- 18 -
We find these cases to be distinguishable from the instant
case, because petitioner did educate its members and promote the
use of cooperatives in general. Unlike the promotion of a
particular commercial insurance program, petitioner’s promotion
of Landmark was uniquely related to its exempt purpose. Most
Ohio farmers who were members of county bureaus were also members
of local Landmark cooperatives. Landmark was the only statewide
regional agricultural cooperative in Ohio and was regularly held
up by petitioner as the exemplar of the successful cooperative.
Indeed, the only other regional agricultural cooperative, Ohio
Farmers, coexisted with Landmark in only about 15 percent of the
counties in Ohio. Petitioner’s promotion of Landmark was thus
done in conjunction with its promotion of cooperatives in
general. Indeed, petitioner continued to promote cooperatives
after it terminated its relationship with Landmark, and
petitioner often singled out Countrymark, the newly merged
statewide cooperative. Moreover, unlike the cases above, the
benefits received by petitioner’s members were not directly
proportional to the amount of the fees paid, and the members
benefited as a group from petitioner’s activities.
Payments under the Nonsponsorship Clause
In determining whether the payment made by Landmark to
petitioner pursuant to the terms of the nonsponsorship and
noncompetition clause contained in their 1985 termination
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011