Scientology Anyone?

[Quixote]

Quixote, I tried to find that SC cite, but I think you put up the wrong case number. Didn't you mean: HERNANDEZ v. COMMISSIONER, 490 U.S. 680 (1989)?

All I know is I have had no difficulty with IRS auditors since about 1994, if there was any question, by quoting the 1993 Rev. Ruling.

Why would the prior SC ruling trump the later Revenue Ruling?

Yes, I managed to cite it properly the first time, but screwed up the second. If the later Revenue Ruling only rescinded the previous one, there's nothing to trump. If, on the other hand, the later Revenue Ruling rescinds the previous ruling and states that auditing fees are donations, it is in conflict with a SC decision and therefore incorrect.

[ASITStands]

That Rev. Rul. was rescinded by IRS many years ago.

Close. It was obsoleted by Rev. Rul. 93-73, 1993-34 I.R.B. 7. I can't find a copy on the web. The synopsis on the contents page of IRB 1993-34 states "Church of Scientology. Revenue Ruling 78-189 is obsoleted." If that's all the ruling did, it appears that the last word on the subject is the SC's statement that auditing fees are not donations, and therefore not deductable.

Handy little resource: http://www.taxlinks.com/

The Revenue Ruling in question:

http://www.taxlinks.com/rulings/1993/revrul93-73.htm

[Demosthenes]

Is the Church of Scientology your client, Tax Guest?

From the closing agreement with IRS.

i. Required procedures. The CTCC shall retain a qualified CPA (defined below) to perform the agreed-upon procedures enumerated in Exhibit IV-2 of this Agreement with respect to each of the reporting entities. Following its performance of these procedures, the qualified CPA so selected shall report to the CTCC and to the Service in the form prescribed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants for engagements to apply Agreed-Upon Procedures (SAS No. 35, Special Reports -- Applying Agreed-upon Procedures to Specified Elements, Accounts, or Items of a Financial Statement) (hereinafter referred to as "Special Purpose Reports"). These Special Purpose Reports shall include a summary of any exceptions the qualified CPA discovers through the agreed-upon procedures.

But I suppose that doesn't matter if you're convinced they're all liars. Unfortunately in my business dealings with Scientologists I have found the opposite to be true. I live in an area where there's a Scientologist every few feet (Glendale, CA) and your assertions about "documented policies to deceive others" sounds completely bizarre and paranoid. I suppose many years ago this is possible, before my time. Maybe you're referring to something that happened 10 or 20 years ago? Anything recent? How many Scientologists have you personally dealt with?

[Burzmali]

But I suppose that doesn't matter if you're convinced they're all liars. Unfortunately in my business dealings with Scientologists I have found the opposite to be true. I live in an area where there's a Scientologist every few feet (Glendale, CA) and your assertions about "documented policies to deceive others" sounds completely bizarre and paranoid. I suppose many years ago this is possible, before my time. Maybe you're referring to something that happened 10 or 20 years ago? Anything recent? How many Scientologists have you personally dealt with?

Scientologists make great neighbors, well, until you piss them off, as Gabe Cazares, former mayor of Clearwater, FA found out. The "church" actively attacks its critics, even to as late as 1994 according to Vicki Aznaran, one of their former higher ups.

[jg]

But I suppose that doesn't matter if you're convinced they're all liars. Unfortunately in my business dealings with Scientologists I have found the opposite to be true. I live in an area where there's a Scientologist every few feet (Glendale, CA) and your assertions about "documented policies to deceive others" sounds completely bizarre and paranoid. I suppose many years ago this is possible, before my time. Maybe you're referring to something that happened 10 or 20 years ago? Anything recent? How many Scientologists have you personally dealt with?

Scientologists make great neighbors, well, until you piss them off, as Gabe Cazares, former mayor of Clearwater, FA found out. The "church" actively attacks its critics, even to as late as 1994 according to Vicki Aznaran, one of their former higher ups.

There are indeed fewer accounts and reports in the last ten years, or so.
I have not ever had any personal dealings with the Church of Scientology; but there are any number of individuals that portray their stories and their treatment by the Church of Scientology (which is described as Church policy or teaching) in very unfavorable terms.
For example, see http://www.shipbrook.com/jeff/CoS/ by Jeff Lee (also in Clearwater about 1995-1998).
It is unclear to me if the Church of Scientology has chenged their purported policy and teaching or if there is merely less reporting and publicity.

[ElfNinosMom]

I have a feeling the McPherson family and their many, many supporters would disagree with the assertion that the Church of Scientology is just a swell bunch of folks who would never lie.

http://lisamcpherson.org

Yep, Scientology is definitely the fake religion for me, and the idea of being eaten alive by hundreds of cockroaches while I slowly die of neglect is what clinches that decision. All hail the infinite wisdom of L Ron!

[Quixote]

That Rev. Rul. was rescinded by IRS many years ago.

Close. It was obsoleted by Rev. Rul. 93-73, 1993-34 I.R.B. 7. I can't find a copy on the web. The synopsis on the contents page of IRB 1993-34 states "Church of Scientology. Revenue Ruling 78-189 is obsoleted." If that's all the ruling did, it appears that the last word on the subject is the SC's statement that auditing fees are not donations, and therefore not deductable.

Handy little resource: http://www.taxlinks.com/

The Revenue Ruling in question:

http://www.taxlinks.com/rulings/1993/revrul93-73.htm

Wow. That's the shortest revenue ruling I've ever seen. In any event, it did not reverse Revenue Ruling 78-189, as some seem to think, but just noted that it was obsolete, presumably in light of the Hernandez decision, which said the same thing with greater authority.

[Neckbone]

Close. It was obsoleted by Rev. Rul. 93-73, 1993-34 I.R.B. 7. I can't find a copy on the web. The synopsis on the contents page of IRB 1993-34 states "Church of Scientology. Revenue Ruling 78-189 is obsoleted." If that's all the ruling did, it appears that the last word on the subject is the SC's statement that auditing fees are not donations, and therefore not deductable.

Handy little resource: http://www.taxlinks.com/

The Revenue Ruling in question:

http://www.taxlinks.com/rulings/1993/revrul93-73.htm

Wow. That's the shortest revenue ruling I've ever seen. In any event, it did not reverse Revenue Ruling 78-189, as some seem to think, but just noted that it was obsolete, presumably in light of the Hernandez decision, which said the same thing with greater authority.

The Rev. Rul. was "obsoleted" as part of the closing agreement. You can find the closing agreement here if you're interested: http://www.xenu.net/archive/IRS/#III IRS just agreed to ignore the USSC's Hernandez decision. See Section VII of the agreement. The Scinos were tenacious, ruthless and totally committed and the IRS blinked. I'm with Sklar. If it's good enough for the LRH loonies, it should be good enough for the mainstream faiths.

Neckbone

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

I live in an area where there's a Scientologist every few feet (Glendale, CA) and your assertions about "documented policies to deceive others" sounds completely bizarre and paranoid.

I'm so glad I live where I do. Seriously, all my personal dealings with Scientoloists (since I only meet the evangelists of the movement) have been very close to my meetings with people trying to sign me up for a MLM scheme. E-meter my arse! Anyway I could go into a longer rant about my scam-dar begins tingling when Scientology and it's pseudo-psychological bastard offshoots enter my cognative field.

[wserra]

E-meter my arse!

You have to pay them first.

[Quixote]

The Rev. Rul. was "obsoleted" as part of the closing agreement. You can find the closing agreement here if you're interested: http://www.xenu.net/archive/IRS/#III IRS just agreed to ignore the USSC's Hernandez decision. See Section VII of the agreement.

Oops. I didn't read that far in Section VII once I noticed that Section VII expired on 12/31/99.