-22-
of lobbying efforts; (4) no part of its activities may constitute
intervention or participation in any political campaign on behalf
of any candidate for public office (sec. 501(c)(3)); and (5) its
purpose must not be “contrary to a fundamental public policy”.
Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574, 592 (1983).
See generally, American Campaign Academy v. Commissioner, 92 T.C.
1053, 1062-1063 (1989). These requirements are stated in the
conjunctive. Petitioner’s failure to satisfy any of these
requirements would be fatal to its qualification under section
501(c)(3). American Campaign Academy v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. at
1062; Stevens Bros. Foundation, Inc. v. Commissioner, 39 T.C.
93, 109-110 (1962), affd. on this issue 324 F.2d 633, 637-640
(8th Cir. 1963). With a few minor differences, the organizations
and requirements listed in section 170(c)(2) are virtually
identical to those described in section 501(c)(3). In view of
the nearly identical statutory language, the courts have applied
many of the same standards in interpreting section 170(c)(2) and
section 501(c)(3). See Bob Jones University v. United States,
461 U.S. at 586-587.
In the instant case, respondent contends only that
petitioner’s net earnings inured to the benefit of private
shareholders or individuals. See supra note 1. The parties’
disputes as to exempt status focus on the following:
(1) Whether Zeve, Popovic, or Vecchio was an insider
with respect to petitioner.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011