- 114 -
the start of the Contract is not an abuse of discretion when
tested by the usual standards, (2) petitioner does not maintain
that these standards have been modified as a result of section
601.201(n)(6), Statement of Procedural Rules, or Rev. Proc. 90-
27, and (3) the retroactivity would not be an abuse of discretion
even if the usual standards were so modified. See Capital
Federal Savings & Loan v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. at 217-219, 223.
We hold that respondent’s determination, that the revocation
be retroactive to the start of the Contract, was not an abuse of
discretion.
In light of our holdings for respondent, we do not consider
whether petitioner should be denied tax-exempt status for other
reasons, whether anyone’s actions violated postal regulations and
if so what effect that should have on petitioner’s exempt status,
whether petitioner and W&H engaged in a joint venture, whether a
portion of petitioner’s expenses is properly allocable to public
education, or whether any particular feature of the Contract
constituted a “per se” violation of any of the requirements of
sections 501(c)(3) and 170(c)(2). Finally, section 4958,
imposing an excise tax on “excess benefit transactions”, applies
only to transactions occurring on or after September 14, 1995,
and so does not apply to the instant case.
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011