|
WEBBED HERE:
http://www.lermanet.com/scientologylegal/sklar-case-motions.htm
Report from Trial at top of MAIN index page HERE
http://www.lermanet.com/index.htm
Sklar Case Motions:
Note 1: Apologies for any typos; this was rushed.
Note 2: This document has been SUPPRESSED from the public, by the US
Tax Court Judge John O. Colvin, who has refused public access to the
Docket #395-01 file, for the duration of the Sklar v. IRS hearings,
until he issues his written decision. It is reproduced here, as a
public service, to coincide with anticipated public interest, from
news coverage of this historic trial!
Note 3: To protest this described unconstitutional conduct by the IRS
(while it it still relevant to current hearings), contact Mr. Jack's
boss: Donald D. Korb, Chief Counsel, IRS
Note 4: To put appropriate pressure upon the IRS Counsel, it is
suggested that readers contact ASAP by fax, offices of those
Congressional Committee members (with budgetary oversight powers over
the IRS), requesting IRS Counsel's release of IRS's 1993 Church of
Scientology "Secret Agreement" Documents to the Court, with the goal
of a more open and fair hearing.
Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of Three Orders: (filed
November 4, 2004 in US Tax Court, Docket #395-01)
Petitioner: Michael & Maria Sklar
Petitioner's Counsel: Jeffrey Zuckerman
Respondent: Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Respondent's Counsel: Louis B. Jack, Senior Counsel, IRS
Petitioners respectfully move the Court, pursuant to Tax Court Rule
50, to reconsider three orders:
1) The unwritten order granting without explanation the motion of
third-parties the Church of Scientology International ("CofS"), and
Reverend Heber C. Jentzch (the President of CofS) to quash trial
subpoenas deuces tecum that petitioner's counsel served upon them
(note 1);
(note 1: CofS and Rev. Jentzch moved to quash the subpoenas on March
12, 2004, and petitioners served their opposition to that motion on
March 19th. The law clerk to Judge Colvin subsequently advised the
attorney for petitioners, by telephone, that the Court had granted the
motion to quash, and the Court referred to this during unrecorded
conferences with the parties on March 24, 2004, but it appears that no
written order was ever entered with respect to the third-parties
motion to quash.)
2) The Order dated November 20, 2003, to the extent that it granted
without explanation respondent's motion for a protective order with
respect to petitioner's requestss for admissions, and provides that
respondent need not answer petitioner's requests for admissions nos. 1
through 78; and
3) The Order dated July 28, 2003, to the extent that it granted
without explanation respondent's motion for a protective order with
respect to petitioner's interrogatories and document requests, and
provides that respondent need not respond to petitioner's
interrogatories nos. 1 through 31 and 35, and to petitioner's document
requests nos. 1 through 20 and 25.
The crux of this motion is to determine whether petitioners will be
permitted to prove one of their two principal arguments in this
action: that IRS unconstitutionally discriminated against petitioners,
in patent violation of the First Amendment, by permitting
practitioners of another religion, Scientology, to deduct as
charitable contributions their payments for religious education, but
disallowing petitioners' deduction of their payments for religious
education because they are Jews and not Scientologists.
Petitioners made essentially the same argument in litigation
concerning their 1994 federal income tax return. (Sklar v.
Commissioner, 79 T.C.M. (CCH) 1815 (2000), aff'd 282 F.3rd 610 (9th
Cir. 2002). The Tax Court did not dispute petitioner's contention that
IRS may not discriminate on the basis of a taxpayer's religion, but
held that "petitioners have not established that they are similarly
situated with the members of the Church of Scientology who make
payments for auditing." The Ninth Circuit agreed that discrimination
of the type alleged by petitioners would violate the First Amendment,
but expresses "serious doubt that (petitioners) are similarly situated
to the persons who benefit from the Scientology closing agreement
because the religious education of (petitioner's) children does not
appear to be similar to the 'auditing', 'training' or other 'qualified
religious services' conducted by the Church of Scientology." 282 F.3d
at 619. Ultimately, however, the Court of Appeals did not rule on this
point, because it concluded that petitioners had failed to prove that
their tuition payments exceeded the market value of their children's
secular education. Petitioner Michael Sklar, who is not a lawyer,
represented petitioners 'pro se' in the litigation concerning their
1994 tax return. Unfortunately, his unfamiliarity with the laws of
evidence hindered his proving what is really an incontestable fact,
i.e., theat 'auditing' and 'training' in CofS are jurisprudentially
indistinguishable from the religious education of petitioner's
children. Therefore, in the present action, counsel for petitioners
set out to prove this fact in accordance with the rules of evidence.
To this end, petitioners first tried to secure information and
documents from respondent, who has been monitoring CofS for decades,
through interrogatories and document requests. See petitioners First
Set of Requests for the Production of Documents and Things, dated May
5, 2003. Respondent objected, and the Court upheld his objection,
without explanation, in its Order dated July 28, 2003.
Petitioners next asked respondent to admit certain facts, which would
have established that 'auditing' and 'training' in CofS are
jurisprudentially indistinguishable from the religious education of
petitioner's children, and that in 1995 respondent permitted, and even
today permits, Scientologists to deduct as charitable contributions
their payments for auditing and training. See Petitioner's Request for
Admissions by Respondent, dated September 3, 2003. Many of these facts
were in statements about CofS that respondent made publicly, in court
filings concerning CofS. Again, however, respondent objected, and the
Court upheld his objection, again without explanation, in its Order
dated November 20, 2003.
Finally, petitioners subpoenaed CofS and Rev. Jentzsch to testify and
produce documents at the trial of this action. Their testimony and
documents also would prove that 'auditiing' and 'training' in CofS are
jurisprudentially indistinguishable from the religious education of
petitioner's children, and that respondent permits Scientologists to
deduct as charitable contributions their payments for auditing and
training. CofS and Rev. Jentzsch moved to quash the subpoenas, and
respondent moved to exclude from evidence all testimony or documents
from CofS
|
| |
| |
|
