS has
legal grounds, it claims, not to publish it. This Court disagrees. The
Court simultaneously holds that the Sklars (of xyz religion) do not
get a tax break for payment for religious instruction blah blah, for
the usual blah blah reasons. It is not at all clear whether
Scientology gets a tax break that other religions do not get.

Bear in mind too that there is evidence the IRS discriminated against
the Church of Scientology for years.

One should get all the facts before passing judgment on this one, IMHO.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Ernie Klein <ecklein[at]pacbell.net> wrote in news:ecklein-
7BAC01.21274613122008[at]news.newsguy.com:

- quote -

So, who is going to (have to) file that case so the "closing agreement"
gets invalidated?

Asked by a biochemist, not a tax or legal person.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Ernie Klein wrote:
- quote -

(balance snipped.....)

Which just goes to show you, "the best things in life are free."

ChEAr$,
Harlan

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <Xns9B73CC3915655ikkezelf[at]199.45.49.11> ,
Han <nobody[at]nospam.not> wrote:

- quote -

You don't need to register. The 9th Circuit has it's own free web site:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newo...+date?OpenView

- quote -

My understanding, or rather my take on the decision, without getting
into whether Scientology should even be deemed to be a religion at all,
is that the 9th circuit essentially held that being required to pay for
church training that is religious in nature (Scientology - whether you
believe in it or not) is quite different than paying for an basic, state
mandated, education for a child that might also include (some) religious
training when preformed by any religious organization.

They took that position so that they would not have to rule on the
Sklar's argument that what the IRS agreed to allow for one religion had
to apply to all religions. The Court simply said that the two just do
not compare.

However, and very important, they did say, speaking about the "secret"
"closing agreement" between the IRS and Church of Scientology and
quoting the lower court:

[quote]
Applying [Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. at 246-47,] to
the policy of the IRS towards the Church of Scientology,
the initial inquiry must be whether the policy
facially discriminates amongst religions. Clearly it
does, as this tax deduction is available only to members
of the Church of Scientology...

...Because the facial preference for the Church of Scientology embodied
in the IRS¹s policy regarding
its members cannot be justified by a compelling governmental
interest, we would, if required to decide
the case on the ground urged by the Sklars, first
determine that the IRS policy constitutes an unconstitutional
denominational preference under Larson,
456 U.S. at 230, 102 S. Ct. 1673.
[end quote]

Essentially they said that they believe that the IRS agreement with the
Church of Scientology is unconstitutional and even if the Sklar's
prevailed in their argument that they should receive equal treatment,
that would be equally unconstitutional.

But while THAT was not the case before them -- they clearly telegraphed
how they might rule if and when THAT case does come before them.

--
-Ernie-

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

rdadams[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote in news:gi1aln$d54$1
[at]reader1.panix.com:

- quote -

educational service of the Church of Scientology is a tax deductible
contribution, but not if you substitute Orthodox Judaism for Scientology?

I admit that Scientology and Judaism are not comparable, but I would have
thought Judaism (or any other religion) to be more deserving than
scientology.

I kust be missing the essence of the arguments behind the Appelate Court
decision.

Please enlighten me!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Dick Adams" <rdadams[at]panix.com> wrote in message
news:gi1aln$d54$1[at]reader1.panix.com...
- quote -

I think this is the jist of the decision (right or wrong):

"The Tax Court concluded that the Sklars were not

similarly situated to the members of the Church of

Scientology who benefitted from the closing agreement.

While we have no doubt that certain taxpayers

who belong to religions other than the Church of

Scientology would be similarly situated to such

members, we think it unlikely that the Sklars are.

Religious education for elementary or secondary

school children does not appear to be similar to the

"auditing" and "training" conducted by the Church

of Scientology."

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >