- 23 -
burden of proof is on respondent with respect to the issue of
whether petitioner is entitled to an exemption under section
501(c)(3).3 Rule 217(c)(2)(B); see also infra pp. 29-30. As to
all other issues raised by the deficiency notice, petitioner has
that burden. Rule 142(a).
It is against the foregoing background that we proceed to
examine the various elements of the 1983 sale, in order to
determine whether fair market value of petitioner's assets as
compared to the sales price "cross[es] the line between
reasonable and excessive". See Church of Scientology v.
Commissioner, supra.
We see no purpose to be served by setting forth in detail
the various steps in the negotiations between petitioner and AMH
which culminated in the 1983 sale. Both parties were represented
by counsel who, as far as the legal as distinguished from the
financial aspects of the sale were concerned, acted independently
and in good faith and sought to protect the interests of his
3 Respondent has accepted this burden and proceeded
accordingly at trial but has reserved the right to reassert its
position that we were without jurisdiction in Anclote Psychiatric
Center v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 374 (1992) (docket No. 19530-
91X). We also note that there are two other docketed cases
involving the revocation of petitioner's sec. 501(c)(3) status;
i.e., docket Nos. 4833-92X (petition for declaratory judgment
after revocation letter issued) and 27403-92X (petition for
declaratory judgment that petitioner qualifies as tax-exempt in
years subsequent to the sale). None of the cases referred to in
this footnote have been consolidated with the instant case. See
Fazi v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 695, 696 n.1 (1994).
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011