- 29 -
Emek and Yeshiva Rav Isacsohn provided a religious and
secular education for their students. Regardless of petitioners’
reasons for choosing to educate their children at Emek and
Yeshiva Rav Isacsohn, those schools did not provide exclusively
religious services.15
4. Whether the Agreement Reached Between the Internal
Revenue Service and the Church of Scientology in 1993
Affects the Result in This Case
In Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 702 (1989), the
U.S. Supreme Court held that the record did not support the
taxpayer’s claim of entitlement to deduct as charitable
contributions payments to the Church of Scientology for what the
Church of Scientology calls auditing and training. However, the
parties stipulated that an agreement dated October 1, 1993,
between the Commissioner and the Church of Scientology settled
several longstanding issues. According to a letter sent to
petitioners in 1994 from the chief of the adjustments branch,
Fresno Service Center, the settlement agreement between the
Commissioner and the Church of Scientology allows individuals to
15 Petitioners point out that the 1993 legislative history
states that the exception in secs. 170(f)(8) and 6115 for
intangible religious benefits does not apply to education leading
to a recognized degree. Petitioners contend that the secular
education provided by Emek and Yeshiva Rav Isacsohn does not lead
to a recognized degree. In light of our conclusion that secs.
170(f)(8) and 6115 are substantiation and disclosure provisions,
we need not consider this contention further.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011