- 21 -
even respondent admits), we see our task as one of determining
whether the sale price was within a reasonable range of what
could be considered fair market values.
In this respect, our task is not unlike that which we face
when inurement depends upon a determination whether payments of
compensation are excessive or reasonable. See Church of
Scientology v. Commissioner, 823 F.2d 1310, 1317 (9th Cir. 1987)
("the payments in this case, cross the line between reasonable
and excessive"), affg. 83 T.C. 381 (1984); United Cancer Council,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 109 T.C. 326, 396 (1997).2 The foregoing
frame of reference is to be sharply distinguished from the
situation involving the issue whether a section 501(c)(3)
organization loses its exemption where there is inurement but it
is de minimis. See Carter v. United States, 973 F.2d 1479, 1486
n.5 (9th Cir. 1992) (majority opinion), 1489-1490 (Tang, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part); Orange County Agric.
Socy., Inc. v. Commissioner, 893 F.2d 529, 534 (2d Cir. 1990),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1988-380; Church of Scientology v. Commissioner,
supra.
2 Compare also the manner in which the courts have dealt
with the relationship between the sales price and fair market
value in determining the bona fides of a sale-leaseback
transaction. See Brown v. Commissioner, 37 T.C. 461, 486
(1961)(the price "was within a reasonable range"), affd. 325 F.2d
313 (9th Cir. 1963), affd. 380 U.S. 563 (1965); see also Brekke
v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 789, 800 n.5 (1963) and cases cited
thereat.
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