Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Private Education Tax Credits Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court
CNN ^ | April 4, 2011 | Bill Mears

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: court; schoolvouchers; scotus; standing; supreme; vouchers
Good news!
1 posted on 04/04/2011 8:09:09 AM PDT by optiguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: optiguy

“Justice Anthony Kennedy said taxpayers challenging the program lacked “standing” to continue the suit.”

Yea, but for the wrong reason.


2 posted on 04/04/2011 8:11:18 AM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: optiguy

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?


3 posted on 04/04/2011 8:15:26 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: optiguy
Justice Anthony Kennedy said taxpayers challenging the program lacked "standing" to continue the suit.

I'm starting to feel right uncomfortable about that term.

4 posted on 04/04/2011 8:16:22 AM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast (Public education is WELFARE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: optiguy

nix => give the nod to


5 posted on 04/04/2011 8:17:09 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

“but what if this were about donations to abortion facilities?”

I’ll bet donations to PP are tax deductable already.


6 posted on 04/04/2011 8:21:45 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: optiguy

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.


7 posted on 04/04/2011 8:26:09 AM PDT by July4 (Remember the price paid for your freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: optiguy
This is indicative of why it is so important to make sure Obama loses the 2012 election. If Obama gets an opportunity to appoint another liberal justice, this country will be dealt a potentially fatal blow.
8 posted on 04/04/2011 8:30:42 AM PDT by Gabrial (The Whitehouse Nightmare will continue as long as the Nightmare is in the Whitehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

You already donate to abortion factorys, its called taxes..:O(


9 posted on 04/04/2011 8:31:39 AM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: optiguy

A 5-4 vote. Another reason BO must lose in 2012.


10 posted on 04/04/2011 8:39:05 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: optiguy
lacked “standing”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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.

11 posted on 04/04/2011 8:41:41 AM PDT by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: optiguy
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.

Since when is Kennedy a conservative?
12 posted on 04/04/2011 8:43:47 AM PDT by CottonBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

>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.


13 posted on 04/04/2011 8:44:57 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: optiguy

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.


14 posted on 04/04/2011 8:46:58 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain & proud of it: Truly Supporting the Troops means praying for their Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: optiguy
See in your Bible: Ecclesiastes 10:2. Even the Bible knows a conservative from a liberal:

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!!!

15 posted on 04/04/2011 8:55:32 AM PDT by RetiredArmy (Read: Ecclesiastes 10:2. You will be amazed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CottonBall
Since when is Kennedy a conservative?

Kennedy is the MOST POWERFUL of all the 9 supremes. It is tied 4-4. He decides those outcomes.

16 posted on 04/04/2011 8:57:40 AM PDT by RetiredArmy (Read: Ecclesiastes 10:2. You will be amazed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
"...then the taxpayer definitely has the “standing” to know why."

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.

17 posted on 04/04/2011 8:59:56 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Gabrial
This is indicative of why it is so important to make sure Obama loses the 2012 election. If Obama gets an opportunity to appoint another liberal justice, this country will be dealt a potentially fatal blow.

I think that the word "Potential" doesn't sum it up. It WILL be fatal!

18 posted on 04/04/2011 9:02:37 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: optiguy

Oh my! Our “news media” will be bouncing off the walls. Why the long face, Andrea?


19 posted on 04/04/2011 9:02:50 AM PDT by popdonnelly (Democrats are silly people - but silly people can be dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo
“No standing” is being abused by judges and this needs correction.

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.

20 posted on 04/04/2011 9:07:25 AM PDT by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: optiguy

I’m tired of courts hiding behind “standing.” Obama eligibility? Standing. Marriage? Standing.


21 posted on 04/04/2011 9:12:17 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Obama will be president until Fri, Jan 20, 2017.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
but what if this were about donations to abortion facilities?

If a state wanted to provide tax credits against the state tax for whatever they can get passed, they should be able to without federal interference. It is their tax and the feds should have no say.

The problem with standing is who does this credit harm? There is no one that is harmed by the state allowing a credit against its tax. And yes, even a tax credit for abortion centers does not harm a Tea Partier.

22 posted on 04/04/2011 9:14:37 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
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?

If the abortion facilities qualified as 501(c) non-profits then donations would be tax deductible.

23 posted on 04/04/2011 9:25:24 AM PDT by VRWCmember (Veritas vos Liberabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

You win your bet (no takers, I see). PP donations are “...tax-deductible to the fullest extent allowable under the law.” (as per their site)


24 posted on 04/04/2011 10:11:15 AM PDT by skr (May God confound the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: optiguy

The article is not clear but apparently these donations provide STATE tax relief. Why would the federal court even have taken this case? It would seem as though this was a state issue to be decided by state courts. Where is the federal interest here?


25 posted on 04/04/2011 10:19:16 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; marshmallow

Good news ping!


26 posted on 04/04/2011 10:21:41 AM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- are the values that time has proven them to work)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

The article is not clear but apparently these donations provide STATE tax relief. Why would the federal court even have taken this case? It would seem as though this was a state issue to be decided by state courts. Where is the federal interest here?


Presumably the Establishment Clause is argued. A tax credit is like a government payment to a religious entity, they would argue.


27 posted on 04/04/2011 10:25:53 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: optiguy

More tax breaks for rich fat cats. Penalizes working-class American union members, blah, blah.


28 posted on 04/04/2011 10:36:15 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (To conserve energy, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off permanently.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
"Why would the federal court even have taken this case? It would seem as though this was a state issue to be decided by state courts. Where is the federal interest here?"

You mean the Federal government doesn't have standing here?

/sarcasm off

29 posted on 04/04/2011 10:56:34 AM PDT by grayeagle (What happens on the Internet stays on the Internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: xzins

You would need to show income from sources outside yourself.


30 posted on 04/04/2011 12:18:30 PM PDT by Excellence (Buy Progresso, take off the label, write "not halal," mail to Campbell's soup company.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: optiguy

I sure could use that deduction on my federal return. The way I look at it, I am paying once for my daughter’s private education and again for a public education.


31 posted on 04/04/2011 12:31:09 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: optiguy
So instead of just ruling on the dang case while they had it in front of them, they ruled on its standing merits and kicked the can so the lower courts can be jammed up with "establishment clause" cases by individuals for years to come.

Way to go Supreme Court.

32 posted on 04/04/2011 2:25:14 PM PDT by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CottonBall

“...Since when is Kennedy a conservative?...”

Evidently, today, he was...

Good for our side.


33 posted on 04/04/2011 2:28:00 PM PDT by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
A 5-4 vote. Another reason BO must lose in 2012.

I agree. We are just one heartbeat away from becoming a full fledged MARXIST controlled country.

34 posted on 04/04/2011 3:08:08 PM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: optiguy
Freedom - 1
Liberal Fascism - 0
35 posted on 04/04/2011 3:19:31 PM PDT by winstonwolf33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
I sure could use that deduction on my federal return. The way I look at it, I am paying once for my daughter’s private education and again for a public education.

The deduction can be taken on your federal return but in AZ it's a dollar for dollar credit against the tax owed instead of a deduction to your taxable income.

36 posted on 04/04/2011 4:05:49 PM PDT by Tucsonican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tucsonican
The deduction can be taken on your federal return but in AZ it's a dollar for dollar credit against the tax owed instead of a deduction to your taxable income.

No, I am pretty sure that you can't take a tuition deduction for private school. If I am wrong, please direct me to some info to the contrary.

37 posted on 04/04/2011 4:24:03 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
No, I am pretty sure that you can't take a tuition deduction for private school. If I am wrong, please direct me to some info to the contrary.

You can't take a tuition credit for this contribution but it (CTSO) is an organization qualified for a charitable contribution deduction on your Schedule A. You can take that contribution deduction whether you live in AZ or not.

38 posted on 04/04/2011 5:07:34 PM PDT by Tucsonican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

I’ve seen no evidence that is being abused. Only that some people don’t like it when it applies to a case they like.


39 posted on 04/04/2011 5:41:08 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

“Tax Credits” is just another way of saying that the government can confiscate your property and hold it hostage unless you act the way they approve.


40 posted on 04/04/2011 9:41:50 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Excellence

Farmers pay their children as laborers and get to take it off the top.


41 posted on 04/04/2011 9:43:33 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain & proud of it: Truly Supporting the Troops means praying for their Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Gabrial

Absolutely and the same for the Senate elections.


42 posted on 04/04/2011 10:34:31 PM PDT by William Tell 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Gabrial

Absolutely and the same for the Senate elections.


43 posted on 04/04/2011 10:34:34 PM PDT by William Tell 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson