I've posted before out the Sklar case not being on the ustaxcourt website for a very long time. Not the first case, but the second one.
This article explains a lot of why the website has provided nothing of the record. The arguments must be extremely long to put on the system.
If I remember right, the first case ruled against them, but one of the Judges suggested arguing the Establishment clause.
Well, it looks like the issue is on the table...
Xenu abides
-
Quixote
- Quatloosian Master of Deception
- Posts: 1542
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:00 am
- Location: Sanhoudalistan
No it must be kept secret so the Court cannot officially read it and note that the provision relied upon by the government expired years ago. The section allowing for the deduction for "auditing" fees applied only to tax years ending prior to, iirc, 1/1/2000. The IRS's continued allowance of those deductions has nothing to do with the agreement.Ms. Delsole told the appeals court that the agreement with the Scientologists must be kept confidential for privacy reasons. "That's getting into the private taxpayer business of another taxpayer," she said.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
-
jg
- Fed Chairman of the Quatloosian Reserve
- Posts: 614
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:25 am
Quixote wrote:No it must be kept secret so the Court cannot officially read it and note that the provision relied upon by the government expired years ago. The section allowing for the deduction for "auditing" fees applied only to tax years ending prior to, iirc, 1/1/2000. The IRS's continued allowance of those deductions has nothing to do with the agreement.
Care to hazard a guess as to why those deductions can continue to be allowed?
What, other than the ensuing litigation and the passage of time, might have changed the IRS' position on the nature or classification of those payments?
“Where there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.” — Plato
-
Quixote
- Quatloosian Master of Deception
- Posts: 1542
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:00 am
- Location: Sanhoudalistan
Nothing. The IRS always took the position that the deductions were not allwable. The courts always sustained that position. Allowing the deductions for a specific limited time was not a change of position, just an ad hoc settlement. If the agreement resulted had from a change in the IRS's position, there would have been no reason to limit the scope of the agreement to specific tax years.jg wrote:Quixote wrote:No it must be kept secret so the Court cannot officially read it and note that the provision relied upon by the government expired years ago. The section allowing for the deduction for "auditing" fees applied only to tax years ending prior to, iirc, 1/1/2000. The IRS's continued allowance of those deductions has nothing to do with the agreement.
Care to hazard a guess as to why those deductions can continue to be allowed?
What, other than the ensuing litigation and the passage of time, might have changed the IRS' position on the nature or classification of those payments?
I suspect the IRS's continued allowance of the deductions, if in fact they are still allowing them, is due to bureaucratic inertia.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat