Deer Park Country Club - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         

          We begin our analysis with the well established rule of                     
          statutory construction that statutes are to be read so as to give           
          effect to their plain and ordinary meaning unless to do so would            
          produce absurd or futile results.  United States v. American                
          Trucking Associations, 310 U.S. 534, 543-544 (1940); see Tamarisk           
          Country Club v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 756, 761 (1985).  Moreover,           
          where a statute is clear on its face, we require unequivocal                
          evidence of legislative purpose before construing the statute so            
          as to override the plain meaning of the words used therein.                 
          Halpern v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 895, 899 (1991); Huntsberry v.             
          Commissioner, 83 T.C. 742, 747-748 (1984).                                  
               Although there is a dearth of case law construing section              
          512(a)(3)(D), we nonetheless find one of our prior cases, Atlanta           
          Athletic Club v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-83, revd. 980 F.2d           
          1409 (11th Cir. 1993), to be instructive.  In Atlanta Athletic              
          Club v. Commissioner, supra, the taxpayer (an organization                  
          described in section 501(c)(7) and exempt from income taxation              
          under section 501(a)) operated a country club including two 18-             
          hole golf courses, a clubhouse, a swimming pool, tennis courts,             
          and other recreational facilities for the benefit of its members            
          and their guests.  During its taxable year ended March 31, 1985,            
          the taxpayer realized gain of approximately $2.3 million on the             
          sale of 108 acres of land.  The taxpayer subsequently reinvested            
          the $2.3 million in additional recreational facilities within 3             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011