Tax Deductible Sex

In the case of People, etc. ex. rel. Ramitin v. Ostrofsky, 127 Smegma's Rep. 208 (1907), at p. 219, the Supreme Court of Confusion stated: "The wages of sin is death. No compensation can be lawfully payable to a party who voluntarily submits to such atrocious crimes against Nature and Nature's God. Our only regret is that we cannot order those who perform such abominations to be burned alive."

Moreover, Confusion Rev. Stat. Section 99.01.027 - 033 makes illegal, and imposes fines and imprisonment for, any sexual act done for payment or for expectation of payment, whether to the performer of the act or any procurer thereof or accomplice therein.

Confusion Rev. Stat. Section 207.08.221 provides:

"Procedure where use or occupancy is illegal. An owner or tenant of any premises within two hundred feet from other demised or owned real property used or occupied in whole or in part for purposes of prostitution, or any domestic corporation organized for the suppression of vice, subject to or which submits to visitation by the state welfare department and possesses a certificate from such department of such fact and of conformity with regulations of the department, or any duly authorized enforcement agency of the state or of a subdivision thereof, under a duty to enforce the provisions of the criminal code or of any state or local law, ordinance, code, rule or regulation relating to buildings, may prosecute a proceeding to evict and destrain any person or corporation engaged in such acts from such premises, and may recover, in addition to any bill of costs or penalties otherwise provided by law, reasonable attorneys' fees, disbursements and expenses. Proof of the unlawful use of the demised or owned premises or of the inmates thereof or of those resorting thereto shall constitute presumptive evidence of the unlawful use of the demised premises required to be stated in the notice of petition and petition for eviction. Both the person in possession of the property and the owner or landlord shall be made respondents in the proceeding."

Of the numerous cases applying Section 207.08.221, we need cite only Tockus v. Offentisch, 899 Conf. 868 (2004), wherein the Supreme Court of the State of Confusion stated: "Much like pornography, we may not be able to define a whorehouse, but we know one when we see one, and this den of perverts, where people pay other people so's they can beat up on those people and jerk off onto their faces, or piss on 'em, even if they don't decently fuck 'em--well, shit, that's a whorehouse, dude! And we're gonna throw these motherfuckers in the damn street. And anyway, the rent's too damn high!" 899 Conf. 868, at pp. 903-904.

As Petitioner wrote her check directly to First, and as the Court entirely and completely credits Rev. McKillop's scintillating testimony (and a perfectly taut, beautifully formed pair of 36Ds under clerical black makes my cock twitch) that First had no idea that this contribution came from this den of vipers and spawn of Satan, and that First took no part in any of this degeneracy, we must find for the Petitioner.

There could be no "market value" for these services. If there was a market, it was illegal. Respondent offered no evidence as to the value of these services (and when it comes to the price of prostys, Respondent could have introduced into evidence the campaign expenditures of every member of Congress). The contribution was purely a contribution, however filthy the performance of Petitioner and Joyce.

Respondent would have us adopt a "but for" test. But for the "services" rendered, says Respondent, would Petitioner have made the payment to First herein sought to be deducted? To which Petitioner interposes the riposte in Oppewal, supra, namely, that the subjective intent of the Petitioner is nothing to the point. We choose to apply the Oppewal single issue test: what was the fair market value of the services? And forget what Petitioner did or did not intend. Congress has given no clear statement of what they wanted in section 170(f)(8)(B)(ii). The donee 501(c)(3) entity could have no idea who gave what goods or services; all they can say is what they themselves gave or didn't give. The Regulations don't say squat about it. We decline to give judicial imprimatur to Respondent's attempt to manufacture retroactive law and regulations out of thin air.

As for a "but for" test, we know what a butt is for, and don't need Respondent to tell us. And Respondent can keep their testes to themselves.

In short, good try, Respondent, but you lose.

On balance, given all the facts and circumstances, including the uncertain state of the law, we find that Petitioner is entitled to the deduction claimed, and accordingly, Petitioner is not liable for any penalty under section 6662.

The Court has considered all of Respondent's contentions, arguments, requests, statements and all that jazz. To the extent not discussed herein, we conclude that they are meritless, moot, irrelevant, and flat-ass bullshit.

To reflect the foregoing,

an appropriate decision will be

entered for Petitioner.

Now GTFO of my Courtroom.

*

Copyright Notice - The foregoing is a "derivative work", as that term is defined in Title 17 United States Code §101. The characters named Francine Traline, Franklin Moore, Betsy Flanagan and Joyce Langston; and the terms "The Mephisto Club" and "Mephisto's" as applied to a club or place of public amusement or assembly (all the foregoing named characters and term are hereinafter collectively the "dweaver999 products"), are the property of dweaver999, and all rights in and to any or all thereof, are copyrighted and reserved to dweaver999, pursuant to the provisions of Title 17 of the United States Code, and the Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, signed at Berne, Switzerland, on September 9, 1886, and all acts, protocols, and revisions thereto (said Convention, acts, protocols and revisions collectively the "Berne Convention"). The balance of the foregoing, exclusive of the dweaver999 products, is copyrighted, and all rights reserved in like manner, by estragon, pursuant to the Berne Convention and said Title 17 of the United States Code. No part of the foregoing may be reproduced or distributed in any form, whether or not for profit, without the express prior written consent of both dweaver999 and estragon. The foregoing is published by estragon under one single license from dweaver999, for this publication and for no other. All brand names and trademarks, trade dress of any description referred to in the foregoing, or materials copyrighted or otherwise legally-protected incidentally referred to in the foregoing, are the property of the respective holders thereof. The publication of the foregoing, and the references hereinabove, do not create any principal-agent, partnership or joint venture between dweaver999 and estragon, other than as licensor-licensee to the extent herein set forth and not otherwise, and none should be implied; neither has any authority to act for the other, except as may be specified by separate written agreement and signed by each of them in each instance. This publication neither creates nor evidences any assignment of any copyright reserved herein or elsewhere by any party. Any reference to any person living or dead, or to any actual acts, transactions or occurrences, is purely coincidental, except as to public figures or institutions. In respect of all such public figures or institutions a qualified Federal and State Constitutional privilege is hereby asserted. The foregoing is not, and should not be used as, legal or tax advice. Pursuant to 31 CFR §10.0 et seq ("Circular 230"), the foregoing is not intended and cannot be used, to avoid any penalty. The foregoing does not create or evidence any client-attorney relationship.

Phew!

Now may I have a vote or two, please, and a few comments.