U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1970

Oscar Hearde and Esther Hearde v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided March 11, 1970 · Barnes, Carter, Hufstedler, Per Curiam

421 F.2d 846 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Oscar & Esther Hearde, for appellants., Lee A. Jackson, Meyer Rothwacks, Daniel B. Rosenbaum, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Townley Engineering & Manufacturing Company (9th Cir. 1988)
St. German of Alaska Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church v. United States (District Court, S.D. New York 1987)
Attorney General v. Bailey (Mass. 1982)
United States v. Grayson County State Bank and Lloyd Butts, First Pentecostal Church, Etc., Intervenor-Appellee (1st Cir. 1981)
United States of America and John Dezelar v. David L. Holmes, as Bishop and Director of the Miletus Church, Inc. (5th Cir. 1980)
Rooney v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1980)
Nevitt F. Ensminger v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (4th Cir. 1979)
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Served Upon Rabbinical Seminary Netzach Israel Ramailis (District Court, E.D. New York 1978)
Coultas v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1972)
Dollar v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1971)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant taxpayers decline to itemize or identify recipients of alleged estimated charitable donations made by them in the years 1962 through 1964 inclusive. Their estimate was that they donated 20% of their gross income. Appellants urge any disclosures of the beneficiaries would interfere with their First and Fifth Amendment rights.

The Commissioner rejected the taxpayers’ estimates, but allowed them the 10% deduction from .their adjusted gross income. (Sec. 170(a) (1), Int.Rev.Code and Treas.Regs. § 1.170-l(a) (2))

The disclosure required is an indirect burden on the exercise of religion, and does not make unlawful the practice of the religion itself. Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 607, 81 S.Ct. 1144, 6 L.Ed.2d 563 (1961). Hence the requirement of disclosure is constitutional, and the regulations are reasonable. Lingenfelder v. Commissioner, 38 T.C. 44

We affirm the decision of the Tax Court.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.