- 6 -
impulses. They were intended as payment in the nature of tuition
for petitioners’ children, a personal expense. These mandatory
payments were received as payments for tuition by the schools.
Therefore, they do not qualify as charitable contribution
deductions.
In Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680 (1989), the
Supreme Court held on the record presented that payments for
“auditing” to the Church of Scientology were not deductible as
charitable contributions because they represented a quid pro quo;
i.e., the payor was receiving goods or services in return for the
payment. The taxpayer in Hernandez had argued, inter alia, that
the disallowance of the auditing payments represented an
impermissible failure by the IRS to consistently enforce section
170, relying on various revenue rulings, such as Rev. Rul. 70-47,
1970-1 C.B. 49, pertaining to such things as pew rents, building
fund assessments, and periodic dues. See id. at 703. However,
the Supreme Court rejected this contention because the record
therein did not support it.
Petitioners contend that the terms of a closing agreement
between the Commissioner and the Church of Scientology are
relevant and will show that the Commissioner has agreed to allow
charitable contributions for all or a percentage of auditing
payments, and that the disallowance of the charitable
contribution deductions herein in light of the settlement with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011