- 21 -
the messages were not used to promote the card. Respondent
characterizes petitioner's maintenance and updating of its
mailing list as a substantial service for PB&T and as
administration of its affinity credit card program. We disagree;
these actions are more fairly viewed as part of petitioner's
communication to its members, which is central to its exempt
purpose.
2. PB&T's Access to Petitioner's Intangible Property
Respondent contends that petitioner's providing its mailing
list to PB&T was a service. We disagree; the mailing list was
valuable intangible property. Alumni Association of the Univ. of
Or., Inc. v. Commissioner, supra; Oregon State Univ. Alumni
Association, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra; see also Sierra Club,
Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-199. Providing the list to
PB&T was essential to PB&T's use of that property. Respondent
also contends that petitioner's agreement to use its best efforts
to maintain MSU's permission to use the "walking bulldog" was a
service. We disagree. MSU had already decided to let PB&T use
the MSU trademark for the credit card agreement. No activity by
petitioner was required. Even if petitioner had to act so that
PB&T could continue to use the "walking bulldog" trademark, that
effort would have been undertaken to provide intangible property
to PB&T, not to provide a service.
Similarly, contrary to respondent's contention, the facts
that PB&T substantially agreed to the terms outlined by
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011