- 27 -
orders. There is no evidence that petitioner did anything except
receive a letter from PB&T offering to split the commissions from
the program.
10. Analysis and Conclusion
PB&T paid petitioner for its endorsement and to use its
mailing list and MSU's "walking bulldog" trademark; PB&T did not
pay for services related to operating a credit card business.
Petitioner's activities were almost entirely limited to (a)
giving PB&T access to those intangibles, (b) achieving some
direct member-related benefits such as messages on cardholder
statements and indirect benefits such as increased advertising
revenues for Alumnus, and (c) protecting petitioner's good will
with its members such as by reviewing mailings and responding to
occasional inquiries.
Respondent contends that petitioner's activities were as
extensive as those of organizations that received income which
was not a royalty, such as in Texas Farm Bureau v. United States,
53 F.3d at 125-126; Fraternal Order of Police v. Commissioner,
833 F.2d 717, 723-724 (7th Cir. 1987), affg. 87 T.C. 747 (1986),
and Louisiana Credit Union League v. United States, 693 F.2d 525,
533 (5th Cir. 1982). We disagree. Petitioner's activities to
support the affinity credit card program were far less
substantial than the activities performed by the taxpayers in
those cases.
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011