The Church of the Living Tree - Page 8

                                          8                                           
          property that was deeded to it by John Stahl; furthermore, it               
          appears that petitioner took over the burden of debts owed on the           
          property as well as personal debts of John Stahl and his                    
          proprietorship printing venture.  Petitioner has simply failed to           
          show in this record that it is operated exclusively for exempt              
          purposes.  The implication from the scanty record presented is              
          rather to the contrary.  The rather vague references to the                 
          development of alternative papermaking resources from materials             
          other than wood pulp, and the projects to secure Government                 
          assistance in furthering such projects, all tend to be in aid of            
          the papermaking and printing industries, as opposed to a                    
          nonprofit public purpose.                                                   
               In cases like this one, the courts have considered the                 
          question of exemption under section 501(c)(3) before deciding               
          whether the organization constitutes a church within the meaning            
          of the Code.  Only in the event the Court finds that petitioner             
          qualifies for exemption under section 501(c)(3) must the Court              
          further decide whether petitioner is a church.  The Basic Unit              
          Ministry of Alma Karl Schurig v. United States, 511 F. Supp. 166            
          (D.D.C. 1981), affd. per curiam 670 F.2d 1210, 1212 (D.C. Cir.              
          1982); American Guidance Found. v. United States, 490 F. Supp.              
          304, 306 (D.D.C. 1980), affd. without opinion __ F.2d __ (D.C.              
          Cir. 1981).  Since we have held that petitioner does not qualify            
          as an exempt institution under the provisions of section                    






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011