Is the Church of Scientology's deal with the IRS unconstitutional?
SFF
2012/07/16 14:49:30
|
|
|||||
|
4 votes
|
|
80% | ||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | ||
|
1 vote
|
|
20% | ||
Interesting legal opinion in a Forbes piece today:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2012/07/14/irs-scien...
The author argues that the central question in looking at Scientology's tax-exemption is this:
People often conflate recognition as a religion and recognition as a tax exempt § 501(c)(3) entity as being effectively the same thing. But the IRS does not make determinations of an entity’s religiosity. In fact, the IRS is constitutionally prohibited from even entertaining the question. Whether Scientology is or is not a religion is thus a red herring–a philosophical as opposed to legal question, far outside the scope of the tax exemption question.
The IRS instead considers whether the organization maintains a “religious purpose,” which the IRS attempts to divine by asking (1) whether the beliefs of the organization are “truly and sincerely held,” and (2) whether the practices associated with the organization’s beliefs are not “illegal or contrary to clearly defined public policy.” Crudely restated, a qualifying religious organization must not be a sham, and it must not be morally repugnant."
He concludes that, "the Scientology-IRS agreement exists in direct contravention of the Constitution. This was noted by Ninth Circuit Judge Barry G. Silverman in a recent case brought by a Jewish family (Michael and Maria Sklar) who argued that if Scientologists can deduct auditing payments, they should be permitted to deduct their children’s religious school tuition."
What do you think? Is the agreement sound or does it give one religion special privileges, violating the establishment clause?
As an aside, check out this Scientology internal ad:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2012/07/14/irs-scien...
The author argues that the central question in looking at Scientology's tax-exemption is this:
People often conflate recognition as a religion and recognition as a tax exempt § 501(c)(3) entity as being effectively the same thing. But the IRS does not make determinations of an entity’s religiosity. In fact, the IRS is constitutionally prohibited from even entertaining the question. Whether Scientology is or is not a religion is thus a red herring–a philosophical as opposed to legal question, far outside the scope of the tax exemption question.
The IRS instead considers whether the organization maintains a “religious purpose,” which the IRS attempts to divine by asking (1) whether the beliefs of the organization are “truly and sincerely held,” and (2) whether the practices associated with the organization’s beliefs are not “illegal or contrary to clearly defined public policy.” Crudely restated, a qualifying religious organization must not be a sham, and it must not be morally repugnant."
He concludes that, "the Scientology-IRS agreement exists in direct contravention of the Constitution. This was noted by Ninth Circuit Judge Barry G. Silverman in a recent case brought by a Jewish family (Michael and Maria Sklar) who argued that if Scientologists can deduct auditing payments, they should be permitted to deduct their children’s religious school tuition."
What do you think? Is the agreement sound or does it give one religion special privileges, violating the establishment clause?
As an aside, check out this Scientology internal ad:
But the simple fact is that Scientology would throw countless nuisance suits against the IRS if it was rescinded, costing the IRS massive amounts of time and money.