Legal Opinion
United States v. Church of Scientology Western United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 19, 1992No. Nos. 91-55479, 91-55481, 91-55489 and 91-55491PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge:
I. Introduction
These consolidated appeals represent the latest round in the Internal Revenue Service’s legal struggle to determine the tax status and tax liability of the various entities which comprise the Church of Scientology. The struggle has a long history in the federal courts.1 This matter arises out *717of parallel cases involving two separate Scientology organizations: the Church of Scientology Western United States (CSWUS) and the Church of Scientology International (CSI). The district court treated the CSWUS case as the lead case and the CSI case as related.…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- United States v. PowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- United States v. MenascheSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Hernandez v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- United States v. ZolinSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Montclair v. RamsdellSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Music Square Church v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
- United States of America, and Lori Nicholls, Internal Revenue Agent v. C.E. Hobbs Foundation for Religious Training and Education, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- Faith Missionary Baptist Church v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Faith Missionary Baptist Church)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Texas · 1994
- United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Church of Scientology Western United States and Cal Cole, President, Defendants-Appellees/ Cross-Appellants. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Church of Scientology International and Lynn Farny, Secretary, Defendants-Appellees/cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992