arnaldo lerma wrote: > idaj007@aol.com (IDA J 007) wrote in message news:<20041023202246.17374.00002234@mb-m27.aol.com>...
>
>>One family goes to tax court to fight
>>for tax breaks for religious education
>>By Joe Berkofsky
>
>
>
> Yes Ida there is news coming:
> "Docket Number" is #395-01
> US Tax Court Clerk is at phone 202-606-8754
> The next hearing is November 8th
> 10 AM, 255 W. Temple, 11th floor in LA
> Case is Michael Sklar vs. IRS (COS is not a litigant,
> but may be seen as a 'real party in interest').

In theory, Scientology *could* be a real party in interest, but for practical raesons I've exhaustively laid out both in this thread and this post: http://tinyurl.com/63syc .. it remains profoundly unlikely that it will happen. In order for Scientology to become a party to this case, it must be either _joined_ by the current plaintiff or _impleaded_ by the defendant. Neither party has an interest in bringing Scientology into the case. While the court can order a party not present to be joined via Rule 19, it can only do so if the non-present party's absence deprives the *present* parties from obtaining complete relief. Since Sklar is merely seeking a deduction that the IRS does not wish to grant, complete relief is easy. Sklar's cause of action dictates what relief is possible, and his cause of action does not necessitate a third party's presence.

The docket indicates that some months back, Sklar attempted to supoena Scientology for testimony. It also shows that Yingling's subsequent motion to quash that supoena was granted. While it seems clear why Sklar wants Scientology's testimony, it's important not to confuse Scientology's potential appearance as a witness in this case with their potential as a party. Sklar has no interest in making them a party. The IRS has no interest in making them a party (although they should have an interest). Scientology sure as hell doesn't want to be there. And the court cannot make Scientology a party here, for reasons I've already stated.

Despite the fact that Sklar is indirectly bringing a lot of bad press Scientology's way, it's important to realize that any result in Sklar's case will zero impact on Scientology. That doesn't mean Scientology's deduction isn't challengeable - it just means that it's going to require a different plaintiff in a different court room.

~ scott

> regards,
> arnie lerma
>
> PS: Sklar's Attorney is Jeffrey Zuckerman 202-452-7373
> If the Ferengi were to breed with the Borg you'd get Scientology
> http://www.lermanet.com/cos/comedy.html
> The internet is the Liberty Tree of the 90's
> http://www.lermanet.com/cos/libertyl.html
> The only thing that works in Scientology are its lawyers
> http://www.lermanet.com/silence.htm
> Secrets are the mortar binding lies as bricks together into prisons for the mind
> http://www.lermanet.com
>
>
>
>
>>NEW YORK, March 30 (JTA) â€" Paying taxes may be one of life’s great
>>certainties â€" but there’s a bit more wiggle room when it comes to tax
>>deductions.
>>Michael Sklar, a California accountant and Orthodox father of six, will appear
>>in a United States tax court in Los Angeles in October as he pursues a long
>>legal struggle to claim the cost of his children’s religious education as a
>>tax deduction.
>>
>>Sklar notes that the IRS allows followers of the Church of Scientology to write
>>off the cost of religious instruction, which many say violates the First
>>Amendment establishment clause banning government support of a religion.
>>
>>“We must force” the IRS “to treat everybody equally,” Sklar says. “To
>>let the government do this for one religion is the worst possible scenario
>>imaginable.”
>>
>>Whether or not he succeeds, Sklar has raised important questions about how tax
>>breaks for religious institutions are applied and whether constitutionally
>>mandated church-state separation bars such tax breaks.
>>
>>Sklar’s crusade has potentially enormous financial implications for the
>>families of 200,000 Jewish day school students, as well as for non-Jewish
>>parochial and religious school students. Altogether, parents of such students
>>spend an estimated $11 billion annually in tuition.
>>
>>Sklar’s fight also could have implications for families that spend money on
>>supplementary religious instruction for their children.
>>
>>“If the Sklars win and everybody is entitled to a tuition tax deduction, the
>>implications are significant because it makes Jewish education much less costly
>>since you are paying with before-tax dollars,” says Marc Stern, assistant
>>national executive director and general counsel of the American Jewish
>>Congress.
>>
>>The U.S. Supreme Court planted the seeds of this conflict in a 1989 case,
>>Hernandez v. Commissioner. In that case, the Church of Scientology claimed that
>>fees for its auditing sessions â€" a kind of spiritual training that can cost
>>thousands of dollars â€" should count as tax-deductible charitable
>>contributions, just like gifts to other religious institutions.
>>
>>Ironically, the church said its auditing was no different than tax-deductible
>>High Holiday seats in synagogues, dedicated Masses or pews in churches.
>>
>>But the high court rejected the plea, distinguishing between fees for tangible
>>services and charitable contributions, which are made voluntarily for more
>>intangible spiritual benefits such as synagogue seats or church pews.
>>
>>In 1993, Congress amended the tax code to reflect the Supreme Court’s
>>so-called quid-pro-quo ruling, barring tax deductions for the auditing
>>sessions.
>>
>>That same year, however, the IRS began allowing Scientologists to claim
>>auditing fees as deductions. Sklar amended his 1991 returns, seeking an
>>additional $315 in allowances, reasoning that he was similarly entitled to
>>write off some of his children’s religious education.
>>
>>In 1994 the IRS denied the claim, referring in a letter to a specific
>>“settlement” between the agency and Scientology that never had been made
>>public.
>>
>>That motivated Sklar to warn the IRS that on his 1994 tax return he was seeking
>>$13,240 in deductions for his children’s religious education, a move he knew
>>was likely to raise red flags.
>>
>>Sure enough, the IRS audited Sklar. He challenged the move and wound up in tax
>>court.
>>
>>But Sklar, who represented himself, was rebuffed: The tax court judge said the
>>religious schooling of Sklar’s children differed from Scientology training.
>>
>>Sklar challenged the decision in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2000.
>>
>>This time, the fervently Orthodox group Agudath Israel of America filed a
>>friend-of-the-court brief on Sklar’s behalf. Washington lawyer Jeffrey
>>Zuckerman, of the firm Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, agreed to defend
>>Sklar free of charge.
>>
>>Sklar was seeking to recoup $15,000 in deductions for the 1995 tax year, which
>>represented the religious portion of his children’s day-school classes.
>>
>>The three-judge panel denied Sklar’s bid in 2002, but one judge, Barry
>>Silverman, wrote, “Why is Scientology training different from all other
>>religious training?” Silverman recommended that the debate be resolved in
>>court litigation.
>>
>>Yet Silverman also indicated that he thought the solution was to deny such
>>deductions to all religious groups.
>>
>>Now, Stern says, “the question is: What remedy is appropriate?”
>>
>>Typically, courts tend toward narrow deductions in tax battles, he says, and
>>the tax court this fall could reverse a decade’s worth of Scientology
>>deductions.
>>
>>To do the contrary “would open floodgates of amended tax returns,” Stern
>>says.
>>
>>Yet Stern suggests the Supreme Court set a different precedent in Muller v.
>>Allen, a 1983 Minnesota case that allowed parents of public and private school
>>students to deduct purely educational costs such as tuition, textbooks and
>>transportation.
>>
>>“If Congress were to create genuine deductions available for all educational
>>expenses, whether public or private, it’s pretty clear that would be
>>constitutional,” Stern says.
>>
>>Nevertheless, AJCongress likely would oppose such a measure, believing such tax
>>deductions amount to “a tax subsidy of religious schools,” he says. “We
>>would have to balance both the demand for equal treatment of all faiths with
>>our opposition to government funding, directly or indirectly, of religious
>>education.”
>>
>>If the court ruled for Sklar, “that’s a deduction for people who can afford
>>to send their kids to private schools and reduces tax revenue for public
>>education that serves the poorest,” Stern adds.
>>
>>But David Zweibel, executive vice-president for governmental and public affairs
>>for Agudah, says Stern is invoking a stereotype of wealthy prep school
>>families, while in fact the Catholics and Jews who make up the bulk of the
>>religious school population are not wealthy.
>>
>>Furthermore, legislators also could revise the tax code to benefit lower-income
>>families who want to send their children to religious schools, he adds.
>>
>>Yet Zweibel also warns of “mass upheaval” in America should the tax court
>>ban tax breaks for religious activity generally.
>>
>>“If the Scientology deduction is barred, what about the seat in shul?” he
>>asks. “If the notion is that participation in churches and synagogues is not
>>deductible, it would create mass uproar.”
>>
>>Ultimately, Zweibel expects the case to “percolate” through various state
>>courts as separate challenges to the tax code surface, either forcing a
>>judicial consensus at the appellate level or a Supreme Court ruling.
>>
>>Right now “it’s a Talmudic exercise,” he says, noting that Sklar’s
>>argument invokes a non-Jewish group that originally cited Jews as a benchmark.
>>Still, “the benefits of this will be much more tangible than spiritual.”
>>
>>Agudah is keeping a close watch on the case and likely will file another brief
>>supporting Sklar should he return to the appellate courts, Zweibel says.
>>
>>Also keeping close tabs is the United Synagogue, the congregational arm of the
>>Conservative movement, which represents some 70 of the 200 Jewish day schools
>>in North America.
>>
>>Until now, the Conservative movement has opposed government aid for private
>>school through such mechanisms as tuition vouchers because they violate the
>>constitutional separation of church and state, spokeswoman Sarrae Crane says.
>>The movement has yet to take a position on tax credits or this particular case.
>>
>>Sklar’s battle could trigger an even wider conflict. His attorney, Zuckerman,
>>says one issue the 9th Circuit never tackled was Sklar’s request to deduct
>>the costs of his son’s extra-curricular Mishnah Torah classes as well.
>>
>>Should the court agree, it could open the door for many Jews whose children
>>attend supplementary Hebrew and Sunday schools to claim such education as a
>>write-off.

Go Back