Reported income

[clamicide]

This is now driving me crazy--is there an accountant or tax lawyer on the board? I remember, growing up, sitting in on a meeting my mom had and it was explained that classes and such taken at the church (not Scio) were not tax deductible, as anything "donated" to a church that benefited an individual did not qualify. Buildings, stained glass, etc. were because it did not benefit or give special rights to an individual. Heard this again years later and so was ALWAYS confused when Scientology 'donations' were deemed to be deductible. Anyone have the skinny on this? Google is not being my friend right now...it's not turning up the info I'm looking for.

[alex]

This is now driving me crazy--is there an accountant or tax lawyer on the board? I remember, growing up, sitting in on a meeting my mom had and it was explained that classes and such taken at the church (not Scio) were not tax deductible, as anything "donated" to a church that benefited an individual did not qualify. Buildings, stained glass, etc. were because it did not benefit or give special rights to an individual. Heard this again years later and so was ALWAYS confused when Scientology 'donations' were deemed to be deductible. Anyone have the skinny on this? Google is not being my friend right now...it's not turning up the info I'm looking for.

ianal but in scientology not everything is tax free. donations for auditing are, courses are, books not. Some things are broken into taxable and tax free and show up on your statement as such when you get them.

It is the fact that the "classes" taken in scientology are part of our religious practice that makes them not taxed. There is no value to them except the religious nature of them vs say a class that teaches a secular skill. Thats the theory, Sklar notwithstanding.Google "sklar scientology" for unending debate on this...

[AnonOrange]

This is now driving me crazy--is there an accountant or tax lawyer on the board? I remember, growing up, sitting in on a meeting my mom had and it was explained that classes and such taken at the church (not Scio) were not tax deductible, as anything "donated" to a church that benefited an individual did not qualify. Buildings, stained glass, etc. were because it did not benefit or give special rights to an individual. Heard this again years later and so was ALWAYS confused when Scientology 'donations' were deemed to be deductible. Anyone have the skinny on this? Google is not being my friend right now...it's not turning up the info I'm looking for.

That probably changed in 1993 when the IRS gave them their "religion" status. That's why it was not deductible when you were a kid.

[clamicide]

ianal but in scientology not everything is tax free. donations for auditing are, courses are, books not. Some things are broken into taxable and tax free and show up on your statement as such when you get them.

It is the fact that the "classes" taken in scientology are part of our religious practice that makes them not taxed. There is no value to them except the religious nature of them vs say a class that teaches a secular skill. Thats the theory, Sklar notwithstanding.Google "sklar scientology" for unending debate on this...

That probably changed in 1993 when the IRS gave them their "religion" status. That's why it was not deductible when you were a kid.

I was NOT talking about Scientology courses not being considered tax-deductible, which is why it confused me when the ruling came down. It was catechism classes, which a Catholic child needs to complete in order to even take communion. Definitely of a religious nature and no secular skill. Later, working at a religious convention, there was an alert by a church lawyer (again, not Scientology) telling people their convention and course fees were not tax deductible, since they were getting something in return, but if they worked in the field they might be as it might classify as a work expense. Check with your preparer/lawyer/etc.

[AnonyMary]

The church claims the moneys given to SO is a stipend. And it is given to "religious workers" a class of person who is mostly a volunteer, such as a priest or nun, not there for the simple exchange of labor for compensation, but working for a cause.

It is a different set of rules than the typical ones more common types of employees are subject too. In some cases "religious worker" compensation is not reported and taxed the same way wages are.

It will be interesting if the Headly case gets any traction, as it will effect other religions such as catholics that have large numbers of people classed as "religious workers".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipend

The law on this is on the church's side.....

(I'm not saying its fair or right, it would be fair or right if SO got decent food, housing, medical, auditing and training, and care in their later years)

Alex, you have NOT done your homework and because of that, you have passed on propaganda, Shame, shame on you, lol

CoS only began withholding tax on Sea Org because it was wise to be on the right side of the law after he 93 IRS settlement. I cannot imagine the IRS waiving the back years, since they are not allowed to by law. CoS must have withheld the info about the back years and just started anew in 93.

Additionally, you are incorrect about the 'stipend' not being taxable. All churches are required to report wages and withhold social security taxes/FICA taxes unless the person paid is a qualified certified minister who declares a vow of poverty and has waived those withholdings by filing form 4361. At one point in the late 80's, field ministers and regular org staff in some states were encouraged to file these forms so the church would not have to pay the employer share of FICA, as well as unemployment taxes.
The problem was that many of the employees did not want to waive their
right to social security income in later years by filing the form, so it did not go over very well. Hence, I suspect that there not be any lawsuits now if everyone was made to sign these waivers in the first place.

The IRS states that:
For income tax purposes, a licensed, commissioned, or ordained minister is generally treated as a common law employee of his or her church, denomination, or sect. There are, however, some exceptions such as traveling evangelists who may be treated as independent contractors. If you are a minister performing ministerial services, you are taxed on wages, offerings, and fees you receive for performing marriages, baptismals, and/or funerals.

The services you perform in the exercise of your ministry are generally subject to self-employment tax for social security purposes. See Publication 517, Social Security and Other Information for Members of the Clergy and Religious Workers, for limited exceptions from self-employment tax.
http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417.html

Ministers, Members of Religious Orders, and Christian Science Practitioners

To claim the exemption from SE tax, you must meet all of the following conditions.

You file Form 4361, described later under Requesting Exemption—Form 4361.

You are conscientiously opposed to public insurance because of your individual religious considerations (not because of your general conscience), or you are opposed because of the principles of your religious denomination.

You file for other than economic reasons.

You inform the ordaining, commissioning, or licensing body of your church or order that you are opposed to public insurance if you are a minister or a member of a religious order (other than a vow-of-poverty member). This requirement does not apply to Christian Science practitioners.

You establish that the organization that ordained, commissioned, or licensed you, or your religious order, is a tax-exempt religious organization.

You establish that the organization is a church or a convention or association of churches.

You did not make an election discussed earlier under Who cannot be exempt.

You sign and return the statement the IRS mails to you to certify that you are requesting an exemption based on the grounds listed on the statement. "

Here is an IRS reference for Churches and religious orgs:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

I think Bea has a real complaint here and she is not alone. She should write to Barry VanSickle and ask him what he thinks about her earnings record and the omissions.

Mary McConnell

[AnonyMary]

I was NOT talking about Scientology courses not being considered tax-deductible, which is why it confused me when the ruling came down. It was catechism classes, which a Catholic child needs to complete in order to even take communion. Definitely of a religious nature and no secular skill. Later, working at a religious convention, there was an alert by a church lawyer (again, not Scientology) telling people their convention and course fees were not tax deductible, since they were getting something in return, but if they worked in the field they might be as it might classify as a work expense. Check with your preparer/lawyer/etc.

You need to read up on the Sklar v IRS case last several levels of hearings. And Hernandez v IRS commissioner ( supreme Ct) Google those

[clamicide]

You need to read up on the Sklar v IRS case last several levels of hearings. And Hernandez v IRS commissioner ( supreme Ct) Google those

Been reading it since I originally posted. Still mid and so far, it is confirming what I thought. Thanks.

[alex]

Been reading it since I originally posted. Still mid and so far, it is confirming what I thought. Thanks.

See, even the US government thinks we are special.

Scientology, the first US Government state sponsored religion.

[bluewiggirl]

See, even the US government thinks we are special.

Scientology, the first US Government state sponsored religion.

Wow, I completely agree with you on that one!

...probably not with the underlying SENTIMENT though

[degraded being]

The church claims the moneys given to SO is a stipend. And it is given to "religious workers" a class of person who is mostly a volunteer, such as a priest or nun, not there for the simple exchange of labor for compensation, but working for a cause.

It is a different set of rules than the typical ones more common types of employees are subject too. In some cases "religious worker" compensation is not reported and taxed the same way wages are.

It will be interesting if the Headly case gets any traction, as it will effect other religions such as catholics that have large numbers of people classed as "religious workers".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipend

The law on this is on the church's side.....

(I'm not saying its fair or right, it would be fair or right if SO got decent food, housing, medical, auditing and training, and care in their later years)

"religious worker" may have certain requirements beyond painting, renovation, cleaning, etc, to be considered as such.