- 18 - Memo. 1993-199 and affg. in part and revg. in part on other grounds and remanding 103 T.C. 307 (1994);3 Disabled Am. Veterans v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 60, 70 (1990), revd. on other grounds 942 F.2d 309 (6th Cir. 1991). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit discussed the degree of activity the recipient of a royalty under section 512(b) may conduct as follows: Thus, to the extent the Commissioner claims that a tax-exempt organization can do nothing to acquire such fees (e.g., providing a rate sheet listing the fee charged for use of each copyrighted design or retaining the right to approve how the design is used and marketed), the Commissioner is incorrect. However, to the extent that Sierra Club appears to argue that a "royalty" is any payment for the use of a property right--such as a copyright--regardless of any additional services that are performed in addition to the owner simply permitting another to use the right at issue, we disagree. [Sierra Club, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 1535.] Thus, we must carefully review the actions by an organization to ensure that fees are paid for the use of intangible property and not for services. See Alumni Association of the Univ. of Or., Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-63; 3In that case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed our grant of partial summary judgment and remanded the case for trial on the issue of whether the income generated by an affinity credit card program was a royalty because the Tax Court did not view facts regarding the program in the light most favorable to the Commissioner. Sierra Club, Inc. v. Commissioner, 86 F.3d 1526, 1537 (9th Cir. 1996), affg. T.C. Memo. 1993-199 and affg. in part and revg. in part on other grounds and remanding 103 T.C. 307 (1994).Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011