http://www.irs.gov/uac/Reporting-Miscellaneous-Income As many of us are familiar, Monique Rathburn is suing $cientology for harassment. What many of us are not familiar with, is the current tax code. As the above link indicates, any side job produces taxable income, and there is no-minimal amount to report. But what does this have to do with the rathburn lawsuit? Plenty. The head of the squirrel busters at the time claimed to be both a private investigator, AND a journalist(under the law, this means that he had to report his earnings from this as either freelance journalism, or as an investigation, both are very damaging for the "church" in this lawsuit). Furthermore, the "documentary" they put on the internet, generated ad revenue, therefore, produced side revenue under the current tax code. My hypothesis is that $cientology FAILED TO PROPERLY DOCUMENT THE EARNINGS. That the people that did the "investigation" for the rathburns failed to document their pay from $cientology, and are guilty of tax evasion, on a federal and local level(Texas, the county, and the city in which they operated). I feel that reporting this to the local tax authorities would have several damaging consequences to $cientology. First off, it would assist the rathburns lawsuit by showing that Co$ spent parish money and profited off of their harassment, It would severely threaten Co$ tax exempt status, and it would FORCE an IRS tax assessment on CO$ operations to determine the tax exempt status for many of their front groups and the "church" itself. Keep in mind that while churches hardly loose their tax exempt status, many non-profits have. Co$ has many "non-profit" front groups that they use for recruiting, the loss of tax exempt status would cause the "church" to dissolve these front groups. Whats needed for this to become an operation? Unfortunately plenty. We would need to see what sites the squirrel busters documentary was on, what the ad-baner revenue was, and who made money off of it. We would have to figure out how the squirrel busters were paid during their operations, and what the local tax code concerning it was. they did in fact rent a house near the rathburns, that also opens up a whole slew of tax code violations, because if no one was living there, then it was being used as commercial property in a non commercial zone, and thus proper taxes were not paid. I apologize if this is overly long and complicated. I am tax accountant, and the tax code is overly long and complicated furthermore, even if this idea turns out to be a dud, keep it around, because from what i understand, the OSA freaks out hardcore when taxing the "church" gets mentioned.