- 17 -
512(b)(2), meant only those earned passively. We also held,
however, that an issue of fact existed regarding whether any part
of the list rental transaction price, specifically the fees for
special selections, media, and shipping, was payment for goods
and services.
Before appeal, the parties in Sierra Club settled the issue
of whether any part of the list rental payment was for goods or
substantial services provided in connection with the rental
transactions. See Sierra Club, Inc. v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. at
310. In affirming our decision as to the royalty issue, the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the term
"royalty", as it is used in section 512(b)(2), "is by definition
'passive' and thus cannot include compensation for services
rendered by the owner of property." Sierra Club Inc. v.
Commissioner, 86 F.3d at 1532. Additionally, the court reasoned
that, because the exempt organization did not itself provide any
services to the mailer, the entire amount it actually received
was a royalty for UBIT purposes. See id. at 1535-1536.
Royalty-Related Activity or Services
In the instant case, we must decide whether any part of the
mailing list rental payments constitutes compensation to
petitioner for goods or services.4 In each mailing list rental
4 This is the same issue that the parties settled in DAV II
(continued...)
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011