- 39 -
effort to avoid this consequence by arguing that Mr. Sheldrick's
report satisfied the independent appraisal condition of
respondent's private letter ruling, see supra p. 7, is clearly
without merit. Nothing in that condition can be construed as
validating an appraisal which was more than 18 months old at the
time of the closing of the transaction to which the ruling
relates.
We hold that respondent has satisfied the burden of proving
that the May 1983 sale by petitioner to AMH resulted in a
prohibited inurement and that petitioner was not an exempt
organization under section 501(c)(3) during the years at issue.
Exempt Activities for 1985 and 1986
Our holding makes it unnecessary to consider respondent's
alternative argument that, even if petitioner continued to be
exempt after October 1, 1982, it lost its exemption in fiscal
11(...continued)
reflected in the following testimony of Mr. Rosenkranz with
respect to the Belcher Road and County #77 Road properties:
Q. Mr. Rosenkranz, did -- by the conclusion of this
transaction, did you satisfy yourself that the two parcels
of land, that component of this entire transaction, was
subsumed within the purchase price that was ultimately
agreed upon?
A. I have no recollection.
Q. One way or the other?
A. I have no recollection one way or the other.
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011