Court Opinion

ID: 9477419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:23:14.019244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:52.323679
License: Public Domain

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I am in full agreement with the analysis of the Eighth Circuit in Staples v. Commissioner, 821 F.2d 1324 (8th Cir.1987), and its conclusion that payments made by members of the Church of Scientology for individualized religious practices are tax deductible contributions. The court in Staples pointed out that
“ ‘our tax system does not treat religious services as commodities that are purchased in commercial transactions.’ Form sometimes is important in identifying a section 170 contribution because a payment appearing to be a purchase of an item of value creates a presumption that the transaction was not a donation. Rev.Rul. 67-246, 1967-2 C.B. 104, 105. Regardless of form, however, no similar presumption can arise when the item ‘purchased’ was the right to participate in religious practice. Spiritual gain to an individual church member cannot be valued by any measure known in the secular realm. As the tax court has stated, privileges arising from church membership ‘are not significant return benefits that have a monetary value within the meaning of section 170.’ Murphy v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 249, 253 (1970). The establishment by a church of a set ‘price’ for religious participation does not change the nature of the benefit of religion to the individual or to society. If the Scientologist ‘prices’ were deemed to make participation in their religious services a material, financial, or economic benefit such that the Staples’ payments were not contributions, then ‘the passing of the collection plate in church would make the church service a commercial project.’ See Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 111, 63 S.Ct. 870, 874, 87 L.Ed. 1292 (1943).”
In my view, any other conclusion has ominous implications for all religious institutions. I would reverse.