I was reading the Hernandez Supreme Court ruling at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=490&invol=680, where Scientology is using the Doctrine of Exchange to show that they should be allowed to deduct auditing expenses from their income taxes (the U.S. Supreme Court said no, you can't deduct auditing expenses).

The doctrine of exchange is a basic Scientology belief that you shouldn't get something for nothing. For example, if you give money to a homeless person, you're rewarding a downstat, so you shouldn't do that. But if a homeless person works for you and you pay him, then that's ok because the doctrine of exchange worked - you got work done and he got a few bucks.

So I was thinking about how hard Scientology tries to not pay taxes. They went all out and in fact DM stated that the greatest feat of Scientology's history was gaining tax exemption from the IRS.

They've fought local taxes here in Clearwater (I think it's about $30 million of their property is tax exempt), in California, and I'm sure in other locations.

But here's the problem... if you don't pay your taxes, then you're using the roads, the police, the military, the fire department, etc.

for FREE!!! You're getting something for nothing!!! You've violated the Doctrine of Exchange!!!

So is this not duplicity plain and simple? On the one hand you use the doctrine of exchange to prove you shouldn't pay taxes, but on the other hand if you don't pay taxes, you're violating the doctrine of exchange!
But this also causes a conflict, because on the one hand you want to be upstat, but if you have to give your money to taxes, then you have that much less money to give to Scientology. What to do? Which will win... upstat or the Doctrine of Exchange? Well... duh... that's a no-brainer... money is a stat, while paying taxes is not.

So just how important is this Doctrine of Exchange if it's so conditional?
--- When a Scientology staffer used a syringe to force a mixture of aspirin, Benadryl and orange juice into McPherson's throat while others held her down, it was "spiritual sustenance," the church argues.

Go Back