The Taxation of Family Religious Orders

Some promoters have reportedly claimed that individuals may avoid income taxes without changing their life styles in any manner by using a kit available at a substantial price to form and utilize a “family religious order,” i.e., a religious order consisting of an individual and his immediate family; the individual directs the order as its minister. In accord with a “vow of poverty” the family members assign all their assets, income, and the use of their personal services to the family religious order. In return, the family religious order provides the family members with all their former living expenses, including the rent-free use of their former home and possible “spiritual retreats” to traditional vacation areas. The only creed that members of the religious order must adhere to is the U.S. Constitution; moreover, the members of the order may continue to belong to and exercise the precepts of any traditional religion. The success of this scheme presupposes the validity of three propositions: first, the income payed by third parties for the use of the individual’s services and property will be considered earnings of the religious order rather than the individual; second, the family religious order, a religious organization, is not subject to income taxes; and third, any payments that the religious order makes to its members, particularly its minister, will not be subject to income taxes. Each of these propositions is, to say the least, quite dubious. Aside from a religious veneer for the purported recipient of the individual\u27s income, family religious orders are very similar to family estate trusts. Individuals also assign all their assets, income and the use of their services to a controlled entity, a trust whose trustees and beneficiaries are the individual and his immediate family. The trust purportedly compensates the individual for the use of his services by permitting him and his family to continue to enjoy their prior life style, but this compensation is a tax-free benefit for the individual and deductible by the trust. Although the Internal Revenue Service (hereinafter designated as the “IRS”) has become so concerned about the tax evasion possibilities of family religious orders, that it recently added an audit procedure for examining returns associated with such organizations, it has not issued a single ruling targeted specifically at family religious orders. By contrast, the IRS has issued numerous rulings targeted at family estate trusts. The IRS has, however, recently issued many rulings to the effect that compensation paid by third parties for the use of services of a member of a religious order, whether or not the order is a family religious order, is usually includable in the member\u27s gross income, if an employer-employee relationship exists between a third party and the member. This policy is contrary to traditional tax principles, and it is causing many members of traditional religious orders, who are assigned to positions outside their order\u27s church, such as military or prison chaplains, to face improper challenges of their tax returns. Moreover, such policies provide IRS examiners with no guidance regarding the treatment of the self-employed who try to evade taxes by means of family religious orders

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Serum Antibody Production to Botulinum A Toxin

Purpose: Conflicting data have been reported regarding development of serum antibodies to botulinum A toxin. The purpose of this study is to determine conclusively whether antibody production to this toxin occurs in humans, and, if so, to determine its relationship, if any, to length of treatment, total cumulative dose, and clinical response to treatment. Methods: Sixty-five sera samples from 42 adults treated with botulinum A toxin for essential blepharospasm, hemifacial spasm, or spasmodic torticollis were analyzed via a sphere-linked immunodiagnostic assay for antibody production. Results were plotted against length of treatment, number of injections, cumulative dose, and treatment effect produced. Results: Twenty-four (57%) of the 42 patients produced antibodies in all three diagnostic groups. No significant differences were found between antibody producers and nonproducers with respect to age (P = 0.216), length of treatment (P = 0.586), number of injections (P = 0.619), or total cumulative dose (P = 0.286). Within the antibody-producing group, there was no significant correlation between amount of antibody and length of treatment (P = 0.081), number of injections (P = 0.134), or cumulative dose (P = 0.250). The presence of demonstrable antibodies in serum did not affect the clinical responsiveness to injection. Conclusion: Antibody production is present in a majority of patients treated with botulinum A toxin. The sphere-linked immunodiagnostic assay is a reliable and reproducible method for detecting and quantifying these antibodies. When antibody production occurs, it is likely due to variations in individual immune responsiveness and appears to have no direct effect on the patient's clinical response to treatment