- 29 -
by fact that investor expects to recoup her investment,
hopefully with a profit, in the event the corporation
is successful.
Id. at 773-774.
Explaining and applying Washington Athletic Club v. United
States, supra, the Court of Appeals noted:
Since members received no benefit through payment of
the surcharge other than the rights attendant to an
annual membership in the club, the members lacked an
“investment motive” in making the payments, and
therefore treatment of the monies received as a capital
contribution was inappropriate. [Id.]
The reasoning of Washington Athletic Club is
persuasive, and directly applicable here. The AMA’s
members received no continuing benefit from their
payments into the association equity account; the sum
paid as an annual membership fee entitled the member
only to the benefits of membership in the year of
payment. Therefore the funds placed in the association
equity account were current “income” of the AMA * * *.
[American Medical Association v. United States, supra
at 774.]
In reconciling the cases relied upon by petitioner and
respondent, we discern three objective factors whose presence
tends to support the existence of an investment motive: (1) The
fee in question is earmarked for application to a capital
acquisition or expenditure; (2) the payors are the equity owners
of the corporation and there is an increase in the equity capital
of the organization by virtue of the payment; and (3) the members
have an opportunity to profit from their investment in the
corporation.
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011