Many thanks to Mike & Leah for their advocacy!

It’s clear as can be to me anyone who has two eyes.

It requires the IRS to see. And then be willing to act.

On the subject of public policy, have the lawyers overlooked something? I think it would be easy to show that criminal behavior is against public policy. After all, the criminal code is already established law.

Not only individuals, but also organizations can be convicted of crimes. A formal example was the accounting firm Arthur Andersen. Informal examples include organized-crime groups prosecuted for racketeering.

Pete

Thanks, Mike.

Sklar was actually decided correctly. It was the Service’s disregard for Hernandez and complete misapplication of IRC Section 170 in contravention of their constitutional authority that is the true miscarriage of justice in this instance.

Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

One of the ironies here is that when a Jewish couple (the Sklars) sought to be treated the same as scientology with they payments for religious education they were denied. The court said that because they were NOT scientologists, they were not entitled to exemptions, and used the Hernandez case against them! Such a mess.

The dispositive question, in my mind, that arose in this interview was by what authority does the Service overrule a Supreme Court decision (i.e., that decision being the Court’s decision in Hernandez that payments for auditing services are quid pro quo payments, as opposed to donations, and are thus not deductible for US federal income tax purposes)? The response to this question touches the very foundation of our constitutional system and has been the subject of much debate and scholarly discourse among the bar; that response is also wholly unsatisfying.

Broadly, Title 26 of the US Code is the so-called “tax code.” If one were to physically examine the code itself, it occupies two volumes on my bookshelf; the other EIGHT VOLUMES comprise the Treasury Regulations. Congress grants Treasury broad authority within the Tax Code to promulgate regulations explaining and interpreting the statutes passed by Congress. The Service takes this a step further (or perhaps sideways?) by issuing supplementary guidance in the form of Revenue Rulings, Notices and Private Letter Rulings (“PLRs”) which further explains and interprets the Code as applied to specific fact patters.

As I mentioned, there has been much debate as to the scope of Treasury’s authority in this area. Examining the Treasury Regulations, one could argue that there are many instances in which Treasury (i.e., the Executive Branch) has overstepped its Constitutional authority and engaged in what could be argued to be the creation of law. One instance of this may be the Obama-era regulations promulgated under IRC Section 385 (i.e., the section of the Code that deals with the characterization of certain financial instruments as debt or equity for tax purposes. It actually says very little and grants incredibly broad authority to Treasury to promulgate regulations, a factor the Obama Administration used to reach beyond scope of the statute to attack so-called corporate inversions). Another are the so-called “check-the-box” regulations under 301.7701; I would urge a reading of the following article from the University of Minnesota Law School discussing the constitutional implications of those regulations (https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=351084105114078088066006115127118074005024090008032052023104011113104127032098034106055022055064077012031023085028048000007059008126027026067026005103082112038081017082122072029095008086119073080108085081007122027065099099107090023097091024006&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE).

As I said, the response here is wholly-unsatisfactory. Treasury potentially overstepped its constitutional authority in promulgating regulations, as you can see it has done in the past, to circumvent the Court’s ruling in this instance. If the Court rules on an interpretation of a statute, it is Congress’ role to amend the statute if it believes the Court to be in error or if they believe public policy would be better served; it is not the executive branch’s role to act in Congress’ stead.

Unfortunately, as you can see the Hernandez decision is not the only instance of this practice occurring. In fact, much of the practice of tax law is built upon the reliance on these regulations and published guidance in guiding our advice for clients.

I can’t be a plaintiff because the cult never did anything to me. I have no reason to sue them.

I could petition the court over the Shelley situation, but I think the petition would seem more genuine coming from someone that knew her. It would be even better if the petition were signed by as many former scientologists as possible.

I would be happy to assist anyone that is interested in seeking these types of remedies. You don’t have to hire a lawyer to do any of it.

With no involvement perhaps you would be a perfect plaintiff?

Why not try out your theories? Maybe you can break down the walls?

A lot of people would support you.

No lawyer would argue about whether a court can decide whether a given entity is really what it claims to be. It is a question of law. In the case of the cult, that issue has not been settled until a court settles it. All you have to do is look at the court’s opinion in Garcia. The judge specifically mentioned that the Garcia’s did not question the cult’s claim that it is a religion. Courts decide thorny constitutional questions all the time.

If a person has reason to believe another person is the victim of foul play and they have probable cause to support their concern, they have standing to petition a court to appoint a guardian to investigate the situation.

I believe there are solid legal grounds to pursue these remedies and others. I am a never in and have never known anyone that had any contact with this cult.

In my post below I have listed the people and snail mail addresses of the top IRS officials to involve. Sending an email through the whistleblower link on IRS.gov goes to a grade 3-5 clerk. Where as paper mail directed to these people will land on their desks and in their hands. Audits and reevaluations are selected by both random computer generated lists based on specific criteria and programs decided based on information that is provided by outside sources. Both are set by Washington DC. Those are the people you need to convince. Because believe me when I say there are many people at the field and service center levels that are ready to tackle the problem.