- 33 -
(1965), petitioner may not assert that payments under the 1987
agreement were royalties.
When the Danielson rule applies, a taxpayer may not disavow
unambiguous terms of an agreement to achieve different tax
results unless mistake, undue influence, fraud, duress, or other
ground exists to set aside the agreement. Id. at 775. Danielson
does not apply here because petitioner is not disavowing any
terms of its agreements with PB&T. The 1987 agreement does not
characterize the payments; it does not say the payments were (or
were not) royalties or income from a trade or business.
Petitioner's position that the payments are royalties is
consistent with the 1987 agreement.
F. Whether Section 513(h) Applies
Section 513(h) exempts from tax amounts earned by certain
tax-exempt organizations from the trade or business of exchanging
or renting mailing lists to other tax-exempt organizations.5
5Sec. 513(h) provides:
(1) In general.--In the case of an
organization which is described in section 501
and contributions to which are deductible under
paragraph (2) or (3) of section 170(c), the term
"unrelated trade or business" does not include--
* * * * * * *
(B) any trade or business which
consists of--
(i) exchanging with another such
organization, names and addresses of
(continued...)
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011