The Board of Trade of the City of Chicago and Subsidiaries - Page 28

                                       - 28 -                                         

          could not resell their memberships or profit from appreciation in           
          the value of the membership.  We found the only benefit to the              
          members was their right to use the club's facilities.                       
               In American Medical Association v. United States, 887 F.2d             
          760 (7th Cir. 1989), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh                   
          Circuit, to which an appeal in this case would lie, provided                
          useful guidance in dealing with the member capital contribution             
          issue.  In holding that member dues placed in the AMA’s                     
          “association equity” reserve account were current membership                
          receipts that could be allocated to circulation income in the               
          year received, the court rejected the taxpayer’s alternative                
          argument that membership fees so placed “should be likened to               
          capital contributions.”  Id. at 773.  The Court of Appeals                  
          explained:                                                                  
               The problem with this argument is that the AMA members                 
               received nothing in return for their “investment” in                   
               the AMA other than the right to receive the benefits of                
               membership in the single annual period for which dues                  
               were assessed.  In exchange for a capital contribution                 
               the contributor receives a future or residual claim,                   
               for example, for return of capital as dividends or as                  
               the proceeds of liquidation.  A capital contribution is                
               in the nature of an investment whereby the investor                    
               purchases a continuing interest in an enterprise.14 In                 
               this case there is no evidence that AMA members                        
               received anything more for their annual membership fee                 
               than an annual membership; they received no claim of                   
               future benefit.                                                        
               14.  See, e.g., Commissioner v. Fink, 483 U.S. 89, 97                  
               * * * (1987) (contributors must intend “to protect or                  
               increase the value of their investment in the                          
               corporation”); In the Matter of Larson, 862 F.2d 112,                  
               117 (7th Cir. 1988)(capital contribution characterized                 




Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011