Skip to comments.Private Education Tax Credits Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court
Posted on 04/04/2011 8:09:05 AM PDT by optiguy
WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Supreme Court has tossed out a lawsuit challenging Arizona's tax breaks for voluntary donations benefiting private school scholarships, many of them Christian-based.
The 13-year-old program provides dollar-for-dollar income tax credits for money given to "school tuition organizations," or STOs.
The 5-4 ruling split along conservative-liberal lines. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said taxpayers challenging the program lacked "standing" to continue the suit.
(Excerpt) Read more at religion.blogs.cnn.com ...
“Justice Anthony Kennedy said taxpayers challenging the program lacked “standing” to continue the suit.”
Yea, but for the wrong reason.
The way the Supremes went about this, however, may be less than satisfying. The conservatives didn’t nix the idea of tax deductibility of such donations; they only said that a plain ole vanilla taxpayer doesn’t have standing to sue. (Someone else might, but they didn’t say whom.) In this case the Tea Party folks may be in accidental sympathy with the Christian school folks, but what if this were about donations to abortion facilities?
I'm starting to feel right uncomfortable about that term.
nix => give the nod to
“but what if this were about donations to abortion facilities?”
I’ll bet donations to PP are tax deductable already.
My kids long ago matriculated parochial and private schools, and I consider my money well spent. BUT, since minorities can benefit from alleged bank agricultural loan slights without having to produce bank records or even proving that they ever farmed AND since minorities can get jobs or be admitted to college because of slavery (over a century and a half ago), I think I’ll ask for retroactive tuition tax credits.
You already donate to abortion factorys, its called taxes..:O(
A 5-4 vote. Another reason BO must lose in 2012.
I am soooooooo sick of this “lacked standing” argument!
While I am pleased that the tax credits were allowed to remain, using this “lacked standing” reasoning is becoming far too common. If the government has the police power to plunder the citizen's wealth, then the taxpayer definitely has the “standing” to know why.
>If the government has the police power to plunder the citizen’s wealth,
They do; that’s the logical outcome of Kelo v. New London.
The USSC concluded that “projections” [on increased tax revenue] are sufficient to qualify as “public use” for Imminent Domain.
There’s got to be a way to turn educating your own kids into a business with their education being a business expense. Then it would come off the top of the income.
A wise man's heart is at his right hand,
But a fool's heart is at his left.
NO MORE need be said. The truth strikes!!!
Kennedy is the MOST POWERFUL of all the 9 supremes. It is tied 4-4. He decides those outcomes.
The issue isn't standing to "know why". It's standing to sue in court. The taxpayers act through their votes. To sue in court you have to have some specific interest in the issue. It's a standard legal principle and is perfectly logical. Without it anyone could take anyone else to trial over anything.
I think that the word "Potential" doesn't sum it up. It WILL be fatal!
Oh my! Our “news media” will be bouncing off the walls. Why the long face, Andrea?
By the way, are you familiar with the Barnes Foundation art collection in Merion, PA? “No standing” was used in that case as well. Disgusting.