- 20 -
supra; Oregon State Univ. Alumni Association, Inc. v.
Commissioner, supra.
Respondent points out that MSU gave PB&T permission to use
the "walking bulldog" trademark without charging PB&T or
petitioner and contends that this means PB&T did not pay to use
it. Respondent's contention takes MSU's permission out of
context. When viewed in context, it is clear that MSU handled it
this way so PB&T's payments to use the "walking bulldog"
trademark would go to petitioner, not to let PB&T use the
"walking bulldog" without cost.
We conclude that PB&T paid petitioner for the right to use
valuable intangible property rights.
C. Whether PB&T's Payments Were for Services
Respondent contends that PB&T paid petitioner to perform
services relating to the affinity credit card program and
contends that petitioner performed a large number of services for
PB&T. We disagree. Petitioner's activities were minimal and
infrequent, were not conducted like a commercial business, and
were not services for which PB&T paid.
1. Petitioner's Use of the Program for Its Exempt Purposes
Respondent mischaracterizes some of petitioner's activities
as services for PB&T or credit card promotional activities. For
example, respondent refers to the messages petitioner included in
the credit card bills as promotional materials, even though they
were used only to promote petitioner's activities to its members;
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011