Agudath Israel of America has filed a brief in the appeal of
a lower court decision that denied a Los Angeles Jewish
couple's attempt to claim a deduction of the portion of
their tuition payments that goes toward religious
instruction. Michael and Marla Sklar used a precedent --
the Internal Revenue Service's agreement with another
organization recognized as religious in the U.S. to allow
its practitioners to deduct the cost of certain religious
studies and services as charitable contributions on their
income tax statements -- to make the claim that their
children's religious instruction in two Los Angeles yeshivos
merited the same consideration.
In 1994, Mr. and Mrs. Sklar claimed that the portion of
their tuition payments to Yeshiva Rav Isacsohn Torath Emeth
Academy and Emek Hebrew Academy for their children's
religious instruction -- fixed by each of the two yeshivos
at 55% of their total tuition payments to the school --
should be deductible.
The lower court rejected the couple's claim and refused even
to consider as evidence the precedent in the other case,
prompting the Sklars to appeal the decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals, which is now considering the case.
Agudath Israel's amicus curiae ("friend of the
court") brief, written by New York-based tax attorney Jay A.
Friedman in conjunction with the organization's chief legal
counsel David Zwiebel and associate counsel Mordechai Biser,
makes the argument that religious education in yeshivos
qualifies as an "intangible religious benefit" which, under
Congress' 1993 amendments to the Internal Revenue Code, may
be received by a donor without in any way affecting the
deductibility of the donation.
The dual instructional model that is the hallmark of the
yeshiva day school movement makes "each school, in effect,
two schools in one: a religious studies school whose
function is to educate students in the traditions of the
Jewish faith; and a separate secular studies school whose
function is to provide a secular education in accordance
with the requirements of state law."
That portion of tuition that is clearly allocable to the
religious studies program should accordingly be seen as a
tax deductible contribution, says Agudath Israel, especially
in view of the IRS's policy with respect to the other
organization's payments.
The brief concludes with a citation of a recent article on
the Sklar case in Forbes' Magazine, whose headline
includes the question: "What makes tuition paid for classes
in one religion more deductible than tuition for classes in
another?"; and which tells its readers: "Is your family's
religious education deductible? It depends on your
religion." That response is entirely unacceptable, asserts
Agudath Israel, and the Court of Appeals now has the
opportunity to insist that yeshiva religious studies
payments be treated no less favorably than Scientology
studies payments.
