Dutch tax exemption revoked + bonus announcements

Discussion in 'Leaks & Legal' started by Anonymous, Jul 18, 2012.

  1. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Sounds hobbit-y.
    • Funny Funny x 2
  2. Internetzin Member

    Darth Vader pedant taking down Luke Skywalker pedant! Tis pedantry war I feel.
  3. Cudgel Member

    Beats pederasty...
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. And pica. One can only watch so much of people eating detergent...
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. Internetzin Member

    Can't talk eating dry wall.
    • Funny Funny x 3
  6. Anonymous Member

    Oh Merel...
    • Like Like x 1
  7. anonysamvines Member

    google won't translate it for me :( i keep (and mean keep) getting a server error - even on the original source page:mad:
  8. Clusterdux Member

    If you can't use the automatic page translator, you should just copypaste the txt into here:
    You get something that is kinda-sorta readable.

    Anyway, here is the issue that the [ article ] is talking about.

    - CoS was never a chartable organization in NL. The course fees and the way that the organization recruited were unfitting for a charity in the eyes of the tax agency, and the courts agreed.

    - CoS set up subsidiaries (like Nabasa) that did manage to qualify for a chartable status and funneled money (like donations for the new ideal org) though them. CoS basically used a back door and accounting trickery to function as if they had chartable status.

    - The tax agency woke up to this, is considering this fraud, revoked the Nabasa chartable status, is billing CoS for the money that has been funneled though Nabasa in the past plus a penalty for tax evasion.

    - The Dutch CoS spokeswoman Merel Remmerswaal now made a public statement about this. She is saying it is a disgrace that CoS is not considered chartable considering the great good it is doing with initiatives like Narconon.

    - It is still unclear how CoS is going to fight this in court. The Dutch Supreme Court already ruled in the past that CoS is not chartable but it is unclear if this ruling is applicable to the current issue.
    If the ruling is to be considered applicable then CoS can only fight it at the European Court of Human Rights. If it is not, CoS could start a whole new case that will take a lot of time to resolve.
    • Like Like x 6
  9. Anonymous Member

    I keep hearing about how scientology is this great good, doingall kinds of betterment programs all over the world.

    It's ALL just money for David Miscavige.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. Clusterdux Member

    Yes and it seems the Dutch tax agency is stating to see it that way too. Lets just hope they won't allow themselves to be bullied into a deal like the IRS in the US.
    Note that the previous article mentioned that the agency is not disclosing anything about (likely) investigations into other CoS subsidiaries (like Narconon) that still are charitable. Not all cards are on the table yet.
    • Like Like x 6
  11. Clusterdux Member

    Ok, I have no news but there are majority lulzy consequences to the the ANBI status revocation of Nabesa that may not be clear to everyone:

    Giving money to an ANBI charity means one does not have to pay income tax over the amount donated [ Dutch info here ]. There is a tax break for the recipient but also for the donor. The unusual move of a retroactive ANBI revocation results in a retroactive increase of the taxable income of everyone who donated.
    This 'everyone' are all the Dutch Clams who got suckered into things like Ideal Org donations in 2008 or later. The are all going to get a letter in the famous blue Tax Agency envelope informing them they donated to something that is now considered fraudulent and need to return tax breaks.

    The [ ] article notes this in passing
    • Winner Winner x 7
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Just out of curiosity, I wonder how this would play out if the same were to happen in America. Would the retroactive ban run afoul of Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, which bans the passage of ex post facto laws?
  13. Clusterdux Member

    There was no ex facto law change, or ANY law change as far I know. The tax agency always reserved the right to do this in case of fraud.
    What DID happen was that some members of parlement started asking questions about Scientology cash flows to the Ministry of Finance, says [ this Dutch article ] dated February this year. This is likely what woke up the tax agency and made them to do some enforcing.

    Anyway, if anyone is doubting this story they should check the tax agency's own ANBI database [ search here ] for themselves.
    And poof, you were never a charity, Nabesa...... Now pay up!
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. Aurora Member

    No doubting here, just rejoicing!
    Hope the clams feel butt hurt and figure out to blame their leaders.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  15. muldrake Member

    That's an interesting question. However, retroactive taxes are, to some extent, considered constitutional. Very early on, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the prohibition on ex post facto laws has been that this only applies to criminal laws. Another fairly well known exception to the ex post facto prohibition is laws requiring sexual offenders to register with the authorities.

    So one could be validly taxed ex post facto, but not criminally penalized.

    Ex post facto taxation is fairly rare, since outside of a few contexts usually involving either actual fraud or something akin to fraud, passing such a tax would be political suicide.

    Arguably, this goes against the plain language of the Constitution. However, anyone who wants to berate the perpetrator of this doctrine will need to dig up Justice Samuel Chase, who has been dead since 1811.
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Anonymous Member

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but the courts have ruled that making sex offenders who were convicted before the enactment of the registration laws IS a violation of the Constitution. It started wiwth a case in Cleveland...
  17. muldrake Member

    Not sure what "bubble" you're talking about. I am simply stating the law as it is. The Supreme Court has clearly held that laws often styled "Megan's Laws" are nonpunitive, administrative in nature, and are not violations of the ex post facto clause.

    So far as I am aware, the Supreme Court is superior to a state court.

    The controlling case for civil commitment statutes is United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. ___ (2010). The controlling case for sex offender registries is Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003). They have not, and could not be overruled by a decision from an inferior court.
  18. Random guy Member

    Oh, bugger me sideways! This is not going to go down well in the cult!
    • Agree Agree x 2
  19. muldrake Member

    It's going to screw them. The very people they have to reg for donations won't have the money to donate even if they want to. Plus they get taxed on it from now on.

    Most clams are pretty cash-strapped and won't be able to pay back taxes. Tax authorities don't take kindly to that. Sucks to be a cultist, I guess.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. Dragononymous Member

    I would like to state that this is the result of whining at those same members of parliament (and most parties in that case) from several wwp members.
    Just so you all know that stuff was actually being done.

    continue laughing at the clams wallet.
    • Like Like x 10
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. Anonymous Member

    NB: Y no US cite?
    NB: Y we talking US law, when this is dutch thread?

    Muldrake: trolling the law, deep, wide, and remembering Justice Chase with fondness? Strange Tuesday.
  22. muldrake Member

    There is no U.S. cite for that case yet, that's why. It'll be in 560 U.S. when it comes. The current S. Ct. citation is 130 S. Ct. 1949 (2010).

    We were talking general principles of retroactivity, since (at least so far) nobody in the thread has said what the specific Dutch laws are, other than that it permits retroactive applications of tax laws, and apparently in at least semi-similar situations that U.S. law allows. Most retroactively applied tax laws are in the nature of closing some kind of loophole. Those that aren't are very unpopular. I can't imagine Dutch people are much more thrilled about a retroactive tax.

    To bring it back on-topic, the reason the Dutch tax-exemption for these donations was revoked was it was basically fraudulent to begin with. If the tax authorities are going after back taxes for it, they probably are fairly confident that they have good alternate grounds for disallowing the past exemptions.

    I'll abandon the mini-threadjack now, though the subject becomes interesting again if the Scientologists continue to fight the case. They might. Tax cases are usually dear to their heartpocketbook.
  23. Dragononymous Member

    Little update.

    Both members of parliament who made this happen survived the dutch elections.
    Which means we still have at least two members over there who actually care.

    To be continued...
    • Like Like x 11
    • Winner Winner x 1
  24. TinyDancer Member

    OP, did you consider sending them this report from California which debunks their school drug education program?
    • Winner Winner x 2
  25. Anonymous Member

    OP here. This link will be sent to a journalist I have been in contact with as a result of the Nabesa story. He seemed interested in doing a story on this topic and media attention works better than my personal efforts.

    Hence, I am preparing a nice and juicy info package. However, I can´t find an essential bit of dox.

    Narconon/Scientology organises an anti-drug marathon each year, with bunches of mayors formally receiving them. I remember seeing the Dutch drug marathon being touted in one of the Scientology events. I watch several of them (LRH Birthday event 2010 and 2011, IAS event 2011, 2010 IAS seminar) on, but I can't find it anymore. So far, I only found a similiar section on a Czech marathon in the 2011 IAS video.

    Does anyone remember which event touted the Dutch marathon?

    I really want to include this in the info package (providing my memory isn't failing me) as it shows strongly that the marathon is motivated by self-promotion rather than an honest desire to combat drug addiction.

    Please halp me find it! Thanks a bunch.
  26. Anonymous Member

    And not only that, wwp is also the source of the dox that the tax office is now acting upon.

    However, I am have some reservation about whether the tax office will actually press through with fining the church. You see, there is an exception in Dutch tax laws regarding religions. The tax office can give religions a blanket tax exempt status, which renders all activities of that church tax exempt. This includes actual charitable efforts but also buildings and maintanance.

    Back in 2004, Scientology was not formally recognised as a religion. The courts argued Scientology should not receive tax exemption because it is primarily a personal affair and not inherently something for the common good.
    In the meanwhile, the Chamber of Commerce has formally recognised Scientology as a religion. Given the exeptions in tax law, this may mean that the decision by the courts in 2004 is no longer valid.

    More importantly, arguably all religions are essentially a personal matter rather than an inherent common good. This means that Scientology has a case when they are claiming religious discrimination, and I am sure the tax office is well aware they may be stepping into a legal minefield.

    So I am sure we haven't heard the last of this saga.
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Anonymous Member

    Clusterdux, are you sure and where do you get this info from? I am pretty sure only the cult will be charged. /OP
  28. Clusterdux Member

    Eh? I explained my sources in the post. Perhaps this wasn't clear enough.

    Source A: The ANBI rules as explained by the Tax Agency
    Source B: The Parool article that I linked the translation of
    I don't have any special inside info or something. I was just relaying what I red. It is obviously possible that the Tax Agency decides to forgive some of the debt if they chose to see the donors as victims of the fraud......but I don't know that.
  29. Sekee Member

    • Like Like x 2
  30. anonysamvines Member

    Can you clarify this please? i did try googling but the only chamber of commerce that came up was linking to the business style coc's and it surely can't mean that(and if it does mean them i cannot understand what standing they would have).

    And it would be interesting to know who were the players behind the Chamber of Commerce's decision. Maybe your journo pal would be interested in that too ;) as BFG said earlier today forget 6 degrees to kevin bacon.
  31. Anonymous Member

    Thanks! Most definetely usefull. The creepy cheering at the events would be even better though :)

    And Clusterdux, Trouw corrected this mistake by the Parool in one of their articles. I just wondered whether you had other sources...
  32. Anonymous Member

    Go to the CoC register at and type Scientology.

    Personally, I agree with the decision of the KvK. The fact that Scientologists believe with religions fervor that Scientology is a religion, actually makes Scientology a religion in my view.

    As such, I have no interest in persuing this decision.

    The downside is that all legal exeptions for religions now befall Scientology. These include:
    - Tax laws are slightly more favorable as explained above.
    - A few relatively minor stipulations in privacy laws are canceled (they still violate the remaining stipulations big time though).
    - It is impossible to ban religious organisations.

    There may be more exeptions, but those are the ones I'm aware of.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  33. anonysamvines Member

    thanks for that - and for all you are doing!
  34. anon walker Moderator

    Nah, they too busy cookin up myriad new front groups with Important Sounding Names.
  35. JohnnyRUClear Member

    ...and Three Word Chants for their demonstrations!
  36. ........Wee, Cheetum and Howe............

    (Kendrick Moxon's law firm)
    • Funny Funny x 1
  37. Clusterdux Member

    Can you define "can"? Is it "will always do" or "could if they wanted"?
    It seems they don't want to, so they won't. I could be wrong.
  38. TrevAnon Member

  39. Anonymous Member


    • Funny Funny x 2
  40. JohnnyRUClear Member

    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins