A Los Angeles Jewish couple's bid for the right to take a
federal income tax deduction of the portion of their tuition
payments that goes toward religious instruction has been
turned down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.
Agudath Israel of America, which filed a "friend of the
court" brief in the couple's appeal of a lower court
decision, called the new ruling "deeply disappointing."
Michael and Marla Sklar, the California parents, seized upon
a precedent, the Internal Revenue Service's agreement with
the Church of Scientology 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 no less consideration.
Though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that payments to
the Church of Scientology for religious training exercises
are not deductible as charitable contributions, subsequent
changes to the tax code raised the possibility that they
might indeed be.
And, in 1993, the Internal Revenue Service reached an
agreement with the church, which was later leaked to the
press, in which it pledged "not to contest the deductibility
of Church of Scientology fixed donations in connection with
qualified religious services."
The Sklars claimed that the portion of their payments for
their children's religious instruction should be entitled to
the same standard of deductibility.
A lower court rejected the couple's claim and refused even to
consider as evidence the precedent in the Scientology case,
prompting the Sklars to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court
of Appeals, which has now upheld the lower court's
decision.
The Appeals Court essentially took the view that the
Scientology policy was misguided, and that the tax code
changes had not affected the deductibility of religious
training exercises.
It went on to criticize the I.R.S. for allowing what the High
Court had determined to be an unauthorized tax deduction.
Right or wrong, though, the I.R.S.'s Scientology policy was
deemed to have no bearing on the Sklars's appeal. In a
concurring opinion, Judge Barry G. Silverman, subtly invoking
a Jewish trope, asked:
"Why is Scientology training different from all other
religious training? We should decline the invitation to
answer that question. The sole issue before us is whether
the Sklars's claimed deduction is valid, not whether members
of the Church of Scientology have become the IRS's chosen
people."
The Appeals Court rejected the Sklars's deduction not because
it was for religious education but rather because there was
no evidence presented that the Sklars's total tuition bill
exceeded the fair market value of a private secular
education.
Prominent tax attorney Jay Friedman, along with Agudath
Israel attorneys Chaim Dovid Zwiebel and Mordechai Biser,
authored the organization's brief.
In reaction to the decision, Mr. Zwiebel said that Agudath
Israel and other interested parties were considering several
different options, including the possibility of reopening the
issue in another case in which there would be no confusion
regarding the fair market value of a secular education.
"This is an important issue," he said, "and it deserves a
full hearing on its merits."
